I don't have an answer to this question, which is why I am posing it here. Should those who are gay/lesbian/bisexual and CHASTE (i.e., not engaging in gay actions) be out? I'm not talking about going to gay pride parades or anything, but being open about their homosexual attractions to others.
I guess the question would then be "why?" I would say accountability and sensitivity (i.e., guys should not parade around naked in front of a gay friend) would be good reasons. I would also say that just being able to be honest about your struggles would be a good reason.
Thoughts?
Edey
Comments 32
Yup. They should.
So should dudes who sleep with other dudes. And ladies who sleep with other ladies.
Then they should stop "struggling," because being gay is as natural and normal as being straight.
+0
Posted 22 Mar 2007 at 12:31 pm ¶Cancer is natural, too, but that doesn't mean it's good. Or, more to the point, there are countless neurological disorders that, by virtue of being observable in human nature, are natural. That doesn't mean they should be considered normal and acceptable. Kleptomania inclines people to steal and yet theft is still objectively sinful. Kleptomaniacs, however, may be subjectively less culpable for sinning by stealing because their will and capacity for sufficient reflection may be impaired. Likewise, some people are inclined to act upon attraction to the same sex, but homosexual acts are still objectively sinful.
+0
Posted 22 Mar 2007 at 4:18 pm ¶There is no simple to your question, Edey.
Sin thrives in darkness, so whenever prudent, it is wise to shed light on temptations to sin. At the very least, sharing with one's confessor is needed. Some may need or desire additional accountability through confiding daily struggles to friends and family. However, such confidences should not become causes for scandal, locally or for the Church. Even if great care is taken to maintain modesty in such conversations, having them in the presence of some people might be occasion for sin. C.f. Paul's admonition against eating meat sacrificed to idols in front of those who would be scandalized.
+0
Posted 22 Mar 2007 at 4:34 pm ¶BTW, equating natural with normal is a fallacious as equating correlation with causation.
+0
Posted 22 Mar 2007 at 4:42 pm ¶Edey - I would say that from a Catholic perspective, a chaste gay should feel even less comfortable advertising themselves as such as an ex-felon. Accountability is good, but I don't think it's worth the distrust and cautious glances it would buy you. I think its an easy step in many conservative American mind to step from homosexual to degenerate or potential child-molester.
Funky - I know you've been through this argument numerous times before, but in this case I don't think you presented a valid argument against what Rich said. He said natural and normal, not natural therefore normal. The 'and' implies a difference between the two.
+0
Posted 22 Mar 2007 at 8:32 pm ¶Did anyone happen to read Ryan Anderson's column in First Things last month on this very topic? It's a rather thought-provoking tale of one man's struggles with same-sex attraction and his deep desire to live chastely — and the lack of resources he found to help him.
http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=5413
+0
Posted 22 Mar 2007 at 8:35 pm ¶eve-tushnet.blogspot.com is a good blog to study, by a faithful Catholic with same-sex attraction. She also regularly links Dreadnought (a Catholic from Australia and gay man) and another blog (Sed Contra) which also treat the issue very well.
The answer to the question seems to be "it depends", and the above cited blogs (written by people who are really dealing with this) are probably the best resource in handling it.
+0
Posted 22 Mar 2007 at 10:33 pm ¶The question seems to imply that "gay" is an ontological category, which is not itself a foregone conclusion, and one which I happen to doubt. That said, I interpret the question as: "Should Catholics who are tempted by same sex attraction, but who nevertheless resist the temptation most of the time, tell everyone about their temptations or identify themselves by those temptations?" … which answers itself pretty well.
And yeah there are lots of things that are natural AND normal that are nevertheless not good. And defining down deviancy is no ethical system at all.
+0
Posted 22 Mar 2007 at 11:28 pm ¶Interesting, I was talking with a US Catholic friend about this last night.
Nothing was resolved.
While the Catholic Church welcomes chaste gays (even in the priesthood) I question whether in the current cultural climate honesty is the best policy.
While church is called to be a sanctuary and safe place, it isn't. Steve's point, "And yeah there are lots of things that are natural AND normal that are nevertheless not good. And defining down deviancy is no ethical system at all" really chokes off the debate and ends the discussion.
Honesty with fellow worshippers doesn't seem like a healthy choice. Coming out is a decision I think needs to be made on an individual basis. JPII said chaste homosexuals were courageous, while I don't personally like the tone (condesending)the current church/cultural ennvironment seems way to hyper sensitive for honesty.
+0
Posted 23 Mar 2007 at 2:05 am ¶… no more debate choking than an assertion that any sexual expression (for some incoherent reason always limited to that shared by "consenting adults") is "natural", "normal", and therefore (for some reason obviously) "healthy".
By all means, let the debate continue… but it did not seem to be a part of Edey's question.
As to the debate, does anyone really doubt that "sexual preference" is made up of 1) genetic and environmental factors over which a person has no control; and 2) patterns of potentially self-reinforcing thoughts and behaviors over which a person has control? If not, then what really is there to debate?
Is sexual preference qualitatively different, strictly as a psychological complex, from cigarette preference or vegetable preference or alcohol preference or snack chip preference? If so, does it make any sense to consider preference (inclination, proclivity) as a defining characteristic of any person to which we apply a label? Moreover are there not a practically infinite number of degrees, both of kind and intensity, of preference? And, if so, is it really possible to capture preference by a label? And, if so, what is gained? by the individual prefer-er? and by the society around him?
+0
Posted 23 Mar 2007 at 9:49 am ¶I don't think you want to know how many gays and lesbians there are in the Catholic church.
If the full number came out, I'm guessing there'd eventually be repercussions you wouldn't like. That's why the current system is preferred — it maintains the status quo and doesn't let people see the repercussions.
+0
Posted 23 Mar 2007 at 11:06 am ¶1. Assuming the oft-quoted 10% given for the percentage of gays in the general population is correct (and I really doubt it is), are you implying that the percentage in the Catholic Church is higher?
2. Why do you always assume sinister motives? What makes you believe that Church officials want gays to stay in closet so that their problem is a non-issue?
3. What repercussions do you think we'd have to face? Do you seriously think the Church would simply make an about face regarding homosexuality based on its prevalence? Arianism was a really popular heresy, and the Church didn't knuckle under to that horde. Neither will she give up and decide that active homosexuality is not gravely sinful.
4. God help those who are blown off their heavenly course by the spirit of the age.
+0
Posted 23 Mar 2007 at 11:21 am ¶Well, I'm not sure who the "you" was to whom Rob was referring, but as for me, as I said, I simply reject "gay" as an ontological category. So I simply deny the tautological possibility that a certain number of Catholics (or anyone else for that matter) are "gay". But if it were to become known (as if somehow it hasn't already) that a large fraction of Catholics are tempted by same sex attraction, or if it were to become known (as if somehow it hasn't already) that a large fraction of Catholics engage in sodomitical acts (sexual acts which deny by their form or intention the transmission of life), then I fail to see how this could be news. It is said that 95%-97% of "Catholics" practice contraception. Well then, 95%-97% are functionally "gay". There seems to be no room left for further shock…
I'm sure Rob'll have fun with that one…
+0
Posted 23 Mar 2007 at 11:51 am ¶Bryan,
I interpreted "natural and normal" as "normal and therefore normal".
Rich,
Is that what you intended or have I misinterpreted you?
+0
Posted 23 Mar 2007 at 12:42 pm ¶I'm not a Catholic (but that doesn't stop me from having an opinion) but here's my thought. There's a difference between "accountability" and "coming out." When I think of "coming out." I think of gay pride parades, letting friends, family, relatives, and every person you meet on the street who couldn't care less know asnd then engaging in events the "gay community."
Having someone to support, counsel, and encourage you is something else entirely. It would have to be done with great caution. Not every priest or minister could be effective this, but probably with the Internet, all that, etc. there is a need for a support of some sort.
+0
Posted 24 Mar 2007 at 2:55 pm ¶I think gay Catholics should keep quiet about their orientation for their own safety. In much of the country coming out to your Church would put you at risk of being beaten to death.
Even without this, if someone is told repeatedly by people s/he's stupid enough to respect that s/he's an abomination, eventually violating the prohibition on suicide becomes less daunting.
+0
Posted 24 Mar 2007 at 3:13 pm ¶What evidence do you have to support this claim?
Having same sex attraction does not make a person an abomination. Homosexual acts, however, are abominations.
+0
Posted 24 Mar 2007 at 3:17 pm ¶Just to take this discussion where it was meant to go:
The immorality of homosexual acts is not in question/up for debate. If you want to debate that, do it on another post.
Coming out is not equivalent to going and engaging in homosexual acts.
The issues I am looking to discuss are:
Should one be open about one's orientation? to whom? how? Should it just be point of conversation the way I talk about the guys I, a straight female, "have the hots for"? Should it be discrete? Would the fact there is a stigma attached be a reason *to* come out (it's harder to attach a stigma to a group of which one knows a member that they care about)? What are the benefits of coming out? There is a stigma. Is this appropriate, particularly since the discussion centers around chaste gays/lesbians/bisexuals? "It depends" is probably accurate, but let's discuss that further. As Funky pointed out, gays are not an abomination, gay acts are. Let's remember to separate the attraction from the action.
+0
Posted 24 Mar 2007 at 4:24 pm ¶"Having same sex attraction does not make a person an abomination. Homosexual acts, however, are abominations."
That is a point far finer than most people are inclined to comprehend.
As for the risk of being attacked, FBI stats will put the number of anti-gay hate crimes at around 1,500 a year (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2004/hctable1.htm) and that's providing you a lower bound for the actual number.
And let's be frank, people whom are most zealously opposed to homosexuality are the ones most likely to lash out against homosexuals.
So, if I were gay, I'd keep my head down at Mass.
+0
Posted 24 Mar 2007 at 5:26 pm ¶To clarify:
It depends is not replying to is a stigma appropriate, but should glbt Catholics come out. Is the stigma appropriate is a question to discuss but it should be discussed in the light of CHATE glbt Catholics.
+0
Posted 24 Mar 2007 at 5:38 pm ¶But, Edey, you're still typing as though "gay" or "lesbian" or (GAH!) "glbt" is actually something you can be… in distinction from something you do… and that is why, to me, the question doesn't really make sense. It's like asking whether a smoker… who (BTW) doesn't smoke… should "come out"… or perhaps closer to the point… like guys who dig small-breasted Asian teens (intrinsically, deep down inside) or who go for "doggy style" (intrinsically, deep down inside), all of whom nevertheless live chastely, should somehow "come out." Unless we have admitted the existential possibility of a class of persons who are intrinsically, i.e., independent of their behaviors and levels of piety, "gay", "lesbian", or "glbt", then the question simply makes no sense.
The guy who digs the Asian teens may suffer temptations of types and intensities different from someone else who has a different thing he digs. But if he is living chastely, then, from a purely tautological perspective, he is living chastely. If he sins, well then, he has sinned. He needs to repent, go to confession, do penance, and resolve to do better. If it is a particularly besetting type of sin, he should seek further spiritual counsel or professional counsel or both. But what has "coming out" got to do with any of it? As if broadcasting to the world that "I DIG SMALL-BREASTED ASIAN TEENS", or tatooing to his forearm, is going to somehow going to help this guy… How? We'd just think him a pervert… and we'd be right.
+0
Posted 24 Mar 2007 at 7:23 pm ¶You make a valid point, and St. Blog's own Dr. Gregory Popcak frequently reminds his readers that we are not our problems. We don't talk about "being pneumonia" or "being AIDS", yet we frequently talk about "being depressed" or "being gay". In that sense, you are quite right that same sex attraction does not ipso facto place one in a different ontological category. However, there is still semantic use in referring to someone being gay, just as there is use in referring to someone as being a drug addict, by virtue of both being chronic disorders that are difficult to control and that have stigmas attached to them.
For the sake of semantic clarity, I suggest we refer to all homosexuals/gays as people who have same sex attraction (SSA), and those who are chaste as a subset thereof.
+0
Posted 24 Mar 2007 at 11:06 pm ¶Homosexuality is clearly different than being into Asians or other such inclinations.
For one, someone who is into Asians can probably have a healthy relationship with someone who is not Asian. For that matter, your strawman could, if his inclination was particularly strong, find a nice young looking slight Asian woman, settle down and have a nice family life with her.
A homosexual has only the option of living out that aspect of themselves or living a chaste life. If nothing else, let's at least admit the difficulty of that situation.
There's a wide range of reasonable ideas on how the Church should approach the questions surrounding homosexuality, but I cannot see that Christianity permits us to mock and belittle people who are struggling through spiritual crisis.
+0
Posted 25 Mar 2007 at 2:28 am ¶I think you are arguing semantics. If someone is attracted to the same gender, we commonly call them "gay". If they are attracted to the opposite gender, we call them "straight". If they are attracted to both genders, we call them "bi". It is the attraction that I am talking about when I say someone is gay/straight/bi. Someone can be chaste and gay. They just don't ACT upon the attraction. I don't act on every attraction I have; a chaste gay doesn't act on their attractions.
One's orientation does not define who one is, but it is one of many ways that people self identify. I'm a straight woman. The fact I like men isn't the end all and be all of my existence but it is part of who I am.
+0
Posted 25 Mar 2007 at 12:37 pm ¶… but Edey… you don't like (i.e., fancy, fantasize about, get all hot-n-bothered about) men… you like, &c., your husband, i.e., someone for whom you've promised to be all those things and more. And to the extent that you live up to that promise, you live chastely… and to the extent you fail to do so, you sin.
John, first, you type as though someone actually was mocking or belittling homosexuals. Cetainly not I. In fact, I above indicted almost the entire "hetero" (another category whose existence I deny) population as being functionally "homosexual", which at bottom means (for both kinds of "homosexuals") little more than wanting all the gratification and none of the heavy lifting (i.e., in producing and raising up the next generation). I don't think "gays" are much worse than everybody else, but rather that "everybody else" has by-n-large set the bar really, really low. Contraception is the big problem, the one that makes the vast teeming majority "gay" (more or less). Divorce is next. Same sex acts are last, and tho' certainly abominable, follow naturally from the first two, and are no more abominable.
Secondly, you still speak as though "homosexual" is some sort of ontological category. But will anyone be so bold to suggest that sexual preference (much less behavior) fits neatly into some sort of box called "homosexual". Kinsey was wrong about many things, but surely one thing he was more or less right about was the varieties of sexual desire and experience. Surely no one believes that no "homosexual" has ever had gratifying "hetero" experiences… and surely no one believes that no "heterosexual" has ever had gratifying same sex experiences. Some, for sure, for surely complex reasons, have only had one type experience, but certainly not all. Perhaps not even a majority. If not all or if not a majority, then what, again, could we possibly mean by a category: "homosexual" or even the preferable "SSA"? A person has done the deeds that they've done. Why should those deeds define who they are? A person has the preferences, predilections, and temptations that they've had. Why should those define him either? From the Christian perspective, an act is more or less disordered according how well it comports with God's objective and eternal law. So may a desire be more or less disordered. Are same sex desires disordered according to this law? Yes. But so, in very much the same way, are contraceptive desires. Should all Catholics tempted to contracept then also "come out"?
+0
Posted 25 Mar 2007 at 4:41 pm ¶Steve,
You're both offensive and disingenuous.
First you respond to your fellow Christians who are gay by saying "no you're not." When challenged on that, you respond by saying "you're not gay, you're just really really lazy."
It is clearly true that some people only feel sexual attraction towards members of the same sex. That you honestly try to dispute that fact just shows how far off the deep end you are.
To engage more directly with your arguments, which I do with great hesitation because it gives them an air of legitimacy which they do not possess, you abuse the word "homosexual." If you want to pick a catch all for people who engage in sex other than for reproduction, at least use a word like "sodomite" that somebody other than you has used to mean that.
"So may a desire be more or less disordered." That sentence just served no purpose whatsoever in your paragraph. It said nothing whatsoever. That's not really a conceptual shortcoming, but since we were on the topic of you abusing the language, I figured I'd throw that out there.
Likewise, this sentence "If not all or if not a majority, then what, again, could we possibly mean by a category: "homosexual" or even the preferable "SSA"?" is completely incomprehensible.
Lastly, as to the statements "A person has done the deeds that they've done. Why should those deeds define who they are? A person has the preferences, predilections, and temptations that they've had. Why should those define him either?"
If we don't define someone by what s/he thinks, feels or does, what's left?
+0
Posted 25 Mar 2007 at 9:18 pm ¶John, that you honestly think that I am trying to argue the some people do not feel sexual attraction only towards members of the same sex just shows how much you do not understand what I am trying to argue.
And, yes, I've no qualms for abusing the word "homosexual" as it arrived only in the late 19th century as a medical/scientific term pertaining to a "disorder" that kept cropping up on the radar screen. Funny the Greeks didn't feel the need to invent such a term? Funny, generally, given the fact that same sex predilections (and behavior) have been well-known… well… since there's ever been same sexes… and boats at sea.
I like the word: sodomite. It gets straight to the bottom of the issue and casts the net sufficiently wide to avoid perceptions of irrational descrimination. It addresses the things that people do, which are objective and quantifiable, and avoids the things that people feel, which are always a bit more murky. Nevertheless, it is a naughty word in polite company and so I avoid using it.
If we don't define someone by what s/he thinks, feels or does, what's left?
Yes, John, what indeed? A person is just a person, neither animal nor angel, created in the image of God, and therefore capable of accepting grace and thereby attaining in the end to an indescribable holiness; or refusing grace and thereby becoming in the end a monstrosity of his own making. Most of us are somewhere in-between. And a need for further self-definition (say straight, pro-life, broccoli-loving, non-smoking, single-malt only, outdoor-type, libertarian, prog-rock-fan) strikes me as being at best more oriented toward therapy than redemption, and at worst simply infantile. Unless, that is to say, we are merely our attributes… but that takes the conversation in a far more radical direction.
+0
Posted 26 Mar 2007 at 12:55 am ¶"John, that you honestly think that I am trying to argue the some people do not feel sexual attraction only towards members of the same sex just shows how much you do not understand what I am trying to argue."
If my understanding of what you are arguing is flawed, I suspect the reason is that I have foolishly assumed that what you are arguing is the same as what you are saying. Which is an argument against your cavalier abuse of language.
As to your sudden deference to the sensibilities of "polite company," it seems odd coming from the same man who brought us such gems as, "I DIG SMALL-BREASTED ASIAN TEENS"
To your last argument, while I appreciate the warm squishiness of your 'we're all just people, let's not draw lines between us' sentiment, there are times when groupings are of exceptional utility. If I'm talking about food with someone, know that he or she is a vegan is an important fact to inform my discussion. Likewise, with sexuality, knowing someone's orientation is a useful precursor to any meaningful exchange.
As to the question of defining a sexual preference in spite of chastity, I think I have a useful analogy (I'm uneasy with applying it in a general sense, but in this narrow circumstance, it is useful): if an alcoholic has been dry for thirty years, he will never say, "I'm not an alcoholic any more." It is something that he faces anew each and every day; and the fact that he fights that battle every day is central to what makes him who he is.
Ultimately, the struggles we all have with ourselves are central to what makes us human. Animals do not have those struggles. A deer will never have the experience of "I want to do that, but I will not."
The fact that we exist between animals and angels is what makes these internal questions so important. Among all of God's creations, only people are left these questions.
+0
Posted 26 Mar 2007 at 3:27 am ¶Truly, knowing someone is a vegan is important if you are about to prepare a meal for him or perhaps invite him to a steakhouse. Similarly, knowing someone is same-sex attracted, if one is inclined to pursue (or rebut) a romantic relationship with him. I don't know if this counts as "exceptional utility", but it is no doubt of some utility.
The alcoholic analogy is a very good one I think, but I think it is at least questionable whether the best treatment for the alcoholic is to go through life thinking of himself as an alcoholic. The ideal for anyone is to obtain to the proper use of alcohol. (Like sexuality, it is a gift of God… tho' a far lesser one.) Yes, teetoalism is better than drunkenness, but it is not an ideal to be pursued in its own right. The teetotaling "recovering alcoholic" and the drunk are both still broken; the former simply less so than the latter.
+0
Posted 26 Mar 2007 at 9:42 am ¶I have to agree with Steve. I think the application of Steve's argument (correct me if I'm wrong) combined with Edey's intended question boils down to: "Should those with chronic sinful urges advertise that fact?"
Why should this question be limited to homosexuality? Why not porn addition? Why not masturbation? Why stop with sexual issues? Why not kleptos? Why not abusive spouses? Why not chronic liars?
Keep going, any pretty much everyone will need to wear their sign. Many will have to wear a-lot of signs (I'm probably one of them!).
In the end, I think if we did so, we'd all become a lot more tollerant of each other's failings. Maybe that's a good thing…on the other hand, maybe it's not. If we all become so tolerant, what will really become of acountability? Maybe sin (not the propensity to do so) should be shameful.
+0
Posted 26 Mar 2007 at 11:05 am ¶In my opinion, saying that one is gay is like saying one is tempted to greed or adultery or gluttony. It is one's identity if we allow it. I have never cheated on my wife, but if I focus on the fact that women are attractive, should I go about telling people I am a non-active adulterer? If I were to make that part of my identity, I increase the centrality of that. I increase the importance of the temptation.
We all have different temptations. In terms of what we make as our identity, well, we have more control there.
+0
Posted 27 Mar 2007 at 2:49 am ¶No.
I'm specifically responding to edey's note:
"(guys should not parade around naked in front of a gay friend)"
If someone is gay (straight, etc., etc.), they should not come out. Everyone should be pulling for everyone (including theirself) to be modest in their dress (if not, go to another room or redirect their own eyes, etc.). If guys "parade around naked in front of a gay friend" (or a girl walking around with only her bra on for a straight guy), the gay (straight) party should ask them to put a shirt on, without any need to discuss their orientation (natural or not).
Don't get me wrong, this is a daunting task in our culture (as I am full aware, especially in the summer time). But, may God's grace help us.
gbm3
—
+0
Posted 08 Apr 2007 at 4:06 pm ¶Post a Comment