Couldn't have said it better myself.
This seems to be about American culture, where, as the New York Times pointed out lately, men have a problem with going to a restaurant for a dinner date together in case they are perceived as gay. I have never observed this phenomenon in Japan, Ireland, France or Britain, the countries where I spend most of my time. I think in the past people were far more touchy about homosexual connotations -- which carried great social penalties -- and there was a grimly imposed code of reserved macho behavior. If anything, Britain today is going through an extraordinary phase of demonstrative affection between males (not to speak of females!). Soccer has provided a liberating model here. French men still kiss one another on the cheeks in public, with no fear of their gesture implying homosexuality (and in any case homophobia has markedly retreated in France, along with racism and antisemitism).
Even if the problem has grown rather than diminished in America, to blame gays for it is rather silly. It is mostly the old homophobia that makes people so nervous.
This seems to be about American culture, where, as the New York Times pointed out lately, men have a problem with going to a restaurant for a dinner date together in case they are perceived as gay. I have never observed this phenomenon in Japan, Ireland, France or Britain, the countries where I spend most of my time. I think in the past people were far more touchy about homosexual connotations -- which carried great social penalties -- and there was a grimly imposed code of reserved macho behavior. If anything, Britain today is going through an extraordinary phase of demonstrative affection between males (not to speak of females!). Soccer has provided a liberating model here. French men still kiss one another on the cheeks in public, with no fear of their gesture implying homosexuality (and in any case homophobia has markedly retreated in France, along with racism and antisemitism).
Even if the problem has grown rather than diminished in America, to blame gays for it is rather silly. It is mostly the old homophobia that makes people so nervous.
This essay is pure balderdash, Philip.
Homophobic gibes were the staple of the schoolyard in the 1950s long before the sexual revolution.
To say that Lincoln's friendships saved him from turning gay is to show complete ignorance of the psychology of sexual orientation -- unless he means that they saved him from acting out sexually, or that they saved him from recognizing his homosexuality.
Adults do not become gay merely from having or not having male friends. In fact I am not sure if the phrase "become gay" has any meaning. I presume that the donnees of one's sexual orientation are given in early infancy.
Anyway, the article shows that Americans are now crippled by a phobia of possible sexual implications of even the most harmless gestures of friendship. Touch a woman and you may be sued for sexual harassment, a child and you are suspected of pedophilia, a man and you are dubbed gay. Could it not be that a litigious political correctness is responsible for this grim state of affairs?
To repeat, places which have become gay-friendly, such as metropolitan Britain or France, have also become more free in the tender demonstration of friendship. No one gives a heck if it is interpreted as gay.
But if one is trapped in a dismal homophobic backwater, it is not only your gay brothers and sisters who will be repressed -- every form of warmth will be repressed. The Irish experienced all that, and are slowly recovering from it -- gay liberation having greatly helped.
You know, we don't actually need Fr. Joe to lather us with his panderings. All we need is a We ♥ Sodomy Speech Generator to create a reasonable facsimile of his posts.
"in any case homophobia has markedly retreated in France, along with racism and antisemitism"
Racism and anti-Semitism must have been extremely horrendous in France, then.
CS Lewis in "The Four Loves" defined the love or friendship as standing together side by side facing something that they both love. It is that common love that draws them close, but friends like this become shy when they look into each other's eyes. This is the sort of friendship that is seen in sports bars with bear and ball games. This is what is safe.
But it is not safe for men to admit to agape, the highest form of love - the love of each other's hearts and souls - and that is a great loss.
...beer...
"Homophobic gibes were the staple of the schoolyard in the 1950s long before the sexual revolution."
I am 56. I do not remember this being the case at all. Because I was well read compared to my peers, I had heard of the Mattachine Society but this was a distant abstraction. I do not remember anyone being called a queer. I do not remember any speculations about anyone's sexual orientation. I don't recall any anxiety about male friendships. We knew that there were sexual perverts but we didn't know any sexual perverts. None of us could imagine how somebody could end up that way.
"Queers" were a common topic of conversation among Irish schoolboys, which of course was very intimidating for the gay ones.
In seminaries there was quite a lot of anxiety about "particular friendships".
The language Charles R Williams uses, "sexual perverts" and "that way" is exactly the language of those schoolboys. Time for him to grow up?
Anyway, this whole debate is silly.
Amor amicitiae and Agape of course exist between men and between any combination of human beings quite independently of sexual attraction.
But usually when a man "falls in love" with another man we can safely surmise some presence of the third kind of love, eros -- as in Shakespeare.
Where was Charles Williams in the 1950's? In Junior High and Senior High schoolyards at that time the terms "queer" and "fairy" were common in abusive or joking discourse. I think "fag" came along in the 1960"s. The shaming and abuse of boys with any kind of affectation of speech or gesture, very cruelly at times, was common before the Gay Revolution.
"Pervert" is the word we used (past tense) for such people and that is the sense in which I used the word in my post.
But I refuse to give up honest words like sodomite, heretic and pervert for intellectually dishonest concoctions like "homophobia".
"Sexual pervert" is honest English. It means someone whose sexual desires are directed towards unnatural objects like corpses, children, animals, and persons of the same sex. It is perjorative because the condition it references is objectively degraded.
What enrages Spirit is that I refuse to throw the obligatory pinch of incense on the altar of the spirit of the age and I refuse to speak in its language or buy its presuppositions.
Thanks for not throwing obligatory pinches of incense, for that would be hypocritical tokenism. Naked displays of bigotry are preferable.
Charles Williams is another of those frothing Catholic parents who would happily denounce their own gay sons and daughters as perverts.
"But usually when a man 'falls in love' with another man we can safely surmise some presence of the third kind of love, eros"
Can we? Or isn't it possible that the language of "falling in love" can be used metaphorically for non-sexual friendships? Certainly any sexual love (eros) between men is disordered and always out-of-bounds as far as God is concerned.
"Charles Williams is another of those frothing Catholic parents who would happily denounce their own gay sons and daughters as perverts."
Mr. Williams, please don't fret about Fr. O'Leary's outbursts. Almost every orthodox Catholic who has posted at this weblog has been the target of the particular fulmination quoted above.
I merely point out the logic of his remarks. If he has a gay child he will call it a pervert. This tragic alienation between parent and child, due to homophobia, has been the subject of grave concern to the US American Bishops who have addressed it in their letter ALways our CHildren.
Eros between men is out of bounds as far as God is concerned?
Perhaps you confuse eros with sexual lust?
The Sistine chapel celebrates Michelangelo's eros towards men with a candor that reminds me of our friend Dreadnought.
This is the chapel in which papal conclaves have been held for centuries.
Maybe God and the Church have a more generous and humane understanding of these things.
If you want to have the mind of the church on these matters, please read the following: http://www.usao.edu/~facshaferi/...olic/
always.htm
To our homosexual brothers and sisters we offer a concluding word. This message has been an outstretched hand to your parents and families inviting them to accept God's grace present in their lives now and to trust in the unfailing mercy of Jesus our Lord. Now we stretch out our hands and invite you to do the same. We are called to become one body, one spirit in Christ. We need one another if we are to "...grow in every way into him who is the head, Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, with the proper functioning of each part, brings about the body s growth and builds itself up in love" (Ephesians, 4:15-16).
Though at times you may feel discouraged, hurt or angry, do not walk away from your families, from the Christian community, from all those who love you. In you God s love is revealed. You are always our children.
To church ministers:
Be available to parents and families who ask for your pastoral help, spiritual guidance and prayer.
Welcome homosexual persons into the faith community. Seek out those on the margins. Avoid stereotyping and condemnations. Strive first to listen. Do not presume that all homosexual persons are sexually active.
Learn about homosexuality and church teaching so that your preaching, teaching, and counseling will be informed and effective.
Use the words "homosexual", "gay", "lesbian" in honest and accurate ways, especially from the pulpit. In various and subtle ways you can give people "permission" to talk about homosexual issues among themselves and let them know that you're also willing to talk with them.
...
Love, too, is the continuing story of every family s life. Love can be shared, nurtured, rejected, and sometimes lost. To follow Christ's way of love is the challenge before every family today. Your family now has an added opportunity to share love and to accept love. Our church communities are likewise called to an exemplary standard of love and justice. Our homosexual sisters and brothers -- indeed, all people -- are summoned into responsible ways of loving.
You think your adolescent child is experiencing a same-sex attraction and/or you observe attitudes and behaviors that you find confusing or upsetting or with which you disagree.
Your son or daughter has made it known that he or she has a homosexual orientation.
You experience a tension between loving your child as God s precious creation and not wanting to endorse any behavior you know the Church teaches is wrong.
...Our message speaks of accepting yourself, your beliefs and values, your questions and all you may be struggling with at the moment; accepting and loving your child as a gift of God; and accepting the full truth of God's revelation about the dignity of the human person and the meaning of human sexuality. ..
..Possibly you are experiencing many different emotions, all in varying degrees, such as:
RELIEF: Perhaps you had sensed for some time that your son or daughter was different in some way. Now he or she has has entrusted something very significant. It may be that other siblings learned of this before you did, and were reluctant to tell you. Regardless, though, a burden has been lifted. Acknowledge the possibility that your child has told you this not to hurt you or create distance, but out of love and trust and with a desire for honesty, intimacy, and closer communication.
ANGER: You may be feeling deceived or manipulated by your son or daughter. You could be angry with your spouse, blaming him or her for "making the child this way" -- especially if there has been a difficult parent-child relationship. ..
MOURNING: You may now feel that your child is not exactly the same individual you once thought you knew. You envision that your son or daughter may never give you grandchildren. These lost expectations as well as the fact that homosexual persons often encounter discrimination and open hostility can cause you great sadness.
FEAR: You may fear for your child s physical safety and general welfare in the face of prejudice against homosexual people. In particular, you may be afraid that others in our community might exclude or treat your child or your family with contempt.
Don't reject your child. A shocking number of homosexual youth end up on the streets because of rejection by their families. This, and other external pressures, can place young people at greater risk of self-destructive behaviors, like substance abuse, and suicide.
Your child may need you and the family now more than ever. He or she is still the same person. This child, who has always been God's gift to you, may now be the cause of another gift: your family becoming more honest, respectful, and supportive. Yes, your love can be tested by this reality, but it can also grow stronger through your struggle to respond lovingly.
The second way to communicate love is to seek appropriate help for your child and for yourself. If your son or daughter is an adolescent, it is possible that he or she may be experimenting with some homose
If your son or daughter is an adolescent, it is possible that he or she may be experimenting with some homosexual behaviors as part of the process of coming to terms with sexual identity. Isolated acts do not make someone homosexual. .. However, it is essential for you to remain open to the possibility that your son or daughter is struggling to understand and accept a basic homosexual orientation.
...Church teaching acknowledges a distinction between a homosexual "tendency" which proves to be "transitory" and "homosexuals who are definitively such because of some kind of innate instinct"
In light of this possibility, therefore, it seems appropriate to understand sexual orientation (heterosexual or homosexual) as a fundamental dimension of one's personality and to recognize its relative stability in a person. A homosexual orientation produces a stronger emotional and sexual attraction toward individuals of the same sex, rather than toward those of the opposite sex. It does not totally rule out interest in, care for and attraction toward members of the opposite sex. Having a homosexual orientation does not necessarily mean a person will engage in homosexual activity.
Generally, homosexual orientation is experienced as a given, not as something freely chosen. By itself, therefore, a homosexual orientation cannot be considered sinful, for morality presumes the freedom to choose.
Some homosexual persons want to be known publicly as gay or lesbian. These terms often express a person's level of self-awareness and self-acceptance within society. Though you might find the terms offensive because of political or social connotations, it is necessary to be sensitive to how your son or daughter is using them. Language should not be a barrier to building trust and honest communication.
..
Sexual identity helps to define the unique persons we are. One component of our sexual identity is sexual orientation. Thus, our total personhood is more encompassing than sexual orientation.
"Everyone...should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #2333).
Like all gifts from God, the power and freedom of sexuality can be channeled toward good or evil.
...The teaching of the Church makes it clear that the fundamental human rights of homosexual persons must be defended and that all of us must strive to eliminate any form of injustice, oppression, or violence against them (cf. The Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, 1986, n.10).
It is not sufficient only to avoid unjust discrimination. Homosexual persons "must be accepted withsion and sensitivity" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #235
. They, as is true of every human being, need to be nourished at many different levels simultaneously.
This includes friendship, which is a way of loving and is essential to healthy human development, as well as one of the richest possible human experiences. Friendship can and does thrive outside of gen
Friendship can and does thrive outside of genital sexual involvement.
The Christian community should offer its homosexual sisters and brothers understanding and pastoral care. More than twenty years ago we bishops stated that "Homosexuals...should have an active role in the Christian community" What does this mean in practice? It means that all homosexual persons have a right to be welcomed into the community, to hear the word of God, and to receive pastoral care. ...Nothing in the Bible or in Catholic teaching can be used to justify prejudicial or discriminatory attitudes and behaviors. We reiterate here what we said in an earlier statement:
We call on all Christians and citizens of good will to confront their own fears about homosexuality and to curb the humor and discrimination that offend homosexual persons. We understand that having a homosexual orientation brings enough anxiety, pain and issues related to self-acceptance without society bringing additional prejudicial treatment (Human Sexuality: A Catholic Perspective for Education and Lifelong Learning, 1991, p.55).
IRISH TIMES ARTICLE
'Back to the Bible' cry no help on gay unions
By Robert MacCarthy
Same-sex relationships, which are perfectly natural but different from marriage, should be recognised by church and State, writes Robert MacCarthy
The world of the New Testament and our own are very different. Has it ever occurred to you how much of the New Testament we do not believe in?
For a start there is healing. People of New Testament times believed all healing came from God without human contribution - for example it is said of Jesus in Luke 5:17 "the power of the Lord was with him to heal", while later in the same Gospel (Luke 14:3) Jesus asks the lawyers and Pharisees if it was lawful to heal on the Sabbath day. Both take it for granted that he should heal, the question was "should it be on the Sabbath?".
These are two instances of many which show us Jesus the healer. And it was not peculiar to Jesus or proof of his divine mission, for in the Acts of the Apostles we are shown healings by the apostles as a matter of course. There is the familiar story in Acts 2 of Peter healing the crippled man, and it is said of him in Acts 5:15 that even his shadow falling on the sick would heal them. If we're not Christian Scientists we don't believe in divine healing as something apart from the work of surgeons and physicians, but the people of New Testament times had no knowledge of modern medicine and believed implicitly in healings such as I have described. And indeed so did the people of Tibet until the Chinese invasion of 1950. Heinrich Harrer in his book Seven Years in Tibet tells of his terror of simple appendicitis since without modern medicine he would have died.
People of the New Testament world thought illness was due to the presence of unclean spirits or possession by the devil (which is much the same thing). The writers of the Book of Common Prayer in the 17th century thought all sickness was the result of sin. We don't share either belief no matter how devoted we think we are to the Bible or to the old Book of Common Prayer.
To take something different such as usury - the placing of money to accumulate interest. In the story of the talents in the gospel it is apparently taken for granted but the whole of the law forbade it. I don't suppose it bothers us in the slightest and many individuals and all churches hold investments on which they hope to gain.
The New Testament takes a different line to ours on slavery - we are the heirs of William Wilberforce who had slavery outlawed in all British dominions in the early 19th century. The New Testament takes its existence for granted. It is clear that Onesimus - whom Paul sends back to his master, Philemon - was a slave. Paul calls him "no longer a slave but more than a slave", but nowhere criticises slavery. In his letter to the Galatians, Paul spells out what is infinitely more important - for those who have put on Christ "there is neither Jew no
nor Greek; neither slave nor free".
Thus it is not sensible for Archbishop Akinola, primate of the (Anglican) Church of Nigeria, to say no church can ignore the preaching of the Bible - it seems the case that all churches, including his, have ignored a lot of the Bible's teaching. All doctrine depends on what is credible in a particular culture.
The present fuss is about the institution of marriage and inter-personal relations generally. It is pointless for Archbishop Akinola to expect the Church of England to adopt Nigerian standards where such things are concerned. Nigerians probably need to consider whether polygamy meets the gospel's standards. In contrast, Europeans are painfully coming to the realisation that same-sex relationships need some sort of recognition by church and state.
This is complicated by marriage itself being in a state of flux - it used to be seen primarily as a good framework for the procreation of children. A third reason was "mutual society, help and comfort". Nowadays, whether the church likes it or not, the advent of efficient birth-control means most people experience sexual relations for the first time in their teens, long before they have any thought of marriage. For the bishops in England to assert that within marriage is the proper place for sexual expression is to refuse to recognise reality.
In fact the wheel has come full circle - the wish to have children is probably the reason most people convert their long-term "arrangements" into marriage - they already enjoy "mutual society, help and comfort". In this context it is probably right that same-sex relationships which are perfectly natural (for some people), though different from marriage, should be recognised by the State and why not by the church as well?
I realise in saying this I can be accused of opting for a conservative view. Canada is much further down the road on this than we are and it was a Canadian clergyman's wife who said to me: There would be no trouble with us oldies if everyone accepted that homosexual partnerships were different to marriage, but young people aren't having any of that - they want "gay marriage".
Time will tell but for Archbishop Akinola to shout "back to the Bible" is no help at all.
The Very Revd Dr Robert MacCarthy is Dean of Saint Patrick's Cathedral. This is a text of a sermon delivered there last Sunday
I attended a wedding in Normandy recently, English groom, French bride. Both spoke their vows movingly, mentioning 'Thomas' who had brought them closer together. On the heels of the wedding, Thomas was baptized. A new package formula! Hope the Vatican doesn't ban it.
"Eros between men is out of bounds as far as God is concerned? Perhaps you confuse eros with sexual lust?"
No, I don't. Do you?
BTW, although I'm really not terribly enthused about yet another homosexuality pseudo-debate, at least it's taking place in the right commentbox for a change. . . .
McCarthy's sermon does sound like the sort of stuff that passes for Christianity these days in the Anglican ecclesial community.
For the bishops in England to assert that within marriage is the proper place for sexual expression is to refuse to recognise reality.
No, it's to capitulate to the collapse of modern morals into the barbarism of hedonic self-indulgence. It's to throw in the towel. Nothing admirable about this "realism." Nothing at all. For this "reality" is nothing more, quite simply, than self-delusion.
Father O'Weary elliptically cited section 2203 of the Catechism in support of the notion that "Everyone...should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity" thus giving the impression that the Church celebrates at once homo and heterosexual orientation. In context one finds the truncated/mangled citation under the heading "MALE AND FEMALE HE CREATED THEM." I'll set the citation in its fuller context so as to demontrate that is was used as a pretext to promulgate lies:
"Everyone, man and woman, should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity. Physical, moral, and spiritual difference and complementarity are oriented toward the goods of marriage and the flourishing of family life. The harmony of the couple and of society depends in part on the way in which the complementarity, needs, and mutual support between the sexes are lived out."
What does the Church teach, Father?
James
The ellipsis was in the American bishops' text! The American Bishops also represent the teaching church (their document was vetted and approved by Rome).
What would it mean to tell a gay man to acknowledge his sexual identity, meaning that as a man his sexuality is oriented to marriage with a woman? The imperative would be self-contradictory -- you would be saying in reality, do NOT acknowledge your identity!
Here is the full context of the Bishops' quote:
Every person has an inherent dignity because he or she is created in God's image. A deep respect for the total person leads the Church to hold and teach that sexuality is a gift of God. Being created a male or a female person is an essential part of the divine plan, for it is their sexuality -- a mysterious blend of spirit and body -- that allows human beings to share in God's own creative love and life. "Everyone...should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #2333).
Like all gifts from God, the power and freedom of sexuality can be channeled toward good or evil. Everyone -- the homosexual and the heterosexual person -- is called to personal maturity and responsibility. With the help of God's grace, everyone is called to practice the virtue of chastity in relationships. Chastity means integrating one's thoughts, feelings, and actions, in the area of human sexuality, in a way that values and respects one's own dignity and that of others.
IRISH TIMES today
GAY RIGHTS, GAY WRONGS
Madam, - Frank Farrell (October 12th) boldly states that "for several millennia it has been the considered conviction of people of vastly greater moral and intellectual weight than will be found among your staff and contributors that homosexual activity is wrong".
Some of the weightiest intellectual and moral figures of the previous centuries justified colonisation through their assertion that Africans, South Americans and Irish did not fully qualify as human. The moral and intellectual consensus within pre-20th century Western society was that women did not fully possess a capacity for reason and thus could not be allowed to vote.
It is a fact that any society creates moral and intellectual boundaries which deem particular forms of thought and behaviour acceptable or not.
This does not mean that all values are relative and exist only within a particular social context. Rather it means that existing ways of understanding our world, such as the belief system of the Catholic Church, must increasingly justify their positions in relation to new forms of knowledge. Thankfully the "fashionable enlightenment" of which Mr Farrell speaks has led to a new moral consensus within our society which rejects the prejudices of those who cannot accommodate homosexuality within their worldview.
A progressive society is not a liberal free-for-all where all opinions are equally valid. It is a society where moral value is conferred according to the insights of reason and knowledge. It is a society where the Word of God is no longer recourse enough to support opinions which cause suffering and shame for some and justify the violence of others. - Yours, etc,
CONN HOLOHAN, Gordon Street, Dublin 4.
And yet the facts remain that homosexuality is instrinsically disordered and homosexual acts are violations of the divine and natural laws, despite everything Fr. O'Leary posts here . . . .
Eppur si muove.
You forgot to mention that the Three Stooges were seen in their movies sharing a bed.
The conspiracy is worse than we thought.
"Eppur si muove."
Yes, that's a reasonable summation of what I said.
Galileo didn't really say it, but I will. . . .
(And in case there's any confusion, I posted the above comment under the name of Matthew Lowell Johnson. I'd just posted a comment under that name at another weblog, and forgot to return to my proper name when I posted here. I'd explain who "Matthew Lowell Johnson" is, but it would take too long to explain. Suffice it to say that he probably needs professional help . . .)
But Jordan Potter, you said twice that you were stopping your discussion of homosexuality. Now it turns out you are writing the same dogmatic declarations on other forums under other names. And your thought on the subject is stuck at square one. You have not looked at the facts, considered the arguements or above all dialogued with the people that your barren dogmatism hurts, wounds, oppresses and kills.
It is a bit like George Bush who repeats day in, day out a dogma about Iraq that no one who has faced the facts any longer believes but that continues to breed injury and death.
Philip himself spoke of Waugh's gay youth but now seems to retract this. Soon he will persuade us that Rimbaud and Verlaine were not gay either. He will attain his ideal world in which gays simply do not exist. I remember Wagner writing about the vocation and consummation of the Jews as consisting in their ceasing to exist.
"...barren dogmatism..."
In your opinion, is there any "dogmatism" that is fruitful? It seems to me you're allergic to "dogmas", "orthodoxy", or any idea whatsoever of propriety, rightfulness, and order.
Dogmatism is never fruitful.
Dogmas can be.
Please observe this distinction carefully.
"But Jordan Potter, you said twice that you were stopping your discussion of homosexuality."
Quite so -- that's why you haven't seen me discussing it here ever since I said I wasn't interested in participating in any more non-discussions of homosexuality with you.
"Now it turns out you are writing the same dogmatic declarations on other forums under other names."
Was I? And how would you know that? From my mentioning that I posted a comment at another weblog under the name of "Matthew Lowell Johnson"? (Well, it wasn't really a comment -- it was a prank, actually, to annoy an extremely hate-filled anti-Catholic bigot who has been posting under the name of "Matthew Lowell Johnson," but who has also posted as "Alexander" and "Christian." I can assure you that what I posted was not a "dogmatic declaration" on the subject of homosexuality. It rather had to do with the inability to control one's bladder while one is asleep. The only place I've participated in extended, pointless non-discussions of homosexuality is here.)
See, I told you it would take too long to explain.
"You have not looked at the facts, considered the arguments or above all dialogued with the people that your barren dogmatism hurts, wounds, oppresses and kills."
Seems to me that's a much more accurate description of your modus operandi here than it is of mine.
"It is a bit like George Bush who repeats day in, day out a dogma about Iraq that no one who has faced the facts any longer believes but that continues to breed injury and death."
Yeah, whatever -- if it's not the joys of sodomy, it's George Bush and Iraq.
You know what you need to do, Father. Jesus ordained you a priest so you would cooperate with His work of rescuing souls from sin and making them holy in His truth, and it's high time you stopped playing hooky and took up your responsibilities again. Quit idling away your vocation in vain attempts to supplant the Catholic faith with modern error and barren skepticism, and get back to feeding His sheep.
Am I not trying to rescue you from the sin of homophobia?
I see you try to launch another gay-bashing discussion in the first thread above by dragging in stuff about sexual perverts seducing young men.
And am I not defending the Catholic faith as expounded by Vatican II against your insidious undermining of religious liberty and freedom of conscience?
Also, I am tackling your pharisaism -- the sort of thing that Jesus himself spent a lot of time doing. I suppose you would say he was playing hooky from his vocation of telling prostitutes and gays to get their sexual act together?
"Am I not trying to rescue you from the sin of homophobia?"
Fearing sameness isn't so much a sin as it is a psychological disorder. I don't suffer from any phobias, which rules out irrational terror of sameness.
On the other hand, if you mean my acceptance of the Catholic Church's doctrine on homosexuality, yes, you are attempting to get me and other here to deny the Catholic faith -- which, as I indicated, is the opposite of what Jesus has told you to do.
"I see you try to launch another gay-bashing discussion in the first thread above by dragging in stuff about sexual perverts seducing young men."
Oh, was that why I mentioned what we all know the U.S. bishops did and didn't do about the problem of sex perverts in the priesthood taking advantage of children and young men and women? (Interesting that all you saw was the reference to sex perverts "seducing" -- your word, not mine -- young men, but the children and young women they victimised disappeared from your sight.) Could it be that the reason I made the comparison of their dereliction in the matter of sex perverts in the priesthood and their dereliction in liturgical matters is because I found the comparison to be apt?
"And am I not defending the Catholic faith as expounded by Vatican II against your insidious undermining of religious liberty and freedom of conscience?"
No, all you're doing is willfully distorting my beliefs and choosing not to understand them. But it's the kind of behavior that only to be expected in a Catholic priest who has rejected the Catholic faith.
Again, I would point out that questioning the current non-infallible teaching on homosexual orientation and homosexual acts is not the same thing as rejecting the Catholic faith. You are extremely intolerant of disagreement, and you have told me again and again that I should leave the Catholic Church.
What was it you were going to say to your gay son again? That he was bad seed, that God did not create evil and death and therefore could not have created his homosexuality?
I call that homophobia, sorry.
"You are extremely intolerant of disagreement, and you have told me again and again that I should leave the Catholic Church."
No, I've told you that you've effectively already left, and should return.
"I call that homophobia, sorry."
And I call it "lima beans." Makes as much sense as the non-word you prefer.
We're all bad seeds, Father. It's right there in the Creed -- remission of sins and all that.
But you say that gays are bad seeds in a sense other than straights. Your straight son is told to give thanks to God for creating his sexuality. Your gay son is told that God did not create his sexuality, since God did not create evil and death. I call that homophobia, a word which has a dictionary definition and is recognized by all competent authorities as having a real sense.
"Am I not trying to rescue you from the sin of homophobia?"
Are you sure that in a nation with so few Catholics, where the Church was persecuted for so many centuries, your best job is to combat a non-existent sin of an American thousands of miles away???
You have the opportunity to be a disciple of St. Francis Xavier and to continue the work he could never do among the Japanese! Follow Xavier, Father, follow Xavier!
Nothing to stop me doing both, is there?
Yes, that's right, I had forgotten about your "Ignatian" retreats at Tokyo "Gay" Film Festival.
"But you say that gays are bad seeds in a sense other than straights."
The Church says so too. But then murderers are also bad seeds in a sense other than those who, say, cheat on their taxes.
Now you compare your gay son with murderers? You blight his innocence.
It's a shame that Spirit of V2's ego overwhelms his comprehension of a fine article by Anthony Esolen, and one that hit home for me as I grew up in the forties and fifties and have witnessed the atrocious undermining of human sexuality during the so-called sexual "revolution". Contrary to the general distortion and/or amnesia about the period of my youth by cynical progressives especially Catholics, male friendships, male respect for women, male role models, and marriage were cornerstones of our civilization, albeit flawed like all human actions.
What we are left with now is a pandering to perversions that affect all aspects of sexuality but have the most impact on the homosexual culture in its various manifestations. There is simply a ominous denial of just how dangerous the "gay" movement has become. Dangerous to our freedoms to speak out, dangerous to the lives of the young, dangerous to mental and physicalhealth, dangerous to the fate of much of the Church wherever it is entrenched in either liberal pieties about tolerance or manifestly condoned.
It's ironic in a way that all of this, now especially evident in the "hate-crime" atmosphere of Canada has its mentor in the Marxist, Herbert Marcuse. His contributions to the book (from the Frankfort School) "The Limits of Tolerance" call for just such a supression of free speech aand free actions.
I have no idea what planet the Spirit of V2 is from and, I suspect that neither does he. But his rather hoggish usurpation of the comments section is quite tedious and very boring.
May the Lord lead him home to wherever that might be. Perhaps Tom Cruise knows.
And the only thing which keeps the world (the whole world) protected from the totalitarianism of the sodomite movement is the First Amendment...
Guess what the movement would do if they could get hold of the internet through the "politically correct" institutions? http://www.iht.com/articles/2005...ion/
edbildt.php
May the Lord keep America strong and safe.
"Now you compare your gay son with murderers? You blight his innocence."
Are you sure you don't have me confused with somebody else? I keep telling you I have no homosexual son (though my sons are usually pretty gay, except when they're stealing each other's toys or refusing to eat their vegetables, etc.)
What I mean is that if one of your sons were to tell you he is gay, you would say some pretty nasty things to him, with who knows what consequences.
Well, I would say some things that you, being an advocate of homosexualism if not a homosexual yourself, would find pretty nasty, but which anyone else would find remarkably understanding, loving, and sincere. But there's no reason at this time to expect that any of my children will end up suffering from that grave spiritual malady.
Dear Father O'Leary,
>>What I mean is that if one of your sons were to tell you he is gay, you would say some pretty nasty things to him, with who knows what consequences.>>
How could you possibly know that Jordan would say "some pretty nasty things" to his son if he expressed same sex attraction? There are plenty of things I view as immoral and yet can discuss them with their practitioners in a spirit of love and docility. My homosexual friends know that I find homosexuality to be disordered. Some of them agree, in fact. We've discussed the matter openly and honestly. And yet, we are still cordial with each other. If I ever had a son and he expressed same-sex attraction, I'd talk to him about it lovingly and factually. I'd never be cruel or stop loving him. Give us some credit.
James
A Catholic parent who tells a gay child, *you are suffering from a grave spiritual malady* is not only lying to his child but is being cruel, unloving and failing in his parental responsibility.
James Caputo, your child speaks of same-sex attraction and you instantly reach for the category "immoral"? Is that a wholesome way to treat your child's sexuality? If your kid came to you and said, "Dad, I feel attracted to girls in a new way lately", would you say first of all, "Beware of immorality, my son!"? To be sure, that is what Catholic parents and clergy in my Irish youth did say, but I thought we were supposed to have a more positive and helpful attitude to sexuality nowadays.
"A Catholic parent who tells a gay child, *you are suffering from a grave spiritual malady* is not only lying to his child but is being cruel, unloving and failing in his parental responsibility."
Anyone who teaches his children a Catholic doctrine is by definition teaching them the truth.
Any Catholic priest who claims that teaching the Catholic faith is "lying to his child" and "being cruel, unloving and failing in his parental responsibility" is himself living a lie. Every moment that you hold and teach your errors of faith and morals while continuing to present yourself to the Church and world as a loyal Catholic priest, you continue a life of dishonesty. You're lying to yourself, you're lying to others, and most important of all, you're lying to God. Please bring us the true joy of receiving you back to us safe and sound -- put this folly behind you and confess once more the faith of the Apostles.
It is NOT a Catholic doctrine that the homosexual orientation is a grave spiritual malady.
Your take on Catholic doctrine is distorted by your homophobia. Look again at Ratzinger's documents on the subject, which speak of homosexuality as objectively disordered but not as a grave spiritual malady. Suppose you were to say that barrenness is objectively disordered, would you tell a barren woman that she is suffering from a grave spiritual malady? If you did you would be lying and cruel.
Look also at the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
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,140 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."141 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.
gradually
To understand what that word conceals, see Jan Visser's remarks on Persona Humana which he co-authored and Paul VI's Letter to Cardinal O'Boyle of Washington.
"It is NOT a Catholic doctrine that the homosexual orientation is a grave spiritual malady."
Sorry, but you're not exactly an authority on what Catholic doctrine is and isn't. Next thing you'll be claiming is that it is not a Catholic doctrine that men with the inclination to copulate with a continuing series of women do not suffer from a grave spiritual malady.
Many gay men trace their attraction to men back to earliest childhood. Does it make sense to identify these children as having a grave spiritual malady?
An inclination to promiscuity is probably very common in males and can be sublimated and overcome in a monogamous bond. Calling it a grave spiritual malady is rather defeatist, since the prospect of overcoming it is held out to all.
In the case of your gay son you hold out no prospect. No matter how monogamous his desires, or even if he is a chaste celibate, you still say he is suffering from a grave spiritual malady.
For Augustinians a la Ratzinger all sexuality is inherently contaminated with the grave spiritual malady of concupiscence.
But we should first affirm the godgiven goodness of sexuality as God's creation.
To tell your gay son that his sexuality has no godgiven goodness but is nothing but a grave spiritual malady savors of manicheanism.
Hey Folks,
Is it me, or does Father O'Leary cite catholic works that explicitly undermine his own agenda? What part of "Under no circumstances can they be approved" leaves room for same-sex advocacy?
Father O' Leary, you had written:
>>James Caputo, your child speaks of same-sex attraction and you instantly reach for the category "immoral"? Is that a wholesome way to treat your child's sexuality?>>
Throughout my teens and early twenties I desired sex with multiple women. My parents reached for the category of "immoral" when they noticed this destructive unchristian pattern in my conduct and thinking. In so doing, they admonished me to the straight and narrow road that leads to life. At age 23 I repented and remained celibate for 10 years until marriage.
>>If your kid came to you and said, "Dad, I feel attracted to girls in a new way lately", would you say first of all, "Beware of immorality, my son!"?>>
Depends what the "new way" was. If he told me he's attracted to girls by staring in their windows, I'd say; "Beware of immorality".
By the way, Father O' Leary, what are your views of premarital sex? You know, good old fornication?
James
"An inclination to promiscuity is probably very common in males and can be sublimated and overcome in a monogamous bond. Calling it a grave spiritual malady is rather defeatist, since the prospect of overcoming it is held out to all."
And the prospect of overcoming the grave spiritual malady of homosexual inclination is also held out to all.
"In the case of your gay son you hold out no prospect. No matter how monogamous his desires, or even if he is a chaste celibate, you still say he is suffering from a grave spiritual malady."
As long as he suffers from it, yes, he does suffer from it -- until it is vanquished by the grace of God and the love of His Son Jesus.
"For Augustinians a la Ratzinger all sexuality is inherently contaminated with the grave spiritual malady of concupiscence."
Doesn't seem like it's just Augustinians who believe that -- it would appear to be a doctrine of the Catholic faith.
"But we should first affirm the godgiven goodness of sexuality as God's creation."
Of course. Hence the recognition that homosexuality is not God-given and not good.
"To tell your gay son that his sexuality has no godgiven goodness but is nothing but a grave spiritual malady savors of manicheanism."
So Catholicism has been teaching a Manichaean-like doctrine of sexuality for 2,000 years, eh?
The sexuality of men who suffer from same-sex attraction disorder is inherent, by its nature, good -- because God created human sexuality. The very anatomy of men who suffer from same-sex attraction disorder testifies to the fact that their sexuality has been divinely ordered and directed toward marriage and procreation, not toward sodomitic acts. That their psychology is in conflict with how God made them is not something we can attribute to God, anymore than we can attribute the existence of sin and death to an act of God's creative will.
This disjunction between body and psyche that sufferers of same-sex attraction disorder experience, that you say is good, is what savors of Manichaeanism, of the heretical matter-evil/spirit-good dualism of the Gnostics and Manichees. Only, with today's variant on Manichaeanism, the dualism has been reversed -- it's the body (or the genitals and oral and excretory orifices, rather -- the rest of the body is of comparatively little interest to modern culture) that is good and the spirit that is evil.
May we discuss the "godgiven" quality of kleptomania here? how can we "appreciate" this behavior which is actually quite good?
Dear Amorphous Spirit,
When the Catholic Catechism talks about our accepting our sexual identity, it means our accepting our maleness or our femaleness.
There is no such thing as a homosexual man, per se: but there are men whose longings for closeness to other males have become eroticized. Usually this involves some trauma -- or neglect, or cruelty. I know of many homosexual men: A's father shot himself in the head when the kid was nine; B's father did nothing but rag on him all day and hold him up against his much older, football playing brothers; C's father had nothing to do with him, and died of cancer when C was in puberty; D's father ignored him and made fun of him for being fat; E's father ignored him, and the only sibling he had was a sister; F was sodomized as a child; so was G ... I know of NO homosexual man who enjoyed a warm and PHYSICALLY expressed affection for his father and his brothers, none. Barring episodes of violent abuse by outsiders, that physical affection and affirmation of one's maleness works as an inoculation. It is a SUFFICIENT (though not necessary) condition that the child will not develop homosexual attraction. Male homosexuality is not a corruption of marriage, but of friendship -- and as soon as you think of it in those terms, you see why promiscuity has no stable meaning for them. For what offense is it to one friend, if I have another?
I am continually appalled by the lack of any real pastoral concern for the often devastated psyches of these brothers of ours ...
About the word "homophobia": you illustrate my point. Look at what the language does. If in fact homosexual relations are perverted, and objectively disordered, and plain sinful, then we should be afraid of them, and of temptations that way. Would that we could feel some pornophobia now and then, too. Children, I'm convinced, do feel such a thing -- then habit destroys it. Our problem in the US is that there's hardly a sexual sin that we have any fear for at all.
Did you miss my point about language? Excuse me, but keeping within our culture here, exactly what signs are still available for the expression of a deep male friendship?
Mr Potter, the prospect of overcoming homosexual inclination is NOT held out to all, nor does the Church claim it is.
Constitutional gays, who have no recollection of any sexual attraction to women in their experience, are MOST unlikely to become heterosexual.
Rather obvious, I would have thought.
Also the Catechism uses two words to describe homosexual orientation that would generally be regarded as misleading today: the words "inclination" and "condition".
If we accept that same sex attraction is too central and fundamental a datum of nature and of human nature, the claim that it is objectively disordered, even in the mild formulation the Catechism gives, becomes questionable.
That entails a redrafting of sexual ethics as well, and apologies from the Church to its trampling on the personal fulfilment of gays over the millennia.
Tony, I know at least one gay who had a close, physically expressed relation with his father. Your account is a string of outdated sterertypes or the sort peddled by discredited homophobic psychoanalysts like Socarides and Berger. Gay do not suffer from any cleavage between body and psyche; I have never met a single gay person who complained of any such thing.
I notice that the language of the Catechism is an improvement on some of Ratzinger's expressions in the 1986 letter, about homosexual orientation as oriented to a selfish act, or something of that sort. The Catechism simply insists that sexual acts must be open to the transmission of life, so that gay sexual acts cannot be approved. Of course it is rather odd to say that gays close sex acts off to the transmission of life, since the possibility of pregnancy is completely absent to begin with.
Let us think a little about the millions of gay men and women who are forced into marriage by social pressure -- of the deep unhappiness this causes to their spouses -- of the unnatural sexual acts whereby men with no sexual attraction to their wives or wives with no sexual attraction to their husbands achieve conception -- of the homosexual fantasies which prompt the male erection in such circumstances and which means blotting out from his consciousness the actual presence of his wife. The church carries a lot of blame for the prevalence of such situations in the past and even in the present. Think of Africa for example.
Hi Tony,
You had said:
>> I know of many homosexual men: A's father shot himself in the head when the kid was nine; B's father did nothing but rag on him all day and hold him up against his much older, football playing brothers; C's father had nothing to do with him, and died of cancer when C was in puberty; D's father ignored him and made fun of him for being fat; E's father ignored him, and the only sibling he had was a sister; F was sodomized as a child; so was G ... I know of NO homosexual man who enjoyed a warm and PHYSICALLY expressed affection for his father and his brothers, none.>>
This is precisely what I've come to find to be so among my dozens of homosexual friends!! Father O' Leary is dreaming when he says that your description of the cleavage between Father and son obtaining in most cases of "gay" men is outdated and stereotyped or the sort of thing peddled by discredited homophobic psychoanalysts like Socarides and Berger.
I'll briefly list the experience of my own intimate homosexual friends:
A's Father was a drunk who broke his nose twice and his arm once. He constantly berated him by calling him a faggot and other less than charitable names. B's Father left when he was three. His mother's boyfriend moved in and incessantly fondled his genitalia whenever the coast was clear. His whole life he was told by the live-in boyfriend that he's gay. C's father was physically abusive. He made it a point to discipline his son by having him strip naked, go out into the backyard in such a state of undress and find a "switch" with which he would beat him mercilessly. D's father called him a faggot every day of his life because he enjoyed baking cookies with his mom rather than play football with his older brothers. E's Father was verbally abusive and emotionally dismissive. He recently died without so much as talking to his son in more than a year's time even though they both live in the same town. F's father is a Yale professor who constantly spoke down to his son and undermined his intelligence. As his son reached the high school years F's father would routinely tell him that he was a loser, that he had always dreamed of having an Ivy League sticker on the back of his Mercedes Benz and that his son's incompetence was an embarrassment to the entire family. G's father looked down on the performing arts to which his son showed a precocious proclivity. He reveled in his other three sons' success while not so much as attending one performance of his now homosexual son.
Hey, that's off the top of my head, Tony!! I could easily complete the alphabet with other similar examples.
To be fair, though, I must add that I do have one homosexual friend who has a wonderful relationship with his dad. He was a Jehovah's Witness but converted to Catholicism in his late teens. (He's 40 now) He practices chastity and is one of the sweetest men I know.
Father O' Leary's portrayal of the "gay community" is
Hi Tony,
My post was truncated.
Father O' Leary's portrayal of the "gay community" is risible to those of us who have seen it up close.
James
"Mr Potter, the prospect of overcoming homosexual inclination is NOT held out to all, nor does the Church claim it is."
So you're saying the Church teaches that all who suffer from same-sex attraction disorder are predestined to hell?
Homosexual orientation is not sinful according to Catholic teaching.
Homosexuality is a godgiven aspect of the personality of many people -- a profound aspect, since our sexuality colors every aspect of our being.
Gays are just as predestined to be gay as straights are to be straight.
James Caputo claims that gays commonly have terrible relationships with their fathers. I have not quizzed my gay friends on this topic, but I have never heard them express any particular dislike of their fathers in particular. The idea that gayness is due to a weak and absent father is an unverifiable theory that is used to make the parents of gays feel guilty. Just another oppressive piece of rubbish with which humans manage to make each other unhappy. The people who peddle such theories today are not professional psychologists but ones who have an agenda, usually with a Christian label attached. Or if you have a professional opinion on the matter that does not have such an agenda behind it please send me a link or reference.
If Mr Potter is trying to say that gays have the possibility of living chastely he is being very disingenuous, for my post explicitly referred to chaste gays. So he must be saying that grace can change one's basic sexual orientation, changing gays into straights. But he hardly cares for consistency.
Here is what I wrote:
An inclination to promiscuity is probably very common in males and can be sublimated and overcome in a monogamous bond. Calling it a grave spiritual malady is rather defeatist, since the prospect of overcoming it is held out to all.
In the case of your gay son you hold out no prospect. No matter how monogamous his desires, or even if he is a chaste celibate, you still say he is suffering from a grave spiritual malady.
I clarified:
Mr Potter, the prospect of overcoming homosexual inclination is NOT held out to all, nor does the Church claim it is.
Constitutional gays, who have no recollection of any sexual attraction to women in their experience, are MOST unlikely to become heterosexual.
Mr Potter thinks this means that I think some people are predestined to hell. In short he equates the homosexual orientation as such with a hell-bound condition.
Needless to say the Catholic Church has never taught this.
I call it hatred and prejudice. predesting
Hi Father O' Leary,
>>James Caputo claims that gays commonly have terrible relationships with their fathers.>>
I didn't claim it. I demonstrated it by briefly listing (off the top of my head) the relationships existing between my homosexual friends and their respective fathers.
James
"In short he equates the homosexual orientation as such with a hell-bound condition. "
The homosexual orientation is the inclination, desire, or urge that a relatively small number of men have to commit sexual sins with other men, and that a relatively small number of women have to commit sexual sins with other women. If Fr. O'Leary claims that the Church does not teach that homosexuality can be overcome by God's grace, then he is saying that men and women who suffer from same-sex attraction disorder will eternally desire to commit sexual sins. In other words, he is claiming that all such souls are predestined to suffer eternal torments in hellfire.
St. Oscar Wilde, pray for Fr. O'Leary!
I think the inaccurate language of the Catechism is responsible of Mr Potter's confusion.
The CCC wrongly characterizes the homosexual orientation as an "inclination" and a "condition". Mr Potter takes this to mean "an inclination to commit sexual sins" and "a malady".
Homosexuality is an anthropological reality that is not directed primarily to sexual acts but to love, just as heterosexuality is not directed primarily to sexual acts but to love.
Whether there is any kind of sexual identity or sexuality in heaven is a mysterious subject.
But the Church certainly does not teach that homosexuality, as an orientation, is changed by God's grace in this life or that homosexuals have any obligation to seek such change.
James Caputo, you could prove the same thing about heterosexuals by listing off the top of your head your straight friends who have bad relations with their dads.
"I think the inaccurate language of the Catechism is responsible of Mr Potter's confusion."
On the contrary, it is your confusion that is responsible for your rejection of the teachings of the Holy Catholic Church.
"Homosexuality is an anthropological reality that is not directed primarily to sexual acts but to love, just as heterosexuality is not directed primarily to sexual acts but to love."
On the contrary, homosexuality being a corruption of God's creation, it cannot be reconciled to love, only healed and supplanted by it.
"But the Church certainly does not teach that homosexuality, as an orientation, is changed by God's grace in this life or that homosexuals have any obligation to seek such change."
Again I would point out that you're not a reliable authority on what the Church does and does not teach. If you cannot give your assent to the Virgin Birth, it's not to be wondered at that you cannot admit what homosexuality is.
James Caputo - I know homosexuals who had a normal family upbringing.
Jordan Potter, are YOU a reliable authority on what the church does or does not teach? The hermeneutics of church documents past and present is far from simple.
I do not think I am confused in my understanding of church teaching on homosexuality (which differs slightly between Persona Humana, the 1986 letter of the CDF, and the Catechism -- I understand that there are even changes re homosexuality between the first and second editions of the latter document.) Explicit church teaching on homosexuality is very laconic -- unlike its teaching on marriage and contraception.
Also I think I have a clear idea of the church's teaching on the virginal conception. Again a matter on which it is extremely laconic -- understandably, since an open discussion of it would bring to light the fragility of the doctrine.
*Inclination* and *condition* are words contemporary psychologists no longer use in discussing homosexuality. They are words that carry a date, words of teh 1950s. The Vatican's reliance on such a rusty and misleading vocabulary does not inspire confidence that that have faced up to the rapidly burgeoning knowledge about homosexuality in recent decades, not that they have dialogued with gays, who certainly do not think of their godgiven sexuality as a mere inclination or a mysterious :condition:.
Church teaching on homosexuality is not as dark and desperate as Mr Potter thinks. He actually falls into the same misinterpretations as the more intemperate critics of that teaching.
For a sober and forceful critique of it, see Mark Jordan, The Silence of Sodom.
Homosexuality is supplanted by love, says Jordan Potter. Does he mean that gay guys need only fall in love with a good woman and they will become straight? This is straight out of a brainwashed American world of the 1950s -- "Tea and Sympathy". It also chimes with the rationalization that gets gay men married to heterosexual women with lots of suffering for both.
Mr Potter also seems to imply that gay men or women are incapable of love -- certainly a shock to the many gays saints, popes, etc. in the history of the church, and certainly a clear indication of his homophobia.
Yeah, but what about the polka-dotted clown spraying soda water at your head?
"Jordan Potter, are YOU a reliable authority on what the church does or does not teach?"
Yes. All I have to do is find out what your views are and adopt the opposite view, and voila! I have assented to what the Church teaches! Yahooooo!!
"James Caputo - I know homosexuals who had a normal family upbringing."
I have heard and read that some homosexuals have had a normal, or relatively normal upbringing (whatever that means), but so far every homosexual I've personally met (not a terribly large number -- not more than 20 perhaps) has come from a severely dysfunctional, abusive family and/or been sexually abused in their children or youth. Certainly not a scientific sampling, but there does seem to be a pattern there.
"every homosexual I've personally met (not a terribly large number -- not more than 20 perhaps) has come from a severely dysfunctional, abusive family and/or been sexually abused in their childhood or youth"
1. You have met many thousands of homosexuals without being aware of it.
2. 20 is a quite derisory sample, and one possibly conditioned by the particular circumstances of your meeting them.
3. Sexually abused in their youth, means what? That they had consensual sex aged 16? 19? Nothing pathological about that.
4. I have met far more than 20 gays who have NOT come from severely disfunctional, abusive families or ever been sexuallly abused. And I do not base my views of the basic health of gay people on this observation only but find it confirmed by the APA and pretty much all reputed authorities. Can you find a single reputable source giving confirmation for your blighted vision of gayness?
5. You have been very intimate with some of these men, and have even shared the same bed. What is your own personal investment in this steeply negative vision of homosexuality? You said at one time that you could not bear a world in which sex with men was available around every corner -- what is that about?
"Can you find a single reputable source giving confirmation for your blighted vision of gayness?"
Yes. Holy Mother Church, whose vision of homosexuality you have frequently floccinaucinihilipilificated.
"You have been very intimate with some of these men, and have even shared the same bed."
Yeah, but what about that polka-dotted clown spraying soda water at your head?
Neither my father nor any of my brothers suffer from same-sex attraction disorder. Nor does Lorne, the man who was best man at my wedding (we shared a bed once), nor did the late Bill Keefer (we shared a motel bed three nights in a row during a church outing -- two other boys were in the other bed). That's the entire list of men with whom I have shared beds. As usual, your assertions don't match reality . . . .
"You said at one time that you could not bear a world in which sex with men was available around every corner -- what is that about?"
That wasn't me who said that -- it was the polka-dotted clown.
Mr Potter, my remarks were addresses exclusively to Mr Caputo and refer to his earlier postings.
Holy Church does not support Mr Caputo's claim that gays come from dysfunctional families or have suffered child abuse. Please do not muddy the discussion with such confusing red herrings.
Red herrings? Please re-read what you wrote, Father. You quoted something that I wrote and then followed it with points one through five, every one of them apparently in response to what I said. If you were actually responding exclusively to James Caputo, why did you quote me instead of him?
Father Lowry's insistence upon homosexual normality is a leap of faith -- it has no basis in empirical evidence, and it explains absolutely none of the phenomena that are correlated with male homosexuality. It is also deeply inconsistent with Catholic teaching on the sinfulness of homosexual activity per se. How can I be justified in DESIRING what by its very nature I would sin mortally to have? This is NOT the same as my looking with admiration upon another man's wife, where the sin is attendant upon circumstances and not nature.
Of course there are people whose sexual psyches have been messed up at an early age -- that proves nothing. I assert in my article that ALL men feel a longing for male friendship -- a powerful need, in fact. What homosexuals do, when they look back upon their childhoods, is mistakenly assume that they were unusual in this regard. They weren't, not at all! But that need has become sexualized in them -- and there's the problem.
Father Lowry does not trouble to explain why it takes COURAGE (and it does) for homosexual men to avoid having sex with men. Why courage? We're not talking about the courage to face up to taunting friends -- that's not it. And we're not talking about temperance or continence. The fact is, the homosexual urge is so compulsive -- so deeply associated with a painfully unmet need, with the scene of a long-past trauma -- that it does take courage to reject it.
Father Lowry's belief that it's just another flavor of God-given sexuality does not explain why male homosexuality is so strongly related with other perversions and destructive behaviors. Come on, now, Father -- no name-calling here. I know too much about Sparta and Turkey and samurai Japan and Athens; and my homosexual acquaintances have told me too much besides, for you to pretend that it is not so.
Why the fetishism? Why the courtship of death? Why the drugs and alcohol? Why the outhouse sex? Why the group sex? Why the pedophilia, or at least the worship of teens? Why the abuse of the body -- the masochism and sadism? Why the compulsive nudity? Why all of these things, and precisely where homosexuality is MOST tolerated?
Now HERE is a suggestion for you: for the sake of the men who are tempted this way, homosexual behavior needs to be strongly and forthrightly proscribed. If the temptation is to be "queer", to violate oneself, then in that case the "need" will be met the way it used to be met: oral sodomy. But with that guard-rail removed, homosexual men must go further and further afield in order to violate themselves, to transgress: with the destructive results we see.
In short, Father Lowry, do you or do you not subscribe to the Church's teachings regarding chastity -- and that includes the onanism of birth control?
Tony Esolen's homophobic fantasies have not the faintest relation to what professional psychologists and others say about homosexuality. That the Catholic Church could even give the appearance of support to such vile hatred and prejudice is shameful indeed./
Sorry, Mr Potter, indeed I was confused. You sounded exactly like Mr Caputo, except that he, unlike you, would admit he has met happy gay couples.
Many gay children and many chaste homosexuals do not desire sexual acts considered sinful.
"How can I be justified in DESIRING what by its very nature I would sin mortally to have? This is NOT the same as my looking with admiration upon another man's wife, where the sin is attendant upon circumstances and not nature."
What this seems to imply is that homosexual are sinful by nature -- which is Manicheanism.
"Of course there are people whose sexual psyches have been messed up at an early age -- that proves nothing." MESSED UP AT AN EARLY AGE is a totally unverified account of homosexual orientation.
" I assert in my article that ALL men feel a longing for male friendship -- a powerful need, in fact. What homosexuals do, when they look back upon their childhoods, is mistakenly assume that they were unusual in this regard."
Many gays remember PHYSICAL attraction to their classmates at the age of 10 or so, and PHYSICAL repulsion from women at all ages. This physical attraction is unambiguously sexual from puberty, where it is often accompanied with sexual fantasies, just as straights had fantasies about girls at that age.
Many straights, Jordan Potter for example, have NEVER experienced such attraction, not even as a "passing phase".
So your article seems quite mistaken.
"But that need has become sexualized in them -- and there's the problem."
Why is it a problem? Some like girls, some like boys, that's all.
"Why it takes COURAGE (and it does) for homosexual men to avoid having sex with men. Why courage? We're not talking about the courage to face up to taunting friends -- that's not it. And we're not talking about temperance or continence. The fact is, the homosexual urge is so compulsive -- so deeply associated with a painfully unmet need, with the scene of a long-past trauma -- that it does take courage to reject it.|"
So when did this trauma take place?
And what does rejecting the homosexual urge mean? Refraining from sex or denying one's basic godgiven sexuality totally?
What an expert Mr Esalin is in psychology! Can he find a single reputable source to back up his claims?
male homosexuality is so strongly related with other perversions and destructive behaviors. Come on, now, Father -- no name-calling here. I know too much about Sparta and Turkey and samurai Japan and Athens; and my homosexual acquaintances have told me too much besides, for you to pretend that it is not so.
YOU CANNOT BLAME AN INNOCENT ADOLESCENT FOR THE EXCESSES OF THE GAY SCENE. Samurai Japan and Athens were fine, thank you.
Why the fetishism? FETISHISM IS VERYT POPULAR AMONG STRAIGHTS TOO. Why the courtship of death? Why the drugs and alcohol? ALL VERY POPULAR. Why the outhouse sex? Why the group sex? MALE PROMISCUITY. NOT COMMON AMONG GAY WOMEN. Why the pedophilia, or at least the worship of teens? LOTS OF STRAIGHT MEN LOVE TEENAGE GIRLS, IT IS JUST A MATTER OF DEGREE. MANY GAYS ARE NOT ORIENTED TO TEENS AT ALL. Why the abuse of the body -- the masochism and sadism? SM IS VERY POPULAR WITH STRAIGHTS AND DOES NOT INVOLVE ABUSE OF THE BODY BUT FANTASIES OF DOMINATION AND SUBMISSION/ Why the compulsive nudity? WHAT IS COMPULSIVE NUDITY? Why all of these things, and precisely where homosexuality is MOST tolerated?
Now HERE is a suggestion for you: for the sake of the men who are tempted this way, homosexual behavior needs to be strongly and forthrightly proscribed. If the temptation is to be "queer", to violate oneself, then in that case the "need" will be met the way it used to be met: oral sodomy. OH, SO WHEN GAY SEX IS ILLEGAL ORAL SODOMY IS THE MOST COMMON FORM OF IT? ARE YOU ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE WHO THINK GAYS ARE BEST OFF IN PUBLIC TOILETS? But with that guard-rail removed, homosexual men must go further and further afield in order to violate themselves, to transgress: with the destructive results we see. WHEN LOVING RELATIONSHIPS ARE ENCOURAGED AND LEGALLY PROTECTED YOU SEE A DIMINUTION OF SEXUAL ERRANCY AND A MORE CONSTRUCTIVE CHANNELING OF SEXUAL DESIRE AND ENERGY/
do you or do you not subscribe to the Church's teachings regarding chastity -- and that includes the onanism of birth control?
NO, BUT IF YOU CAN GIVE ME PERSUASIVE WITNESS TO THE CORRECTNESS OF YOUR VIEW OF BIRTH CONTROL, BASED ON YOUR OWN PRACTICE, I AM READY TO BE CONVINCED/
Hi Father O' Leary,
>>You have been very intimate with some of these men, and have even shared the same bed. What is your own personal investment in this steeply negative vision of homosexuality?>>
I'm not sure what you mean by what is my investment. I merely expressed what I've found to obtain in the homosexual community, what I've observed, what I've been told by my homosexual friends.
>>You said at one time that you could not bear a world in which sex with men was available around every corner -- what is that about?>>
What I said is that a world in which men's sexual desires were reciprocated by other men with great facility and with little commitment is a scary world. That is the homosexual world.
My point is that I as a heterosexual man have an easier time of remaining chaste given that women (for the most part) are not prone to simply sleep with men without any kind of emotional engagement or sense of committment. I can't simply (as a past voice teacher did) pick up and walk through central park and engage in oral sex with a passer-by. And no, this is not radical homosexual behavior. It's quite common behavior. Most of my homosexual friends have engaged in it.
I spent over a dozen years around homosexual men. I know the ethos of that community very well.
And I don't know 20 homosexuals. I know and have worked with hundreds. Have you? If so, where? In the Catholic Church? I spent two years working full time for the San Francisco opera and lived in various cities throughout the United States as a working singer. I could tell stories that would curl one's hair. Hence, I don't buy your rhetoric for one second.
James
Hi Tony,
You had written:
>>Why the fetishism? Why the courtship of death? Why the drugs and alcohol? Why the outhouse sex? Why the group sex? Why the pedophilia, or at least the worship of teens?
That's precisely right!! And I too have witnessed this to be true first hand. While working for the Philadelphia Opera there was a young confused boy of 14 years-of-age that was part of the childrens' chorus. Many of the homosexual men in the mens' chorus were meeting this poor young lad in the bathroom and routinely having their way with him. This knowledge came to me via one of my collegues. I immediately went to his Italian mother (who didn't speak a word of English) and informed her of what was going on. It was a fiasco of the first order!! I'll never forget that particular production. The spirit in the air was diabolical.
>>Why the abuse of the body -- the masochism and sadism? Why the compulsive nudity? Why all of these things, and precisely where homosexuality is MOST tolerated?>>
Exactly right! Father O' leary's rhetoric only works among people who have no exposure to that world. For those of us who travelled in such circles, though, it rings hollow and disingenuous.
James
Father O' Leary,
You had said:
>>Many gays remember PHYSICAL attraction to their classmates at the age of 10 or so, and PHYSICAL repulsion from women at all ages.>>
I have to say that this is true. I have several homosexual friends who claim precisely that. An organist friend of mine raccounts that by age 5 he looked forward to the arrival of the JC Penny's catalogue so as to look at the male models. I don't deny his testimony. I have no reason to impute dishonesty to my homosexual friends. What you say about Physical repulsion is also true for some homosexuals, but not all.
And in closing I would add that several of my homosexual friends see their sexual orientation as disordered. That is, they themselves can anatomically construe that something is amok. It's not rocket science, Father.
James
PS. You never told me what your view of fornication is - as in, premarital sex.
"You sounded exactly like Mr Caputo, except that he, unlike you, would admit he has met happy gay couples."
Yes, if there are any homosexual couples who are happy defiling themselves and their consciences, I haven't met any, but I don't deny they may exist. I haven't had a lot of exposure to homosexuals.
There are many happy homosexual couples. It is not for you to judge whether they are defiling their consciences.
I do not consider premarital sex between an engaged couple as "fornication". In fact, I do not think people should marry without have a good knowledge of their sexual chemistry. There has been a huge change in attitudes to this question in Europe, including among the clergy, over the last 40 years. Recently I attended a wedding in France at which the couple mentioned "Thomas" with gratitude in their married vows. Thomas was their baby, who was baptized just after the exchange of marriage vows, and the elderly congregation and priest seems perfectly happy with that. I suppose you would say it is brazen advertisement of fornication?
"What I said is that a world in which men's sexual desires were reciprocated by other men with great facility and with little commitment is a scary world. That is the homosexual world." Correction, the MALE homosexual world; there is also a FEMALE homosexual world.
"My point is that I as a heterosexual man have an easier time of remaining chaste given that women (for the most part) are not prone to simply sleep with men without any kind of emotional engagement or sense of commitment." Sure.
"I can't simply (as a past voice teacher did) pick up and walk through central park and engage in oral sex with a passer-by. And no, this is not radical homosexual behavior. It's quite common behavior. Most of my homosexual friends have engaged in it." OK. But what do you propose as an alternative? Do you want to go back to "sodomy laws" with Jordan Potter, or do you want to educate gay adolescents to a more responsible socialization by holding out the positive ideal of mutual fidelity?
The argument from gay promiscuity is really an argument with male sexuality rather than with homosexuality. Here in Tokyo the main heterosexual redlight district is huge, about a square mile right in the middle of town (Kabukicho). The gay area nearby is very small in comparison, and much more decent in atmosphere (since the heterosexual redlight district centers on prostitution and clandestinity). If you judged heterosexuality by frequentation of the redlight district you would conclude that it is a death-oriented cult.
If you view sex between engaged couples as "fornication" I can only suggest you have a grim, puritanical view of the world which does not enable you to see the positive and life-affirming aspects of homosexual orientation and its sexual expression.
Dreadnought has some very interesting discussion on gay culture on his website just now.
Dear Spirit:
You are a priest, and you want me to give you evidence of the spiritual benefits of observing the church's teaching regarding birth control???
I am on a public computer at the moment with time running out. Why don't you look up the testimonies of the countless couples who have obeyed, and who have reaped the benefits? Start with a book by Sam and Bethany Torode ....
So, basically, you do not believe that sex between a man and a woman should be confined to marriage. And you are engaging in some dreamland vision when you say that the aberrant behavior we see among male homosexuals will vanish, poof, as soon as the relationships are affirmed. But I made a point of saying that in fact the opposite occurs -- where will you find the most aberrant behavior in that group? San Francisco, or Peoria? Provincetown, or Dallas? Greenwich Village, or Wichita?
Excuse me, but you cannot blame male homosexual aberrances on male sexuality generally, when my argument is that the homosexuality is male sexual identity gone haywire! Of course we are going to find in that group many of the sins of males, in grossly exaggerated forms.
Lesbians have their own problems -- and present our society with, if anything, far greater dangers than do male homosexuals. They are two very different groups of people.
I try to preach chastity to the young men I teach, and they really are willing to listen -- because they want to believe in something holier than their own immediate desires. I tell them about the destruction of love that untimely eros must entail -- and they do listen. Some have changed their lives; and they have grown up in doing so, becoming what used to be called fine young men. Then I have to put up with a priest of all people telling them to go check out each other's bodies just to make sure that they like what quirks and crannies they see beforehand. Compatible ......... Selfishness, raised to the level of a psychological and erotic mandate! If you're kind and not a prig, and so is she, and you've got yours and she's got hers, you're compatible.
It is sad that Spirit belives that Traditional Catholic teachings against these sexual vices are the same as Puritanism. And since he has denied these certain key teachings, it is he - not Mr. Potter nor Mr. Caputo nor myself nor Tony - but he himself has cast himself outside the True Faith.
So he has put himself in the same catagory with heretics like Arius, Nestorius, Pelagius, Berengarius, Luther, Calvin, Cornelius Jansens, Loisy, Rahner, De Lubac, De Chardin, Von Balthazar and the like. That is a shame, a true crying shame.
And I say this with sadness in my heart for him. Let us pray for his return to the True Faith.
Commenting by HaloScan
