Cosmos-Liturgy-Sex

I saw an article today reporting that the University Catholic Center at the University of Texas at Austin was starting a “Gay and Lesbian” support group.  This was confirmed on the Center’s website.

Now it is not clear from the report what this support group will entail.  They interview the Paulist priest who will be leading the group, Fr. Ed Koharchik, who provides some interesting statements as reported by UT’s student newspaper, The Daily Texan:

“We want to provide a safe place for young people to talk about this issue – how does it fit in with the Catholic Church teachings?” said the Rev. Ed Koharchik, associate director at the center. “Whether one is gay or straight, it’s morally neutral.”

In recent weeks, the center has promoted the support group, whose purpose is to shed light on the “misconstrued teachings of the church” with respect to non-heterosexual lifestyles, Koharchik said.

“It’s about this group of people and how to stay within the teachings of the church and yet still identify as being of that orientation,” said Michael Jungwirth, a Middle Eastern studies graduate student. “It sounds reasonable.”

Now what he means by “morally neutral” I suppose depends upon what he means by being “gay or straight.”  Unfortunately, using those terms succumbs  to the mistaken notion that same sex attraction has some ontological basis rather than being a disorder that requires healing.  Fr. Koharchik seems to recognize that the terms refer first to a life style.  In other words, they are forms of behavior.

The comments from the student sound promising I suppose.  It is important to stay within the teachings of the Church.  However, I am not all that confident about Fr. Koharchik’s understanding of Church teaching if some of his interviews have been correctly reported.  For example, in an interview with the Daily Texan, published by Politico before the election he is said to have claimed that social issues like immigration and the death penalty were just as important as abortion…Catholics are not single issue voters.  Some additional comments:

Koharchik said he hopes to deter Catholics from breaking off their relationship with God due to their sexual orientation. He said he wants community members to know that sexuality is not tied to an individual’s personhood and that linking the two together could “cut off awareness to goodness.”

Now this is a troubling, deficient anthropology.  If he said this, he really should learn John Paul II’s theology of the body.  In fact, one’s sex is constitutive, in part, of personhood.  One is male or female and cannot be a human person without being so.  Sex difference establishes the structure by which the individual person exercises his personhood.  The claim attributed to Fr. Koharchik introduces a dualism into the person not unrelated to the body-soul dualism of our post-Cartesian Western culture (often mistakenly attributed to Platonism some would argue).  Teaching young people who are confused about their sexual identity because of some pathology that their sexual identity is not part of who they are as persons is not the solution.  In fact, they will recognize that this is false.

Rather, one needs to help them better understand how in fact their intuition that their sex is an integral aspect them as persons, is in fact valid.  The fact that they suffer from an interior conflict between who they are and how they feel is something they do need to understand.  Otherwise, I do not see how they will ever be able to understand why the Church teaches as She does, that they cannot act on certain inclinations.  If they are given to think that this great drive in their lives is something completely unrelated to them as persons and so acting upon it is sinful then this will appear to be an arbitrary, unfair, and impossible demand…something they already, no doubt, feel.

I am further discouraged by the resource that they have chosen as their guide; the problematic, notorious document released by the NCCB a few years back:

Among other pastoral recommendations aimed toward church ministers, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops suggests in its pamphlet, “Always Our Children,” that religious entities “help to establish or promote support groups for parents and family members” of gays and lesbians.

This document had the overall affect of saying “yes you are gay but you ought not to act upon it.”  A ridiculous proposition from any perspective.  I do hope that the following authentically expresses the teachings of the Church

Koharchik’s goal for the support group is to encourage a chaste lifestyle for every person and to encourage members to “live morally good and make proper decisions.

If the way Fr. Koharchik has been represented in the Daily Texan is an accurate portrayal of his thinking, I am concerned that his group will foster more hurt and confusion among those already suffering from such a difficult disorder that attacks the very center of one’s personal identity.  I recognize that it is possible that they are using terminology that they consider pastorally necessary (the fact that they seem to have asked for the Austin Diocese’s support might support this possibility) but it is also possible that they are getting into something that they are not qualified to do.  I would have to ask why they would not draw upon an already existing and successful program like Courage rather than going it alone with an approach that, as the reporting suggests, is in danger of bearing doing more harm than good.

Tom Wolfe, in his 2004 novel I Am Charlotte Simmons, explores the connection between the mind-brain reductionism of contemporary neuroscience and sociobiology and the moral depravity rampant on contemporary college and university campuses. Philosophical materialists who reviewed the book were, by and large, unimpressed by the idea that mind-brain reductionism should lead to the libertinism endemic to contemporary campus life.

But Wolfe, who is generally more prescient regarding the culture than those purely literary types who review his books, was simply expressing a sense of a connection that honest philosophers since the time of Socrates have recognized as their vocation to articulate. Namely, it is impossible that there should be such a thing as objective moral goodness if reality is nothing more than matter in motion.

Philosophical materialism is the underlying metaphysical presupposition of the contemporary academy. It is a metaphysical position that is thought, by many, to have been put on an unshakable foundation by the findings of modern neuroscience. All experiences and thoughts are capable of being measured in the brain, so it is said by materialists, and we have proven this by our successes in mapping experiences and thoughts to their neural correlates. Certain neural regions, when stimulated, give rise to experiences and thoughts. Many take this to mean that the brain must be wholly causal of psychological phenomena, and this is taken to mean, at least implicitly, that the human person is reducible to his brain. We truly are (on this view), to borrow an image from Descartes, brains in a vat, though the vat in question is simply the rest of the human body. Much of the effort in neuroscience is directed to finding the neural correlates of psychic experience.

Perhaps the best book written on the subject of the relationship of the mind and the brain remains Stanley Jaki’s Brain, Mind and Computers. The book was originally published in 1969, with a second and expanded edition in 1989. Jaki, as many may know, is a Catholic priest, theologian, and perhaps the most important historian and philosopher of science in the past 40 years. In this book, he defends the existence of the soul, whose existence alone, he argues, makes human understanding possible. He makes this defense, in a masterful blend of historical scholarship and philosophical argumentation, against the reigning philosophies that underlie modern neuroscience and especially against those who think that mental processes are reducible to computer models. Jaki considers the relationship of the brain to experience and thought, and he levels a devastating critique of those who champion the existence of “artificial intelligence,” those, that is, who equate understanding with the physical manipulation by pre-established rules of purely formal systems. Especially valuable is chapter V of the book, which Jaki added to the second edition and which gives a very suggestive phenomenology of language.

The book is worth considering in detail, but there is one point that Jaki makes near the end of it that I wish to bring out here, and that gets me to the point of this post. Jaki gives several suggestions, toward the end of chapter 5, for defenders of the existence of the soul to consider in regard to the contemporary debate on the mind and the brain, inasmuch as there is such a debate. One of his suggestions is that defenders of the soul should have the courage to call a spade a spade. By this he means that philosophers who recognize fully the dignity of the human person must be brave enough to stand athwart efforts by neuroscientists, sociobiologists, proponents of artificial intelligence, and the like, to reshape human society according to their valueless science. Jaki explains:

… [society] merrily marches down the road to anarchy. The march is to the brass bands composed of academics who have been busy trumpeting that exclusive attention to quanitatively specificable patterns is the only posture with intellectual respectability. Such a pattern is on hand whenever a behavior, no matter how queer, is acted upon in a statistically significant number. From there it is but a short step to claims to legal recognition and protection, as on the basis of mere patterns, so many pure formalizations, everything becomes a mere machinery, with no allowance for distinctions between the morally good and the morally evil. Hence the steady erosion of sensitivity for hallowed principles, as if they were so many words, and the growing readiness to grant social respectability to any behavior, provided it establishes itself as a pattern. (Brain, Mind and Computers p. 295)

Jaki wrote these words in 1989, and there is little doubt that he did not have the concept of “gay marriage” on his mind at that time. But the basic principle that he brings out here is at play in the ever-greater social acceptance of “gay marriage.”

What he means in this passage is that there are those who hold that behavior is entirely determined by biology. The biological dimension of beings is, in turn, thought to be capable of being mathematically measured. Indeed, the establishment of a mathematical measure to things is the ultimate goal of science. The ultimate reality of things is, on the view of many, that which is quantifiable. Given the advances of twentieth century physics, mathematical science has tended to rest in statistical analysis, especially so in regard to “biological systems.” The statistical is therefore thought to be the real. Statistical significance is the only significance. There is no good or bad, in the traditional moral sense. There are only, for these reductionists, statistically significant occurrences of behavior.

Jaki confines his attention to unmasking the pretensions of proponents of artificial intelligence. They think only in terms of statistical significance. They have no other basis then statistical analysis to uphold or deny moral norms. But, going beyond Jaki’s analysis, it must be recognized that the philosophical position of these reductionists goes hand-in-glove with utilitarianism, which reduces the rational assessment of human action to a calculus of pleasure.

The upshot of this type of moral reasoning is that there can be no standard of moral goodness that transcends comfort and demographic consensus. If a person’s behavior is thought to contribute to his comfort and pleasure then his behavior is acceptable, on the condition that the statistically-verified, consensus opinion of his society is amenable to his behavior.

Of course, this type of reasoning goes against the virtue ethic of the Catholic tradition, for which actions or behaviors are good or bad by their very nature. In regard to the discussion of “gay marriage,” the gap between the Church’s virtue ethic and the materialistic ethos of the wider culture makes it very difficult at present for genuinely Catholic opinion to penetrate public opinion. On the analysis of the Church, it is in the nature of things that male and female are sexually oriented to one another, as is evidenced by their bodily complementarity. It is for the ultimate good of a society that it should encourage a stable ordering of this orientation of one to the other in the socially privileged institution of monogamous marriage.

Scriptural revelation unveils the profoundest depths of the ordering of male and female to one another. Marriage is revealed in scripture in its sacramental profundity. The union of man and woman in the Church, as Saint Paul realized, gives to marriage its full significance as both sign and instantiation of the entire Church’s nuptial relationship to Christ the Bridegroom. Naturally, the Church cannot force civil society to accept the sacramental meaning of marriage. But the revealed meaning of marriage is a perfection of its natural meaning, and it is the Church’s duty to defend this natural meaning even in the civil order.

Ultimately, mind-brain reductionism devalues the body as much as it denies the existence of the mind. The form of the body is of little consequence to an analysis of human action for reductionists. For the virtue ethic of the Church, the sexual act is good inasmuch as it is ordered to the union of husband and wife and the openness to procreation that seals their love most fully. The form of the body and the experience of married love reveal to natural experience the soundness of this teaching. But reductionists cannot see in the form of the body anything that is of its essence, just as they cannot see in concrete experience anything that connects to reality. Male, female, or some combination of the two: it makes no difference. Matter and its statistically analyzed motion is the only reality for reductionists, not the “shape” of the body, not its concrete existence as we experience it. Reality, for reductionists, is ultimately a homogeneous mass of matter/energy in space-time. The things we experience in our everyday life, the basis for the Church’s virtue ethic, are denied reality.

So, the upshot of the cultural dominance of mind-brain reductionism, as Tom Wolfe realized, is the situation of poor Charlotte Simmons, an innocent college co-ed at a prestigious university, who is left to figure out her life in an environment where anything goes. What difference does it make, as long as almost everyone is comfortable and having a good time? In the end, you are only your brain. When it dies, there is nothing left. Why, then, should we not have a culture formed by the ethos of “Girls Gone Wild,” or “Boys Gone Wild,” or “The Jerry Springer Show?”

How do we, as faithful and hopeful Catholics, transform this cultural situation? It can only come through the Church. As the Holy Father himself realizes, it starts with the reform of the Church’s liturgy, where bodily form and symbol have to be valued once again after several decades of anti-religious leveling of the symbols in the Church. And Catholic institutions of higher education have to have the boldness, as Fr. Jaki says, to call a spade a spade. Moral reasoning is impotent if it is based upon the idea that the mind is reducible to the brain. The Church’s intellectual class needs to state it plainly: there can be no such a thing as objective goodness or of “values” that transcend cultural norms if the mind is reducible to the brain. Luckily, we are seeing more and more bishops who are stating the matter plainly, and we must all support them.

A careful reading of Catholic philosophers and theologians in the Thomist tradition, such as Stanly Jaki, has much to teach us as well, and Catholic universities should get back to this tradition of thought. A first pedagogical step would be to teach a sound epistemology to students: one that recognizes that each and every act of understanding transcends the material domain. The brain cannot understand. Computers cannot understand. These cannot understand because material systems cannot, as Thomists have always understood, abstract universals from concrete particulars. And it is only by abstracting the universal meaning of things that any particular thing – whether it be a word, or a symbol, or an animal, or a tree, or a molecule – is understood. Brains and computers are only concrete particulars, or collects of concrete particulars, and only act within the concrete moment. They cannot transcend the concrete moment of space-time because they exist entirely within it. It takes spirit, which is not confined to space-time, in order to abstract the universal from the concrete. It takes spirit in order to understand, for instance, what it means to be a person, or to be this particular person, or to understand any particular thing or general concept that persons communicate. Of course, I mean by spirit, at least for humans as opposed to angels and God, that which is, in the soul, truly united to the body (as the soul was not for Descartes), even though the soul is not reducible to the body. This sound epistemology, which is also the only basis for a sound ontology, is the starting point for a genuinely Catholic and Christian educational perspective. It should be expanded and brought out on many different levels. It is the basis of true philosophy and theology. It is only in recognizing the existence of the soul and the body (both of which are done away with by mind-body reductionism), and their unity, that a truly humanistic form of moral reasoning can be articulated.

Congratulations to Aquinas College, which earlier this month canceled a ‘gay activist” speaker because administrators recognized the fact that Catholic schools should never endorse anything or anyone who directly contradicts and belittles Church teachings. One of the challenges of those with deep-seated homosexual tendencies and who identify themselves as “gay” is they are incapable of recognizing the possibilities of their emotional conflicts having a direct correlation to their homosexual tendencies and attractions.

Despite the cancellation, students helped organize a speech of John Corvino off campus.

“Gay and lesbian relationships make some people happy. And I don’t just mean that they make people feel good. They are an important avenue of meaning and fulfillment in people’s lives,” said Corvino, who teaches at Wayne State University. “If we’re going to deny that experience to an entire group of people, we better have a darned good reason.”

“The way gay and lesbian people are treated in our society is morally wrong. I’m asking people to make moral judgments not on whom they love, but on whether they love.”

“Some people refer to me as a fallen Catholic. I didn’t fall. I leapt. We should not confuse complete faith in God with complete faith in our ability to discern God’s voice.”

“Of course two men can’t make a baby. But is making babies the only legitimate reason for having sex?”

“The usual response to a gay person is not ‘Hey, no fair. How come he gets to be gay and I don’t?’ We can continue to support (heterosexual marriage) while recognizing that it’s not right for everyone.”

For as long as one pursues this type of self-gratifying sexuality which is based on the desire to “love” and to be “loved” on one’s own terms, the more his psychological & spiritual health suffers up to the point of corruptness and spiritual death. Because sexuality forms an integral part of our personality, it makes sense to those who suffer from a wounded sense of sexual identity to believe sexual orientation is tied to something significantly more than the sexual act; consequently; love and acceptance becomes something that must be earned by the other but is a conditional entitlement or right which must be afforded to the self.

“I will lead you into the desert that I may speak to your heart…” (Hos 2:16)

“My grace is sufficient for you, for in weakness, power reaches perfection” (2 Cor 12:9)

It is not God’s will that a soul be disturbed by anything or suffer trials, for if one suffers trials in the adversities of the world it is because of a weakness in virtue. The perfect soul rejoices in what afflicts the imperfect one. – St. John Of the Cross

Plans to berate Pope Benedict are in the works by the “Rainbow Sash Movement“. Their plan is to publicly demonstrate their “disgust” against the “sinner” by showering him with ashes and publicly shaming him with whistles for causing the Church so much division and pain.

“There are souls that wallow in the mire like animals, and there are others that soar like birds, which purify and cleanse themselves in the air.” - St. John Of the Cross

Addictions to our disordered attachments make us weak, impotent slaves to the will and defile our souls by diminishing the image of God within us. Narcissism can be found at the core of almost every psychological dysfunction because it’s a manifistation of “falling in love” with ourselves to hide our own inadequacies and treating others like objects to make ourselves feel strong and competent. As in this case, this particular group of sinners show how they are infatuated with the vanity of their own disordered desires, and hide behind their dependence of social prestige (same sex marriage, “equal rights”) and power (self-righteousness, sex abuse scandal) to destroy our beloved holy father whom they see as standing in their way of happiness (attaining the elusive sense of internal peace and rest).

“A soul that is hard because of self-love grows harder. O good Jesus, if you do not soften it, it will ever continue in its natural hardness.”- St. John Of the Cross

H/T Abbey-roads2

Image from Rainbow Sash Movement website

In January, Shelray did a post about a San Francisco man suing a Catholic Hospital in Daly City for refusing to give him a sex change operation. Well apparently the hospital caved under the pressure of a court order according to an EWTN feed from CWN. This is most unfortunate but I suppose that it is encouraging that they resisted to start with. However, what is problematic is that the hospital is said to have released the following statement:

“We regret any confusion that may have come from this situation. We want this patient and her physician to know that they are welcome at Seton Medical Center.”

In doing so they not only have caved into the pressure but they also have abetted this suffering soul’s confusion by referring to him as a woman and seeming to imply that they were wrong to have refused the mutilating procedure (aka breast enhancement operation) in the first place.

Any way, it turns out that the man, “Charlene” Hastings will not have his mutilation done at the Catholic hospital, Seton Medical Center, because he would feel that the hospital “is doing it under duress.” Nevertheless, he is going forward with the civil suit for monetary damages according to his lawyer. That is a surprise.

The local CBS TV news station reports that “transgender Charlene Hastings has claimed moral victory against Catholics.” That after all is what “Charlene” is really after.  I suspect that even in his confusion he still senses that his interior conflict is not the fact that he is a woman in a man’s body but that he is in fact really a man who cannot come to terms with his sexual identity. Thus, he needs continual reaffirmation that he is correct in his desire to reconcile this conflict by mutilating his body such that it makes him look like he feels. Of course, the lawyer’s goal is just as pathological but has nothing to do with moral victories. Nevertheless, perhaps in order to satisfy his victim’s, errr, client’s need for affirmation, he provides the following:

The CBS 5 News station characterized the statement as a “veiled apology.” It said, “transgender Charlene Hastings has claimed moral victory against Catholics.” According to the California Catholic Daily, Hasting’s attorney, Chris Dolan, said that a lawsuit seeking monetary damages would proceed.

“Like any good religious experience, first you need enlightenment and then you need atonement,” said Dolan. “And what we have here perhaps is a glimpse of enlightenment. Has it changed their heart? I don’t think so. Will it change their practice? It better.”

Isaiah 5:20, from the book of judgment, comes to mind here: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!” Dolan is right about Christian experience, though he forgets about repentance–not a surprise. However, to call what the hospital has “seen” as enlightenment is chillingly satanic. To trade the truth for an attempt at monetary preservation is exactly the opposite.  At best one can call their caving in, material cooperation with evil. If they did release the attributed statement, it becomes more likely formal cooperation with evil which a Catholic can never do, even if it means closing the doors of the hospital.

I hope that Dolan is right that those running the hospital’s hearts have not changed. It is the only chance that they will come to see that giving in to this coercion is harmful to those like “Charlene”, his lawyer, and in the long run to the hospital itself and larger society. If they were to act according to the truth, perhaps through their witness then those who authentically need it may eventually receive “enlightenment and then atonement.”

California Catholic Daily had an article yesterday explaining what the San Francisco-based “Gay-Straight Alliance Network” is up to in their latest attempt to promote “marriage” for those who suffer from same sex attraction disorder and number of related affective pathologies. For the upcoming “Freedom to Marry Week” they want clubs in high schools and middle schools to go all out to promote this “fundamental human right — the right to marry those whom we love.”

In order to promote it they are suggesting decorating classrooms and hallways, holding mock weddings complete with wedding receptions with cake and toasts to the “freedom to marry.” One venue aimed at children as young as 14 years old is offering free drag shows and workshops on “safe sex” and “how to do drag.”

Of course, this is the long term strategy. One can see that these activists are hoping to influence enough young minds to become, if not activists themselves, at least favorable to their agenda. The strategy is an appeal to love, human rights, and equality. This seems quite difficult to argue against for many who do not have a solid moral grounding and/or insight into what this lifestyle really entails.

The real difficulty with arguing against this “rights language” is that society has come to distort the meaning of sexuality and marriage so badly that in its present deficient state, there seems little grounds for demonstrating the disordered nature of same sex attraction. This began when we swallowed the error that contraceptive sex within marriage is legitimate. In doing so we separated the inseparable aspects of the marital act–the procreative and the unitive. These two meanings form an inseparable unity just as the body and soul comprise two aspects of one unified human nature. In fact, there is a direct correlation between the marital act and this hylomorphic structure of the human person.

One can see that the procreative aspect of sexual intercourse, the primary end in the biological domain, corresponds to the material/bodily aspect of the human person. Likewise, the unitive aspect of marital intercourse, which weds two souls together, corresponds to the formal/soul aspect of the human person. Just as when one separates soul from body the person dies, when one attempts to separate the unitive from the procreative in marital intercourse, one destroys the marital act. It becomes, what we must admit is the ultimate end of artificial contraception any way, simply an act of hedonism in which pleasure–a fruit of the marital act–becomes the purpose of the act. Making this pleasurable secondary effect an end/purpose results in libidinism. In his work, Love and Responsibility, Karol Wojtyla shows that this libidinism necessarily results in the use (read exploitation) of each person by the other. This is the case even when both consent.

Once we destroyed the meaning of the marital act and treated in such a way that it is now clearly viewed primarily in terms of pleasure, we lost the ability to claim that the act must be reserved to marriage. Thirty years ago living with someone of the opposite sex prior to marriage was still a no no, for the most part, culturally. Today, the average person is often authentically surprised when they hear it suggested that there is actually something morally wrong with premarital intercourse or cohabitation. I see it every year with students and with RCIA.

Now since the marital act has been torn from its unified meaning as procreative and unitive in our culture, it now is free to be redefined however we choose. Add to this the fact that the no fault divorce debacle has led to the annihilation of the meaning of marriage itself, as a life long commitment of two people to one another and to their children. I would argue that the close correlation of the wide availability and “effective” artificial contraception beginning in the 1960s and the radical increase in the divorce rate and the free fall of the nuclear family all represent causally connected phenomena. Because of this destruction of the meaning of marriage and the marital act, some, of course, are choosing to make the case that anyone you can have sex with, you should be able to marry. Now is the opportune time as too many of us have lost the sense of nature and what is natural. All is now all open to redefinition based upon our whims…even the whims of disorder. At least in the sexual sphere, Nietzsche’s nihilistic, deconstructionist dream in his Gay Science is now upon us.

It is not the case that there is a large interest in marriage among those who suffer from these disorders. Rather, what we see in this movement is the manifestation of a phenomenon common to many who find themselves in a perpetual state of moral disorder. These suffering souls need continual reaffirmation that what they are doing is “really ok.” Any sense that there exists anyone, any place who would warn that they are not ok cannot be tolerated. All messages that something is not right with them must be removed.

This is what underlies the movement for “equality” in marriage. SSAD sufferers need continually reaffirmation from all quarters that same sex attraction is not a disorder. They need to hear from everyone that they are normal. This much can be seen from the totalitarian methods taken by many of those suffering from these disorders when they have the power, against anyone who would utter a word suggesting that there might be something wrong with SSAD. And this need for repeated reaffirmation will continue to be the case even when they do not hear anyone telling them they are not.

It is the fault of our society–read those of us in it– that we have promoted the conditions in which the arguments for “equality in marriage” are now compelling to so many. In truth, these disordered efforts to finally destroy the meaning of marriage are not the first volleys in the battle against marriage. Rather, they represent the final assault in a war whose first shot was heard in 1930 in the U.K. when the Anglican bishops meeting in Lambeth agreed that it was permissible to allow artificial contraception in marriage in some restricted cases. That was the initial crack in the windshield; today the windshield is nearing total structural failure.  Don’t be surprised if in the near future, your children or grandchildren will be taking as one of their required courses, How to do Drag…

H/T to Terry Nelson of Abbey-Roads2:

The Battle For Normality; A Guide For Self-Therapy For Homosexuality Van den Aardweg

“Van den Aardweg asks the question: ”why are so many protestant and catholic homosexuals, male and female alike, interested in theology, and why do they not infrequently want to be ministers or priests?” he says that part of the answer lies in their infantile need for sympathy and contact. and i quote: ”they view church professions as soft and sentimentally ‘caring’ and imagine themselves in them as being honored and revered, elevated above common human beings. they see the Church as a noncompetitive, friendly world where they may enjoy high status and be protected at the same time.

for male homosexuals, there is the additional incentive of a rather closed men’s community where they need not prove themselves as men; …. and in the catholic and russian orthodox churches, there is the attraction of the garments and the aesthetic rituals, which male homosexuals may, in their childish perception, experience as feminine and which enable a narcissistic showing off, comparable to the exhibitionist joys of homosexual ballet dancers ….

These interests stem for the most part, then, from an infantile, self-centered imagination and have precious little to do with the objective contents of Christian belief. What some homosexuals thus see as their ‘calling’ to the priesthood is an attraction to an emotionally rewarding, but self-centered, way of life. these are self-imagined and ‘false’ vocations.”

He goes on to claim that needless to say these priests preach soft, humanistic reinventions of traditional beliefs, especially of moral principles. and a distorted concept of “love.” he also asks *do real vocations never go along with homosexual interests?” he answers,” i do not dare to affirm that fully; perhaps i have seen a few exceptions in the course of the years. but as a rule, a homosexual orientation, whether acted out or experienced only in the private emotional life, must certainly be regarded as a contraindication to the supernatural source of priestly interests.”- Commentary on van den Aardweg

One of the biggest problems of those with deep-seated homosexual tendencies and who identify themselves as “gay” is they are typically unwilling to examine the posibility of emotional conflicts having any correlation to their homosexual tendencies and attractions. This makes for a formula for disaster in a Church which is continually under attack and where the merciful protection from evil is sought by and assured to the humble and obedient. For a little more evidence or insight to the incompatibility between those with deep seated homosexual tendencies and the Roman Catholic priesthood, I included a Zenit interveiw I found a while back, with Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons, who is a psychiatrist and author/contributor to the Catholic Medical Association’s document “Homosexuality and Hope.”

These individuals in the priesthood have a significant affective immaturity with excessive anger and jealousy toward males who are not homosexual, insecurity that leads them to avoid close friendships with such males and an inordinate need for attention.

Most of these men had painful adolescent experiences of significant loneliness and sadness, felt insecure in their masculinity, and had a poor body image. Well-designed research studies have demonstrated a much higher prevalence of psychiatric illness in those who identify themselves as homosexual.

Under severe stress they may even experience strong physical and sexual attraction to adolescent males, as has occurred in the crisis in the Church. Frequently, they may have difficulty working in a collegial and comfortable way with heterosexual males.

Unresolved paternal anger is regularly misdirected as rebellion against the magisterium and the Church’s teaching on sexual morality. Unfortunately, their denial, defensiveness and anger block their openness to seek the Lord’s help with their emotional and behavioral weaknesses.

What an injustice it is to all of the souls influenced by the self-imagined and false vocations. The cause of so much pain and dissent, metasized heresy and confusion. May we never doubt the love and endless mercy of God and trust His greater good which comes from all our evil deeds. Using a title I found on the Curt Jester blog as a inspiring source of hope in why we should never stop praying for the protection of all of our priests, especially for mercy on those with the greatest need: “Denying the possibility of conversion is to deny the possibility of grace“.

Part II of Zenit interview.

In January of 1998, a 39 year-old Catholic by the name of Alfredo Ormando knelt down as if to pray in the deserted Vatican piazza and proceeded to douse his clothing with a flammable fluid, making it nearly impossible for police to extinguish the flames which ultimately took his life several days later. Opportunistic fanatics and other anti-catholic pundits blamed the death on JPII and now Pope Benedict along with the Catholic church for causing despair among those like Mr. Ormando who suffer from SSAD. Regardless of the conflicting reports on what eventually caused this poor man to take his own life (a protest on the Church’s doctrine on SSAD vs. stressed family relations), the facts remain that it’s the life events which are responsible for triggering symptoms of depression, but it’s the depression which goes untreated that ultimately causes a suicide; consequently, credible and well designed studies have found suicide attempts among “homosexuals” were three to six times greater than that of the general population.

While there have been wins by pro-”gay” activist manipulating and intimidating society into embracing a “gay” culture, the pseudo-science activists have failed time and again in their pursuit of legitimate scientific data to back their hopes of SSA being the result of a genetically predetermined condition. A new 2008 study of twins and SSA (latest and largest study of it’s kind) enrolled over 9000 individuals with the hope of establishing proof that SSA is a genetically driven condition. In short, it failed to do so, instead re-affirmed other studies of it’s kind which show genetic effects on SSA are minor, while other very individualist factors predominate.

Not that it should even matter if one is born with a condition or not, as there are children born with undesirable and debilitating physical disabilities every day, and these physically impaired children are not being rejected for who they are (they are not their disability) , nor are they left to the vices of their own disabilities due to fears of damaging their self-esteem, but they are treated with sound evidence based medicine specifically because they have value and are loved. So it is the hope of parents that their children may not only love, but be loved, and grow to live up to their potential with the hope of living productive and prosperous lives. Those suffering from SSAD should have the same opportunity to be all that God created them to be, but our cowardly and sick culture denies them of healing, choosing instead to look the other way and say nothing rather than stand up to the scorn of the militant activists of the world who use intimidation and slander (vs. science and evidence base medicine) to push their intolerant agenda through out the world. It’s these same fascists who condemn and blame the Catholic Church of intolerance and hate, that sit in judgment of anyone who has the guts to work for change and wholeness in their lives.

Because sexuality forms an integral part of our personality, it makes sense that some of those who suffer from a wounded sense of sexual identity would believe sexual orientation is tied to something significantly more than just to the sexual act itself. It’s important to remember many people within the “gay” community feel that the only place they’ve ever been fully accepted, is within the “gay” community, not only because the outside world condemns homosexuality, but because a significant part of the outside world failed to accept them and their personality even before they had any sort of homosexual feelings – so, accepting one part of the person without accepting the sexuality part , through their eyes, is not possible. I think a good example on how I may see the person and the homosexual acts as separate or compartmentalized, like the sin and the sinner; whereas, those with SSAD see “gayness” as more homogenized into their being – the sin and the sinner are one – diabolically brilliant strategy to be sure.

The tragedy behind the tragedy of Alfredo Ormando’s suicide is that 10 years later, even in death, the exploitation of this tormented man continues to perpetuate the hateful and dangerous pro-gay/anti-catholic agenda that contributed to his violent death in the first place. Shame to all  (APA, AMA, politicians, etc…) of those who know what they do, but do or say nothing out of fear of reprisal, apathy and personal agendas- there’s plenty blood shed and blame to be shared by all.

LifeSite announced that after meeting with Archbishop Flynn, the controversial priest from Saint Frances Cabrini Parish, Father Leo Tibesar, has agreed to remove “any language from the St. Frances Cabrini parish website that is in opposition to Roman Catholic Church doctrine.”

Removed from the parish website was a page titled a “Statement of Reconciliation” which bemoaned Church teaching on sexual purity and married chastity and misrepresented these teachings as a form of “oppression.” The statement said the parish is committed to “Publicly bless the relationships of a same sex couple after the couple completes a process of discernment similar to that completed by heterosexual couples before marriage.” The item had an asterisk referring to a note on the bottom reading “not being implemented at this time.”

Yeah, they technically removed the “Statement of Reconciliation” tab from the website, but what looks to be either a totally incompetent oversight or a blatant act of passive/ aggressive rebellion – the parish website continues to misrepresent the Church’s teaching on same sex attraction disorder while endorsing the lifestyle on it’s GLBT page. Although this may be an instance of the inmates running the asylum, it looks to me as the fruit of dissent not falling far from the the tree. In my opinion, this looks suspiciously similar to a childlike testing of limits, and as parents – the Archdiocese should immediately crack down to sanitize the parish and it’s website of this sort of scandalous garbage. As in real life, intellectual children respond best to confident and consistent parents who clearly established boundaries and who are not hesitant to burn some little butts from time to time, when necessary.

If you do not support “gay rights,” then according to Tim Gill you are a member of the forces of darkness. Gill has begun a well thought out strategy to use political donations to help ensure that you have no voice in the political system. Who is Tim Gill you ask? He created a publishing software company called Quark, Inc. He recently sold his holdings for about a half billion dollars in order to dedicate his money and himself to his goal of ensuring that “anti-gay” politicians get defeated on the local level. To do so, he has organized a political analysis machine to identify and target “vulnerable” politicians around the country along with a network of “pro-gay” donors.

He believes that while this is a long term approach, it is the most cost effective because it reduces the number of local “anti-gay” initiatives which can influence the national scene, it is much cheaper because a few thousand dollars can reverse an election on the local level, it removes “anti-gay” politicians from rising to the national level, and finally it creates an atmosphere of fear that will force politicians to abandon their “anti-gay” agendas if they want to keep from being targeted by Gill’s machine. Last year, Gill himself donated $15M; almost all to local campaigns around the country.

Atlantic Monthly ran an article in the March edition of this year that outlines his strategy. What strikes you as you read the article is that it takes the perspective that what “gay rights” activists are pushing for is obviously a matter of justice. The so called “gay” agenda has the moral high ground. The article throws out Gill’s terminology about “punishing the wicked” and referring to politicians such as Rick Santorum of Pennsylvannia, as “one such villain.” The author throws in that Santorum had once compared homosexuality to “man on dog sex.” Since he didn’t give a source for this claim, I suspect that it is a distortion of Santorum’s comment before the Supreme Court decision on the Texas sodomy law which they eventually overturned, in which Santorum said that if the Texas law cannot be upheld then there is no principle by which one could then outlaw such things as polygamy, bestiality, etc. Santorum was, of course, referring to natural law and the biological meaning of sexual intercourse as ordered to procreation. However, “man on dog sex” is no doubt how one affected with SSAD hears it which immediately tells you a bit about the author and the editorial staff of Atlantic Monthly.

Gill wishes to advance the agenda which he terms as equal rights for everyone. Equal rights include “gay marriage,” laws against discriminating in employment, housing, or anything else, against those who engage in and promote the “gay” lifestyle, and of course “hate” laws to punish more severely any crime done against someone who self-identifies as “gay” and has a suspicion that this was why he was attacked. Ultimately we see that those laws are increasingly being used to stifle the Christian teaching that SSAD is objectively just that, a disorder.

Something that I found interesting is that a recent failure was attributed in part by one of Gill’s strategizers as due to the factor he calls “the gay ick.” What this is, is when “good straight people” (i.e. those who buy into the line that the SSAD lifestyle is nothing different than a heterosexual romance) are made to focus on the acts done by those who engage in same sex activities, they are repulsed by it. But what else is this “gay” culture than one oriented around an unnatural activity?

Like abortion, this is fundamentally where the “rights” strategy breaks down and shows you the man hiding behind the curtain. If one has to hide the activity, such as the killing of a baby or the personally demeaning acts that one is led to do when involved in the SSAD lifestyle in order to make it palatable to the average person, then this ought to be a red flag for the average person.

Unfortunately, our culture is not in the habit of thinking critically and the propaganda machine takes advantage of this. Activists like Tim Gill will continue to promote the most sellable face of the SSAD lifestyle and call evil those who oppose it. St. Paul warned that those who give into these sins of the flesh will eventually call what is evil–good, and what is good–evil. So, if you are being confronted by those who call a disorder good, then do not be surprised when you are identified with the forces of darkness.

Many of us should know who Father Leo Tibesar is by now and judging by the tone and content of his homily, there leaves little doubt as to the extent of damage which can occur when the rebellious priests of the world are left to their own devices. Sex and gender confusion gone wild, yet again, is the divisive issue evoking yet another priest to lead his parishioners down the path of spiritual destruction.

I think what disturbs me most is the means by which Fr. Tibesar is going about establishing his own kingdom come. As stated on his parish’s website, he blatantly accuses the Vatican of teaching that the “homosexual persons” themselves are “objectively disordered”, vs. the truth of homosexual tendencies being objectively disordered – there’s a huge difference, between a human person and a disordered tendency. Although, this text may be next to impossible to understand or to be believed by those of us who can’t help but place a value on others based solely on how much we like them or by how they make us feel. So often indicative of one’s state in life, Fr. Tibesar’s homily was cold and void of any message of hope, love or forgiveness; projecting instead a message of disobedience, anger and defeat.

It’s one thing to love, accept and minister to persons with SSAD according to the wisdom of the Church, but it’s quite another to “marry” them – according to the parish website – Fr. Tibesar Publicly blesses the relationships of a same sex couples after the couple completes a process of discernment similar to that completed by heterosexual couples before marriage (although it claims it is not being done at this time). Among other commitments of reconciliation towards the GLBT community, the parish has a “gay/lesbian” perspective in catechesis at all levels, including elementary school age. They also are working towards the acceptance of qualified, openly “gay or lesbian” priests or lay ministers. As probably predictable at this point, instead of links to Courage and other resources to support parishioners and others with SSAD, there are links on the parish website with such fitting names as GenderBlur which promote and attempt to legitimize the SSAD lifestyle.

May God bless ALL of our priests.

Credits: Image and Links – St. Frances Cabrini Website

Last Sunday a young, intrepid FOCUS missionary, Emily, and I headed out into the dark night to engage the UI student group called PRIDE. This group is a consortium of those who struggle with various issues associated with sexual attraction and sexual identity, though of course, they do not see it that way. As I had suspected, we were the only group invited who did not affirm that this group of students were right in pursuing whatever their loins tell them.

I was prepared for an opportunity for white martyrdom and perhaps a little red mixed in. Each representative group was given seven minutes to present and we were the last. The local UCC campus minister, a rabid anti-Catholic, expressed the view that Christian groups who denied the beauty of SSA disorder and the”relationships” that arise from such were evil, to be equated with the evil of Nazi Germany and that she was on a mission to fight and eradicate them. I half expected her to throw something. However, I could share with her the sense of compassion that she felt for these poor lost souls, even if her method of compassion was gravely misplaced.

All of the “death is life” affirming drivel (i.e. your sexual attraction is who you are so embrace it and act upon it) that these suffering young kids (along with the 60 year old guy in the third row with the long flowing black wig) heard left my head spinning. I was asking myself, if these people who are supposed to be “ministering” to these kids and who see their suffering, all are continually telling them they are o.k. and the pain that they feel is the fault of those at the end of the panel (i.e. Emily and yours truly) because they are telling them that they have something wrong with them, then what are the chances of getting the authentic message of healing and hope in Jesus Christ through to them?

It was very fortunate that Emily was there, because when it came our turn to speak my head was still swimming with the overwhelming questions of how to respond to each of these falsehoods that the previous panel members put forth. Emily gave her prepared statement, doing an excellent job by the way. She told the students of their dignity as persons because they were created in the image of God. She told them that no one had the right to deny this dignity and apologized on behalf of the Church for any of her members who might have contravened this truth. She also told them though that the Church has the fullness of the gospel message and is therefore an expert in the human person and that she was there to give them the message and the strength to become the glory of God–man fully alive. She then mentioned to them about the Courage apostolate which was there for any one who was “struggling with same sex attraction.” That final statement got some sneers but no tomatoes.

I answered the questions. One of the questions was about the source of moral rightness and wrongness. I mentioned divine law and natural law and of course spent the most time on natural law. In this I attempted to counter the atheist/unitarian anthropologist on the panel who admitted that we are at a point in human history that for the first time human beings actually consider same sex attraction to be an ontological aspect of their personhood (in so many words any way). But also he also avered to natural law as biologism and the plurality of sexual expression in various cultures and times. It was this I was attempting to counter by telling one questioner that we are body-soul unities and that we can affirm this in part, through universal experience. As such, what we see in our visible bodies gives us insights into what happens in our whole persons–our unity of body-soul.

So in sexual intercourse, we see that the natural telos is procreation–a human person. However, there is more going on in this act. We can and often do get a sense that the marital act tends toward the unification of two people into a moral union, though outside of the proper circumstances this sense is often distorted and even destroyed. So there are two aspects, at least, of the marital act. One is visible and procreative and the other is invisible, spiritual if you will, and unitive. But as the body cannot be separated from the soul without destroying the person (qualifications aside), the visible aspect of the marital act cannot be separated from the whole without destroying it.

Thus, sexual intercourse can be life giving love for the couple who engage in it only if it is an act which is open to and has the structure of life giving love in the whole of it. This means that the two must be in an irrevocable , exclusive, faithful, sacramental if Christian, union and each act of marital communion must be open to procreation. This is why the Church teaches that sexual intercourse is meant only for marriage between two complementary persons (male and female-who alone have the complementary gifts necessary for their personal and the union’s flourishing) and that the act must be open to its life-giving potency.

The audience member responded that he hears about this teleology being an indicator of the order of nature but that this just doesn’t correspond to his experience or reason. Unfortunately, we ran out of time and had to leave so we didn’t pursue this any further. That aside, a concise response showing him how personal experience is not always reliable did not immediately occur to me. However, as usually happens, I think of later what I should have said at the time.

To an earlier question, I had explained that natural law can tell us the difference between the things that “are” but are not as they should be, and those things that “are” and are as they should be. I used the example of cancer to show that while it exists, it does not belong to the natural order in the proper sense because it has no telos and in fact it disrupts the telos of the organism which is afflicted by it. I also indicated that inclinations, even natural inclinations, cannot always be followed but have to be subjected to reason. I gave as an example that when I follow my natural inclination to eat whenever the inclination occurs, I become fat and medically unsound.

If I were quick-witted, I would have immediately gone back to the last example in order to explain to the questioner why he needed to be cautious about what he intuited from his experiences. We are body-soul unities. Much of our natural constitution, we share with animals. However, we are different than the animals. Our appetites, emotions, sense knowledge, etc (let’s call them our affectivities) supports especially that aspect of our nature that we share with the animals. However, the affectivites are not equivalent with those of the subpersonal animals. Our affectivites are ordered to reason, the faculty which distinguishes humans from subpersonal animals. We can easily see from experience they are different because while animals can flourish by following their inclinations, human beings do not. We damage ourselves when we act like animals (i.e. habitually respond to our inclinations as if they were no more than irresistible instincts).

In our fallen state, our affectivities are no longer easily controlled by our rational faculties. The integrity between our sensible faculties and rational faculties that was ours with original grace, is no longer there. And so we experience an interior conflict between what our rational faculties recognize to be the authentic good, and the apparent good that our sensitive faculties present to us. We now experience our affectivities in a way in which they appear to be so insistent, almost (but not) irresistible, that we often choose to eliminate the tension by giving in and “rationalizing” as to why we did so later.

What we must realize is that these human affectivities are goods. They are meant to be, and are, authentic and compelling truth tellers made to motivate us to overcome inertia that might otherwise keep us from acting (e.g. love which allows us to put aside our inclination for survival in order to save our child in danger). But they are suppose to be subordinated to the rational faculties. They tell us the truth about what are goods that deal more (but not entirely) with the animal aspect of our nature and so they are more likely to respond to lower goods, regardless of whether or not pursuing those goods will damage the higher, authentic good. This is what we call concupiscence, or the inclination to sin.

In addition, often in our fallen state we confuse and conflate our experiences. We often confuse pleasure–an affectivity associated with the sensible aspect of our soul, with joy–an experience associated with our spiritual faculties. Pleasure is limited, is reduced when shared, and deals with the immanent. Joy is transcendent of ourselves and in fact, is oriented toward the Transcendent. Joy is the experience of the happiness for which we were created. Pleasure can come from illicit experiences, joy can only come from our authentic human experiences…i.e. our naturally and morally ordered human actions.

In this young man’s case, when he said that his experiences did not indicate to him that same sex attraction is contrary to human flourishing what he meant is that he experiences this interior tension called sexual attraction oriented toward those of the same sex that seems to be a good. When he resolves this tension by engaging in acts that the inclination suggests to him that are a good, the interior tension is resolved, though temporarily. At the same time he experiences pleasure in the act from the affectivities working as they are supposed to act. All of these appear to him to be goods. However, the experience of pleasure and relief of the tension which arises because of unfulfilled sexual desire do not indicate human flourishing–i.e. authentic joy.

If we take the example of eating whenever the inclination arises (though eating is not disordered in itself) we can see that we also experience the same resolution of the interior tension that is drawing us to eat and we experience the pleasure that comes from eating. However, this experience does not tell the complete story. It will only be in the long run that I will come to realize that the habitual giving in to the desire to eat has made me a slave to my passions and that the health implications will begin to take their toll. All of this could have been foreseen and avoided if the inclinations had been subjected to reason in the first place. Thus, in the fallen world, one cannot simply dismiss reason (common sense?) because one’s interpretation of his experience does not immediately accord with the dictates of nature.

This is the problem of the man of concupiscence (see related post). By the way, the new English translation of JPTG’s Theology of the Body replaces “lust” “concupiscence.” While concupiscence is the inclination toward the lower goods at the expense of the higher goods, lust (most often) means that we have interiorly consented to acting on the apparent goods. John Paul actually meant concupiscence.

The man of concupiscence is living east of Eden. He no longer has the inherent integrity that came with original grace. The result is that self-possession is no longer a simple reality but it is a task to be achieved. We have to practice virtuous living if we are to achieve it. The fallen world also leaves open the possibility of disorder, such as we have with SSA. Giving in to disordered passions more quickly and severely damage us and make the recovery of self-possession more difficult.

Because we live in a Freudian culture of death that says resisting your inclinations is the source of pathology and that the way to happiness is to express yourself in whatever way you are inclined. Lust, therefore, is now good our culture tells us. It doesn’t take much to see the satanic origin of this idea. It becomes clear when one sees its trajectory is spiritual, and often physical, death. It is not an easy task to reach the man of concupiscence, especially one who is severely burdened with distorted inclinations, in a culture that encourages him to pursue the way of death. However, I am very grateful that Providence has left us with such a powerful tool for this era of confusion, in John Paul the Great’s Theology of the Body.

Father Thomas J. Euteneur sent an open letter to Father Thomas Brennan about abusively using his position as a priest, and the Holy Mass as a means of self-promoting his homosexuality. Fr. Euteneur explained to Fr. Brennan that his public declaration justified a public response and also suggested the Jesuit had a disordered motive for embracing the celibate state.

“A heterosexual celibate renounces his natural desire for wife and children in order to serve the Bride of Christ in a direct spousal relationship. A homosexual celibate renounces an unholy desire for members of the same sex: that is a renunciation of a disorder, not the embrace of a Bride.”

Fr. Brennan was also taken to task for confusing and scandalizing his parishioners by choosing to go public about his homosexual identity as some sort of lame expression of “diversity” or “pride”. Father Euteneur went on to clarify that not only does Fr. Brennan owe them an apology, but he also owes them a better example of what it is to be a priest. May we give thanks and praise for all of our faithful priests.

Boston College professor Charles Morris takes the position that President Lincoln was undeniably “gay”, and that it’s time we move beyond the argument onto the next step of exploring what it means to society. For one, he hypothesizes the advancing suicide rates among our youth with SSA could be curbed if they had more positive role models. Consequently, accepting Abraham Lincoln, “as a homosexual could open the door for other public figures to come out and also help young people undertake the difficult process of coming out of the closet.”

Who’s the bigger half-wit here? Morris, for expecting anyone with a lick of common sense to fall for his flawed and illogical agenda driven public service announcement; or me for taking the odds that the Professor doesn’t truly believe his own line of bull? Predictably, the high level of public exposure and pseudo-worship of the “gay” lifestyle in our culture dictates my simple and commonsense response to the assertion that more positive “gay” role models are key in alleviating some of the suicidal behaviors that accompany teens with SSA – it’s full of crap. Never in the history of the planet has there been MORE “gay” role models, nor has there ever been MORE acceptance of the “gay” life-style; and subsequently (according to the professor), nor has there ever been MORE “gay” suicides. Given the current trend, activists who are attempting to normalize the Same Sex Attraction disorder through any means necessary may want to carefully examine their track record and re-think their strategy and the impact it’s having on vulnerable youths, as I don’t believe the “gay” youth of our country will all of a sudden see the magical pot of gold at the end of the fading rainbow through the professor’s “gay” rendition of Abraham Lincoln.

Sure, who would’ve guessed “some extreme members of the global community” would be angered by the Last Supper being portrayed by cast of village people wanna be’s. Allegedly, a committe which took the idea to promote an upcoming “gay” event using well-known paintings, album covers, movie posters or other iconic images just so happened to select a Christian iconic image which was also well known to draw controversy through misinterpretations and secret codes. In this case, one of the promoters said it was actually somewhat of a tradition of this fair to offend someone. This illustrates the mentality of a certain selected subgroup of people who have yet to progress to an emotionally mature level of a responsible adult and are apparently incapable of growing beyond the years of a typically egocentric adolescent. It helps to remember that these individuals act out in this way because they are emotionally wounded children and should be treated as such with patience and correction to protect both them and society from themselves.

The Mexican department of prisons has allowed the first conjugal visit between men. In a press release, it’s referred to as, “an important step in terms of non- discrimination regarding sexual preference“. Sarcastic Kudos to the NHRC in their monumental victory. I’m sure men having sex with men will go along way in alleviating the suffering of so many from the inhumane conditions in the notoriously corrupt Mexican prison system.

In the cesspool of inhumanity they refer to as a prison system in Mexico, why would the NHRC bother to take the time to lobby prison authorities for one man’s request to have conjugal visits by his male partner? In my opinion, because it’s one of the very few battles they can actually win. The foundation of manipulating public opinion which associates one’s preference of genital stimulation as a core component of one’s human dignity has been laid, and has found a home in the political arena. Consequently, the same-sex attraction controversy is commonly exploited for the purpose of evoking an emotional response in order to garner support for what ever other political agenda they may have in mind. The reality of “gay” rights is a facade based on this false premise which is then exacerbated by actual, misinterpreted and fabricated incidents of animosity towards the person with same sex attraction. The former is commonly called bigotry, which just about every person on this planet can attest to being a target of by one group or another- obviously, more some than others; while the latter incidents has pretty much the rest of the world scrambling around, doing their best to avoid being tagged with the unpopular status of homophobe.

Although I really don’t know for sure the intention of the NHRC, but I do know that access to food, sanitary living conditions, appropriate living space, protection from rape and violence, basic hygienic availability and due process of the law for false imprisonment takes precedence over same-sex sex.

Although we were hesitant to blogroll the somewhat controversial blog run by an anonymous Catholic priest out of Ireland called Clerical Whispers, we decided to link to him because he appeared to be objective in reporting “uncomfortable” stories and, along with his disclaimer, never openly endorsed disobedience or rebellion against the Church. That was until today when I read about an initiative that he is not only supporting but also soliciting for support in bringing Dignity USA to Ireland to, “offer a truly Christian hand to those who have been for far too long been badly treated by those in that museum and art gallery known as the Vatican.”

Unfortunately, his cheap shot at the Church may have revealed a little more insight to this priest’s motivation behind Giving The Uncomfortable Truth And News From The Inside.

DignityUSA: In a response to the USCCB’s Ministry to Persons with a Homosexual Inclination: Guidelines for Pastoral Care, Dignity USA has added some of their own guidelines in their Letter on the Pastoral Care of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) People 2007. Here are just a few of their expectations:

Our lives and experiences must be counted as normal dimensions of God’s creation. We must be made visible – for our own sake, and that of the rest of the human family. Rituals that help to sanctify aspects of LGBT people’s lives are needed to help ensure that the church is truly welcoming. In addition, special care must be given to prevent the continued marginalization and exclusion of women from full and significant participation in all activities of the church.

Sexually intimate relationships between same-gender couples must be affirmed as having the same potential for holiness as those between opposite-gender married couples. It is critical for church ministers, counselors and religious professionals to receive training and theological updating regarding the nature, purpose and development of the sexual relationships of LGBT people.

LGBT people must have the same access as our heterosexual sisters and brothers to the sacrament of marriage and to legal protections that support and provide public affirmation of our commitments.

Sure, lets just flush 2000 years of truth followed by billions of Catholics throughout the centuries for the sake of DignityUSA. It’s not just compassion or tolerance they are after, but the authority to dictate which Catholic teachings they deem either acceptable and to reject those they consider unacceptable. The feeling of entitlement which demands the Church openly and willingly submit it’s authority to the will of DignityUSA for the sake of affirming the SSAD lifestyle would be laughable if it didn’t involve the eternal souls of real people. If an effort to have and to demonstrate genuine compassion, tolerance and acceptance of the individual person with SSA is not enough, then I have no choice other than to wear my homophobe tag as a badge of honor.

If the Church were fallible in Her authoritative teaching concerning morality wouldn’t that bring into question every aspect of the Catholic faith, especially as it relates to her own authority? If that’s the case, why would DignityUSA feel the need have their sexuality affirmed by a faith which had lost the very foundation it once had to even claim itself as the true faith? As for Catholic priests who hold this belief, what in the world are they doing in that priest’s garb?

Hierothee mentioned an article to me that he had seen over at Commonweal in which Luke Timothy Johnson and Eve Tushnet discuss Church teaching on the issue of homosexuality. Tushnet and Johnson take different points of view on the issue.  Johnson takes his usual approach. He does not even address the issue of Magisterial authority and reduces his discussion of the topic to the words of Scripture versus personal experience. For Johnson the experience that he has had with his daughter, who considers herself a lesbian, is proof positive that Scripture is wrong and must be reinterpreted. He then sets about to present rather facile arguments for his pre-commitment that are very close to the historical-critical only scholarship that he elsewhere eschews.

Tushnet is not exhaustive in addressing Johnson’s pseudo-arguments but she does ably counter his major mistakes, though not exactly as I would. Among these mistakes are his invention of a magisterium of the individualist experience and his ignoring of the reality of fallen human nature. However, in arguing again Johnson some of the assertions that she makes in her essay prompt me to comment.

I have heard of Eve Tushnet before but I admit that I didn’t know much about her. While I know more now, I still don’t know much about her. From what I do now know, I can say that I am in awe of her faith and her steadfast desire to live a chaste and holy life. I am inspired by her willingness to accept the Church’s teachings, even in areas that demand so much sacrifice from her. She is certainly an heroic witness in this way. She has my admiration and my prayers.

Nevertheless, I was surprised to hear that she considers herself a Catholic and a lesbian. The reason for this is that earlier in her article she seems to reject Johnson’s assumption that homosexual inclinations reflect an underlying ontology, responding that this idea is a recent anti-Christian psychological construct. For Johnson, who seems to betray the anti-metaphysical outlook of postmodernism (with its attendant philosophical origins in Ockhamist Nominalism), this is a self-contradiction since there is no ontology to begin with so how can sexual attraction have any essence with which to comprise personal identity? But this is the irony of postmodernism; it is inherently self-contradictory at root. Making my way back from the rabbit trail…I am not sure I understand why Tushnet would continue to consider herself a lesbian if she recognizes that sexual attraction does not ontologically constitute one’s personal identity.

There were smaller issues that I am not sure that I follow such as her use of ambiguous terms such as “homophobic” which can mean everything from hateful acts toward people with SSAD to referring to anyone who rejects the claims that the “gay” lifestyle must be accepted/embraced by everyone. I am not sure about the analysis she provides, identifying reasons for the personally hateful attitudes of some against those who suffer from SSAD. Namely, by rooting it exclusively in masculine insecurity her assessment seems overly facile and it also seems to smack too much of radical feminist conspiratorial theories to me.

Neverthless, I was left somewhat more perplexed by other more substantial statements. Let me mention a few:

This approach [John Paul II's Theology of the Body], or my understanding of it, is imperfect; but it’s much more convincing to me than the often mechanistic natural-law approaches, which tend to assume cultural consensus on teleology.

I’m not sure what she means by its being imperfect. Not being God Himself, it necessarily is imperfect and so I would agree from this perspective. However, if she means incomplete to the point of not being completely coherent or self-consistent then I cannot agree. I think I know the answer to which of these possibilities she infers and will take the issue up again below. On the issue of approach I would argue that the Theology of the Body (TOB) uses a personalist approach to explaining natural law. I would also say that natural law is by definition, not mechanistic. If it appears so, it is because of the culturally bound, Nominalist hermeneutic of the writer and/or reader. This is not meant as a criticism but an analysis of a problem of which I am sometimes guilty myself. Finally, while it is true that TOB does not assume a cultural consensus on teleology, it is not true that it does not assume teleology.  Rather it assumes the truth of nature and the truth that nature has an inherent teleology. Because teleology is not recognized universally does not mean one cannot or should not argue for it. Only for the committed nihilist is it not possible to defend the position. Regardless, one cannot miss this point and understand the TOB at any depth. Another comment of note:

Although marriage is the primary focus of the theology of the body, sexual difference is a recurring theme.

I would argue that sex difference is more than a recurring theme in these catecheses. It is the foundation of JPTG’s entire project and as such, sex difference makes marriage not just intelligible but possible. Man reflects the image of the Trinitarian God by the fact that he is made male and female. This emphasis seems to suggest that JPTG takes as his point of departure, St. Thomas Aquinas’ insight that man reflects God’s image more perfectly than do the angels in his capacity for fruitful relations (though angels more perfectly reflect God’s image in their immaterial substance). Tushnet’s next statement needs clarification:

The theology of the body, almost alone among theories of la différence, avoids the listmaking trap. Here, man is defined by his longing for woman, woman by her longing for man; this is the “nuptial meaning of the body.” The male becomes a man and the female a woman in their yearning for each other. Love of the other both creates and reconciles the sexes.

Tushnet rejects the idea that one can identify in “lists” the differences between male and female. For her, these “lists aren’t just false, they’re also boring.” Rather, she understands JPTG to be saying that masculinity and femininity are defined by the sexes’ mutual self-longing and this act of love is what creates and reconciles the sex differences. The first thing to say is that love as self-longing requires some precision.  This is an aspect of human eros which arises because of complementary attraction.  Thus, authentic eros is not possible between two of the same sex.  Furthermore, eros must be purified in total-self gift which is disinterested love.  This love is possible conjugally only because of complementarity.  Thus, complementarity must be understood to understand the meaning here.  In addition, there seems to be another problem in interpretation.

Now Tushnet may very well be following some interpreters of JPTG who do indeed believe that he reverses the scholastic dictum agere sequitur esse (act follows being) but these interpreters are incorrect. They mistake JPTG to be a Munich phenomenologist who departed from Thomist metaphysics. Rather, one can clearly demonstrate that JPTG died still a Thomist who explicitly rejected the Munich school’s Kantian metaphysics. Rather, he incorporated the analytical tools of phenomenology into Thomism, relying on its metaphysical foundation to counter the errors of modern personalism that arose from Kantian presuppositions.

JPTG explicitly embraces the metaphysical truth that acts follow upon one’s nature. One does not and cannot redefine his nature based upon his actions. Rather, one damages and can even destroy himself by refusing to acknowledge and act in accord with his nature. The existence of nature is the only way in which there is the possibility for self perfection and self actualization. There must be a perfect state which one can pursue and this, in part, defines one’s nature.  Tushnet seems to give priority to action of the will over nature.  This is not in accord with JPTG’s anthropology and one cannot accurately understand his TOB catecheses from this perspective.

While JPTG does not create “lists” he does identify characteristics of femininity and masculinity that arise from the givenness of sex difference. In his treatment of Genesis, it is the femininity of the woman who is both another “I” (i.e. shares the same nature) who also complements his masculinity that gives rise the man’s joy. It is not his love that creates her otherness, it is her otherness that creates the conditions of possibility for conjugal communion and nuptial joy.  On the same note Tushnet opines:

There are some obvious attractions of this theology. It’s very beautiful. It reconciles two seemingly irreconcilable facts (the enduring importance of sexual difference, and the impossibility of defining that difference through lists of qualities).

I do not quite follow her here. While it is a mistake to try to define masculinity and femininity first by their manifestations, it is not problematic to define them first by their ontology and then observe how general traits (that yes, do exhibit variation and even distortion in concrete cases but this is due, in some part, to our fallen state) correspond to this ontology. JPTG does not provide a worked out theology of sex difference though I believe that one can be extracted from his writings (which I have done and hope to get published soon). However, he does provide general characteristics of sex difference that one can put in a list (though it will certainly not be exhaustive). But we must be clear that first comes a human nature that entails being male and female and it is this nature that gives rise to these complementary traits of masculinity and femininity. The givenness of masculinity and femininity that establishes the framework for the way that we interact with each other is a foundational point that JPTG is trying to make in his TOB catecheses.  Tushnet goes on to observe some problems with applying JPTG’s Genesis model to the problem of SSAD:

But there are equally obvious problems with applying this Genesis model to homosexuality. I’ve never found that lesbian women were less womanly, or gay men less manly. Either I’m misunderstanding the implications of the theology of the body, or I’m misunderstanding my own experience. (Or both, of course!) Moreover, showing that homosexual relationships are imperfect, that they do not echo our life in Eden as well as heterosexual relationships can, might not be the same as showing that gay sex is always and everywhere wrong. …And the “theology of the body” approach doesn’t give any guidance on the questions currently most pressing to me: How can I express my love of women in ways consonant with church teaching; and how can I deepen my love of Christ through all the other loves in my life, including romantic love?

I understand by Tushnet’s comments here that she believes that JPTG’s catecheses appeal to human experience. That it true but in a qualified way. JPTG uses phenomenological tools to discover universal experiences that are universal because they arise from a common human nature.  The method brackets subject specific coloring of the experience and reveals experience that is common to all human beings.  These experiences cannot have universal applicability if there is no nature from which they arise. Further, he uses the “control” (in the sense of establishing the nominal case in empirical studies from which to judge deviations from the norm) for his analyses by going back to a pre-lapsarian state. In other words, it is not experience that establishes the truth. It is truth that can (but is not always) manifested in the experience.

In reference to her final issue, TOB and its Genesis model do in fact apply to the experience of those who suffer from SSAD. It can be found in JPTG’s treatment of sexual complementarity, the stability of human nature, the spousal meaning of the body (as it is more accurately rendered in the new translation), in the distinctions between arousal and emotion, and, quintessentially, in the analogy of human marriage to the Trinitarian “Nuptial Mystery.” Thus, it does in fact provide guidance (though not explicitly articulated) in ways to express love of the same sex in ways consonant with Church teaching. But it is important to say that these ways will be consonant with Church teaching because these teachings arise from the order of creation and what ultimately will lead to human joy and happiness.  It also provides insight into romantic love (though one would be better served by first reading Karol Wojtyla’s Love and Responsibility before trying to extract these insights from the TOB catecheses).  This though, would be another article so I won’t try to do it here.

Again, I am truly taken with Eve’s witness of faith in God and in His Church. I say this to reiterate that I do not mean to sound personally critical in my comments. I myself am continually uncovering mistaken philosophical presuppositions that have been ingrained in me from growing up in a postmodern culture with a materialist mechanistic world view.  I only comment as an opportunity to further explore what JPTG wants to express in his TOB.

I see that Eve lives in DC. Perhaps if anyone knows her they might suggest to her that she consider studing the TOB more deeply at the JPII Institute for Studies on Marriage and the Family downtown.

Michael Glatze, the founding editor of Young Gay America magazine and an activist promoting the lifestyle of those who choose to embrace their Same Sex Attraction Disorder, has just published an article in WND explaining his path from “gay” activist to having been healed of the disorder. The title of this post is the message that he wrote on his computer at YGA to inform his co-workers of his decision.  Glatze says of his healing: “‘coming out’ from under the influence of the homosexual mindset was the most liberating, beautiful and astonishing thing I’ve ever experienced in my entire life.”

In a companion piece WND columnist, Art Moore, summarizes some of Glatze’s main points:

The radical change in his life, Glatze recalls, began with inner “promptings” he now attributes to God.

“I hope I can share my story,” he said. “I feel strongly God has put me here for a reason. Even in the darkest days of late-night parties, substance abuse and all kinds of things – when I felt like, ‘Why am I here, what am I doing?’ – there was always a voice there.

“I didn’t know what to call it, or if I could trust it, but it said ‘hold on.’”

The Catholic tradition calls this sufficient grace. God is always calling us, in fact as Francis Thompson said, pursuing us as the “Hound of Heaven.” Imagine the rejoicing that goes on in heaven when a pursued soul submits; he who was lost now is found! Moore continues:

In his column, Glatze doesn’t mince words, calling homosexual sex purely “lust-based,” meaning it can never fully satisfy.

“It’s a neurotic process rather than a natural, normal one,” he writes. “Normal is normal – and has been called normal for a reason.”

This is something that many of those who have recovered from SSAD have shared as well. They realize that they have always known, in some way, that they were living in a disordered way that was harming them but were quickly distracted from the notion. Glatze goes on to say:

“If ever I were to question anything, [my colleagues] would say, ‘You’re such an idealist.’”

Glatze said he thought opponents of homosexual activism were “mean and crazy, and they wanted to hurt me.”

“I thought they were out to get me,” he said. “They made me really, really mad – and scared, I think. I wanted them to go away.”

Glatze said he couldn’t allow himself to think they were sincere in their beliefs.

But he now has deep respect for a Christian aunt who disapproved of his lifestyle.

She “was never judgmental, but always firm,” he said.

This experience of the way one often responds to momentary recognition of sin is not limited to the problem of SSAD and the sin of choosing to act upon the inclination. C. S. Lewis, in the Screwtape Letters, shows how temptations are not just toward the evil acts themselves. Temptations also include the inclination to avert to distractions from God’s promptings toward repentance and conversion.

This witness is testament to the truth that God’s grace is stronger than our sins. SSAD strikes at the heart of the manner in which man images God and so it one of the most difficult disorders to remedy. Sexual attraction is one of the most irresistible inclinations to resist. Therefore, if someone who was inculcated into, and a leader in promoting, this particular culture of sin and death can be led by the Holy Spirit to see and embrace the truth then it is clear that there is hope for every one of us. As Glatze found, we simply need to drop our opposition to God’s promptings and cooperate with the grace that he offers.

Sheepcat is passing on some concerns of his Anglican buddies in the Zacchaeus Fellowship in regards to the resolutions on the agenda that would enable the blessing of same-sex unions. I quoted a small portion of their open letter to the Members of the General Synod 2007.

The apostle Jude warned against “malcontents” who indulge their own lusts; “they are bombastic in speech, flattering people to their own advantage.” Many of us in the Zacchaeus Fellowship were gay activists and played that card ourselves in our unreformed lives. So while we do not question the sincerity of the compassion that many have expressed towards our brothers and sisters who openly espouse gay or lesbian lifestyles, we urge extreme caution, lest legitimate sympathy distort the interpretation of Scripture as properly grounded in the tradition and history of the Anglican Church.

The synod meets in less than two weeks, and they could use all of the prayers we may wish to offer.

Interesting link to: Putting strategies to work: the homosexual propaganda campaign in America’s media.