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://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)
. 
