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)

Sashers And Social Justice–Revisited

ALTHOUGH I HAVE POSTED THIS ARTICLE PREVIOUSLY, I THINK, IN LIGHT OF THE PRESIDENT’S “COMING OUT” REGARDING HIS WORST KEPT SECRET, WHICH IS HIS CLEAR AND RATHER UNSURPRISING SUPPORT OF  SAME-GENDER UNIONS, AND THE IRONY  (NOT SO LIKELY ACCIDENTAL EITHER I MIGHT ADD)  OF THIS ANNOUNCEMENT HAPPENING WITHIN 24 HOURS  AFTER NORTH CAROLINA’S VOTE AGAINST SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, IT SEEMED VERY FITTING AND TIMELY TO SHARE IT ONCE AGAIN. IT IS MY OWN BEST EXPLANATION I AM ABLE TO GIVE AS TO WHY I CANNOT SUPPORT SUCH UNIONS, ALTHOUGH I ONCE DID  FULLY DID SO WITH NO HESITATION. PLEASE READ ON…I DO NOT ASK YOU TO AGREE, BUT TO AT LEAST OPEN YOUR MINDS AND HEARTS TO THE REASONS I SHARE HERE. DIALOGUE WELCOME.

Awhile back (late fall of 2008) I wrote an article
on my personal take regarding California PROP 8 and the legalization of
same gender marriages. While I have at times struggled with my own views on the
topic, even since that writing, my firm belief now is that the biggest overall
need is to find ways to bridge the gaps between each opposing group and bring
them together. I do not believe this will occur by redefining marriage, but
rather by redefining attitudes within the Church towards LGBT (lesbian, gay,
bisexual and transgender) people, and doing so in such a way that does not
destroy the sanctity of the Sacrament of Matrimony as already established.

I also believe that the LGBT community, of which I have
been part of and still embrace as my brothers and sisters, also carries some
responsibility here to understand and respect, regardless of agreement, the
religious views that are perhaps not their own in some cases. My original
article is reprinted below, and also some additional thoughts which further
clarify my take on this topic.

My challenge is to take your time (just 10-15
minutes or so) and read this in its entirety before forming judgments. After
that, respectfully written comments on all sides of the issues at hand are of
course welcome. Here goes:

 

What about Gay Marriage?

Another LGBT Perspective

 

Same-Sex Marriage Rally (Photo credit: City of West Hollywood)

As a same-sex attracted individual, it is often
assumed that I would naturally support what is commonly called “gay marriage.”
When I recently shared at a family gathering that I did not, at least not as it
is currently being proposed in California and other states in recent years, it
prompted a rather lively discussion with some of my siblings. After gathering
my own thoughts I wrote the following as an attempt to explain my reasoning in
light of Catholic Christian teaching as well as my own LGBT experiences. Not
all on either side of the issue will likely totally agree with my thoughts
here, but please give it a read:

Dear ____,

I have to admit that I was to some extent rattled
yesterday during our discussion regarding my choice to return to the Roman
Catholic Church and my choice to remain single and celibate. I somewhat
felt that I was the recipient of an intervention of some kind, and that was not
a good feeling! I think we all agree that none of us owe each other
explanations on why we believe as we do, but I want to share anyway, so please
bear with me. Maybe it will help.

Having said that, I realize that my evolution
of faith over the years is understandably puzzling and troublesome to others
(not just family, but a few friends too) at times and I am going to do my very
best to put my thoughts and beliefs into clear words here. I do not ask anyone
to agree with me totally, but I do hope it to be understood that I am not
blindly following my faith out of some misguided or confused zeal or naiveté.
Hopefully I am beyond that and you believe better about me than that. I think
you do.

I did not choose celibacy because I am having
trouble finding dates, have gone blind (and therefore see no attractive men out
there!), need Viagra, or no longer have homosexual inclinations—and by the way
I still get hit on sometimes! When I returned to the Catholic Church 5 years
ago it was not because I felt pressured or forced to do so. It came as a result
of searching for truth in the best manner I knew how, and in the process of
that search I came to believe that the Church was truly the best place for me.
And I went there with joy. Do I miss romantic companionship at times? I would
not be human if I didn’t. Am I better off spiritually and emotionally than I
was during all of the 15 years I was actively involved in the LGBT world? I
personally think so. I honestly have a sense of purpose and peace that was decidedly
missing during my years of “freedom.” The Church has not denied me anything
really.

One belief espoused both by Catholic and Orthodox
Churches that is not generally taught by Protestants is that there is both
Sacred Scripture (the Holy Bible) and Sacred Tradition (the essence of how that
truth is meant to be lived, not always in written form, but based on the
earliest possible interpretations of Scripture and other teachings handed down
from the Apostles). Protestants generally believe in “Sola Scriptura”, or the
Bible alone as the guide for faith and morals, and that each individual is free
to interpret it as they see fit. Catholics believe that the Bible is the Word
of God, but also that the teachings of the Magisterium (meaning the Pope and
the bishops in union with him only when making official or universal
pronouncements as such) are also the Word of God. That includes Sacred
Tradition as well as the Bible and how they are to be interpreted in each day
and age. And some of the specifics may differ from generation to generation,
but much of it does not. That bears an explanation.

What gets a bit confusing with the above
terminology is that there is a Sacred Tradition and just plain human
tradition based on culture and human advances in science, and other variable
factors. Meaning—teachings that are current customs of the Church,
such as eating meat on Friday, celibacy for the priesthood, whether the Mass is
offered in Latin or English, and various other such disciplinary practices, are
changeable with the times—and should indeed be. Those are simply “traditions,”
and every denomination or religious group has some. Within Catholicism, those
“small t” traditions are binding only for as long as the Church determines that
they are necessary—hence, when we were children growing up one week it was
considered a serious or mortal sin to eat meat on Friday and the very next week
it was no longer considered to be so at all, although still each Friday (and
many do not realize this) we are asked to either not eat meat or to do some
type of penance or good work in honor of the Lord’s death on the cross and for
the salvation of others. The particulars changed but not the principle behind
it.

On the other hand, the Sacraments (such as
baptism, marriage, the Eucharist, and the like) fall into the category of
Sacred (or “large T”) Tradition. Also in that category would be the doctrine of
the Trinity, a teaching that is not actually in the Bible itself but which is
implied in Sacred Scripture over and over. Within it as well are teachings
which numerous Church Councils determined to be part of the “Deposit of Faith,”
such as the various Creeds and Church dogmas, in addition to decisions based on
later Church Councils such as Trent, Vatican I and II.

Here is where Sacred Tradition ties into my
search regarding LGBT issues. There has never been a time in 2000 years of
Church history, Catholic or Protestant, when homosexual relationships were ever
officially placed on the same level as male/female marriages. There have always
been individuals who believed otherwise, but the Church as a whole has never
endorsed or approved those relationships. And, as an aside, since Christianity
is a direct outgrowth of Judaism, that particular “tradition” actually goes
much further back (several thousand years in fact) to the very earliest Old
Testament times and no provision for same gender sexual relationships during
either Old or New Testament times has ever been commonly accepted by either
ancient Israel or the Church.

And it is not a matter of discrimination—or at
least does not need to be. I personally think that enforceable laws could be
set in place which allow for those who do not follow Catholic or other more
conservative Judeo-Christian beliefs in the area of marriage to still own
property jointly, visit loved ones in the hospital, have tax credits, and the
like. Or perhaps those protections could be done in a totally different way
altogether such as having no differentiations between single and married
individuals, no matter what their relationships may happen to be. There are
varied and numerous ways to protect the interests of both church and state
which have yet to be tried, and could at least (prayerfully) begin to bring
together those on either side of the issue.

I understand that for many LGBT people it feels
very insulting not to refer to their relationship as a “marriage,” and I am
actually fairly sympathetic to that view-point, having had friends in that
situation and, not many years ago, believing it would be “only fair” for myself
too. However one of the several reasons that I now see it differently is that,
in countries which allow same gender marriages such as Canada and elsewhere, it
has triggered a slippery slope. A number of ministers and bishops, for example,
simply by preaching that homosexuality is sinful from their own pulpits, have
been taken before the Canadian tribunals and forbidden to even speak on the
issue or else face charges. A number Christian radio broadcasts in Canada have
been forbidden to mention the topic, calling it hate speech or worse. These
have not necessarily been “Fred Phelps” types either, but simply religious
leaders who belong to denominations that historically have taught that
homosexual activity (not the orientation) is sinful. Incidents such as those do
justice to neither side in my view.

Speaking of naïve, I think it would be such to
think that this could not happen here too. Already groups such as Soulforce (an
activist group made up primarily of evangelical Christians who are LGBT) travel
regularly to private Christian colleges with former students, such as at North
Central University here in the Twin Cities, an Assemblies of God college where
I myself once attended, and have accused them of “religious abuse” solely
because they dismissed a student for promoting active sexual relationships with
others of his own gender. When I was a student there years ago, it was
considered sinful to even have an alcoholic drink, much less any type of sexual
activity outside of marriage, and I am fairly sure they would still dismiss a
student whether gay or straight who was in an ongoing sexual relationship
without being married. And, as a private college that is and should be their
prerogative. But as groups such as Soul Force become more powerful, and they
are becoming so, accusations such as religious or other abuse are likely to
become more and more common. How much better to just separate this whole thing
out from religion in the first place, while making sure that private or
religious groups retain the liberty to speak what they believe is the truth as
they understand it? That is my fear with even calling long-standing same-sex
unions “gay marriage” and essentially attempting to recondition society to
accept those unions as such. Most people view marriage as a religious
institution, and feel threatened when something is called marriage that
historically has never been so. And for the record I saw that danger before
ever returning to the Roman Catholic Church, and had already begun to distance
myself from some of the more militant LBGT groups I was once part of as a
result.

I know it is a tricky balance, but the old adage
of “loving the sinner while hating the sin” is to me the safest approach.
Tricky though, because many “Christians” use that as an excuse to hate gay
people and that of course is seriously wrong. Tricky too, since those from a
more secular perspective sometimes use it as a reason to force a fairly radical
gay agenda on the rest of society. I think either approach is unbalanced, and just
continues or exacerbates the hatred or near hatred on both sides of this
teetering fence for each other, essentially wounding or even killing other
creative solutions that both could conceivably live with if they just listened
to one another with open hearts.

Having formerly been simultaneously a fairly
conservative Christian and actively LGBT, I have certainly had my share of
internal conflicts working this through. In my Protestant years, it is
absolutely true that, going strictly by verses from the Bible that directly
mentioned homosexuality, I did not think a strong enough case could be
made to definitively oppose living that lifestyle. What I never considered
however in those studies was the concept of Sacred Tradition, and the belief
that the Church, who had actually given us the Bible in the first place, also
has been given the authority to interpret it, and has consistently done so with
the idea of marriage being a sacred union between one man and one woman.
Obviously that view is in opposition to the culture we live in, and counter to
what I believed for many years even after my own very sincere study of Sacred
Scripture in a vacuum. But it is what I now believe to be true.

So what about gays and the Church? There needs to
be far more dialogue to be sure. There must be a genuinely welcoming atmosphere
and some allowance for those who have not come to the same conclusions I have
after years of both struggle and study. I certainly can judge no one who
disagrees with me. And in both cases just mentioned, most of Christianity,
including Catholicism, oftentimes has done a rather lousy job of reaching out
to the LGBT community. That absolutely needs to change.
However, I do not think it is best done by referring to something as marriage
that has never been historically considered as such by the Church! Loving all
people, welcoming them to Mass or church services, and yet teaching from the
pulpit what is official historic Catholic/Christian teaching is the only
intellectually honest approach I know to have. And I realize not everyone will
not be satisfied with that answer, but I do not see another better one on the
horizon.

I know this is somewhat long and drawn out but I
could not explain in 5 quick minutes all of the reasons I have listed here for
my changed views, and which took countless hours and even months of soul
searching to work out within my own mind and soul, so I appreciate your
patience for hearing my heart on this. You may still think I have jumped off
the deep end here, and that is your privilege, but I hope at least it may help
you understand the reasoning and thinking behind my beliefs.

But what I really pray and hope for most is a
balanced and compassionate approach which reaches out to gays and lesbians yet
does not undermine marriage as some outdated institution that needs to be
“redefined” and that allows for both groups to continue to reach out to one
another. Then perhaps we can at least begin to fulfill Jesus’ own prayer that
“we all may be one.”

RGE 12-1-08, revised 10-15-11

SOME THOUGHTS SINCE THAT WRITING:

A few months ago I regretfully was
“unfriended” by both Randi and Jacob Reitan, (very strong and
powerful LGBT advocates here in MN ) for suggesting that going to established
churches and Christian colleges to attempt to change their theology did not
make sense to me. It still doesn’t. Jacob started a group called “Freedom
Riders” a number of years ago which included a number of former students
of Christian private colleges who were expelled for being actively gay. I
totally respect both Randi (his mom, who started the infamous Target boycott
during the last governor’s election) and Jacob. He is an intelligent and caring
young man by anyone’s standards. They have since protested everywhere from
Focus on the Family headquarters to the Vatican and joined with Soulforce, an
activist group started by former Jerry Falwell “ghost writer” Mel White. But
respecting them does not mean I am forced to agree with their methods. In
sharing my disagreement I lost them as FB friends, and I find that regrettable.

It is that type of strategy I object to, and I
see it very often in politics on all sides. I wish for basic protections for
LGBT people–I am one. But to make ourselves “victims” when we are
not is pushing the envelope in my view. Further the views of those of us who
choose celibacy for religious reasons is most often either pitied or ridiculed,
but rarely understood. To me that is poverty. When I accepted the tenets of my
Catholic Christian faith no one put a gun to my head. The real victimization
here is when we do not respect one another. Disagreement should not be viewed
by automatic labels such as homophobia or bigotry.

I also had an experience with another LGBT
“activist” group commonly referred to as the “Rainbow
Sashers.” My experience with them dovetails this just a bit–and by the
way, yes I did wear a “sash”–one time only. I will not do so again.

In any case a number of years ago I attended a
“Rainbow Sash” gathering at the Cathedral of St Paul, which is my
home parish. This group generally meets at Cathedrals all over the nation and
beyond, on Pentecost, to protest Roman Catholic policy on not allowing Holy
Communion to openly non-celibate LGBT members of the Church. Regardless of
one’s opinion on that issue, and I have struggled with it myself but as already
shared do stand with the Church, their strategy is to interrupt Mass at a given
signal, usually during the sign of peace or shortly after, and then to go
forward during distribution of the Eucharist wearing the “sash” and
trying to pressure the priest, deacon, or Eucharistic Minister to present the
Sacred host to them.

My purpose that time in attending was to
support, as one who had “been there and back” so to speak, the right
of the Church to set standards on this issue. I listened carefully and my
absolute favorite priest in the world gave the homily that day. He explained
the Church position with absolutely no rancor, and then invited
“Sashers” who were present to come forward for a blessing, or to
simply remove the Sash and receive Holy Communion. They could even put the Sash
on afterwards again! The solution sounded more than reasonable to me. I
personally spoke to several members both before and after, told them of my
respect for this particular priest, and made sure to welcome them, as one of
their complaints (and perhaps rightly so) had been open hostility to them in
the past when attending these “Mass disruptions.” I also told them of my own
SSA background.

To my sadness, but not great surprise, they
wrote of their experience on the DIGNITY website (a site which
considers itself representative of Catholic Christian ideals–not endorsed by
the Church hierarchy however) and said something such as this ” Father
___scolded us and then refused us Holy Communion.” It was a blatant
and simplistic misrepresentation of his very difficult position. They did not
mention anything I had said to them nor did they mention the woman who nearly
knocked over one of the older female Eucharistic ministers as she literally
forced her hand into the ciborium of Communion hosts and began distributing
them freely herself. Nor the members of the Cathedral who were sitting in the
front row weeping quietly.

I say all of this to say–we can become so
much part of a “cause,” any cause, that we become blinded to how we
behave towards others as believers in Christ or just simply as other humans.
That is the bigger danger here. No one with an ounce of genuine compassion
wishes for hate crimes or deliberate bigotry towards other groups of people. But
institutions, Church, private schools, and the like, have the right to not be
intimidated into silence either. It is that kind of thing that stopped me from
being a “gay activist” even before my return to the Church. And when
I wavered and nearly went back, which some of you know I did a time or two this
last year, it is that kind of thing that reminded me of something my dad used
to and probably still does say (he is nearly 90 and going strong)–”My
freedom ends where yours begins.” Free speech is fine–a free-for-all is
not. As one of the posters said in response to this thread, this public style
of ridiculing others is now popular in our society. I see it as a sign of
something far deeper. Respect is gone. If tolerance does not exist in both
directions, it does not exist at all.

I am attaching a link to a very interesting
article which I recently came across which to me is a sign of hope—it is about
Bishop Thomas Tobin of Providence, RI. He is far from ultra-liberal, but speaks
about an option of “reciprocal benefits” which could give both sides what they
need. I like his approach. Here is the link:

 http://www.golocalprov.com/news/7553/

 And lastly, from an evangelical Protestant
perspective, hope comes as well from Tony Campolo. His link is below:

a_possible_compromise_on_the_gay_marriage_controversy

 I post these, not saying they are the final
word, but as clear evidence that there is room to think outside the pink
triangle or the church steeple—both which are similarly shaped,
incidentally—and to honestly and fully come to grips with each other in a
combination of gentle love and tough truth. There is indeed room in this world
for both the LGBT community and the traditional Church. And I am not the only
person who thinks so. Peace.

For more on this topic:

http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=23911 

A great and well spoken article by Stephen White about the Sashers movement from a traditional Catholic perspective.

Related articles

• Dolan Rejects Debate Over Same-Sex Marriage (lezgetreal.com)
• Why Catholics Should Support the MN Marriage Protection Amendment (catholicboyrichard.wordpress.com)
• CELIBATE BUT NOT CHASTE??? CHASTE BUT NOT CELIBATE??? A Quick Catholic “Snapshot” of SSA Theology (catholicboyrichard.wordpress.com)
• Obama supports gay marriage (seattlepi.com)
• Leaked: White House Talking Points On Gay Marriage Flip (buzzfeed.com)
• Biden May Not Speak for Obama, But He Speaks for Most Catholics (newwaysministryblog.wordpress.com)

SSA/STRAIGHT MALE BONDING—A Primer

 QUICK DISCLAIMER:  I follow the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church on the issue of homosexuality, as I attempt to do in all areas of my life. I included some links below the article which have other views.  Sometimes we forget to listen to the other side, and that is, obviously, part of the problem in society today–we have quit listening.  But that is why those links are there and not to endorse teachings other than Catholicism. By God’s grace I have made the Catholic view my own. 

In writing this I am acutely aware that I am but one voice of many, and cannot nor would I presume to speak on behalf of all within the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) or SSA (same-sex attracted) communities.  I have never been a lesbian, for one thing, nor a cross-dresser or transsexual either. I am no better or worse, obviously, but simply have had different life experiences than they. I am a man who, for whatever reason, tends to be drawn to and have a desire for closer attachments to other men than some who are male and heterosexual may be comfortable with or used to.  My purpose in writing this is to appeal particularly to “straight” men who love Jesus Christ and might be willing to take up a challenge you never imagined before—that of authentically befriending someone from my background.  Truth be told, you probably already are friends with some of us—you just do not realize it.  They may not have told you, or you may not have guessed. But they are there or somewhere nearby. Today I am asking you to hear with your hearts from an SSA brother who may yearn for your presence in his life more than you know.

This type of bonding is a calling in the Church today which I believe needs to be answered and no longer swept under the scatter rugs of humanity.  While there seems to be no shortage of OSA (opposite-sex attracted) men with strong opinions on what may or may not actually cause the occurrence of SSA, as well as the legal and moral solutions to such, far fewer of those same men seem to have the ability or even the desire to reach out and integrate those of us from that background into the family of the Church as well as greater society.  We from the SSA world need you.

The Catechism teaches us that of the very important keys in assisting your SSA brothers to assimilate into the family of God (which we by the way are fully and clearly part of due to our baptism into Christ and the ever-living Tradition of just over 2000 years of Catholicism) is what article 2359 refers to as “disinterested friendship.”  A hugely significant key component at this juncture is to first clarify that this does not mean “uninterested” friendship (which by the way is not friendship at all). “Disinterested” by its definition means “impartial, fair-minded, neutral” (not in judging behavior but in judging the human involved in such behavior), and still being willing to be a friend and travelling companion to that person on their journey to wholeness. It may mean stepping into corners of your own life that are not totally comfortable—perhaps an isolated same-sex experience in your past or various other insecurities, whether sexual or otherwise, or facing a host of other outward differences which are not sexual in and of themselves but tend to be part of the LGBT community and those of us who are or have been drawn to it.

Queer Eye (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Most men from SSA backgrounds, and again this is a broad sweep but I believe there is at least some truth in this next point, are probably less likely to have ever changed the oil in a car, excelled at sports such as football or other team oriented agonies which we in our society tend to falsely judge masculinity by, may be into classical music or jazz rather than grunge or rap, enjoy a nice glass of wine rather than a bottle of beer, maybe or even likely clean our homes better than you do, and might even be gourmet cooks. These differences are exactly that—differences.  They are neither good nor bad.  Many straight men fit exactly those same categories in fact. But there is a reason why television programs such as Queer Eye for the Straight Guy have gained in popularity over the last decade.  And those gifts as listed above are not ones we from SSA backgrounds are required to give up nor, in my opinion at least, should they be particularly tampered with usually. Gifts are good or bad according to how they are used.  And maybe your friend with SSA history or even current struggles can teach you a few things in those areas. No offense intended but some of you could actually learn a few things from us in the areas above. If you do not believe me ask your wives.

But so can we learn from you.  I, as a case in point, was pathetic at pretty much all team or other sports when I was growing up, and if my father had even once taken the time to pull me into the back yard and throw the ball with me or to take me fishing, just for two examples, I would have been so thrilled I probably would have announced it in “show and tell” during school. I also might have at minimum learned enough grace and skill to at least avoid being made the brunt of many cruel “sissy” jokes and being continually picked last on every team.  Those things stick with a person and, even at age 56 and having graduated 38 years ago this spring, still sting slightly as I write this. Don’t bother getting the Bactine however—I have learned to live with the person I am and am comfortable in my skin.  Some of your immediate reactions might be “wow what a whining child” that such memories still should haunt me. But they do.  And that brings me to primer point #1—do not try to figure us out, at least not totally. Far less important than why we feel such things are that simply we do.  Just imagine the unbelievable agony you may have felt at losing a woman or girlfriend you loved to another man, breaking your arm or leg in such a way which may have prevented you from excelling in a sport you had once shown great promise in, or when a coach or boss humiliated you totally after you did your level best.  You can forgive, and must, but the memory of such things does not generally leave you at least totally.  Our scars may be different outwardly, but scarring is universal.  We are more alike than you might have thought.

Jesus Christ Crucifix (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Point # 2 builds on # 1, but goes a bit deeper. Let us be emotional and share it. UGGGH you say…in fact I can hear you wincing and see some cringing all the way from sunny Minnesota as I write this on a lovely spring day.  I kind of say “ugghh” too actually.  I do not have a need to pour out my heart constantly—but I sometimes do. And you have a wife to hopefully do so with.  I do not. I am your perpetually single next-door neighbor—the one who is not going to ever be otherwise.  I am the one sitting adjacent to you at Mass or in Adoration, or who you even emailed and told me that my story is “inspiring.” But that is not the same as an offer of friendship on an equal level. And believe me I do know and feel the difference.

So what do I need from you? What is the idea of “disinterested” friendship and what does it entail?  It has already been established that we have more in common than you realized, and the biggest and by far most significant commonality is our faith in Christ and the Church. And many of us are deeply into the Faith, particularly because we have been, as the expression goes, “driven to our knees” in order to effectively deal with our own issues—we may be the ones actually taking the Bible classes offered by the parish, volunteering for church activities because most of us have fewer family obligations than you do, going to daily Mass, using our Rosaries for more than jewelry, and studying our theology regularly. So again please respect us for that. We may understand the Faith as well or better than you. Realize that our tattered past does not compose our present, any more than your former promiscuity or other areas of struggle make up yours.  Speaking of which, lust is lust. While I may be attracted to the strong legs or piercing eyes of another male, you may prefer the ample bosom or smooth skin of a female.  But both can bring us into sin and quickly. And in neither case is the attraction itself sinful. God made the human body and declared it to be “good.”  All parts included. Yet those attractions in either direction must be controlled and given back to God, however, and regardless of our orientation or inclinations we can even help one another by praying or sharing (not in gruesome detail obviously) some of those struggles with another man who really does understand the pain and guilt of giving in to lust.

Point # 3 and this is probably the biggest one of all—do not be so damnably fearful of us developing a “crush” on you.  And we might.  If you sense this happening, deal with it. How, you ask? What would you do if a woman seemed to expect more from you than you could give her?  You would, hopefully as the mature and kind-hearted Catholic Christian male you are, be very gentle with her, state your position, and clearly not reject her as a person or human even though you reject her advances.  I would contend that, with another male, it is even easier, not harder, to deal with such a situation. And I do not mean by punching the daylights out of him either.  First of all, we already know that the “crush” is a transient thing and cannot go anywhere.  We are acutely aware of this, trust me.  But, unlike the woman who you may have to totally cut off contact with due to your marriage or the like because of possible temptation or scandal, we are not a “threat” to you in those ways so breaking off the friendship is seldom warranted.  If we like you “too much” it is a simply a sign that you are meeting a legitimate need of intimacy in our lives. Be flattered but firm.  And do not push us away (unless we persist inappropriately of course).  I have had a handful situations in my life, even since my return to the Church, where I “tested the waters” at a weak moment and discovered nothing was ever going to occur with someone. In the cases I refer to here, the other persons involved in each case gave me genuine understanding, and the friendship remained strong—perhaps even stronger—as a result of the gentle compassion shown to me at that time. And no one lost. The built-in fear of rejection which most SSA males have towards other men, particularly those of the heterosexual variety, can be overwhelming and even crippling to some of us.  Please do not reinforce it.

So like us—love us—and do not ignore us even if you have had to give us the painful truth that we need to ease off a tad for whatever reason. But remain available. It will mean the world to us if you do. To some of you such an idea is so repugnant that you would much rather “leave it to the experts.”  I am here to say today that you, the straight male Catholic Christian, are the expert.  You are the example of manhood many of us have never known and mistakenly at times sexualized as a result.  To push us away at such a time is to bring us back to the playground in 4^th grade when we were called “fem” or “sissy,” or rejected from the team over and over. Some of you in fact were the very ones who did those kinds of things to us in the first place. So accept a healthy dose of Catholic guilt and let now be a great time for reparation therefore.  Am I suggesting not discussing it or clearly setting your limits when necessary?  Not at all. I am saying, just as with anyone you love, after the spanking (metaphorically speaking that is!) should come the hug. And be there to “hug” us so that we do not feel betrayed all over again. Many of us easily do.

Lastly all men with SSA do not have “crushes” on all men who are straight, so do not bother flattering yourself with that fear anyway.  Do you like every woman you meet?  Come to think of it, do not answer that question, except to your confessor! I know how some of you straight men are after all. Most likely not though.  And it is the same with us. You are probably not our “type” anyway so relax.  We are not all after all of you!!!

How do you begin then?  First of all knock off the “gay” or “faggot” jokes.  Most of them are not funny anyway, and you may be telling them in front of someone who has a secret you never dreamed of and hurting that person immensely.  You may be even preventing that person from ever saying to you that this indeed is their issue.  Do not do that to people Christ died for.  Second, be shocked at nothing during this new adventure. I have occasionally told a friend or even posted on my FB page that I thought a certain man was very attractive. This has scandalized a few at times and they have told me so.   My answer to them is always the same—“when I chose celibacy, I did not become blind.”  So try getting over the fact that I find hot men pretty.  I do. Appreciating the human form is not the sin here, whichever gender. The sin is in allowing it to lead you to lustful behavior. Let me be free enough with you that I can actually express even the less comfortable parts of myself with you without you freaking out on me.  Again, not in detail and not to dwell on, but since you are after all the card-carrying “macho man” you can handle it. Right? I thought so.

Well I am asking for a whole lot and I know it. But I do not ask primarily for me. I am asking for my good, strong, dear, and precious brothers in Christ who are dealing with SSA as a daily cross or struggle.  And most of the principles (if not the specifics) delineated here would likely apply to straight woman/lesbian friendships as well. We do not need you to “fix” us.  We are working on that already or should be.  But you are, by virtue of your manhood in Christ our Lord, actually part of the fix.  And we do very much wish you to include us in your lives and to let us return the favor. After all, that is what genuine friendship entails, whether “disinterested” or otherwise.

Related articles

• Life after Lesbianism (catholicsistas.com)
• Christopher West, SSA and Heroes (and Brandon Vogt too!) (catholicboyrichard.wordpress.com)
• As a Christian, how should I respond to someone’s homosexuality? (Part 2) (samesexattractions.wordpress.com)
• CELIBATE BUT NOT CHASTE??? CHASTE BUT NOT CELIBATE??? A Quick Catholic “Snapshot” of SSA Theology (catholicboyrichard.wordpress.com)
• same. sex. attraction. (banei.wordpress.com)
• Gay and LDS (utahpeople.wordpress.com)
• Too Few For The Church? (staystrongsojourner.wordpress.com)
• Can Homosexuals Change Their Orientation? (str.typepad.com)
• New Study Analyzes Homosexuality in LDS Church (utahpeople.wordpress.com)

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)

CELIBATE BUT NOT CHASTE??? CHASTE BUT NOT CELIBATE??? A Quick Catholic “Snapshot” of SSA Theology

 

Image via Wikipedia

After the recent articles I wrote regarding SSA (same-sex attraction) and my support of and subsequent opportunity to meet Rick Santorum, I received many kind comments, along with just two who were somewhat less than supportive. Although I already answered them briefly in the comments section of that posting, a few of the points or challenges made by one of the commentators (Tom Veers) caused me to do some thinking about the possible reasons behind his virulent opposition.

He even strongly suggested that I was not following official Catholic teaching in my views on the issues of chastity and celibacy, and his arguments sounded vaguely familiar to me so I decided to do a bit more delving into the topic, both for my own benefit and for that of the readers.  And thus this post. I would like at this point to note that the Santorum posts each received more “hits” than any on this blog so far.  So I know that the topic is of very real interest and concern to many of you, just as it is to me. For your convenience I will include links to both articles following today’s writing.

What I would like to first do is to share Mr. Veer’s initial comment, along with any relevant portions of my own response, and then add his second comment and again mine back to him. After that I will add some points I later reflected upon which I believe may have influenced his thinking and his reasons for believing that I am “radical” in my views on this topic.  I would place the disclaimer here that I cannot speak for him, but I base my thoughts strictly upon what he has already publicly shared on this blog. I would also add that this in no way is to question his Catholic Christian Faith or walk with our Lord, but rather to point out where we apparently differ and why.

First his comments:

1.                         Tom Veers said:

February 7, 2012 at 8:20 AM

As a conservative, chaste, Catholic who is also homosexual (I find the same-sex attracted talk to be pointless. We do not call heterosexuals “opposite-gender attracted”. As my orthodox confessor says “One can compare it to being right-handed, but that analogy fails after a point, because sexuality affects the entirety of our being.”) I cannot fathom how you support Rick Santorum. He IS a homophobe. Plain and simple. The push for gay marriage is not like the 9/11 attacks. His take on couples who are in a romantic relationship and comparing them to his love of his grandmother is demeaning. Yes, it is disordered attraction, but there is something significantly different about it than compared to the love of an elderly family member.

It is fine to stand with the Church. I proudly do it. She is my mother, even though it is hard sometimes. That being said, she calls on us to stand against homophobia. Having read some of your blog posts I honestly think you are not comfortable with your sexuality and trying to compensate for it by supporting extremist Catholic positions against homosexuality/gay marriage that ARE NOT in line with Church teaching.

You do no service to those of us who want to live a normal life within the confines of the Church with the self-hating rhetoric.

Second my initial response:

1. Reply

• catholicboyrichard said:

February 7, 2012 at 5:11 PM

I thank you Tom Veers and also ProginMN for your sharing and thoughts, and since both posts are similar I would like to tackle them together if I may. I know that the term “SSA” does carry some negative political connotations to it, which is why some object to it. Ironically so does LGBT, which is why others object to it. We could argue about this side point endlessly but I think I would just prefer to summarize your accusations, which is what they are, that I take some unusual and “extreme” position on homosexuality and same-gender marriage, as utter nonsense.

The clear teaching of the Catechism and every single Vatican document or writing of the USCCB would bear out that I am taking the official Roman Catholic Church stance on this issue–no more and no less. As to my discomfort with my own sexuality, I must smile a bit because I have indeed struggled very hard and wrestled with the Church position every bit as much as you or any of us from our backgrounds do, and have found that this kind of wrestling causes a person to face themselves pretty squarely in many ways–some of which are indeed uncomfortable. Change always is. Ironically a few weeks back I was somewhat attacked for being too “accepting” of my sexuality, and it too was in regards to this very same posting! Strange how different people can read the same article and come to vastly different opinions.

I would just ask you both to remember that words on a page do not always clearly show the nuances one has, and we all have them, within our understandings of what Catholic teaching really is. But extreme I am not. I have always clearly stated that I support basic rights of actively LGBT couples, but that it does not need to be done in a way that promotes or redefines marriage. I have further said that I am not particularly a fan of “ex-gay” or reparative therapy and have shared some of that in my posts as well. I accept myself as a person who has SSA, but I do not allow my sexuality to define who I am as a person. I think your confessor is mistaken if that is indeed what he is saying.

I am a child of the living God, and a Catholic Christian. If that makes me an “extremist” so be it. You might re-read some of my posts and note that I have done precious little compensating or attempting to cover some hidden self-hatred you both think I carry. Possibly you are projecting some of your own discomfort on to me? I do not know that and would not presume to say. And I would ask for that same respect from both of you.

Anyway that is not, at heart, the issue. My hang-ups or yours mean precious little in the grand scheme of things on this teaching or any other Church “hot button issues” here. What the issue does boil down to is, what does the Church actually teach, and can I believe and fully accept it? If not, I need to find another place of worship. If I call myself a Catholic Christian I need to accept Magisterial authority. I would suggest you might ask yourselves some of those very difficult questions if you have not done so already. If you are a Catholic, and I pray you stay within the Church if so, I would challenge you to follow the Church fully.

Finally I would never pretend or mislead you or any other person from a homosexual background into thinking that the goal of celibacy or chastity is some cake-walk. It isn’t. But living outside of your own understanding of God’s moral code is far harder in the long run, and much more stressful. Again I appreciate where you both are coming from, but for now we will need to agree to see this issue differently. Peace.

• Reply
  • Tom Veers said:

February 7, 2012 at 11:22 PM

I accept everything the Church teaches to be true. My confessor is not saying that we should define ourselves by our sexuality, but that sexuality, straight or gay, does affect the entirety of our being. Bl. John Paul II says this in Theology of the Body. We should not define ourselves as gay or straight, but to say that it is the same as another trait such as being right-handed or having blue eyes is naïve. We are by our very nature sexual creatures. You don’t seem to acknowledge this or the fact that homosexuals who do accept the Magisterium of the Church are often discriminated against by so-called “orthodox” Catholics, unless they take positions that are utterly at odds with the Church’s call for compassion.

Back to my other point though, which you never answered. How can you support Rick Santorum, a man who thinks that supporting gay rights is equivalent to the 9/11 attacks and has compared homosexual relationships to wanting to marry your grandmother, a proposition that is demeaning. If he was any other candidate that opposed the ridiculous idea that two men could marry I would have no problem. The man has indicated, however, by his public statements on this matter that he is a bigot.

• catholicboyrichard said:

February 7, 2012 at 11:40 PM

Tom I would just suggest you do as I did, having had similar concerns about Santorum in the past. Dig into what he actually did say, and the context of it. You will find he did not make the statements you suggest, at least not in the ways you suggest he did. I find him to be surprisingly (and pleasantly so) compassionate and not the monster that Dan Savage and some other LGBT activists have made him out to be. I get your concerns, I truly do. I would just say to do some further research before assuming the worst about him. And if you choose not to support him that is fine obviously but at least do a bit more homework on it before slandering him needlessly.

As to this right or left hand thing, I do not know where you are coming from. I never suggested sexuality was a simple matter of such a thing. Of course it is a very in-depth part of our lives and of who we are as people. I never once hinted otherwise. And I have even written about the fact that the Church has a long ways to go in the compassion department. One thing that I find very hurtful is people who “admire” me and my story, and then subtly reject my offer of platonic friendship with them. And it has happened to me more than once. If you really have studied my words on this topic you would find I have written on this very thing, on this very blog in fact. And I agree with you that it is painful indeed. But I am not going to reject Church teaching on gay marriage or compromise my beliefs even if some within the Church do so by their unloving attitudes. That is on them, not me.

And believe me, I know it is easier said than done to follow our Lord Jesus Christ and His Church, and I am the first to acknowledge I do so far from perfectly. But you in fact seem very intent on rejecting me as well, as some radical person who does not understand Church teaching and I do not believe that to be the case. If so, please tell me what particular official Church teaching I am incorrect on so that I can correct it. I will gladly do so.

Image via Wikipedia

I received no further comments from Mr. Veers, but since a few of his challenges or questions are also common ones from the Catholic actively LGBT community (and yes there is one), I thought it would pay to deal with them and hopefully benefit us all in the process.

First, if you noted the title of this post, I very deliberately pointed out the contrast between two words that many Christians, both Catholic and Protestant, tend to equate with each another—celibacy and chastity.  While the core concepts are certainly related, they are not identical. I bring this up because, from Mr. Veer’s responses, I found myself later wondering if he perhaps believed that a person with SSA could be “chaste but not celibate?”  I bring this up because it was a very real question I myself wrestled with awhile back, and I think it is a very valid question. If you notice in his initial comment, he calls himself “a conservative, chaste, Catholic who is also homosexual.” He uses the word chastity but not mention celibacy, nor does he once do so in either of his interactions with me, even when I bring it up. He does however further state that “It is fine to stand with the Church. I proudly do it. She is my mother, even though it is hard sometimes. That being said, she calls on us to stand against homophobia.”  And later in that same paragraph, he suggests that I am “supporting extremist Catholic positions against homosexuality/gay marriage that ARE NOT in line with Church teaching.”

What I find telling here is not what he says, but what he does not say. I have had many contacts with Catholics or those who consider themselves such but who are also open to the idea of monogamous same-gender sexual relationships. All of them would consider themselves in line with Church teaching, as well as “chaste.”  For that reason I find myself wondering out loud if that is what Mr. Veers may be doing here. He also seems far more concerned with Santorum’s (and the Church’s) opposition to legalizing gay marriage than he is about her defining chastity. Again this is not an accusation but simply an observation, and a “teaching moment” if you will on the official Catholic definitions of those words.

First “chastity”—the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), which is by the way a binding Magisterial document which was thoroughly reviewed by the bishops of the entire world before ever being signed off as official by Blessed John Paul II, defines it this way:

2337 Chastity means the successful integration of sexuality within the person and thus the inner unity of man in his bodily and spiritual being. Sexuality, in which man’s belonging to the bodily and biological world is expressed, becomes personal and truly human when it is integrated into the relationship of one person to another, in the complete and lifelong mutual gift of a man and a woman.

2348 All the baptized are called to chastity. The Christian has “put on Christ,”¹³⁵ the model for all chastity. All Christ’s faithful are called to lead a chaste life in keeping with their particular states of life. At the moment of his Baptism, the Christian is pledged to lead his affective life in chastity.

Image via Wikipedia

A dictionary definition of this word is as follows:

chastity (ˈtʃæstɪtɪ)
— n
1.	the state of being chaste; purity
2.	abstention from sexual intercourse; virginity or celibacy: a   vow of chastity
[C13: from Old French chasteté, from Latin castitās,   from castus chaste ]

Collins English Dictionary – Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition
2009 © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins
Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009
Cite This Source

It may be worth noting that one could actually read this definition and believe that “chastity” is not being violated in a same-sex relationship, particularly if one considers that relationship to be a “marriage,” and by choosing to use only definition # 1 from the dictionary as cited.  I know because I at one mercifully short period of time read it exactly that way, and as a result attempted to compromise my own overall understanding of Catholic teaching on the topic of SSA. Could a person or persons in a same-gender relationship be aiming for chastity?  It could possibly be so, if the above definition was the only thing the Church officially stated on the topic.  But herein lies the problem with reading things out of context, and further with “proof-texting” either the Catechism or the Bible. Just a few paragraphs later the CCC defines, just in case there is any question left, what “chastity” means to a person with homosexual inclinations:

 Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,¹⁴¹ tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”¹⁴² They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

Clearly from these three paragraphs, those of us from SSA backgrounds as well as those who are not are both called to celibacy unless sacramentally married within the Church. However celibacy alone is not the ultimate goal—chastity is.

And while Mr. Veers is absolutely correct that the Church is to stand against homophobia, she also tells us how to do so in CCC# 2358 above.  And supporting same-sex marriage legislation is not one of those ways—in fact we are expressly forbidden to do so in numerous Vatican and USCCB documents. Again for convenience I will list links to those immediately following this post. So here is where he “veers” off course in saying that what he considers to be “extremist Catholic positions against homosexuality/gay marriage” are somehow against Church teaching.  One and one still equals two, and either the Church is correct or incorrect on this official teaching. There is not a third option available.  And if she is wrong here, she may be wrong in many other places also. I contend that she is correct. We therefore either both believe and attempt to follow the very important teachings given by our beloved Church on gay marriage, or we do not.  And yet, as Mr. Veers rightly tells us, we also attempt to stand against homophobia as well.  It however is not an “either/or” but rather a “both /and” proposition.

A remark about the word “homophobia” is in order here. I have heard some Catholics and other Christians snidely say “I am not homophobic—I am not scared of gays and lesbians.”  Might I ask you to think that through a bit before you make such a statement? This term, while drastically overused at times, is not in its purest form something to be dismissed so easily. If you are busy being “disgusted” by LGBT people, angry at “them” for not conforming to your standards, and will not associate with “people like that” then you are, yes, homophobic. A phobia is a fear—and if you find the need to treat a group of people, whoever they are, in a different manner or to keep them at arm’s length, is that not a fear of sorts?  And in most cases it is groundless. We who are from that background are not any more likely to molest your children than the married gym teachers at their private Catholic or public schools. We also may not conform perfectly to your idea of masculine or feminine, even if we are no longer active in the lifestyle.  I for one have yet to learn to change the oil in my car, and I prefer a good jazz concert or symphony to a football game any day.  Those differences are superficial though. They do not make us who we are any more than does our sexual inclination towards the same or opposite genders.  So do not tell me you like my writings, but neglect to invite me to your home for a good meal.  And when I do, let your child sit on my lap for God’s sake—literally. They will be safe.   Maybe too you can teach me a little about football, and I in turn can take you to a play or concert or cook you a good meal.  Homophobia is subtle but it does exist, and it includes all of the above and much, much more. And the Church—our Church—tells us to let it go; along with a host of other sins we all tend to carry deep within us. For “unjust discrimination” (CCC# 2358) takes many forms and homophobia is surely one of them.

Lastly I found a fascinating link which supposedly lists the “The 8 worst things Rick Santorum has said about gay people.” Since Mr. Veers seems to believe most or all of what is written here, I would like to take just a moment to once again use the word “context.” While I could poke holes in each and every one of these items, I will just choose one or two and share why I do not believe these statements were or are “homophobic.”

Here is a link to the full list:

http://www.breakingcopy.com/rick-santorum-gay

3. Discussing gay marriage: “This is an issue just like 9-11… We didn’t decide we wanted to fight the war on terrorism because we wanted to. It was brought to us. And if not now, when? When the supreme courts in all the other states have succumbed to the Massachusetts version of the law?”

- Speaking to the Allentown Morning Call, February 2004

Veers and others use this statement of the honorable Senator to “prove” he thinks LGBT folks are just as evil as the 9/11 attackers. But read the second sentence, and he was simply comparing the fight for gay “marriage” to 9/11 in one specific sense—neither battle was asked for, and both were foisted upon the nation.  And that, in both cases, now, not later (when it is the law of the entire land) is the time to fight.  He vilifies no LGBT person here.

Here is another one:

7. “Is anyone saying same-sex couples can’t love each other? I love my children. I love my friends, my brother. Heck, I even love my mother-in-law. Should we call these relationships marriage, too?”

- Writing in the Philadelphia Inquirer, May 2008

I do not know about you, but I am in some very serious doubt that Rick Santorum has fantasies about his mother-in-law.  He was making the point that, once marriage for same-gender couples is legalized, other types of “love” relationships could indeed follow. And in fact he is correct. There are already moves to allow polygamy and “man-boy” love to be legalized.  What is next??? That is what he is saying here.  He is not condemning anyone in what apparently was meant as a humorous statement.

As stated I could go through the whole list, but I think the point is clear. We need chastity in all of our lives, whether celibate or not. And for those of us who are single, chastity starts and ends with celibacy. Oh, and in case you are not aware, “heterophobia” exists and is alive and well within the LGBT community.  And both are horribly wrong.

Image via Wikipedia

Related articles

• “Getting It Straight” on Same-Gender Attraction…And Rick Santorum (catholicboyrichard.wordpress.com)
• “Coming Out” To Rick Santorum (catholicboyrichard.wordpress.com)
• Sashers And Social Justice (catholicboyrichard.wordpress.com)
• Bullying, Freedom of Speech and the Church (catholicboyrichard.wordpress.com)
• Tackling the “Big One” – Santorum’s Remarks on Homosexuality and Gay Marriage (catholicboyrichard.wordpress.com)
• Christopher West, SSA and Heroes (and Brandon Vogt too!) (catholicboyrichard.wordpress.com)
• http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html
• http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html
• http://old.usccb.org/doctrine/Ministry.pdf
• Anti-gay remarks haunt Rick Santorum online (ctv.ca)

“Coming Out” To Rick Santorum

I am constantly amazed at the mercy of God, and how He answers prayers in totally unexpected ways. Earlier this week I learned that Rick Santorum, who as many of you know is running for President of the United States, was going to be making a pre-Caucus stop today in Minnesota (MN).  He also made one last week. In both cases, Santorum fan that I am, I was a bit frustrated as they were each on two opposite ends of my fine state, and would have required a 6-8 hour round trip drive, with no guarantee of even shaking his hand once I arrived.

But I have had a message for him that I wished to deliver, and have several times prayed for some way to share it, whether by email, voice mail, or in person.  I wanted him to know that  he was not alone in his support for traditional marriage values, and also that there were some if not many of us from SSA (same-sex attraction) backgrounds who had come to agree with his stands.  Incidentally in the interest of full disclosure, I did not always do so, even after returning to the Church.  I hurt very much for my actively LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) friends and family who simply want to be left alone and to live and love as they choose.  And many within that community feel exactly that, sincerely wondering why the Church is making such a fuss over it. As a result, a message such as Rick brings can at times appear to be harsh and unyielding, and therefore many stop then and there, listening no further to him or others with his views, no matter how kindly they are expressed.  I do get that.

But I also get the fact that the unraveling of marriage, not just in the same-gender realm but also within opposite-gender couples who cohabitate (or, as is the newer trend, continue to maintain their own residences while carrying on with semi-permanent relationships that supply none or at least very little of the full committment and stability marriage is meant to bring) is utterly and progressively destructive to our already fragile society. The looming crisis is larger and more insidious than we realize.

Same-sex “marriage” is, in practical terms, just another step in that redefinition process which has gone on for years now, pretty much since the sexual revolution of the 1960s, and we have now more than an entire generation who has grown up without  fully realizing the import and need for a father and mother within each home.  For these and many other reasons, not the least of which is my commitment to the Lord through the Roman Catholic Church and her core beliefs on the family and marriage, I have come to strongly support the concept of “one man and one woman.” Rather than prejudice enshrined in law as some think, it is meant as a protection for those who choose the narrower path. And Senator Rick and others who promote this view have made it clear that they do not wish to eliminate the basic rights of any couple, married or not.  But they want “pride of place” reserved for traditional marriages. It is not unreasonable in reality.

Back to Rick–I found out yesterday, thanks at least indirectly to my good friend Michael Blissenbach, a young 20-something Catholic warrior from the Twin Cities who blogs at http://bbachsbeat.com/author/mpblissenbach/ and is tirelessly fighting for both marriage and Santorum as well, that an extra stop was going to be made before our Minnesota Caucus this week, and that it would be only 30 minutes from my home. Earlier in the week he had told me about the stop today in Bemidji, MN, and I realized that somehow I was not “in the loop” as I had not heard about it. So, due to this chat with Michael, I had emailed and joined “Team Santorum” and found out via their email about this additional surprise event only yesterday. So again thanks Michael and also to Team Santorum MN!

Thus this morning I was privileged to briefly speak with Senator Santorum, and to shake his hand. I want to word-paint the scene a bit so you will know why it was so much a “God event” in my view.  First of all I woke up late.  The church service he was attending, which was held at Grace Church in Eden Prairie, MN, was to be at 9:30 AM.  My goal was to arrive an hour early and hopefully get a seat at least. Instead I woke up at 8:30 as I had not been feeling good due to some new diabetic meds I am taking. Plus (and this is no doubt the SSA side of me speaking now) my hair looked really, really bad!!!  All of the reasons not to go were looming, and besides I didn’t have a ghost of a chance to actually meet him, right?

Not exactly…and I will just say this next point to us all, me included.  When that many things go wrong or seem to be obstacles, it means one of two things:  you should either “can the plan” or go for it anyway with full trust that the God of the impossible is right there with you.  And the discernment of which to do can be difficult when both sets of voices are looming readily. And they certainly were to my sleep-weary head this morning. In any case I smashed down my hair as best it would smash, put on my best “Santorum looking” sweater, and was out of my apartment in 15 short minutes. That in itself would probably qualify as a miracle of sorts, but that was only the beginning. When I arrived at Grace, with 10 minutes to spare in fact, and no speeding I might add, I found a seat in the 9th row of the middle section of the huge sanctuary, which I am guessing holds 1500 people or close at least. “Not bad,” I thought. “At least I will see him clearly.”  By now I was getting excited. Would I somehow, someway, actually meet the man? He was scheduled to speak early, and then had to fly out quickly to his next stop in Bemidji MN where the Santorum sweater vests are being made proudly in the USA and our lovely state. So I expected him to be quickly escorted out after his talk and then that would be that. Still at least I was there, and getting pumped.

I had an aisle seat, and when he entered from the side he was placed in the front row of the same section I was in. Good sign. When he was done, numerous people got up to leave, going out through the same entrance he came in from, assuming no doubt that it would be the best way to perhaps catch him when he made his final mad dash.

Now I have been to enough large events to know that he was not likely to leave by the same door where he had entered, especially if his time was limited and it was to the extreme. So I hung tight and kept my eyes open.  His entourage seemingly left, but he quietly remained seated. And it was offering time so only the ushers were moving.  After hesitating for at least 1.5 seconds my course was clear. I simply got up, walked those 9 rows to that stage area, and suddenly I was standing, bad hair and all, in front of our humble and heroic Presidential candidate.

Image by Talk Radio News Service via Flickr

What happened next was the most important moment, and the reason I believe I was there today.  I looked at him, he shook my hand (with a vice-grip grasp), and I said “I just want you to know that I am SAME-SEX ATTRACTED (and yes I nearly yelled it, as the music in Grace is not overly quiet even during the Offertory) and that I am living for God through the Church.  I support you all the way.” That was all I said or needed to say. The hand grip never ceased, in fact it may have been a bit tighter, and he simply looked at me intently and softly said “thank you.”  Maybe it was the light or perhaps just the look on his face, but I knew that my words were somehow needed and meant to be said at that exact moment  as a personal encouragement to him. If he was not “tearing up” he seemed very close to it. I pretty much doubt he gets 10 people a week from my background who personally tell him that they are standing squarely on his side. And he definitely hears constantly from those who do not, or who even hate him for it.

But God in His Mercy allowed me to impact, just a little, the good and honorable Senator from Pennsylvania who loves God and all people very obviously.  And I doubt he will remember my bad hair. I doubt too that I will ever forget this Super Bowl Sunday, regardless of who wins, or this coming election either for that matter. And lastly, I plan to stump for him at the MN Caucus this Tuesday.  I hope, if you are reading this and from MN, you will join me, whoever you are supporting. We need to be involved during this crucial time in our history.

Blessed Sunday to you all!

LATE BREAKING ADDED TREAT!!!  HERE IS THE VIDEO IN ITS ENTIRETY FROM THIS MORNING’S SERVICE AT GRACE CHURCH.  THEY DID IT IN THE STYLE OF AN INTERVIEW, AND KEPT IT SUFFICIENTLY NON-PARTISAN SO THAT IT IN NO WAY WOULD VIOLATE ANY CHURCH ENDORSEMENT REGULATIONS OR LAWS.   AT THE END WE ALL PRAYED FOR HIM TOGETHER AS WELL. THE WHOLE VIDEO IS AROUND 8 MINUTES, AND WORTH EACH OF THOSE TO WATCH.  ENJOY!

Related articles:

• Santorum To Tour Sweater Vest Factory (myfoxphoenix.com)
• http://kstp.com/news/stories/S2483418.shtml?cat=1
• http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/dpp/news/Santorum-Tours-Minn-Caucus-Tuesday-feb-5-2012
• http://www.startribune.com/politics/blogs/138740079.html