? Dreher comments 'the men begin their doomed affair in a time and place where homosexuality was viciously suppressed, and so they suffer from social constrictions that make it difficult to master their own fates.' This sounds a bit like agreeing with gay agitprop to me. The 'vicious suppression' of the time and place in question was the generally held view that homosexual activity is a horrific sin and offence against one's masculinity; this view, which is the Christian one, is the true one. Societal disapproval of vice is not a 'social constriction', but an essential prop for society, and rejecting this disapproval does not enable one to 'master one's fate', but is a surrender to enslavement by sin. It is interesting to read the positive reviews of this film (which I have not seen) by Christians. None of these reviews have actually made a case for the film not being pro-homosexual propaganda. I think their positive nature reflects a fear of the perception of Christians as uncultured, and of moral disapproval of homosexuality as something characteristic of lower-class and uneducated people.
John L | 12.29.05 - 9:06 pm | #

I thought it was odd that Dreher relied on Flannery O'Connor for a lot of his editorial. I know why he would like O'Connor, and I know why O'Connor's often difficult stories are so powerful (she was writing about a "Christ-haunted" world, from a Catholic perspective), but I don't know why her insights would apply to this movie or story. I thought the story was pretty bad, actually -- on a level with some of the worse fanfiction I've read over the years. Pretty vulgar, and not great writing. And while there were surprising elements to it (like specifically saying that both men had poor or abusive relationships with their fathers and were apparently in search of replacement affection), what there was not was any sense that Proulx thought this was simply misguided lust, or inappropriately-oriented searches for real love. She clearly thought the men's often-violent sexual relationship had merit in itself. I'm pretty positive she wasn't trying to send any disguised Christian messages there.

In any event. The movie may be well-made and well-acted, but so was Million Dollar Baby. Good art can't be taken completely apart from its content if that content is seriously objectionable.
Kimberly | Homepage | 12.29.05 - 9:25 pm | #

Agitprop and great art are not mutually exclusive. I greatly admire the films of Eisenstein although he spent his life glorifying one of the most evil systems ever devised by fallen man. Not having seen the film in question, and having absolutely no desire to do so because of its subject matter, I will not comment on it.
Donald R. McClarey | 12.29.05 - 10:41 pm | #

Donald,

I was just going to mention Battleship Potemkin and Alexander Nevsky. But you beat me to it. Good point.

So I suppose I'll just throw in Triumph of the Will.
SecretAgentMan | Homepage | 12.29.05 - 10:50 pm | #

There is surely a difference between discouraging a certain behavior -- homosexuality, say -- and licensing its suppression by violence or other draconian means. I would not want to return to a society in which homosexuals had to fear for their lives if their orientation were to become known, or in which they were otherwise cruelly treated. The men in this film were wrong to have treated their wives and families as they did, but it's inarguable, it seems to me, that a lot of secrets and lies and betrayals took place in those days because homosexuals had no breathing space in society.

Forget hsexuality for a second. Think about divorce. Last month, I sat across from a mainstream Muslim leader in my city who told me flat-out that in his view, Islam supports lynching homosexuals, wife-beating and stoning adulteresses, and that he endorsed these measures strongly as a means of maintaining a strong familial and social order. Now, plainly no Christian could endorse this kind of barbarism, even though we share the ideals of strong families and a strong social order. In fact, a society that went to those barbaric lengths to enforce prohibitions against adultery and homosexuality would be a monstrous society.

Similarly, a society in which men and women struggling with homosexuality -- or even those who don't struggle with it, but who have accepted it -- have to live in cowering fear of physical violence etc. should they be found out is not a society of which I want any part. And I say that as someone who does not support gay marriage. In short, I believe what the Church teaches: that hsexuality is a sinful condition, but that hsexuals are people too. What's wrong with that?

The reason the reviews haven't made the case that it's not pro-gay propaganda is that film reviewers are almost all quite to the left culturally, and are prepared to read into the film their own agenda. I've had a couple of gay readers write in today to say that I obviously missed the film's plain message that we have to have gay marriage. But I've gotten more letters from people who identify as gay saying that I was exactly right to pick up on the ambiguities in the film; one guy said that he hated the movie the first time he saw it because it showed such a dark picture of gay life, but then on second viewing, he had to admit that the things he didn't want to see in those characters were in fact true to the lives of many gay men.

Kimberly: why would Proulx need to spell out her attitude toward the lust of Jack and Ennis? Can't the art speak for itself? Reading the story, I thought it spoke with raw eloquence about the sins of the fathers being visited on the sons.
Rod Dreher | 12.29.05 - 11:36 pm | #

The Catholic Church is a lion in the pulpit (preaching and teaching) and a lamb in the confessional (application to real people). If same sex attraction is often the result of ineffective and abusive fathering, then in the Catholic scheme of things this is an argument for benign pastoral practice (not endorsement of sodomy, but recognition that chastity for those whose sexuality has been damaged not only by the fall like all of us, but also by the sins of our parents, like some of us, will be the fruit of gradual integration of the values proposed by faith and reason).

Tom Haessler
Tom Haessler | 12.30.05 - 12:04 am | #

I saw the movie and liked it. I thought it was slow in some parts, but other parts had me in tears. The best moment in the movie is when Ang Lee merely hints at what happens to Jack, instead of setting it out as a conventional morality play. What's also nice is that it's not all black and white-- the two protaganists are deeply flawed in their own way, and one of the saddest parts is how the wives and children suffered for years. Whatever one thinks about the morality of homosexual activity, I think we can all agree that unjust discrimination is wrong. I think this is the key lesson from the movie, but is is subtle and delicatly handled (I echo other reviewers in this regard).
Tony A | 12.30.05 - 12:10 am | #

Tom:

You keep talking about "chastity." That is simply the fantasy you use to deal with your conscience. For the options are only two, as JohnL does understand: Either we accept that homosexuals' sexuality is ok. Or that homosexuality is a "horrific sin" that should be suppressed. What was great about this film (and why, as JohnL correctly says, this film is pro-gay "propanganda"--I call it Moral) is that it shows us what your side does do to "suppress" homosexuality: what it has done in the past, and it's evil. JohnL accepts this evil as an "essential prop to society." Don't use "chastity" as an excuse to not make a choice.
arturo fernandez | 12.30.05 - 12:56 am | #

Sorry, arturo, but as the ex-wife of a now openly practicing homosexual, "our side" does not work to "suppress homosexuality;" rather, "our side" labors to help all men and women engage in relationships of integrity and wholeness according to the design and plan of our Creator. Your lack of understanding of the broader-reaching evils attached to homosexual behavior is disappointing. It's like the co-worker who wanted to persuade me that my then-husband had the right -- no, the obligation -- to pursue his own personal gratification (a.k.a. "happiness") with no consideration to honor, honesty, loyalty, virtue, right... certainly while ignoring my right as a wife to be able to trust and rely upon his fulfillment of his marriage promises to love, honor and cherish. Your perspective, too, is terribly, tragically, one-sided; I'd say myopic.
Laura | Homepage | 12.30.05 - 5:33 am | #

Thank you, Arturo, for showing us where the lines are drawn. I can only hope that I am included on Tom's side come judgment day. 'Cause there's no way I want to be anywhere near you or JohnL when the Almighty's relentless and undeniable attention settles on you.
Bubbles | 12.30.05 - 6:02 am | #

Okay, I'll be the philistine. Why on earth would anybody want to see two guys slobbering on each other whether it's art or not? By the way, one of the most artistic flicks ever made was Triumph of the Will. You can buy gay love stories for 99 cents at the video store, if that's your bag. Even my gay friends haven't made a peep about this movie. I think that's rather telling.
dymphna | Homepage | 12.30.05 - 7:43 am | #

"'Cause there's no way I want to be anywhere near you or JohnL when the Almighty's relentless and undeniable attention settles on you."

Err...JohnL is not on arturo's side....

On the matter of this being good art, who knows, maybe it really is. I have no plans of ever seeing it. But the point is, through all the rather sweeping usage of Flannery O'Connor quotes to justify its artistry, the film is still a child of its times, and will go far (intended or not) towards normalizing that great evil it is supposedly ambiguous about.

To quote another commentator..."art shmart".

Truly great art has redemptive value in its meaning, instead of a merely prettified void. That is why nothing in postmodern art can be truly called great by anybody apart from its slavish devotees. This film, judging from what Mr. Dreher himself wrote, has nothing redemptive about it.
JonathanR. | 12.30.05 - 7:54 am | #

I found it interesting that the plot's foundation rests on a non-sexual disordered act: the demand by the rancher in the opening seen that the pair of herders violate federal law each and every day.
Liam | 12.30.05 - 10:09 am | #

I'm still working on my two cents about the film -- or rather, about how it will be received / what it will be perceived to mean in the culture (which is something very different than what the film itself communicates).

My basic idea is that a society of "men without chests" (to use Lewis' expression) is not well-equipped to appreciate this film for what it is.

Anyway, here are my first impressions...
Clayton | Homepage | 12.30.05 - 11:16 am | #

Real Art! Whoopee! Let's all genuflect before "real" art. After all, who are we to argue with serious critics?

Maybe I'll send my ticket and popcorn money instead to abandoned orphans or single, unemployed moms trying to cope with their lives.

The art of sensual proctology doesn't appeal to me.
Ignatius Benedict | 12.30.05 - 11:27 am | #

Rod, what is it for homosexuals to have breathing space in society? It seems to be more than being free of the punishments imposed by the more brutal versions of Islamic law (although it should be said that Muslim societies are often quite tolerant of homosexuality; it is widely practised in Afghanistan, for example, where two warlords actually destroyed part of the city of Kandahar in recent years in a fight over a boyfriend.) You seem to have in mind what is involved in 'coming out'; that is, being able to openly proclaim yourself as homosexually active without fear of social ostracism or negative consequences such as loss of employment. That kind of breathing space is destructive for society, since it is a tacit endorsement of homosexual activity as something that does not make a person any worse than his fellows. I do not think physical violence is an acceptable negative consequence for those who openly proclaim themselves homosexual, but I don't kid myself that this makes me terribly tolerant, because social ostracism can be as bad as such violence. So I think gays should be in the closet. I don't think that this must lead to secrets and lies - not in the form of marrying someone when being homosexual, as in the film; homosexuals can just choose not to do this, and often have in all periods. Nor do I think that keeping quiet about being homosexual is dishonest; it is instead a particular form of something that is essential to decent society, viz. keeping your sexual tastes and sins to yourself. This in turn is a particular form of a more general virtue, that of not flaunting your sins - but rather being ashamed of them - when you do not behave virtuously. Virtually everyone commits sexual sins, including myself. I am very happy to be in the closet about the sins I happen to commit, and I think I would deserve the ostracism and contempt that used to be attached to homosexuality if I publicly announced them and expected people to approve of them. This is connected to what St. Thomas Aquinas calls the virtue of shamedfacedness (see http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3...mma/314401.htm) . Far from being dishonest or hypocritical, staying in the closet is essential for everyone except saints. Societal enforcement of people's being in the closet is essential for the well-being not only for society as a whole but for the people who are kept in the closet, as it provides a brake on their self-destructive activities.
John L | 12.30.05 - 11:36 am | #

John L- I think most gays would be happy to be quiet about their sexuality, but let's be honest, it's society that forced them to come forward to stop the libel. When there are whispers behind your back and the "agit-prop" that homosexuals are some sort of inhuman monsters goes unchallenged, eventually some very earnest, even moralistic homosexual will say in so many words "enough is enough" and "That's not what I am". This is less a flaunting of sin than self-defense.

And to liken homosexuality with another "disordered" condition, say an offbeat heterosexual turn-on, is a disingenuous apples and oranges comparison. The one involves soul destroying contortion to fit in, the other is easily hidden and ignored.
carolyn | 12.30.05 - 12:28 pm | #

John L:

I had honestly admired your honesty. But now I see you making excuses as well. Physical violence is necessary to bring about the society you want. Without it, homosexuals will not get back into the closet. It was necessary to keep them there, and it will take even more of it to get them back in.

JonathanR:

I think that Bubbles knows that John L is not on my side. If I understand, she saw John L's comments for the evil that they are, and wanted to disassociate herself from them by joining Tom's fanstasy world.

Laura:

Yours is a tragic story, and I hope that someday you will understand who really is responsible for such tragic stories.
arturo fernandez | 12.30.05 - 12:58 pm | #

Dymphna wrote:

Why on earth would anybody want to see two guys slobbering on each other whether it's art or not?

Because it's art. Because it's not primarily about "two guys slobbering on each other" any more than any other tragedy about an illicit romance is about [pick some disgusting and reductive way to describe opposite-sex sex].

As you note, if one wants "two guys slobbering on each other," there's plenty of that [and much much MORE] in the right video store. If one is looking for arousal, BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN will disappoint. There is one sex scene that is not especially explicit (my memory tells me less so than 10pm hour TV). There's a couple or three homosexual kisses of varying degrees of passion, a couple of extreme long shots of frolicking-in-the-grass male nudity. No willies. Frankly, you see just as much opposite-sex sex, and about as much of Michelle Williams's boobs as of either man's butt.

As I initially said, by contemporary standards, BROKEBACK is not a very explicit movie. Frankly I'm really getting tired of people dismissing this movie sight-unseen as pornographic and reducing it to [some descriptor for homosexual sex]. It is not porn. And it's not sexy. Period.
Victor Morton | Homepage | 12.30.05 - 1:01 pm | #

By the way, one of the most artistic flicks ever made was Triumph of the Will.

Absolutely. Your point?
Victor Morton | Homepage | 12.30.05 - 1:03 pm | #

Well, arturo makes it official: Chastity is a fantasy. Don't think you won't hear that quoted at you.
Victor Morton | Homepage | 12.30.05 - 1:08 pm | #

Victor:

No. It's a fantasy to believe that chastity alone, without society's threats (as shown by John L), will do much.
arturo fernandez | 12.30.05 - 1:24 pm | #

In a world of real tragedies, this serious art film will soon be gathering dust on the back shelves of Blockbuster along with all the other so-called serious works of art that comprise the school of cinematography.

To discuss this excuse for fatuous excessiveness is to waste human life and God's time.
Ignatius Benedict | 12.30.05 - 1:25 pm | #

Tom:

I'm sorry if I seem harsh sometimes. I've seen your comments on other topics, such as capital punishment and immigration, and they are inspiring. It's just sad that you are so wrong on this.
arturo fernandez | 12.30.05 - 2:19 pm | #

If by "society's threats," you mean fag-bashing, well, no Christian supports that.

But if you mean the society not normalizing, mainstreaming, equalizing, subsidizing, and propagandizing for homosexuality -- then of course that's still possible. And you're probably right that chastity (like all the virtues, BTW) needs social support and/or can be undermined by a society hostile to it. "Society's threats" -- we'll imprison you for hate speech for quoting the Bible -- one might call them.

In fact, why do you think any Catholic would dispute that chastity (like all the virtues) needs social support.
Victor Morton | Homepage | 12.30.05 - 2:30 pm | #

Iggy B.: To discuss this excuse for fatuous excessiveness is to waste human life and God's time.

You've seen it? You know this ... how?

Anyway, if that's how you feel, then how about clamming up?
Rod Dreher | 12.30.05 - 2:51 pm | #

Apparently, Lee's next project is a sequel to 'Hulk', in which the Hulk comes out of the closet.

And GLAAD has warmly endorsed 'Brokeback'.

Is it just possiple that Lee is a director with a mission?
Gerry O' Neil | 12.30.05 - 4:04 pm | #

Then again, the 'gay' Hulk steiry just might be a spoof...
Gerry O' Neil | 12.30.05 - 4:18 pm | #

er... story.
Gerry O' Neil | 12.30.05 - 4:19 pm | #

"Possible"? Anything is possible. "Supportable from the content of BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN"? Absolutely not.

Yeah, GLAAD said what it said. Phooey on them (and this is the least of their sins).

But let me ask anyone who cares to answer. Why do you take it for granted that GLAAD is *right* when it endorses this film? Do you think them a generally reliable source? Do you think they have some charism for film criticism? Don't you think *they* have an agenda to push, one that often involves shading or hiding the truth?

And absent a link, I think I'll presume that this "gay HULK" story sounds more like some David Letterman or Jay Leno joke (or some of the fantasies of gay comic-book geeks) than real news.
Victor Morton | Homepage | 12.30.05 - 4:29 pm | #

So now there seems to be an effort to say that while it may still be objectionable it's still "ART". I personally think it's a bit wrong to say that it is ART in any traditional sense which is principally oriented towards Beauty.

Now, of course Beauty is "in the eye of the beholder" so those who find "Beauty" in the film might consider it "art", but it seems wrong to hold that "It's morally offensive, but it's still Art".
Chris-2-4 | 12.30.05 - 4:49 pm | #

For the record:

Sorry, JohnL...it was really early.

Arturo, there are only two choices: accept what I say as absolute and incontrovertible truth or, you're a goose-stepping, jackbooted facist who reads Mother Jones on the toilet and believes every word.

Finally, "Bubbles" was a nickname I picked up about nine years ago. For the record, I'm a guy.

Bubbles, The Terrible
I am awesome in my bath.
Bubbles | 12.30.05 - 4:57 pm | #

"It's morally offensive, but it's still Art" is something that all grown-ups know to be, in principle, possible. TRIUMPH OF THE WILL and Eisenstein are cited above. Among the Silent-era Shills for Stalin, though, I prefer Dovzhenko and Dziga-Vertov to Eisenstein (and Leni's OLYMPIA to TRIUMPH), precisely on the grounds that I think those first-named examples require less commitment to The Cause.
Victor Morton | Homepage | 12.30.05 - 4:59 pm | #

The 'gay Hulk' story is most certainly a spoof; it originates from 'Dateline Hollywood'.

I was laughing as I read the story, which looks like something out of the British satirical magazine 'Private Eye'. So I was just a 'wee' bit suspicious of its veracity.

However, in my ignorance, I didn't realise that this kind of satire flourishes in America.
And I wanted to pull the trigger too hastily as it were - so that damn well serves me right!



Nevertheless, many homosexual outfits (so far as I can see - and bear in mind that important proviso!) are highly enthusiastic about the movie. The consensus there seems to be that the film validates homosexual relationships; they have no trouble locating an agenda. And that's fair enough. Lot's of movies have agendas.

But maybe it's a case of homosexual interest groups engaging in a conspiracy to present a line to a gullible public unable to appreciate the merits of considerable works of art.
Gerry O' Neil | 12.30.05 - 5:22 pm | #

I wouldn't say the gay pressure groups are engaging in a "conspiracy" ... it's more like a collective will to believe, based on their shared worldview. As I've said, the film is definitely consumable as gay-lifestyle validation by someone determined to consume it as such.

You have no reason to know this (and less reason to care, to be honest), but I could point you to some important gay (and radical-left) film critics who see BROKEBACK as an insufficiently radical middlebrow sellout.
Victor Morton | Homepage | 12.30.05 - 5:38 pm | #

Hello, Arturo,

There are more than two options. I reject the view that only those who believe that homosexual genital activity is natural and normal can show respect and love for homosexual persons (even those choosing to engage in sexual activity). I also reject John L.s view that homosexual persons should be encouraged to "stay in the closet". I also reject the view that such people should be encouraged to "come out." All these one dimensional approaches involve the reductionism that identifies people with their temptations. Society stopped doing this with alcoholics some time ago. The Catholic Church does not think of people as homosexual or heterosexual, but as male and female.

John L's mistake is to imagine that because homosexuals were encouraged in the past to stay in the closet that they engaged less often in self-destructive behavior. Alcoholism, drug abuse, prosmicuity - all these features were part of "gay" life in the forties and fifties.

Divorce and remarriage (without an annulment) is also targeted in Catholic teaching as adultery, a serious sin which has extremely negative consequences for children. But very few Catholic thinkers advocate public shaming of divorcees. The notion that under today's conditions it would be even remotely possible to "put gays back in the closet" is utopian thinking of the more facile variety.

The challenge today is to walk the narrow path of fidelity to classical Christian morality which includes self-sacrificial love for all without exception. This love judges objective morality and leaves the judgment of persons to God.

I also reject the bad theology in some of the subtext here. Homosexual activity is not wrong because it's icky, but because it doesn't integrate the values of intimacy, love, and procreation. Even in heterosexual sexual encounter one man's "ick" is another man's "turn on."

Finally, it is impossible to acknowledge the suffering of women like Laura without at the same time endorsing her hope and prayer that her husband would keep his promises.
Tom Haessler | 12.30.05 - 9:30 pm | #

Whoa.
Disobeying a {ooooohhhh} FEDERAL LAW is morally disordered?

Wrong, I suppose...but that seems like ... overstating it a bit.
Mike E. | Homepage | 12.31.05 - 1:52 am | #

Tom--

Wise words.
Tony A | 12.31.05 - 2:03 am | #

Mike

Uhhh, the CHurch binds us under the pain of sin to abide by just civil laws. The Catholic Church has traditionally supported the state in that regard, and is far from libertarian. But sometimes folks at St. Blog's forget that.

In any event, the story makes clear that, but for the stress created by the illicit command of the employer, what transpired likely would not have transpired. Not all serpents are sexual in the first instance.
Liam | 12.31.05 - 11:07 am | #

"Yours is a tragic story, and I hope that someday you will understand who really is responsible for such tragic stories."

Wow...that broke my BS meter....
JonathanR. | 12.31.05 - 11:26 am | #

Liam,
I understand that we should obey just laws, and I'm hardly a libertarian. I just find "morally disorderd" to be a little over the top. A just law could be morally neutral - and breaking it seems...well, less than morally disordered, but agreed: wrong.

Is your point that "stress" incurred from the lawbreaking is what induced the buggery?

If so, wow... that broke my BS meter.
Mike E. | Homepage | 12.31.05 - 12:09 pm | #

Mike

Sin is morally disordered, no?

The story's point -- laid out persistently, layer upon layer -- is that the stress caused by the unlawful situation had consequences. Call that BS if you will, but that's part of the story.
Liam | 12.31.05 - 12:16 pm | #

"For the record: sorry JohnL...it was early."

JonathanR:

I now see that you were right and I was wrong. Bubbles had indeed mistakenly thought that John L was on my side. I was wrong to think that HE wanted to dissasociate HIMself from John L's evil ideas, but instead joins his side (which, interestingly, HE does not see it conflicting with Tom's side: "I can only hope I am included in Tom's side when judgement comes").

Tom:

Thank you for the response. I will respond after the New Year weekend.

Happy New Year everyone!
arturo fernandez | 12.31.05 - 1:03 pm | #

sorry not to have replied for a while, I was away. The example of shaming divorcees is a good one; I think it would be a good idea (if possible since there are probably too many divorcees around to make this posible). Up to about 50 years ago being divorced was thought of as shameful, and could be a grave disadvantage in one's career. The result was that there were many fewer divorces, and on the whole people were much better off as a result; including many people who were deterred from getting divorced. It is interesting that the proposal of social disapproval and ostracism shold be thought of as evil - even by people who agree that the behaviour that is proposed for disapproval is a bad one. Society depends on such disapproval to function - legal punishments for harmful behaviour cannot on their own suffice to get people to behave acceptably; and eveyone commenting here has at some time exercised such disapproval, I am sure. On what grounds can one say that openly displayed homosexual behaviour should be exempt from public disapproval, if one thinks that such behaviour is seriously evil?
John L | 12.31.05 - 3:08 pm | #

John L

The problem is that the remedy is like buckshot: it often misses its rightful targets and hits unintended ones. Shame employed that way is utilitarian, and thus hardly Christian as such (though when utilitarianism is employed by Christian cultures, its nature can be disguised). It's reductivist, and at odds with careful application of Catholic moral assessments based on the particulars of a given situation. It's a hamfisted remedy that, if it ever functioned with some greater amount of accuracy, only did so in the small, relatively confined communities where people all knew each other well -- a social world that is all but gone with the wind. (And, mind you, I am far from a fan of letting one's "inner child" run amock, as it were; shame and guilt have their place, but can only really be employed well discreetly, rather than with a broad-brush.)

I certainly do not want to return to a world where shame was employed against abused spouses (and it WAS, repeatedly; divorce was such a stigma that the abused spouse was often assumed to be doing something wrong to deserve the treatment).

The lying and deceit that invariably comes with the closet -- all the worse with the encouragement of erstwhile Christians like some at St. Blog's (now there's something that could perhaps merit a tad bit of blushing, if not shame, nez pas?) -- is not consistent with the Christian world, for that matter. Not all moral evils are sexual. It beggars belief to read those who advocate it. How sad.
Liam | 12.31.05 - 3:35 pm | #

An interesting exercise for those of you who advocate the closet:

You have one child. At some point (could be pre-teen, could be teen years, could be in college or beyond), that child realizes that he/she has fairly exclusively homosexual attractions. (For bonus points, imagine the scenarios with both a son and a daughter; see how your reaction shifts.)

You're in midlife. At what point would you want that child to come to you to talk about this? Not at all? If ever, how? After the child has told others? Or before? (The irony of this situation is that the most anti-homosexual parents usually find themselves the last to know, if ever.)

Now you're in early seniorhood. What do you want for your child now entering midlife? Suppose your child married and you later found out this was a desparate but failed effort to normalize? Would you be horrified or approve or simply confused? If your child remained (so far as you were aware) single, and you never met or discussed your child's romantic life -- let's say for 20 years now -- how would you feel about that? Wouldn't that be strange?How would you deal with all that whispering and talking you know is going on around the family, the 'hood, work et cet.

Time marches on.

You are elderly now. Your child in midlife still is mysterious to you. Would you be OK with that? Or not? How?
Liam | 12.31.05 - 3:48 pm | #

The notion that it would be appropriate to reintroduce shaming for divorcees neglects to consider that sometimes civil divorce is an option that is morally obligatory. If the only way that a wife can protect herself or her children from an abusive spouse and father is by civil divorce it becomes obligatory. Also, this unjust and uncharitable procedure imagines that there are never innocent parties in a divorce proceeding (much like the presupposition of the "no fault divorce" line of radical feminists which likes to imagine that there are no guilty parties).

This line of thinking is also romantic. It assumes that we still live in "Christendom", and also does not recognize that there were many things wrong with civil legislation during the period of Christendom. It is important for our spiritual lives to agitate for changes (like lessening the number of abortions through more restrictive legislation), but fidelity is more important than success.

The option for Christians is to refuse to succomb to the reductionism that is shared by those who imagine that progress means "shaming gays and divorcees" and those who insist that same sex attraction is an issue of identity. As always, it is the Catholic center that beckons.
Tom Haessler | 12.31.05 - 5:39 pm | #

Hello, Liam,

As one who advocates neither the closet, nor full disclosure, I find your exercise to be excellent for raising consciousness about family. I don't see sharing information about one's homosexual inclinations with one's parents as "coming out". As in life generally, self-disclosure admits of degrees and prudence determines appropriate venues.

If an adult child today is extremely reluctant to confide in parents about their struggles with sexuality, for me this would mean an element of disfunctionality in the family. Only those Catholic parents who simultaneously model intelligent attachment to Catholic teaching on human sexuality AND kindness and sympathetic understanding of homosexual persons ("practicing" or not) will deserve their children's confidence.
Tom Haessler | 12.31.05 - 5:52 pm | #

You say that drugs, alcoholism, promiscuity were features of "gay" life in the forties and fifties, like it is today. The point is to identify "gay" with what is bad. But those are not the only features of gay life. There are others that
are more appropriately "gay": a less agressive/violent nature, a greater appreciation for art, more dedication to keeping a beautiful home. I'm now in my thirties. In all my years I have met very few homosexuals who are alcoholics...drinkers, sure; but alcoholics, very few. On the other hand, most homosexual men I know (more so than heterosexual men) are readers, theatre-goers, home decorators (some professionally).

So "gay" is a very good thing, actually. If we want to talk about homosexuality the way you do, as being defined strickly by same-sex attraction, we'd have to ask ourselves why it is that homosexuals are also gay? Why do the two things
seem to want to go together? My answer is that same-sex attraction assures the distinctiveness of the homosexual/gay person, and that assures the good that they contribute to this world. Without the homosexual attraction the gay identity would disappears and only the more unpleasant "male" features would survive, not only in the gay person but in the male generally. And that would be tragic for
humanity.

You say that as humans we need to make "objective moral judgements." But you're doing that by looking at selective features of reality, not by taking account of everything even you know. You oppose John L's utopian closet-fantasy because of
the harm it causes. You than ignore this fact to reject gay identity; the harm is now intrinsic to the identity. Imagine heterosexuals losing the support and guidance of religion--it would not look pretty. So to the extent that the negative features you mention have been harmful to gay people, we should blame your Church for abandoning them, not "gay identity". I criticize your Church because I have great admiration for it. If I didn't, I wouldn't care.

Let me further expose John L. In shaming divorcees he writes "I think it's a good idea...if possible..." Did he ever say "I think the closet is a good idea...if possible"? Nope. He wants homosexuals back in the closet--no ifs...I already explained what that would require.

Finally, I agree that Laura's husband should not have ended their marriage. When I've come across this situation with people I've known, I've advised to not end
the marriage. Sometimes we have to make sacrifices to avoid pain in others.
arturo fernandez | 01.02.06 - 8:12 pm | #

Tom:

That last comment was in response to you.

Thank you.
arturo fernandez | 01.02.06 - 8:18 pm | #

"You than ignore this fact to reject gay identity; the harm is now intrinsic to the identity. Imagine heterosexuals losing the support and guidance of religion--it would not look pretty."

That is a rahter weak argument. Ever see a guy finally break away from being Communist? Very pretty.

Or ar you arguing that gay identity is religion? Considering how the gay mafia polices its own, that would seem more plausible, in a Scientology kind of way.

"In shaming divorcees he writes "I think it's a good idea...if possible..." Did he ever say "I think the closet is a good idea...if possible"? Nope. He wants homosexuals back in the closet--no ifs...I already explained what that would require."

He wants a stigma for wrong-doing and a return to an age of self-restraint...that is in itself a good thing. Or are you arguing that a homosexual has no other recourse than to be trapped in that identity, with no option other than to live as an out and out practicing homosexual? If that is the case, then you do more to de-humanize the homosexual person with your determinism than Fred Phelps ever could with his crude bigotry.

Oh, and if you are arguing against all stigma...would you argue against the registry of sex offenders that allows people to know if they have a pervert in the neighborhood?
JonathanR. | 01.03.06 - 1:33 am | #

Hello, arturo,

Thanks for your thoughtful comments.

Well, it's true that many homosexual persons have an interest in reading and the arts, these are characteristics of many heterosexual persons as well. I've seen QUEER EYE FOR THE STRAIGHT GUY a couple of times and was offended by the suggestion that single heterosexual men leave their dirty underwear on the floor when their girl friends are coming over or that they're clueless about good wine or even how to shave. I've also known working class homosexual men who'd rather hang out in bars watching football than decorating or reading.

Isn't it true that the ONE thing that ALL homosexual persons have in common is attraction to their own gender? Were the Nazi dudes in the SA "less aggressive or less violent"?

When I speak of "gay identity", I'm talking about a tendency among SOME homosexual persons to evaluate everything in life in relation to their sexual interests - almost as a quasi religion - a point of view on everything in life (politics, art, morality, religion, etc.). But in reality some "gays" are conservative, some liberal, some Communists, some Nazis, some apolitical. Some are very devout, others are atheistic or agnostic. In other words - just people. People want to be appreciated for their individuality, their uniqueness, not just their identification with a group. I have a friend who's a black conservative. He'd be very upset if I linked his wonderful character traits up with his "blackness".

Again, I completely repudiate John L's position. I think the opportunity of homosexual persons to discuss their options in life with a wide variety of people is a societal gain. Believe it or not, there's a book out there that in the context of slamming Vatican II for innovation has a whole chapter complaining about John Paul II's and Cardinal Ratzinger's "softness on homosexuality" (Brazilian reactionary "Catholic" author). What the author DOES understand is that there's much more sensitivity in the pastoral area today than in the past and that this is in continuity with the same judgment about the objective morality of homosexual acts. If a Christian community is warm and welcoming to all without adjusting doctrine to temptations, homosexual persons will find a much more affirming community than the "gay" scene.
Tom Haessler | 01.03.06 - 11:59 am | #

JohathanR:

Not a religion. But the work of God. The purpose, as I explained, is to mitigate what is most unpleasant in the male.

It is tempting to go along with Tom. If wrong, it at least sounds huname. But at the moment we cannot go along, because his side is inflitrated by people like John L and you, who, to rescue the homosexual "trapped" in his homosexuality, you would go along with confessed bigots such as Fred Phelps, because that, according to you, would be not as bad.
arturo fernandez | 01.04.06 - 2:07 pm | #