tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post1734726498301233770..comments2024-03-15T09:07:15.798-07:00Comments on NICK'S CATHOLIC BLOG: Can someone be Catholic AND Gay?Nickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comBlogger28125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-67700459615425973032014-04-04T13:26:09.848-07:002014-04-04T13:26:09.848-07:00I have some gay friends who say they are happier p...I have some gay friends who say they are happier practicing abstinence, as opposed to being sexually active.<br /><br />In the Bible it says, "With God, all things are possible", so it ought to be possible for gays to find spiritual happiness and fulfillment in an abstinent lifestyle.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-16246151452822437052013-07-19T16:13:40.413-07:002013-07-19T16:13:40.413-07:00Excellent response. I'm not only impressed--I...Excellent response. I'm not only impressed--I'm convinced. Thank you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-22959184390990968292013-03-29T06:04:55.623-07:002013-03-29T06:04:55.623-07:00This is just disgusting. Jesus's core message ...This is just disgusting. Jesus's core message was spread love and instead you're upholding idiotic messages about "procreation" and the likes. Gay, transexual, transgender,polysexual and asexual people are all equal to heterosexuals in God's eye and we're all allowed to do what we please when it comes to marriage,love and sex. Get out of your narrow minded boxes and accept people for who they are. "Carrying the cross of Chastity just because you're gay is just a foolish thing to do. If you love someone , be with them as long as you're not harming anyone, its as simple as that! I'm proud to be Catholic and Gay and I hope one day I am able to have a family with my partner. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-3003556979807303002012-12-31T11:54:16.727-08:002012-12-31T11:54:16.727-08:00A Sinner said...
Yes, gay does mean homosexual.
...<b>A Sinner said...<br />Yes, gay does mean homosexual. </b><br /><br />Agreed.<br /><br /><b>But homosexual is not a description of activity when applied to a person,</b><br /><br />Yes, it is. A person who actively lives the gay lifestyle is correctly labeled a homosexual.<br /><br /><b> anymore than heterosexual. <br /><br />Priests are still heterosexual, I assume.</b><br /><br />"I assume" is the key word. Homosexuality is the abherration. Heterosexuality the norm. Therefore, we correctly assume that cops, teachers, and anyone else, would practice heterosexual behavior unless proven otherwise.<br /><br />The assumption is even stronger for priests than for any other class of people. Since they practice a religion which considers homosexual activity to be sinful. Therefore, although they are not practicing heterosexuals, we assume, given a change in situations, everything else remaining the same, they would do so.<br /><br />Sincerely,<br /><br />De Maria<br /><br /> <br />De Mariahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00997195004868253348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-71574031349358268002012-12-31T05:40:22.495-08:002012-12-31T05:40:22.495-08:00Yes, gay does mean homosexual. But homosexual is n...Yes, gay does mean homosexual. But homosexual is not a description of activity when applied to a person, anymore than heterosexual. Priests are still heterosexual, I assume.A Sinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05083094677310915678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-86443794653363146292012-12-30T21:39:51.448-08:002012-12-30T21:39:51.448-08:00cont'd
They want a world where society tries...cont'd<br /><br /><b> They want a world where society tries to "bracket" fragmentation. But it doesn't work that way anymore.</b><br /><br />You want a world without consequences for your actions. You want a world where you can say what you please and do what you please.<br /><br /> <b>Depends what you mean. Identification as gay or homosexual is a rather subjective thing. ....However, when we're talking about Sexual Orientation, we're talking about a well-established construction that is real in our time and place, and attempts to deny it just sound, to anyone outside the world accessed by your strange shibboleths, like profound self-delusion.</b><br /><br />It is you who are profoundly self deluded. The fact is that same sex attraction does not make one homosexual. That is a fact. From that paragraph, it is plain to see that the one who wants to "bracket fragmentation": is you. You want to fragment the world in your little brackets, "he's gay", "he's bi", he's this and he's that." But your little concept of the world is not the real world. <br /><br /><b>"Homosexual" is not the same type of designation as "murderer" however. Homosexual is a description of sexual orientation. A word like "sodomite" or something may imply that person has engaged in acts of a certain type, but most people (whether or not they have in fact done so) do not identify that way, and "Gay" certainly is not like that.</b><br /><br />Yes, it is. Everyone has a choice. That choice being to unite themselves to God and do the righteous thing. Or to reject God and do what they prefer to do. <br /><br /><b>Simply no one uses the term that way, and why conservatives seem obsessed with playing these language-obfuscation games is fascinating.</b><br /><br />It is you who are using language obfuscation. The term "gay" means homosexual. Look it up. <br /><br /><b>Once again, you seem to have a bizarre misunderstanding of the Seal of the Confessional and what it does or does not imply. But it's actually a rather revealing misunderstanding for me, as it helps explain the fundamentalist world-view in terms of compartmentalization and the desire to "keep up appearances" in society.</b><br /><br />What you call "keeping up appearances", I call "maintaining decorum", "having dignity" and "having respect for yourself and others". Concepts which are apparently lost upon you.<br /><br />Sincerely,<br />De MariaDe Mariahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00997195004868253348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-9643599590526817732012-12-30T21:39:07.455-08:002012-12-30T21:39:07.455-08:00 A Sinner said...
Deal with it.
I don't ha...<b> A Sinner said...<br /> Deal with it. </b><br /><br />I don't have to deal with it, you do.<br /><br /><b>I don't appreciate the linguistic games that undermine my own self-identification.</b><br /><br />You are the one playing linguistic games. You can self identify anyway you want. But the world has a definition for "gay" and that definition is incompatible with Catholicism. If you want to consider yourself gay, then be prepared to deal with all the baggage that comes with it.<br /><br /> <b>As for the seal of the confessional...what you're saying makes no sense at all. </b><br /><br />It makes complete sense if you open your mind to understanding. By publicly proclaiming yourself a "gay Catholic", you are simply drawing attention to yourself in a pathetic attempt to gain some kind of pity response from those whom you expect to say, "O look at the heavy cross he has to bear." But the opposite has happened. In so doing you have caused confusion and scandal with all your family and friends. Because they all understand that the gay lifestyle is incompatible with Catholicism<br /><br /><b>The Seal binds the priest not to reveal anything. The penitent can share whatever he wants, not that I've ever confessed to "Being Gay."</b><br /><br />That's exactly what you have done in proclaiming yourself a gay Catholic. You have misled the entire world into believing that you are Gay, homosexual, a fag. We live in a real world with real consequences. There is nothing altruistic and fine about being a Gay Catholic. It is simply a contradiction in terms that leads people to the wrong conclusions. It confuses some and brings scandal to others. Your labeling yourself such is a lack of prudence. <br /><br /><b>Once again, the anti-disclosure side just seems to basically want to continue pretending like gays don't exist.</b><br /><br />Gays exist. They practice homosexuality. People struggling with same sex attraction are not gay. Those who publicly label themselves as such are seeking some sort of gain which is against the Teaching of Jesus Christ. Same sex attraction is not a sin. But dwelling upon it can become a sin. And the more you dwell upon it the more likelihood that you will surrender to it. <br /><br />cont'dDe Mariahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00997195004868253348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-75510575987794463552012-12-30T21:32:39.543-08:002012-12-30T21:32:39.543-08:00Nick: once again, I wouldn't claim to be bliss...Nick: once again, I wouldn't claim to be blissfully chaste, but I do think one could still be meaningfully gay even if one had achieved perfect celibacy in their heart, just like other contented celibates are still meaningfully heterosexual. Some priests are presumably straight, but this does not mean they are constantly struggling with a temptation to break their vows as if to identify as straight is to make a claim about sexual activity or the desire for it contrary to their state in life.<br /><br />Again also, your moral paradigm of "legitimate," "normal," "opposed," etc...is something that, in general, I find very strange, and I suppose that's a broader question than just this issue. I think it's bizarre you think having a beer with gay friends is "scandal" however, which makes me wonder just how you conceive of our relationship to the "ought" individually and socially, how it is to be engaged or appropriated.<br /><br />In truth, I wonder how you understand sexual orientation in general. You seem to speak as if being gay or homosexual means nothing more or less than an inclination or desire for a certain type of sex act (it might be asked: which exactly?) I'd argue that this is an artificial and simplistically "teleological" understanding of how emotions work, and actually winds up betraying a belief in the same sort of essentialism you allegedly oppose among gays. I'd also think that heterosexuality is not treated with at all the same logic (ala what I pointed out about priests, etc)<br /><br />As for qualification, as I've said, I refuse such a demand. A gay who is abstinent IS the same as a gay who is not, at least as far as gayness goes. I see no need to disidentify with one or the other, as if its legitimate to treat either differently.<br />A Sinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05083094677310915678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-59079278906810693872012-12-30T21:13:12.729-08:002012-12-30T21:13:12.729-08:00De Maria:
You are insisting on a definition of &q...De Maria:<br /><br />You are insisting on a definition of "gay" that simply goes beyond what most people understand by the term, including most self-identified gays!<br /><br />Though, the language of "practicing" is rather silly too, as if homosexuality is a religion or profession or something like that.A Sinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05083094677310915678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-3950046464134512152012-12-30T21:05:14.202-08:002012-12-30T21:05:14.202-08:00Mark,
Your long posts about there being a double...Mark, <br /><br />Your long posts about there being a double standard are important in so far as they (rightly) affirm there are double standards. But double standards neither affirm aberration nor excuse the Truth. On the level of moral theology, it doesn't matter if every single Catholic is a murderer, murder is still objectively wrong. Yes, it would be a sickening double standard to be all for unjust war while hammering abortion, but that doesn't somehow legitimize abortion at the end of the day. <br /><br />And one problem with they way you've been denying any qualifications when you identify as Gay is that you automatically cut away the very qualifications that are needed to make or break your claims. If one is Gay without qualification, then it's equivalent to saying a Gay engaging in sodomy is the same as a chaste Gay. And this is why I bring up the sin of Scandal involved, because to the rest of the world saying one is proud to be Gay comes off as saying the actions naturally associated with that identification are acceptable. Words are important, titles are important, and if one is not careful they can lead others into dangerous errors. Paul makes it very clear he will avoid doing anything that can cause a weak brother in Christ to stumble (1 Cor 8). Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-45900331707426120582012-12-30T21:01:44.676-08:002012-12-30T21:01:44.676-08:00A Sinner said...
I don't think I revealed that...<b> A Sinner said...<br />I don't think I revealed that I'm "a Catholic who is tempted with same sex attractions." I revealed that I'm Gay.</b><br /><br />You said,<br />Quote:<i>Suffice it to say, I think "persons struggling with same-sex attraction" who try to deny that they are gay, who for example answer "No" when asked "Are you gay?" by someone not privy to their linguistic obfuscation games...are simply guilty of lying.</i><br /><br />That is wrong. A person who is struggling with same-sex attraction is not gay simply because you say so. A gay person is a practicing homosexual. <br /><br />The temptation to sin does not make one a sinner.<br /><br />Sincerely,<br /><br />De MariaDe Mariahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00997195004868253348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-51990338927208102922012-12-30T20:46:02.265-08:002012-12-30T20:46:02.265-08:00Aric,
I think we're close to a breakthrough ...Aric, <br /><br />I think we're close to a breakthrough here given your latest responses. <br /><br />You said: "Just as my sexual attraction to women can be redeemed through the pursuit of a sexual life via marriage, so homosexual attraction can be redeemed through the pursuit of a chaste life." <br /><br />I agree with this as it demonstrates that there is no legitimate avenue to sexually act upon the homosexual attraction. This implicitly affirms the attraction is intrinsically disordered. But such ways of speaking are anathema to the Gay community at large. <br /><br />You said: "It is pride in the fact that if I was indeed a pedophile, I was a pedophile who was being redeemed, a pedophile whom God had chosen to bring out of darkness and into light." <br /><br />Again, I agree, and this just affirms that the "pride" cannot be taken in the positivist sense of "this is OK and normal since God made me this way". The pride you speak of here is rather more of a humility, that God gave the homosexual a unique Cross to bear that most could never understand.<br /><br />You said: "after confessing this is who they are, they were accepted into the community of believers not as horrendous aberrations, but rather works in progress"<br /><br />It is true that nobody should look down upon another believer. I'm just saying that this requires - as you seem to admit - that we cannot take pride in having disordered sexual attractions. So if everyone is struggling with their own *admittedly* disordered attractions that we should not take pride in, then there vanishes the whole Gay Pride ideology along with they other disorders. <br /><br />You asked about where the Gay Community manifests itself. My response is that it manifests itself in various ways, but all under the same movement to normalize the aberrant sexual acts of sodomy. This agenda can be pushed and promoted in various ways, from being in a high post in a news outlet to an important legislative role to simply a grass roots campaign to sharing a beer with Gay friends acting as if everything is normal and thus causing Scandal. This movement will network formally and informally to squash any attempts at rational opposition, which is why there's such a strong push to get verbal and written opposition listed as a hate crimes on the books. And even those who identify as blissfully chaste Gay would likely back such legislation, which in turn would naturally make the Church and Catholicism an enemy of the State.<br /><br />You concluded with saying: "I suppose the main issue here is that you think one identifying as "gay" automatically makes one think that having gay sex is a morally passable act." <br /><br />What I'm saying is that there is an unhealthy standing-contradiction, a dualism, that is involved with the blissfully chaste Gay position. On one hand they affirm the act is gravely sinful and yet the urge to perform the act is perfectly normal. The irony is that Catholicism and Gays as a whole are united in seeing that position as unstable. This is precisely why any such notion of chaste living within the Gay community does not exist. Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-18179003064437389522012-12-30T18:31:59.920-08:002012-12-30T18:31:59.920-08:00I don't think I revealed that I'm "a ...I don't think I revealed that I'm "a Catholic who is tempted with same sex attractions." I revealed that I'm Gay. Deal with it. I don't appreciate the linguistic games that undermine my own self-identification.<br /><br />As for the seal of the confessional...what you're saying makes no sense at all. The Seal binds the priest not to reveal anything. The penitent can share whatever he wants, not that I've ever confessed to "Being Gay."<br /><br />Once again, the anti-disclosure side just seems to basically want to continue pretending like gays don't exist. They want a world where society tries to "bracket" fragmentation. But it doesn't work that way anymore.<br /><br />"First, this idea that having same sex temptations makes someone homosexual. You're wrong. It doesn't."<br /><br />Depends what you mean. Identification as gay or homosexual is a rather subjective thing. As you say, having "same sex temptations" may not in itself constitute one a homosexual. One may be bisexual. Or it may be that someone essentially heterosexual very rarely feels random attractions that are foreign to their own self-understanding or narrative, but with an infrequency that makes it unnecessary to integrate them into that narrative as anything other than a fluke. Or someone might be what we would construct as homosexual in our culture, but they live(d) in a culture or time wherein that construction was not present. However, when we're talking about Sexual Orientation, we're talking about a well-established construction that is real in our time and place, and attempts to deny it just sound, to anyone outside the world accessed by your strange shibboleths, like profound self-delusion.<br /><br />"How many people have considered killing their boss? If they don't act upon that temptation, they are not murderers."<br /><br />"Homosexual" is not the same type of designation as "murderer" however. Homosexual is a description of sexual orientation. A word like "sodomite" or something may imply that person has engaged in acts of a certain type, but most people (whether or not they have in fact done so) do not identify that way, and "Gay" certainly is not like that.<br /><br />"Second, the idea that having had same sex relations makes one homosexual is also wrong. If one repents from that sinful activity, that person is no longer homosexual."<br /><br />Simply no one uses the term that way, and why conservatives seem obsessed with playing these language-obfuscation games is fascinating.<br /><br />"Nick is right on the money about any person who comes out and publicly proclaims his evil tendencies, temptations or sins. Whatever they may be. That person is simply bringing about confusion and scandal. The reason that the confessional is sealed is precisely to prevent this situation."<br /><br />Once again, you seem to have a bizarre misunderstanding of the Seal of the Confessional and what it does or does not imply.<br /><br />But it's actually a rather revealing misunderstanding for me, as it helps explain the fundamentalist world-view in terms of compartmentalization and the desire to "keep up appearances" in society.A Sinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05083094677310915678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-50182582252766132642012-12-30T18:31:05.441-08:002012-12-30T18:31:05.441-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12517033911853169434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-44813336571420596592012-12-30T17:40:25.175-08:002012-12-30T17:40:25.175-08:00All I can say is, "what in the world was he t...All I can say is, "what in the world was he thinking?"<br /><br />Where's the prudence in revealing to the world that you are a Catholic who is tempted with same sex attractions? Has he ever heard of the confessional? Have you guys on the pro full disclosure side ever heard of the seal of the confessional?<br /><br />There are so many errors being articulated by the contra-Nick side that I have no time to list them all. So, I'll just pick a couple of the major ones.<br /><br />First, this idea that having same sex temptations makes someone homosexual. You're wrong. It doesn't. How many people have considered killing their boss? If they don't act upon that temptation, they are not murderers.<br /><br />Second, the idea that having had same sex relations makes one homosexual is also wrong. If one repents from that sinful activity, that person is no longer homosexual.<br /><br />Although the old adage says, "Kill a dog once, always a dog killer". It isn't true. In the Christian world, there is such a thing as repentance. <br /><br />Third, the idea that one must be homosexual to counsel against homosexuality or to counsel a homosexual to resist their temptations and hold their Christian faith is another error. One doesn't need to be married to counsel a married couple keep their vows. One doesn't need to be black to counsel a black person to keep the Commandments. One doesn't need to be a murderer to counsel a murderer to repent of his sins.<br /><br />Nick is right on the money about any person who comes out and publicly proclaims his evil tendencies, temptations or sins. Whatever they may be. That person is simply bringing about confusion and scandal. The reason that the confessional is sealed is precisely to prevent this situation.<br /><br />Nick is also right in that a person who has certain tendencies to sin should avoid putting himself in the situation where the temptation could be actuated. The Church herself has always taught the avoidance of every temptation to sin.<br /><br />You pro full disclosure contra Nick guys have all kinds of serious errors in your logical paradigm. If you continue thinking along those lines, you will endanger your souls and the souls of those whom you counsel.<br /><br />Sincerely,<br /><br />De MariaDe Mariahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00997195004868253348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-14751329966504875622012-12-30T16:08:52.884-08:002012-12-30T16:08:52.884-08:00This is where I come back to that idea "strug...This is where I come back to that idea "struggling." The difference<br />that seems to be drawn between the person "accepting" sin's presence<br />in their life, and the person "struggling." But what is this<br />struggling, and is it healthy or valid to make a distinction between<br />sinners on this ground?<br /><br />There are two slightly different connotations to "struggling." The<br />first conjures up images of a wrestling match, a valiant battle<br />against a dragon. It is a noble fight or battle. The second<br />connotation conjures up someone flailing helplessly in an undertow, or a shot or trapped animal writhing futiley, or a fat old man fumbling to put on a pair of pants. This second connotation of struggling is one that is pathetic, futile, and often implies that if you "struggle"<br />you'll just make it worse or dig yourself deeper ("if you fall in<br />quicksand, don't struggle!")<br /><br />As just in what does this "trying" consist? The "struggler" and the<br />"accepter" may both recognize sin, have sorrow over it, and may both<br />commit it just as often. But, we're told, the struggler "resists"<br />first, and "resolves" to stop after, even if he's in a cycle. I've already given my deconstruction of "resolve" (it often seems to involve delusional compartmentalization), but just what does it mean to "resist"? It seems to mean that, though you may fail just as much, and your efforts may be futile flailing, you "at least" angst about it, you feel bad, throw up dissonance, worry over it, have associations of guilt or shame.<br /><br />But is that healthy or spiritually better! If someone is having sex,<br />say, once a week either way, and knows it is broken or sinful or<br />unideal either way...I just don't know if the presence or absence of<br />neurosis surrounding the topic is morally relevant; as Robert said on<br />the post on my blog, that seems to be expecting a "double negative"<br />from people or, as i said, a leper to cry "unclean!"<br /><br />If anything, the honesty and humility that come with "accepting" one's human weaknesses until grace sees fit to remove it seems spiritually healthier, and the attempt to integrate ones life and desires as best possible in light of that admission, and I respect many people who take that approach more than many of the "strugglers" who really do seen to be flailing in quicksand psychologically or struggling to get into a pair of spiritual pants which just don't fit.<br /><br />The obfuscation caused by the compartmentalization and denial of the "struggler," which excludes sin from the "design" or overall "plan" on principle, but then leaves its occurrence as a landmine in the plan, a life-plan, that doesn't take it into account for that reason, which has no "space" for it as the plan is drawn up with a presumption of<br />self-righteousness.<br /><br />This is like how conservative states have higher teen pregnancy rates: people aren't having so much less premarital sex, but they're much less prepared (in terms of, say, a condom) when they do "slip up," because they tell themselves, up to that point, that they "intend" to be abstinent, even if that's self-delusion, and so they aren't ready when it happens because to buy a condom "just in case" would be like<br />admitting they were going to sin in the future, which ruins the<br />"struggler's" concept of "resolve." They're not sinning less, but its much more compartmentalized because they deny any place for it in their integration. But is that really good??<br /><br />My point being, basically, that the conservative or fundamentalist<br />approach here is a mess. It's unclear what they even want except to pretend things don't exist, and to only accept sinners if they<br />"bracket" certain features of their life or identity in such a way that "contains" them from disrupting their precisely ordered vision of the ideal world.A Sinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05083094677310915678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-21813764819660205152012-12-30T16:08:40.869-08:002012-12-30T16:08:40.869-08:00As an example, I've heard stories about how at...As an example, I've heard stories about how at some Courage groups (or ex-gay groups) the men who go out, hook-up, feel awful, repent (repeat cycle endlessly), even when they are cheating on wives...are sort of shrugged-off with an "at least you're trying, we're all sinners, at least you're struggling," whereas gays in committed (sexual) relationships are looked at as outside the pale because they're "living in sin" as opposed to just "slipping up" and sinning. The fact that some people in committed relationships may even be willing to admit that it's sinful or has brokenness or is unideal (they're just taking a "pastoral provision" or "tragic accommodation" for themselves) does not seem to matter often. So it's not even mainly a question of distinguishing the "unapologetic" based on incorrect belief. I've written about this double-standard before.<br /><br />I remember a guy I knew in college would hook-up with men all the<br />time, but the thought of a boyfriend was something he expressed indignation at. His hookups were just "falls" he could enjoy and then renounce and swear off (until the next one). A boyfriend would mean "accepting" sin even in between sex acts, then it would be a "lifestyle." Of course, this seemed very hypocritical and compartmentalized. A system based on preferring THAT...has something seriously short-circuited about it.<br /><br />As, just what is the distinction being made between the two groups? It's not their behavior objectively necessarily; both sin,<br />both have sex, perhaps even with the same frequency. It's also not<br />necessarily a question of orthodoxy; someone "living in sin" may well fully admit its not ideal or demonstrates sinfulness. They might even, in this sense be willing to repent (or confess, in their tradition) if it weren't for mistaken ideas about the nature of the "resolve" to stop.<br /><br />But just what is the content of such a resolve? It seems to me that<br />for many people it is, in fact, a compartmentalizing delusion or state of denial. The man who hooks up Friday, repents/confesses Saturday, and goes to church or takes communion Sunday, week after week...in what sense do we understand his "resolve to stop" each week? On the one hand, I can't question his sincerity or say his resolve is false, as I've been there myself with certain sins; truly but entirely unrealistically "resolved." And yet, unrealistic is the key there;<br />every time was my "last time," "no more," "never again." But isn't it<br />delusion or denial to keep believing that after 300 iterations of the cycle?? Yet is this unrealism required for resolve? Can a person realistic about their own weakness not make a valid resolve? Can one not have sorrow over sin while also knowing that, for the time being, realistically speaking, it will continue? Is deluding oneself into a belief that it's over forever required to repent?A Sinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05083094677310915678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-31461354619192107322012-12-30T16:08:07.085-08:002012-12-30T16:08:07.085-08:002) I'm glad for your third-to-last paragraph r...2) I'm glad for your third-to-last paragraph regarding how sexual activity, even that might be considered sinful, is nobody's business. I am much less inclined to give into demands of qualification" of my homosexuality, to demands to assuage conservative worries about my sex life or spiritual state. If they can't accept me as I am, no matter what, I really have no interest in appeasing them. I appreciated this about Mark Shea's approach too. <br /><br />Most Catholics are sinning sexually in one way or another by the Church's standards, but there are huge double standards in terms of distinctions made between them, as well as jumping to conclusions versus giving the benefit of the doubt. The latter is problematic already, as if it's not your job<br />to judge (and it's not), then "benefit of the doubt" is already a<br />pointless concept; if you're not the judge, you have no "benefit" to<br />give, and shouldn't worry even if you know for sure someone is<br />breaking your rules, even unapologetically, even without guilt or shame. <br /><br />The hypocritical distinctions are even worse, however. These distinctions can lead to some bizarre and unhealthy conclusions:<br /><br />Christians can have a sort of double-standard when it comes to sinners that makes them look bigoted. I remember stories in the past few years of that lesbian woman denied communion, or children not let in school<br />because they were raised by a gay couple, etc. The word "scandal" is<br />used to justify discrimination between people, but to the congregation (which is aware that almost everyone is involved in some sort of funny business, especially marital contraception) it looks like winking at some but jumping to conclusions about others (as ALL the behavior is<br />"private" unless they're having sex in the streets!) the only real<br />distinction being homophobia in a manner that looks like attacking<br />people and relationships rather than merely being an abstract moral<br />proposition about certain behavior. The anger which the fundamentalist sort invests in their horrified imaginings regarding the (largely unseen) behavior of Others...belies something else going on sociologically and psychologically that does not seem healthy or<br />Christian at all; why not live and let live? The attempts to "enforce"<br />these "rules" (if only through verbal rather than physical violence) makes one wonder just what is the value they see in that approach. I understand a concern for internal doctrinal purity, I suppose, but the judgmentalism of "lifestyles" is really unchristian. We should embrace people unconditionally. I'm certainly not going give into any "conditions" placed on my identity or sense of being welcomed.A Sinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05083094677310915678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-26140327808059149402012-12-30T15:58:24.758-08:002012-12-30T15:58:24.758-08:00Unbelievable. Yes, I think the ridiculous backlash...Unbelievable. Yes, I think the ridiculous backlash that Mark Shea<br />received was a perfect example of the conservative (or, fine, if you prefer: reactionary) homophobic<br />insanity, and I really gained a lot of admiration for him sticking to his guns.<br /><br />Aric: thank you so much. You've made great responses that really hit all the issue so I don't have to; it gets tiring, I assure you.<br /><br />Just a few minor points I can add:<br /><br />1) I would be wary of reading the construct of "sexual orientation"<br />into the past without heavy qualification. I believe that, like Race, it's basically a social construct. That doesn't mean it isn't real, or that their arent "objective" features around which the category is constructed (though, in this case, they're pretty subjective "objective" features!) In fact, I think the analogy to Race is important for understanding just what embracing how one is socially constructed means, what it implies and what it doesn't. Suffice it to say, I think "persons struggling with same-sex attraction" who try to<br />deny that they are gay, who for example answer "No" when asked "Are<br />you gay?" by someone not privy to their linguistic obfuscation<br />games...are simply guilty of lying.A Sinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05083094677310915678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-40816507473715474572012-12-30T15:34:36.168-08:002012-12-30T15:34:36.168-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12517033911853169434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-67640261918058534342012-12-30T13:12:44.448-08:002012-12-30T13:12:44.448-08:00re: (3) You seem to have this idea that there is t...re: (3) You seem to have this idea that there is this amorphous "homosexual community" that exists and that you become apart of the moment you come out as gay. This is absurd. Where is this community? Who are they? Do they wear badges? Funny hats? Do I become apart of this community as soon as I declare that I have homosexual attractions? I could continue to give you a slew of logical arguments to point out the lunacy of this idea, but I'll just give you a real-life example. I have gay friends who hang out with other gay people and are in no way part of some gay "society". They understand, as Catholic, that homosexual sex acts are disordered. Sure, this makes them a minority. But not a minority in a gay-community, minorities in a <i>global</i> community. Most people don't think sex without the aim of procreation is wrong! Catholics are minorities, not just gay Catholics!<br /><br />re: (4) We're in agreement, of course. But I find it staggering that you would admit to the depravity of heterosexual attraction and yet not realize that homosexual attraction resides within the very same paradigm, namely, that of <i>lust</i>. <br /><br />I suppose the main issue here is that you think one identifying as "gay" automatically makes one think that having gay sex is a morally passable act. Nobody here has said this, and certainly not the blogger you mentioned. Aricnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-39822682420164336592012-12-30T12:58:32.874-08:002012-12-30T12:58:32.874-08:00re: (1) - This seems fair.
re: (2) Look, what you...re: (1) - This seems fair.<br /><br />re: (2) Look, what you've said is just plain wrong here. Identifying as gay doesn't mean anything except that your sexual attractions are disordered - but hey, guess what? I'm straight, and <i>my</i> attractions are disordered! Every time I look at a woman with lust in my eye, I'm committing <i>adultery.</i> That's pretty heavy. But the "disorder" that occurs is not in the specific sexual orientation - it is in the universal weakness of the flesh. Just as my sexual attraction to women can be redeemed through the pursuit of a sexual life via marriage, so homosexual attraction can be redeemed through the pursuit of a chaste life. Both avenues require chastity and sexual control. <br /><br />The idea that one's attraction to the same gender (you should have said "sex" here) is as disordered as something like pedophilia gave me pause. It made me realize that you have either misunderstood me, or I was not clear enough. I tried to be clear in saying that, as a Catholic, the "pride" we develop over our sexual identity is not pride in our disordered lust, but rather pride in the fact that God has chosen that, despite (and indeed, in the face of!) our fleshly desires, he will use use <i>all</i> of us for His good purposes. It is pride in the fact that if I was indeed a pedophile, I was a pedophile who was being redeemed, a pedophile whom God had chosen to bring out of darkness and into light. <br /><br />A pedophile does not take pride in being sexually attracted to children. A homosexual does not take pride in being sexually attracted to the same sex. A heterosexual does not take pride in lusting after the opposite sex. However, all three should be able to take pride (if society allowed it) in the fact that, after confessing this is <i>who they are</i>, they were accepted into the community of believers not as horrendous aberrations, but rather works in progress. When you label a homosexual as "disordered" you automatically ostracize them. If you do not label every heterosexual you meet in the future as equally "disordered", you are being morally inconsistent. <br />Aricnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-48019545590076913512012-12-30T12:06:07.974-08:002012-12-30T12:06:07.974-08:00Hopefully I can clear up a few things here:
(1) ...Hopefully I can clear up a few things here: <br /><br />(1) I am not Conservative. The philosophy of Conservatism is what makes normalization of errors and perversions possible in the first place since 'right' is only a function of 'conserving' a given culture/lifestyle/etc regardless of what it might be. The group that is technically Conservative is the Gay community.<br /><br />(2) Reducing the term Gay to merely that of "attracted to people of the same gender" grossly oversimplifies the issue. In reality, the secular world (correctly) identifies being Gay as endorsing the acts that flow from that attraction, both of which the Catechism says are radically disordered. And what flows from endorsing those acts is an entire lifestyle and world-view. <br /><br />To say one is attracted to those of the same gender is as disordered as someone coming out proudly as Pedophile or Beastial or a Player. By the very same logic, if someone feels they are attracted to children or animals or commitment-free sex, then they should be able to proudly announce it. And the same can be said of many disorders. <br /><br />(3) I am not saying that any Catholic who identifies as Gay is not living chastely. And that's not my business anyway. What I'm saying is that Jesus is not present in the Homosexual community, except maybe on the fringes. And that's because the mainstream understanding of being Gay is that of denying it is a disorder, but rather something to be embraced. And once that point is affirmed, then naturally the acts must be seen as OK, rather than being contrary to Natural Law and Divine Revelation. So even if a Catholic is living chastely, wearing a badge that says one is Gay sends the message to others that being Gay is perfectly fine and normal as long as you don't act on it, and it's plain to see that logically this dualism cannot hold for long. <br /><br />(4) I have made it very clear that the perversions within 'straight culture' paved the way for those in the Gay culture. That's precisely the strength of my post, the very foundation of it in fact. I've connected the dots quite plainly, showing that sex and marriage as it exists presently is so corrupted that there is no principled basis to say homosexual marriage or acts are wrong or disordered. Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-10018523706449276222012-12-30T05:35:27.411-08:002012-12-30T05:35:27.411-08:00I can't believe the denial going on here. Fift...I can't believe the denial going on here. Fifty years ago, this kind of talk would have been rejected as pure bs, and the person making them would have been laughed out of the room in utter disgrace. But thanks to certain people, like a certain West Coast blogger, we're being told that 'gays'(?) are saintly. Huh? Haven't these foolish people ever read or understood what the Scriptures and holy tradition has said about their kind of 'saintliness'? Sorry guys, if you self-identify as gay, you're proclaiming to the world you're a sex pervert. That word is old English slang for any type of sexually immoral behavior. So, there's no way you can be gay and Catholic at the same time.Steve Daltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07365458906085087105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-21224710652542177402012-12-30T03:43:43.303-08:002012-12-30T03:43:43.303-08:00(2 of 2)
Think of how many of the Saints may have ...(2 of 2)<br />Think of how many of the Saints may have been homosexual! We simply do not know - but what we <i>do</i> know is that one's sexual orientation plays into a great multitude of decisions we make in our lives that have <i>nothing to do with</i> our sexual "acts." Realize, the blogger you have enjoyed these three years would <i>not have written what he did</i> if it were not for his sexual-orientation. Who knows? Perhaps we would have never heard of one Francis of Assisi if it were not for his queer sexual-orientation (or perhaps he was heterosexual?, no matter) - the point is that pride in one's sexual-orientation, as a Catholic, is pride in one's uniqueness, pride in one's unique calling from God, not pride in the biological fact that they get horny around the same sex... <br /><br /><br /><br />I could say as much about pride in one's gender, sex, skin color, nose-shape etc. We are fearfully and wonderfully made. <br /><br />The "trial" that the Catechism speaks of (re: homosexuals) is no more a trial than heterosexuals have. Imagine, Nick, if you took God's indictment to "flee from temptation" to its logical conclusion: You could have NO contact with women to whom you were attracted! No, to its <i>ultimate</i> conclusion, you would be required to sacrifice your own flesh - you would be required to castrate yourself as the ultimate token of your "fleeing" from temptation. How absurd a notion is this! So too is it absurd to conjecture that a homosexual must not live in the presence of other homosexuals, or live in close proximity with them - as if this constitutes some kind of "culture" any different than our own. <br /><br />If you speak of a gay culture, then you must, if you are to be consistent, speak of a "straight culture" - and I fancy our "straight" culture is much worse off at this moment in history. <br /><br />It is true: we should flee from temptation. But to assume that YOU know another man's threshold of temptation? To assume that you understand what constitutes an unhealthy environment for him, simply because he has made public his sexual orientation? Not only is that insulting, but it is painfully presumptuous! <br /><br />Finally, this blogger you mention is no more required to tell you whether or not he is in a sexually active relationship than you are required to tell the world whether or not you have sex with your girlfriend outside of wedlock, or masturbate to porn every week! Imagine if I were to pry into your blog and ask you, "Hey, you're hetero, right? So - do you have sex? Ever contracepted?" God! Can you imagine how annoying that would be? Let us have the few close friends and spiritual fathers and mothers to hold us accountable... not some random strangers on a blog. <br /><br />I take the time to write all of this because I believe there is a serious lack of understanding in a large portion of the conservative-Christian group - a group to which I would affiliate with doctrinally, but not quite socially. I believe in the family as a unit in which God works out our salvation, and society as a larger extension of that. Thus, I certainly uphold a lot of the same "family-values" that many conservatives have ... but there is such misunderstanding and pain that has been caused by a kind of ignorant stigmatism from with the conservative community harbors against homosexuals that I can barely stand it. <br /><br />Nick, I appreciate your blog and your heart for truth. Please understand that this is a rebuttal in loving frustration.Aricnoreply@blogger.com