Why I Do NOT Identify As A “Gay Catholic Christian”

There have been a deluge of articles on homosexuality of late within the Catholic and other Christian faith communities, many which seem to center around “what to call” those of us from homosexual backgrounds who are now celibate.  This is obviously of great importance to many people, and there is some validity to the desire on the parts of those who, whether from homosexual or heterosexual backgrounds, wish to clearly define “what” those of us who have dabbled in erotic thoughts or behavior with people of our own gender should be termed as. To be honest that is the least of my problems when I get up in the morning and drag my ever-older body to work each day or go to Mass on Sundays or weekdays. It seems to matter not at all to our Lord Jesus Christ or to the Blessed Mother when I pray my Rosary at night either.  But it matters to society, and I get that point.  And that is why I write this post.

Let me start out by saying that I am not writing this to attack those who disagree or may find fault with my views here—I get, very much first-hand in fact, the reasons for using terms such as “celibate gay,” as well as those who may refer to themselves as “ex-gays” (mostly within Protestant circles).  I have also noticed that the term SSA (which I prefer, and which means “same-sex attracted” ) is becoming increasingly hijacked by many who do not understand its meaning in the first place but who choose to use it in some cases against those of us who have come to a decision of celibacy and are aiming for ever-increasing chastity. And I have noticed this trend to constantly redefine terminology among both “pro-gay” and “anti-gay” people, which is what makes it increasingly ironic to me.

But that in itself does not make one set of terms wrong at all times, nor the other set always correct.  I will deal with each of these semantics then, share my own observations on why they seem to be increasingly used, abused and misused, and then give some concluding thoughts, and I do so respecting those who may disagree with my pre or post-suppositions.  But I think that words make a metamorphosis, and I am noticing a whole lot of folks who are using them incorrectly while feverishly trying to explain me to myself. Please do not tell me who I am. Let me explain myself to you, just as I would hope you choose to do so with me, and let me use the terms and understandings I have as a Catholic Christian.  That is called mutual respect. Is there room for dialogue and discussion?  Absolutely. But in the final analysis how I define myself is up to me. And God.

First off I resisted the term “SSA” for a long time, even after returning to the Church. It still seems clumsy to me at best, and like a clinical disease at worst. I would prefer to say I am “same gender attracted,” but even that was pointed out to me by a fellow blogger to cause its own confusion since not all agree on what gender even is in these days. Yikes!  Besides if I started calling myself SGA then absolutely no one will know what I am referring to—not the least because it sounds more like a supermarket than a condition.  So, SSA will need to do for now.  But why use it in preference to “gay,” or LGBT, or (and I truly hate this one, as my wonderful brother in Christ Jesus and the Church Tony Layne knows), LGBTQ? Quit the Q!!! I am begging you…

So to answer this let’s do the old “Kermit the frog dissection” trick for a moment (my deepest apologies to the Sesame Street generation, which tragically I just barely missed—I was raised on Captain Kangaroo personally). But getting back to the dissection…the gradual history of the word “gay” in reference to homosexuality goes back to the following transitions, more or less, reprinted in full below but referenced here:

http://www.pridenet.com/history.html

English: Promotional postcard for the television program Captain Kangaroo. Shown from left are: Dancing Bear, Bunny Rabbit, Captain Kangaroo, Grandfather Clock, Mister Moose, and Mister Green Jeans. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

And I would only add that there is importance in knowing that, while there may be disputable details in the following, the basic chronology listed here is accurate and documented in many other sources as well:  So here are the insides of “Kermit:”

Kermit (Photo credit: Eva Rinaldi Celebrity and Live Music Photographer)

The meaning of the word gay has changed dramatically during the 20th   century—though the change evolved from earlier usages. It derives via the Old   French gai, probably from a Germanic source. The word originally meant   “carefree”, “happy”, or “bright and showy” and   was very commonly used with this meaning in speech and literature.

The word started to acquire sexual connotations in the late 17th century,   being used with meaning “addicted to pleasures and dissipations”.   This was by extension from the primary meaning of “carefree”:   implying “uninhibited by moral constraints”. By the late nineteenth   century the term “gay life” was a well-established euphemism for   prostitution and other forms of extramarital sexual behaviour that   were perceived as immoral.

The use of the term gay, as it relates to homosexuality, arises from   an extension of the sexualized connotation of “carefree and   uninhibited”, implying a willingness to disregard conventional or   respectable sexual mores. Such usage is documented as early as the 1920′s. It   was initially more commonly used to imply heterosexually unconstrained   lifestyles, as for example in the once-common phrase “gay   Lothario”, or in the title of the book and film The Gay Falcon (1941),   which concerns a womanizing detective whose first name is “Gay”.   Well into the mid-20th century a middle-aged bachelor could be described as   “gay” without prejudice.

By the mid-century “gay” was well-established as an antonym for   “straight” (respectable sexual behaviour), and to refer to   the lifestyles of unmarried and or unattached people. Other connotations of   frivolousness and showiness in dress (“gay attire“) led to   association with camp and effeminacy. This range of connotation probably   affected the gradual movement of the term towards its current dominant   meaning, which was at first confined to subcultures. The subcultural usage   started to become main-stream in the 1960′s, when gay became the term   predominantly preferred by homosexual men to describe themselves. Gay   was the preferred term since other terms, such as “queer”   were felt to be derogatory. “Homosexual” was perceived as   excessively clinical: especially since homosexuality was at that time   designated as a mental illness, and “homosexual” was used by the   Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders to denote men affected   by this “mental illness”. Homosexuality was no longer   classified as an illness in the DSM by 1973, but the clinical connotation of the   word was already embedded in society.

By 1963, the word “gay” was known well enough by the straight   communityto be used fluently.

When you read the above definition, given to us from the best research within the LGBT communities, the realization is apparent that the term pretty much assumes active involvement in the lifestyle and support of the overall homosexual community.  Since I am celibate, and I have withdrawn my support for such things as unconditional “marriage equality” and the like, dropped my memberships from the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and OUTFRONT Minnesota, no longer attend or participate in Pride parades, and relinquished my position where at my place of employment as the lead LGBT spokesperson,  all of which were only parts of activism activities I have been involved with over the years, I am not acting, by the LGBT’s own definition, particularly “gay” these days.  So there is not much of that lifestyle left in my life other than a still definite attraction to members of my own gender (using the traditional sense of the word, not some manufactured “this is how I feel” type of definition).  And I am definitely a man, despite the screen/blogger name “Catholicboyrichard” (one lone reader incidentally objected to my use of that name, since, after all I am 56 and not a “boy” anymore). He obviously has not heard of the concept of “second childhood,” which I cling tenaciously to.  Oh well. The other nearly 25,000 who have “hit” my page since starting it just over 6 months ago seem not to mind.

My point—I do not live as a “gay person” and yet I still have attractions which I would be lying to deny their existence.  So what am I?  I no longer identify with a community I was bound integrally to for 15 years, however nor am I suddenly “macho man” plus. Plus, yes, macho no.  The most macho thing I probably have learned over the years was how to become a couch potato, and my doctor is not putting up with that these days anyway. Damn him.  Incidentally the same reader who thinks I should stop with calling myself “Catholic Boy” also thought I needed to get involved in some sports, “if it’s not too late” given my age that is!!!  FYI (and his too if he is reading this) I ran 5 miles 3 times a week for many years, keeping  a perfect weight and fitness level into my early 40s. The fact that it has gone to hell since then is purely due to age and laziness, not a lack of testosterone. In fact it may be a sign of it.

So back to the definitions—I am someone with something.  I am a person, in the image of God my Maker, marred yes by sin, but in His Image nevertheless. I have leanings towards and see the beauty in other males more quickly than I do with females.  That is it. I am “same-sex attracted.”  SSA. The term fits and makes sense to me.  But I am not “gay,” which implies an innate make-up in my being that I am powerless to do anything about other than to but accept.   There is an old commercial (for Oil of Olay—or “Oil of Delay” as my old friend Ken used to call it) which says “I do not intend to age gracefully—I’ll fight it every step of the way.”

Well that is how I feel about my SSA.  And when I say “fight it,” I do not mean I must become a boxing fan, watch violent TV or movies (except True Blood of course!), or start passing gas or burping in public places.  I am still allowed to be a fairly sensitive, kind-hearted person and to prefer cooking or reading to football.  It may surprise the straight men reading this that Jesus Himself was pretty “not-so-macho.” Let’s see—He wore a robe all the time, hung around with men constantly, loved women but never made passes at them or checked out their rears, secretly or otherwise, cooked for the Disciples on occasion (fish for breakfast, anyone?), and shared parables and stories based on His own hours of prayer and studies.  In short He was strong but knew when to be tender.  And in His day and age, the societal standards of what made men “manly” were somewhat different than in ours today. This is exactly my point, of course. He showed us that the “measure of a man” consisted of very different things than what Americanized John Wayne types currently look for.  And since the sports of choice in His day were such things as throwing people to the lions for lunch, using them as human torches, and earning their freedom from noxious slavery by “killing their way to the top” via gladiator activities, I doubt He was particularly an athletics aficionado either.  He loved sacred music and knew Sacred Scripture as if He wrote it—oh wait, He did. He could be tough as nails (not only such as the ones used to torture Him on the cross but the type apparently used in His carpentry work) and yet gentle towards women who would gladly have had Him for their pleasure, and simply told them “Go and sin no more.”  He was the quintessential man of men. We need to look no further for what makes one manly. And the same can be said for our Blessed Mother in regard to womanhood. Mary was the original feminist—and the only person to ever get by with telling Jesus when to begin His miracle ministry at the wedding in Cana. She followed Him but never doted. She submitted to St Joseph but never backed down when he was ready to divorce her for becoming pregnant outside of wedlock while engaged to him. And she worked and travelled all through her pregnancy until the very day our Lord and Savior was born.

One of the best lists of “manly” characteristics in the New Testament is in 1st Timothy 3:1-3. I am quoting from the ESV (English Standard Version) here:

1 The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. 2 Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.

That is what being a “real man” is all about and nothing else. My point is this—neither our King of Kings nor His and our Queen Mother followed social norms, even of their own days, as to what being “manly” or “womanly” supposedly meant then or now.  The asexual parts therefore of my nature, which may or may not have contributed to my own SSA leanings in some way, are not sinful, and do not need surgical removal. In fact there are a few of them I would prefer to keep intact.

Melinda Selmys touches on this beautifully in her book Authentic Sexuality, as well as on her blog which is linked at the end of this article.  Melinda is a married mother of 6, a Catholic Christian woman, and lived as a lesbian for years before converting to the Faith.  While I disagree with her in regards to her use of the terms LGBTQ quite freely in her writings, I also understand why she does so. St Paul told us to be “all things to all people.”  We can and should reach people where they are at.  However I do not think “dumbing down” or eliminating our hard-earned terminology is the fullest answer.  Presenting a loving explanation of it, in more than just a sound-bite or slogan, is. I once worked with a Christian drug/alcohol program which included men who had been on everywhere from skid row to near death row.  Many if not most had been in gangs. All of them had severe life-controlling issues. One of my duties was to teach them Bible classes with a very practical approach, dealing with such issues as anger and submission to authority. But I wanted to take this a step further, and give them a firm foundation to learn to read the Bible for themselves, so I developed a curriculum from Genesis to Revelation which covered highlights from each book, but then zeroed in on certain passages—kind of an overview but yet including deeper looks at key passages that might apply in their particular situations.  One tool I used (and I was questioned at first for using this) was religious art. Looking back, even though I was an evangelical Protestant minister at the time, I realize now that certain parts of my Catholic upbringing never had left me, and this love of sacred art was one of them.  I was told that “these guys are not going to relate.”  But they did. Hugely in fact.  It soon became one of our most featured and looked-forward-to sessions when I would bring out the art books and show them Michelangelo or others who had captured the lessons of the day.  I believe it worked because I did not assume that these men could not “handle it.”  I knew that they could. We would look at the pictures and pick out the lessons we had just learned, discussing everything from facial expressions to Scriptural accuracy or the lack thereof. And men who had spent their lives pulling knives on each other and stealing drugs for a living suddenly were, in some small way, introduced into the marvelous culture of Church History and Tradition.

That is why I believe we sell our actively LGBT sisters and brothers short when we do not call ourselves by the correct terminology. If we use expressions such as “that’s so gay” or, worse yet, call ourselves “queer Christians,” we are telling them essentially that we are at no different place in our journey than they are.  It may get our foot in the door occasionally, but it makes it at least more difficult to differentiate between our experiences and theirs. St Paul was a God-loving and strict Pharisee fundamentalist—but a Christ-hater. He called all of those involvements and accolades for being one of the elite religious of the day “dung.” I call my years of “gay pride” exactly the same thing.  And no, I do not call LGBT people “dung.”  They, like me, are precious people in the image of a wondrous and holy God.  But, as in the beautiful but out-of-print book by David Morrison, Beyond Gay, I am at least, step by slow step, moving beyond that familiar world.  And I want to take my actively LGBT/gay friends and family with me on that journey.

Thus here is where she and I may differ—I do not think referring to myself as a “celibate gay Christian” is particularly accurate or truthful. I think it automatically labels me into a corner of the world I no longer belong to. It seems to me a lot like calling myself, as my former wife (but current good friend) Shirley, who happens to have epilepsy, an “epileptic.”  Clinically, both terms are accurate. But one says I am something. The other says I am a human person with something. And, again, words matter.  One is a label, and the other is a description of an imperfect but real creation of God. One makes me sound like an “ex-con” and the other like a current and present member of the family of our Lord Jesus and His Church.  Which would you like better if you were in my shoes?

Lastly, I have heard the ghastly use of the term SSA of late by someone referring to same-sex attraction as the “SSA disorder.”  Whether involved in the community or not, whether celibate or not, whether I term myself as LGBT (or even Q!), I can be a doctor, lawyer, priest, minister, married or single, well-adjusted or poorly so.  I get very disturbed when I hear people say such things as “for we know that the gay lifestyle leads to a higher risk of HIV, depression, substance abuse, and a generally lower life expectancy. To oppose the normalization of a lifestyle that leads to this degradation of the human person — specifically the same-sex attracted person — is no hate at all, but a love. Not a love most people want, but a desire for the good of the beloved nonetheless.” If by that statement you are referring to same-sex “marriage,” I would fully agree. And in fairness the author quoted here, Marc Barnes of “Bad Catholic” fame, was doing exactly that, I believe. In his own inimitable way he is one of the most fair and kind-hearted young men I have never met.  A link to the entire blog post in question is at the conclusion of this one—and I think you will agree.  But if by it you mean let us go a bit further as a society and, for “their own good,” let’s get those anti-sodomy laws back on the books and start screaming “faggot” to the next homosexually inclined person we meet, then I would just say hold up. Now. 50 years ago, or less, it was considered “acceptable” to beat up “queers” or at least bully them mercilessly. I was there. Less than 30 years ago it was a very real question within the health care communities as to whether we should even treat those with HIV, since they “brought it upon themselves.” I can only say then, please quit treating obesity, diabetes, which is a direct result of it in many cases, cancer, particularly if it is caused by smoking, and a host of other diseases or conditions which are preventable but deadly. And for God’s sake do not waste our tax dollars on preventative health education.  Let them read it on their own. And if they fail to do so, slam the hospital door in their faces. Just don’t miss Mass on Sunday.

EWTN logo.svg (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

One night on EWTN (Eternal Word Television Network), normally one of my favorite television stations and one which I still would recommend to anyone researching the Catholic faith, had a guest on who thought we needed to “bring back the stigma” to young girls who became pregnant.  He thought that would make a bold statement of our faith and not encourage so many out-of-wedlock pregnancies.   He might be right that, in a very few cases, it would stop girls or young women from getting pregnant.  Instead though, it would quite probably push them towards the use of abortifacient contraceptives, and, if those failed, abortions, and this to young, frightened girls or single women who were already scared to death and feeling utterly alone in their unfortunate situations.  I do not recall who the guest was, and I do not expect to see him on that station again. I fervently hope not at least. But it sickened me to think that we truly do have modern-day Pharisees who still delight in the sins and failings of others such as he seemed to be doing.

So how does this fit with the misleading term “SSA disorder?”  Quite easily in fact. If I as a human being am disordered, and I will concede that the wound of having SSA does include a “disordered passion,” so too are my non-SSA friends who undress every woman that they see while sitting by their wives in Mass or church, as well as the pastors (some statistics would say 50%) who have their occasional slippage into the world of pornography.  And “porn” is not what it was when I was 14 and snuck a look at some old Playboys found in the neighbor’s dumpster by my friend Marty.  The most I ever saw at that time was the human body, but never in action as such. The fact that 10 year olds can now see actual sexual intercourse (oh pardon me I mean the “marital embrace” for those of you who are offended at the use of the word “sex”), neither hinted at nor suggestive of, but the real thing, including the climax, by the click of a button, should alarm us drastically. Do not call me “disordered” and then forget to include yourselves as part of the photo-op. We are all disordered in some way or another, and when the term was originally used in the Church it was made quite clear that this was the case. When St Thomas Aquinas and Rome included that term, it was the overall passions of humans gone awry which they were referring to, not the modern Freudian  or clinical definition of the word,  used primarily in our day and age to mean that SSA is somehow just a bit more disordered than what the average person deals with.  We already know we are a fallen people—so perhaps just look in the mirror if you think you are less “disordered” than I am.

So those are just some of the many reasons I am not defining myself as “gay” anymore. It does not mean I have been instantly or miraculously delivered from the “demon of homosexuality” or that I now can throw a football 100 yards.  It indicates I am not demarcated by anything I was, or even still struggle with—whether weight, sexual lust towards either gender, gossip, or slandering of others.  It states that, instead of being born a Capricorn, I was born again under the sign of the Cross. It means I am, and will be, a Catholic Christian. No more, and no less.

PLEASE NOTE:  each of the web pages or blogs listed below had some direct influence on this particular article.  Each of them has some great things to say, as well as some things I have very honest disagreements with. All of them are worth reading. They are listed in no particular order. 

http://sexualauthenticity.blogspot.com/

http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2012/05/why-i-call-myself-a-gay-christian

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/14/evangelical-leader-tony-perkins-knocks-rand-pauls-gay-remark/

http://tonylayne.blogspot.com/2012/05/queer-reflection.html

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/badcatholic/2012/05/4-ways-the-gay-marriage-debate-has-been-rigged.html

http://www.pridenet.com/history.html

Further Related articles:

• Sashers And Social Justice – Revisited (catholicboyrichard.wordpress.com)
• “Intrinsically disordered”, the Vatican preserves pathologising of LGBT sexuality (queeringthechurch.com)
• SSA/STRAIGHT MALE BONDING – A Primer (catholicboyrichard.wordpress.com)
• Some Further Thoughts on Homosexual “Christians” (southernreformation.wordpress.com)
• Exodus International Transcends the “War” to Help Church Minister to Those With SSA (randythomas.co)
• What is the relationship of Genetics to Homosexuality? (chrisjulien.wordpress.com)
• G0ys! Masculine Spritual Homosexual Men (aaronrking.wordpress.com)
• Life after Lesbianism (catholicsistas.com)
• SSA/STRAIGHT MALE BONDING – A Primer (samesexattractions.wordpress.com)

HHS Mandates, Families, and Sometimes Strained Friendships

Jesus told us that, should we choose to follow after Him, that many of those most vociferously opposing us would be those we are closest to, whether family or friends. While far from experiencing what Jesus went through, I have learned more and more of late the truth of this when attempting to fight in some small way the culture of death and jeopardy to religious freedom that we live in today.

Below,  in context, is an example of what happened to our own Lord Jesus Christ when He “went home” after becoming well-known and arguably the most powerful spiritual leader within Judaism of his time or thereafter. The passage is Mark 6: 6-7, and the translation used is the Revised Standard Version, considered by many scholars,  both Catholic and Protestant, to be one of the very most accurate available. The bold print is added by me.

¹ He went away from there and came to his own country; and his disciples followed him. ² And on the sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue; and many who heard him were astonished, saying, “Where did this man get all this? What is the wisdom given to him? What mighty works are wrought by his hands! ³ Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him. ⁴ And Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor, except in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.” ⁵ And he could do no mighty work there, except that he laid his hands upon a few sick people and healed them.  ⁶ And he marveled because of their unbelief. And he went about among the villages teaching.

While this passage is dealing with the preaching of the Gospel in general, it with certainty applies extremely well to the recent HHS Mandate which will potentially force all religions (not only Catholic) to follow government guidelines on women’s healthcare or to be heavily fined or possibly even shut down if not. Since the Catholic health care system is the largest in the world, and Catholics make up the largest religious group in the United States, the effect on health care for both women and men could be staggering.  The effects on religious liberty even more so.

Others have written more eloquently than I could hope to on this issue, and I would not waste your time or mine in repeating their words here (I have linked to some of them at the end of this post however). But what has prompted my post today is a series of comments made by Rush Limbaugh, who arguably made a rather rash and hasty judgment of the motives behind one Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown University law student who appeared before Congress earlier this week to state her case about the “needs of women” to have access to birth control during college.

Image via Wikipedia

I am not into name-calling. I do not agree with Rush or his attitude in how he presented his views here. He referred to her as a “slut” and has refused to apologize. His words have not helped the case in any way, but rather have simply lost him advertisers (ironically one has been Select Comfort, a bed company!!!). But Limbaugh for once makes a daring but valid point. A good friend and colleague of mine had a rather heated exchange with me on this whole thing last night, particularly in regards to the definition of “slut.”  I think it may be partially a generational thing, as my colleague is younger than I, but to me “slut” and “prostitute” are pretty much interchangeable. To him they are not. Rather than wrestling about the words here though, the argument Mr. Limbaugh was actually making has some validity in my opinion. Asking the government to force payment for women (or men) to have sexual relations is “slutty” on many levels.   At one point he (Rush) likened government involvement to prostitution for that very reason, and he does speak an element of truth here. By forcing payment for universally free contraception, “we the people” become the “pimps” of both men and women who choose to become sexually active, when, at least in most cases, no gun is being held to their heads to do so.

My friend rightly brought up two seeming inconsistencies, however. One is that insurance should not be forced to pay for Viagra either, since it would be doing the same thing for men. I think he is right to a large extent. We hand out “pleasure candy” to both genders and then wonder why they “eat and enjoy.” As I wrote earlier and reference below this article, we have become very good at “enabling” bad behavior in the United States and beyond. There is one difference between Viagra and contraceptives, however, and it is a “huge one” (please pardon the unplanned pun here!). Viagra can be used to create life, at least indirectly, in an otherwise infertile couple who is not able to have sexual intercourse and thus become pregnant.  Part B of that difference is that Viagra or its other forms such as Cialis do not ever remove life from this planet, however tiny. Birth control pills on the other hand do, as does the IUD(inter-uterine device) and even more true with the infamous “morning after pill,” now becoming available in many cases over the counter for anyone over age 17! Each of those ingestible or otherwise invasive contraceptives have the potential of working after fertilization, and science and medicine have proven clearly that it is at that moment of fertilization where a new life technically begins. Not even an atheist can disprove that point, nor do they try.

Image via Wikipedia

The other inconsistency, which is the one Ms. Fluke spoke of, are the rare times when a woman really does have a health issue such as endrometriosis that can be helped or greatly aided by using a contraceptive such as the Pill. What interestingly appeared in a very passing way during her conversation with Congress was that Georgetown University already covers such use of those particular medications under their insurance in such cases!  While it quite apparently true that she had a good friend who was denied this by the college’s insurance administrators, that would then be the insurance who is at fault in their processing of the claim, not the college or the Church. I do not think there is a person, Catholic, Protestant, or other, who would disagree that this was a terrible injustice done to her friend. And without putting words in His Excellency’s eloquent mouth, that would most surely include Cardinal Timothy Dolan, head of the USCCB (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops).

But to change the entire way in which the contraceptive issue is dealt with by every single Catholic or otherwise religious institution in the nation due to the “fluke” (pun intended this time) of the Georgetown insurance providers is not only ludicrous, but was not seemingly her main reason for speaking on the issue at all. While extremely important, is nonetheless a side issue, albeit one that arguably must be included in the protection of women’s health on any final bill in regards to this whole complex set of issues. It, in fact, would be the only time that contraceptives ever even become a health issue. And as such, this has already been the long-standing policy of the Church on that topic. And that is no “new news.”

The late and great Father John Hardon of happy memory wrote on this exact thing a number of years ago (he passed away in December of 2000, almost 12 years ago ). In his highly informative Modern Catholic Dictionary, he writes the following on other uses of contraception rather than birth control: Again the emphasis is mine.

ENDOMETRIOSIS

A gynecological illness caused by the abnormal presence of tissue that more or less perfectly resembles the lining of the uterus (endometrium) but growing outside of the uterus itself and distributed in other pelvic areas. Since this aberrant endometrial tissue responds to the hormone-induced changes of the woman’s menstrual cycle but, unlike the true endometrial lining of the uterus, is entrapped in other tissue such as bone and muscle, its cyclic changes of menstruation, causes the problem to repress, and even after the pregnancy improvement is sometimes sustained for a period up to three or four years.   

Since a surgical approach to the problem is not always practical or successful, the so-called “contraceptive pill” has been recommended for use over prolonged periods to eliminate the cyclic changes of the menstrual cycle and thus eliminate the periodic pain of endometriosis. It should be noted, from a moral viewpoint, that although this progestational-estrogen type therapy is, in itself, essentially the same as that used in the “contraceptive pill,” it is not used in theses cases as a contraceptive. the purpose of the therapy is to ameliorate a seriously abnormal and indeed pathological condition insofar as it is aggravated by hormonal changes of the menstrual cycle. Although temporary sterility is a side effect of the treatment, contraception is not the purpose, and thus the treatment in no way conflicts with Catholic teaching.

The point of this whole thing to me is simple:  none of this has been hidden away in the proverbial “closet” somewhere. Taking certain contraceptives, if done primarily for health reasons and not reproductive ones, has not been and is not the issue here, nor will it ever become such. But when my friend’s Wisconsin Synod Lutheran minister is one day arrested for speaking out against homosexuality, just for an example, which he apparently frequently does, my friend may wish he had opposed what is the biggest affront to overall religious liberty in our time. The other point, more subtle but still serious, is that such invasiveness is pitting people against one another.  My friend and I will do just fine–but some will not. And the idea of using such difficult and divisive issues to “divide and conquer,” as it clearly appears the Obama administration is expert in doing, is reprehensible to me. I have begun to believe it is his hallmark.

Last but not at all least, I would like to share Cardinal Timothy Dolan’s official letter, as of just yesterday, on this ongoing battle. If you are Roman Catholic, you are obligated as part of your Catholic Faith to be in willing submission to what he shares here. The Bishops, particularly the Bishop of Rome (Pope Benedict XVI) are the legitimate leaders of the Catholic Church. And that is not negotiable.

Image via Wikipedia

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/religious-liberty/upload/Dolan-to-all-bishops-HHS.pdf

Much has been made about the fact that a significant number of Catholic couples ignore the prohibition on contraception, as if that somehow justified it. But as my dear, dear friend and brother in Christ the late Angel Cruz used to often say (and Angel knew, first-hand, having been a former heroin addict and dying of HIV/AIDS as a result in 1986, at age 33) “If the whole world decides to go to hell, that does not mean I have to.” I am with Angel.

I do not ever recommend for anyone to leave the Church.  But if you truly cannot abide by her principles and precepts, then it is far better to leave in honesty than to stay and attempt to deliberately undermine the entire leadership as some have done in this fight. Perhaps Sister Carol Sheehan, Kathleen Sebelius, and Nancy Pelosi, among others, need to be reminded that they are neither practicing Catholics nor leaders within her sacred ranks. And pretending that they are is unbelievable hypocrisy and arrogance at best, and endangering their very souls at worst.

Image via Wikipedia

NOTE:  After I released this article Mr. Limbaugh did indeed apologize to Ms. Fluke.  I will leave it to the reader as to his reasons or sincerity, but at least it was not a “oops it was a wardrobe malfunction” type of apology.   Here is a link to it:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/03/03/a_statement_from_rush

Other related articles:

• With ‘Slut’ Rant, Rush Limbaugh Has Become GOP’s Own Worst Enemy (usnews.com)
• HHS Secretary: Decrease in Number of Americans will Cover Mandate Cost(constitutionclub.org)
•  http://onemoresoul.com/contraception/risks-consequences/what-a-woman-should-know-about-birth-control.html
• Lawmaker: Men Who Want Viagra Should Have To Watch Graphic ‘Side-Effects’ Video (chicago.cbslocal.com)
• Obama Calls Student After Slam by Limbaugh (newser.com)
• The HHS Mandate and Conscience Made Simple – Five Things You Should Do Now (integratedcatholiclife.org)
• Institutional “Enabling” And the HHS Mandate (theconservativehillbilly.wordpress.com)  REPOSTED FROM CATHOLICBOYRICHARD

Reconsidering the "War on Religion"

Reblogged from Well Spent Journey:

Thanks in large part to the Republican primaries and the recent Health and Human Services contraception fiasco, we’ve been hearing a lot lately about a perceived “war on religion”.

Although religious freedoms are undeniably under attack in this country (consider, for example, the actions against Vanderbilt University student groups, or the contraception mandate mentioned above), it’s important that we keep things in perspective.

Read more… 335 more words

Thanks for this Matt! Well written and good words.

Institutional “Enabling” And the HHS Mandate

Last week I wrote some thoughts on the tragic death of Whitney Houston.  In that article, I also opened up regarding some of my own personal past events, in an attempt to relate, as best I could, to the sad but clear truth that we could all without a doubt be a “Whitney,” had we been thus enabled by walking in her shoes and situation.

In re-reading my piece, I began to find myself further exploring the whole idea of “enabling” on a societal level, whether drugs, alcohol, or within the realm of sexuality.  It briefly occurred to me then, but more so now, how much the entire flap over forced payment of contraception and abortifacients by church and para-church organizations is indeed a case of this type of enablement.

What I do not think people fully realize, even those who are against this move by the Obama administration, is how much of a slippery slope we have already been on to even bring us to this point, or for how many years. It was called in the 1960s the “New Morality.” With that change in paradigms the birth control “Pill” became common, living together outside of marriage was suddenly acceptable, and sexuality in all forms was openly explored. It was no longer tied to one of its main purposes, which is the continuation of the human species, and became an end in itself. That altered thinking or, as some call it, the “contraceptive mentality,” was major in its ramifications. It was no longer the “norm” for a woman to stay at home and raise a family, but became just as common or more so to work and day care centers began to boom as an industry. Divorce became “no-fault” and those, like myself, from backgrounds of same-sex attraction too were liberated. What had been commonly accepted as correct behavior was turned on its head in a short enough time that I, even as a child and then teen during that era, easily observed the entire change by the time I graduated from high school, the year after Roe v Wade legalized abortion on demand nationwide.

I have seen many who have written on the Constitutional and religious liberty issues with regard to this issue but not so much on this more subtle piece to the puzzle. Perhaps we shy away from it due to our own senses of guilt or shame, or other reasons too, but I think we need to face squarely the fact that our society allowed this to happen and did not in fact even notice it coming because we were too busy participating.  Some forward-thinking people, such as Pope Paul VI, obviously did, to be sure, but they were considered to be overly inflammatory, “haters,” or just plain gloom-and-doom types who did not really know the score.  As it turns out, they were the only ones actually keeping score.

Image via Wikipedia

We as fallen humans use some very complex psychology in order to enable others on any level, personal or otherwise. We first try to second-guess what might be the best for people, basing it upon possible or probable future behavior, whether good or bad.  Instead of then dealing with the underlying behavior issues, such as in this instance sexual promiscuity and wanton selfishness, we try to help them to plan for it. The faultiness in this approach is clear to me just by looking at my own past grievous faults and actions.

In my other article, I speak of a man with whom I was briefly involved in 1993, one who turned out to be HIV positive (the virus which causes AIDS).  The ironic thing is that I had never been in even a remotely dangerous sexual liaison until in my early 30s and in the process of divorcing, and had lost my dearest friend in ministry, as well as his wife, in the mid-1980s to this lethal illness. In his case it was due to a drug-dependent past, and then after he became a committed Christian he unknowingly passed it on to his equally unsuspecting wife. So I was aware of the horror of HIV/AIDS early on.  I was also educated on ways to prevent it.  But I still stepped into the trap of risk-taking.  And the very people who aided and abetted me in those risks were the same ones whose stated intentions were to help people make wiser decisions, such as the MN AIDS Project and others.  Let me be clear that no one told me to take risks. But it was assumed that I would, and thus thought necessary to teach me how to minimize them while maximizing my own pursuits for pleasure.

Image via Wikipedia

Obviously I was old enough and knew enough that I must own any choices I made at that time, but the fact remains that I might have been swayed otherwise if I had been warned more clearly about the gravity of the perils I was walking into, even of such things as failed condom usage and of the many other sexually transmitted diseases not always prevented by “playing the field” as I was heartily doing, even in a supposedly “safe” manner.  Instead the local LGBT bars handed out condoms for free to all customers, and the view was very simply that “we were going to do it anyway” so we might as well do it as safely as possible.

The striking similarity between giving an alcoholic just enough drinks to make him or her “feel good” and then to hang upon the futile hope that they will cheerfully comply with a 2 or 3 drink limit is an irony not lost to me. The bars, the MN AIDS Project, the LGBT publications, and even the “gay-friendly” churches all presumed the same thing—that being sexually active was the “new norm.” And, partly at least owing to that pervasive attitude, we did exactly that. People strongly tend to act as they are expected to. Basic psychology 101.

For my part I was not overly risky in my activities, and always stayed within commonly recommended “safer sex” guidelines. But when a person who I had spent one passionate night with died just one year later, of a disease I had sworn I would never allow myself to even get near to, it jolted within me a wakeup call, slowing me down abruptly  and considerably.  While it was several more years before I became fully celibate, I was suddenly far more particular as to who I went home with and how often, knowing that each encounter could be the one that might give me that dreaded and lethal condition. In effect the “field” became less fun but had far fewer weeds at that point.

The idea therefore that we must provide easy contraception for women who are sexually active is ludicrous to me in the same way as the well-intentioned folks at the bar who used to give me condoms by the dozen at no charge.  In both cases we are expecting the worst, not the best, to occur, and in doing so we essentially make it easier to happen.  That is what enabling does.

I was blessed, not deserving so, I might add, to find myself after 9 months of tests to still to be HIV negative. Other people, good people who our Lord loves and who carry His dignity and image, have not been so blessed as me.  But I wish to heaven someone out there had truly cared enough to not suggest that I have “safer sex,” but instead would have seriously challenged me to be celibate.  I am not sure I would have listened—but I might have—and did eventually.  No one though within the LGBT community or for that matter among other family and friends ever even attempted such a thing. Not one, and not once that I recall at least.

Fast-forwarding to now, in the name of “women’s health” of all things, we are doing the exact same type of enabling with HHS. The idea of even suggesting abstinence is approximately somewhere between idiotic and far-fetched to many of the people involved, and yet one of them is a faithful and at least apparently monogamous husband (President Obama), several are noted Catholic women with longstanding marriages, such as Kathleen Sibelius and Nancy Pelosi, and one, the head of the Catholic Health Care Association, Sister Carol Sheehan, has taken a lifetime vow of celibacy and chastity, which we can only assume she follows personally.  What a strange, strange group to be promoting promiscuity in the name of health!!!  How it must be a stench before our God.

Image via Wikipedia

Revelation speaks of the “whore of Babylon” and her desire to spread her immorality to others. Why would the above-mentioned group (picture is slightly different), all who claim to be practicing Christians, spend so much of their valuable time, efforts, and even reputations to do the same?

Image via Wikipedia

Birth control is not illegal in this nation.  Nor, for that matter, is abortion sadly.  But the idea that it is somehow our moral responsibility to begin paying for such services to those who otherwise could not afford it, rather than using that same exertion and money in educating  those women (and men) in better ways to live, such as abstinence outside of marriage and NFP (Natural Family Planning) within it, which has been long proven to work just as well as the “Pill” by the way, causes me to wonder just what could motivate anyone who names the name of Christ to encourage others to do things with their bodies that they themselves clearly choose not to do?  The word stupid does not begin to describe it.

I am baffled, sickened and irate about this whole thing, as are many, many others. But I know one thing on a first-hand level that seems to be missed in this whole argument in both directions. I know the fear and apprehension that comes from supposedly “safer sex.” And I have seen friends die from it.  That to me is reason enough to oppose this immoral mandate.

Image via Wikipedia

Adding one last but very crucial point, the MN AIDS Project does many fine things. I would take nothing away the fact that they have pioneered efforts to fight HIV when few were doing so. I am simply saying that I fervently wish they would add abstinence education to their agenda. I do not expect them to do so, however. So this is not primarily about them–but it is about me and the many of us who once supported everything within the LGBT community, and can no longer do so.  However they (MN AIDS Project) do raise much money each year to fight AIDS and to help, in practical ways, those who currently are afflicted with it. A link to some of those activities is listed just below this paragraph. A better approach however might be to give to Catholic groups who also assist those with AIDS, but do so without advancing the idea of so-called “safer sex” but instead abstinence and helping people to achieve this this goal, no matter what their sexual inclination may be. Many such fine groups exist, such as Catholic Relief Services and the apostolate Courage. Their links are just below as well: 

http://crs.org/hiv-aids/

http://couragerc.net/

https://community.mnaidsproject.org/aidswalk

OTHER Related articles

• CELIBATE BUT NOT CHASTE??? CHASTE BUT NOT CELIBATE??? A Quick Catholic “Snapshot” of SSA Theology (catholicboyrichard.wordpress.com)
• Thoughts on a Tough Topic – Contraception and Rome (catholicboyrichard.wordpress.com)
• HIV warning to women using injectable contraception (guardian.co.uk)
• HIV-positive man deported from Canada for not disclosing status to sexual partners (calgaryherald.com)
• The Little Sisters of Limousine Liberalism (spectator.org)
• Catholic Churches Distribute Letter Opposing Obama Healthcare Rule – ABC News (blog) (abcnews.go.com)
• Pelosi parts ways with bishops yet again, opposes abortion exemptions for Catholic healthcare facilities (deaconjohnspace.wordpress.com)
• Sebelius touts health IT initiative in KC (kansas.com)
• Sebelius Didn’t Consult Bishops on Contraception Deal (blogs.wsj.com)
• Sebelius Smears Catholic Insurers (deaconjohnspace.wordpress.com)
• Clearing Confusion on Who Speaks for the Church | Suffering With Joy (intostillness.wordpress.com)
• The Politics of Sex: Where Does Obama Stand? (bizgovsoc2.wordpress.com)
• Obama: Supporting LGBT Rights Is ‘Profoundly American’ (thinkprogress.org)
• ‘To Hell With You’ (catholicglasses.com)
• Archbishop Wenski: “The President Should Honor His Pledge” (deaconjohnspace.wordpress.com)

SOME MILESTONES, AN AWARD…AND DR THOMAS HOWARD TOO!

This blog went “live” on November 11, 2011, just over 3 months ago.  Since that time, I have had some great opportunities to connect, not only with my Facebook family and friends who were already following my sometimes inane but occasionally inspired  words, but with a far larger audience within the greater blogosphere.

Just a few statistics that humble me and yet encourage me forward…Today I will be hitting my 14,000th “hit.”  Largely this is due to numerous friends who have helped promote this blog, to those who as I said had already been reading my thoughts and words from FB, and, more than anything, to Tito Edwards, who has generously and often promoted me through daily blog links to numerous Catholic sites through his page:

 http://thepulp.it/

and which is also published within the National Catholic Register (now owned and operated by EWTN)  blog page on a daily basis. That has been some beautiful exposure to say the very least.

Cover of Through Gates of Splendor

I also have connected with 91 nations, posted 126 separate times, and had as diverse an audience as the well-known and highly regarded Dr. Thomas Howard, who I write about in my conversion story and who is the brother of Elisabeth Elliott (whose husband Jim was a martyred missionary to Ecuador and a hero of mine even in my teen years). Both of them are tremendous authors and indeed have stories to tell which the whole Christian wold has taken note of over the years. Dr. Howard and I have corresponded over the last 5 years, and he gave me permission to quote him regarding my blog stating:

“Well, bravo. Your piece on abortion was “bang on”, as the English say. It’s encouraging to know you’re in there fighting the good fight.The responses you got were also encouraging. You speak with great courage and circumspection. And again, orchids and laurels to you for what you’re doing.”

Pretty rich endorsement from one of  the former editors of Christianity Today, and  author of so many books which have helped and guided people such as the great Jeff Cavins during his own return to the Faith.

Another person whose site has referred many to mine is Patrick Vandapool. I first came into contact with this unique man on FB, and have continued to stay in touch through his blog “A Catholic UNapologist” which is pretty–well, unapologetic.  While he and I have distinctly different styles, we share a love for the Lord and the Catholic Faith, and I am proud to consider him a friend and fellow sojourner.  Here is a link to his page:

http://patrickvandapool.com/

And last but certainly not least, I actually won an award via a new friend,  Tony Layne, whose blog “Outside the Asylum” is just one of those well-written and charitable perspectives within the Faith.  He always has some good stuff to say. I humbly thank you Tony! Visit him at:

http://tonylayne.blogspot.com/

And here is the award:

I have probably forgotten someone, but I do know this, each person who has ever stopped by even for a moment has been important to me, and caused me much gladness to be within the ever-widening circle of Catholic Christian blogging!   I do not know what the future holds, in a year my blog may be doubled in size, or it may be defunct. Only our Lord knows.  My last blog had exactly 4 followers in as many years, and I was one of the four!  This one so far has over 170 and again in just 3 months. I can only believe God has some purpose in my words going out in directions I would not have imagined 6 months ago.  I would, more than anything, therefore ask humbly for your prayers that I may continue to use it in a way He sees fit.  And I love being able to share my heart with so many.

God’s peace to each of you and thanks again.

Related articles

• My Story…Again (catholicboyrichard.wordpress.com)
• The Ecuadorian Martyrs (challies.com)
• Through the Gates of Splendor – 5 missionaries speared to death in 1956 on a beach in Peru (documentary) (rodiagnusdei.wordpress.com)

POSTED FROM POPULATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE–READ, WEEP AND PRAY…THEN ACT

http://pop.org/content/catholics-we-are-not-second-class-citizens

 I can add little to the above-linked article except to say we must not quit or even let up. Not now, and no matter who the nominees are for President.  It is not just for the Catholic Christians, but for all of good will, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, or those of no religious affiliation.  All humans are precious–and all deserve to live and let live.  That is what America must mean to each and every one of us, or it–and likely we–will die. The time is now to act.

Image via Wikipedia

 

Related articles

• Think You Know What a Mythbuster Is? Overpopulation is a Myth…Population Research Institute (k2globalcommunicationsllc.wordpress.com)
• Welcome baby 7 billion, says Population Research Institute president (deaconforlife.blogspot.com)
• Steve Mosher to Appear on Raymond Arroyo’s ‘The World Over’ (deaconjohnspace.wordpress.com)
• As UN announces birth of 7 billionth person, real crisis in Europe is not enough children ()
• 7 Billion Beautiful People (thenewworldreporter.com)
• Steven Mosher to Testify at Congressional Hearing: ‘Ban Sex-Selection Abortion’ (deaconforlife.blogspot.com)
• New bill would ban abortions based on sex or race (thegrio.com)