If “gay is good,” then “I’m gay” is also good. But if “gay” is not good, then neither is “I’m gay.”
And we know that “gay” is decidedly not good. Not only is it not good, but it is also not just a label or a mere word. It’s the product of a false ideology and must be exposed as such.
In fact, it implicitly offends chastity to make the claim “I’m gay.” One need go no further that the Catechism to explain just why.
Before doing that, however, it must be said why such a case needs to be made in the Church. The case must be made because not only are there flagrant dissenters in the Catholic Church’s laity and clergy who reject much or everything the Church teaches about homosexuality, but there are also subtle voices in the Church who have spent years offering a false narrative to Catholics. These voices agree with the Church’s teaching against homosexual acts, but they continue to erroneously claim that “I’m gay” is more than okay—rather, it’s well and good.
Enter Ron Belgau, the self-described “celibate gay Catholic” co-founder of the Spiritual Friendship blog site. Belgau is a vocal critic of the one and only Vatican-approved apostolate (and now a public association of the faithful in the Church) for those with same-sex attraction: Courage and EnCourage. With years of vented animosity against Courage as fuel, Belgau has once again gone on the attack in a May 24 post in which he bewails for the umpteenth time the apostolate’s “strange linguistic hobbyhorse” of objecting to using “gay” to describe persons with same-sex attraction. The befuddled Belgau claims that “[i]n the end, I don’t care much if someone else feels more comfortable with ‘person with same-sex attractions’ and wants to use that terminology.” But he does care—he spends an entire blog post caring very much about that.
He accuses the Courage apostolate of having an “obsession with language” that puts the apostolate at odds with the Church’s own use of language. He accuses Courage of having a “radical” view in conflict with the Church’s language. But his gloss of this issue is deeply insufficient and misleading.
This is not surprising, as it’s what is to be expected from one eager to justify the claim of “I’m gay” to others. By the end of the blog post, Belgau continues to show how much he doesn’t care about this issue by providing a long list of links that he and other Spiritual Friendship writers have written on it.
What’s a faithful Catholic to make of all this? The fatal flaw at the heart of the Spiritual Friendship mindset is reflected in Belgau’s personal incapacity to understand the reality behind the claim “I’m gay.” Instead, Belgau says:
The fundamental point, however, is not about words or phrases but about meaning. Spiritual Friendship writers have repeatedly asserted that we do not regard our sexuality (whatever that modern word means) as the defining quality of our personhood.
For Belgau and his collaborators, “gay” is not only “our sexuality,” but “I’m gay” is also “a” (but not “the”) “defining quality of our personhood.”
On both counts, Belgau and his collaborators could not be more mistaken. As noted above, all it takes is a copy of the Catechism to expose the errors in his thinking.
What takes this issue beyond the realm of mere “debates” about word use and labels is that Belgau unfortunately embraces the term “gay” because he believes errors about “sexuality” and “sexual identity.” Even in his quote above, he offhandedly demurs to the very meaning of the word “sexuality” and calls it a “modern word,” as though that word has not already been at the heart of Catholic teaching since the earliest days of the Church.
Belgau seems to think he actually “has” a sexuality (homosexuality) that is personal to him, one he shares with others who also are same-sex attracted. This is erroneous. Homosexuality is a distortion of sexuality, not a sexuality unto itself. This is a vital point: people don’t “have” diverse or unique sexualities—rather, they participate “in” sexuality, which is an element of our God-given human nature.
No one—“gay” or “straight” so-called—“has” a sexuality. Sexuality is supposed to “have” us. In other words, it’s implicit in who we are and how we are created. There is only one “thing” that is sexuality. Disordered experiences of sexuality like same-sex attraction are a privation of the full goodness of what sexuality really is.
For support for this claim, go to paragraph 2360 of the Catechism, which states this simply and beautifully: “Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love and man and woman.” Importantly, the next paragraph adds this:
Sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses, is not something simply biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such. It is realized in a truly human way only if it is an integral part of the love by which a man and woman commit themselves totally to one another until death. (par 2361)
To even participate in the actual good of “sexuality” requires one man and one woman, pursuing conjugal love. Period. Belgau and so many others totally miss this truth.
And there’s more. It’s important to note that the Catechism says:
Sexuality affects all aspects of the human person in the unity of his body and soul. It especially concerns affectivity, the capacity to love and to procreate, and in a more general way the aptitude for forming bonds of communion with others. (par 2332)
Not only does same-sex attraction undermine authentic sexuality, but it can do so across “all aspects of the human person” since authentic sexuality affects all these. So, despite assertions by Belgau and others that “I’m gay” isn’t a claim about “the defining quality of our personhood,” homosexuality does indeed reflect a fundamental deficit that, if not healed or addressed well, can adversely affect all aspects of the human person.
The Catechism drives home several points, including the fact that we “belong” to sexuality as a participant in something bigger than ourselves—we don’t “possess” a sexuality:
Chastity means the successful integration of sexuality within the person and thus the inner unity of man in his bodily and spiritual being. Sexuality, in which man’s belonging to the bodily and biological world is expressed, becomes personal and truly human when it is integrated into the relationship of one person to another, in the complete and lifelong mutual gift of a man and a woman. (par 2337)
Authentic chastity requires us to “integrate” real sexuality into our very being—not to merely “discover” or even invent some distorted version of it, which keeps us from seeing the distortion for what it truly is. We are “chaste” to the extent that we “successfully” integrate that which is ordered toward the conjugal love of man and woman (CCC 2360) into our bodies and souls.
But the most direct rebuttal of Belgau’s false claims regarding “I’m gay” is likely found in paragraph 2333 of the Catechism, for it directly and clearly defines “sexual identity”:
Everyone, man and woman, should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity. Physical, moral, and spiritual difference and complementarity are oriented toward the goods of marriage and the flourishing of family life. The harmony of the couple and of society depends in part on the way in which the complementarity, needs, and mutual support between the sexes are lived out.
“Gay” is not a “sexual identity.” Nor are lesbian, transgender, bisexual, queer, or any other last-minute categories drummed up by secular ideology and culture. Only two sexual identities exist: man and woman. Period.
The reason “I’m gay” ultimately is a statement that offends chastity is because it reveals a fundamental divorce from reality in the person’s thinking. The “I’m gay” person doesn’t actually accept that there is only one sexuality ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman. The “I’m gay” person doesn’t believe in only two sexual identities—man and woman. The “I’m gay” person, most importantly, is absolutely not—on any level—seeking to integrate real and true complementary “sexuality” into his very being.
Instead, the “I’m gay” person is settling on the counterfeit, not the reality. And doing that offends chastity.
Ultimately, this is why Belgau’s drawn-out attacks on the Courage apostolate are so unfortunate and are worthy of response. “I’m gay” is not merely a selection from a heavily garnished and healthy word salad, from which we should all be free to pick what “label” we like best. It’s far from that.
To select “I’m gay” from the label smorgasbord is to choose something poisonous to one’s own authentic sexuality and one’s own true sexual identity. Thus, even if one is sexually abstinent and virginal, clinging to “I’m gay” means saying “Yes” to falsehood and “No” to fully integrating authentic human sexuality into one’s life. “I’m gay” is not the equivalent to “I experience same-sex attraction”—it’s the opposite of it.
And it matters little whether “young people” have now grown up with “I’m gay”—we don’t need to speak the language of culture back to our young people. They know it all too well and are fully indoctrinated into its falsehood. Rather, we need to speak the language of truth to them. We need them to learn and understand that “I’m gay” is a false grail that brings no one salvation or true hope or healing. It brings instead confusion, inner conflict, and distorts our true selves.
“Gay” is not good. And, as it turns out, the implicitly unchaste “I’m gay” is even worse.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Excellent. Thanks for speaking the truth and for defending the Courage apostolate.
I agree
Good piece. The whole spiritual friendship thing seems to be a guise for those who still want to indulge their same sex attractions in some fashion, while claiming not really to be doing so because they may refrain from particular physical acts. (One can note a dualist tendency here- the physical acts/the body are what most define chastity for them.) I think they are very dangerous and the fact they attack Courage is clear evidence of what lurks underneath. Other folks like Eve Tushnet and Leah Libresco (although less so) also need to be called out, especially as they are often touted out as “conservative” Catholics.
A word more about words:
Imaginary spectrums replace real distinctions and their definitions. Meanings of real words are first reduced to the status of mere special cases. Take “marriage” and dilute within the non-committal hookup culture. Still an anomaly to be tolerated, maybe–as a parody of marriage is cross-dressed to become a “civil-right”: parity of marriage.
Then take “male” and “female” and dilute with the fictive spectrum of non-binary “gender theory.” Why not? After all, long ago the DNA-distinct and unborn child already was branded as a non-binary, cell-cluster of whatever. And now the Aztecs are in charge—-legalized infanticide of now-born children kicking and screaming.
There’s still the fact of real things, distinctions, and the pesky Principle of Non-Contradiction—-the self-evident fact that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time. Not dilution into a spectrum, but a real world of either-or?
Dang, that sounds too, what, binary! But to claim to be “gay” and “non-binary” IS already a binary statement.
I resent the theft of the word “gay,” which means cheerful, bright, happy. Mr. Belgau and anyone else who has stolen and perverted the word owe the rest of us an apology.
I may have misunderstood but did a recent Vatican document use the LGBT designstion
John,
At the recent synod on youth, a clandestine effort was made to insert the identifier “LGBT” into the final report. Archbishop Chaput politely opposed this maneuver, arguing that the Church deals with concrete human persons, not categories.
The Vatican cardinal in charge of the event (and of the microphone) summarily rejected this rational suggestion. But as it turned out, in the end, ALL fourteen synod discussion groups (all bishops) that reviewed the draft “demanded” that the term be removed. Amazing! The podium bullying failed, but the Vatican operative claimed that the term came directly from the youths consulted prior to the synod. Instead this (feigned?) belief was also shown to be false. The term was shown to have been inserted by an unnamed bishop.
The use of weaponized, identity-politics, and collectivist terms such as “LGBT” (or pick one) was averted. Small victory, but the beat goes on.
What of “Always Our Children”?
In short, the deacon says the homosexual should be heterosexual. Right. But there are homosexuals. The deacon thinks that acknowledging reality is already a sin or leading to sin. I am very happy he is not a physician. He would not be of much help for people who do not happen to be healthy, and would make sick people feel guilty for it.
There are adulterers, too, and pedophiles, and thieves, and murderers, and people tempted to be all of those things. By your logic people tempted to commit adultery should take a word that means something good (like “cheerful” or “bright”)and apply it to themselves as their identity, as if the most important part of them is their temptation to commit a sin.
The silly thing is to tell someone tempted to commit adultery or any kind of sin that the only thing he should be told is that he shall not commit a sin and stop there. That’s the contrary of what Jesus said : I did not come to cure the healthy but the sick. The Pharisees did just the opposite: insist that the sinners were sinners and nothing more, lest they be compromised by dealing with them. And by the way, where in my langugae did you get that sickness was ok?… Looks like you suffer from the same deacon’s logic: circular thought.
Sooner or later you are all going to have to accept that god made gay people and he has a purpose for them. Those of you who say you are Christian but ridicule, condemn and call gay humans abominations are not doing so because this is what god wishes. Your are judging which is a violation of a tenth commandment. So let god do the judging and just leave gay people alone. Stop protesting their right to exist and then they will have no need to defend their right to be who they are.
a)It’s God,not god. Yes, He made all people, including those who are tempted to commit homosexual actions, which are always sinful. He made people who are tempted to commit murder, too, and theft, adultery, all kinds of sins. That doesn’t mean that He wants them to commit those sins, or to declare proudly, “I’m a member of the Larceny, Adultery, and Murder community.”
“and call gay humans abominations”
a)The whole point of this article is that there is no such thing as a “gay human.” There are humans who are tempted to particular sins, but identifying them by those sins as if those sins were the most important thing about them is cruel and degrading. b)Nobody is calling persons who commit homosexual acts abominations; they are calling the acts abominations.
“Your are judging which is a violation of a tenth commandment.” The Tenth Commandment is “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s goods.” Your statement makes no sense.
“So let god do the judging and just leave gay people alone.”
What argument have you left against someone who says, “Just leave pedophiles alone. Just leave thieves alone. Just leave people who defraud laborers of their just wages alone?”
“Stop protesting their right to exist and then they will have no need to defend their right to be who they are.”
Nobody is protesting a person’s right to exist. The protest is against their identifying themselves with the sin they are tempted to commit, and claiming that evil is good (and attempting to force others to agree), and thus, as the headline on the article says, offinding chastity and contradicting Church doctrine.
Deb, I am right with you. I don’t think homosexuality is a choice. I believe it’s a hard-wired trait instilled by our Father. Likewise, the sex drive is a gift of the Father to his creation. It’s one of the strongest impulses in all of nature, not just man. A loving Father would not instill homosexuality and condemn the recipient to the state of lifelong chastity. That’s NOT free will. It’s one thing to take a VOLUNTARY vow of chastity and quite another to have it forced upon one by their God. So, is God loving, or is He just toying with us?
Having a homosexual inclination is not a choice, but that doesn’t mean it’s from God. Original sin has tainted human nature in many ways, and homosexuality is one of them. It is not a gift directly from God but rather a disorder which he permits so that a greater good may be brought from it. It is a special cross that these people must bear. Commitment to celibacy in response to one’s own homosexual inclinations is a path to holiness.
Ben, that is not at all what he said. Try reading again.
Except I wrote nothing like that in my piece.
People with SSA assuredly exist. Same-sex attraction is real; “gay” is an ideological illusion. And people *can* get help with SSA so as to better integrate *authentic* sexuality into their being and therefore achieve *authentic* chastity.
All right, so I gather that promoting chastity can never be “chaste” enough for you depending on who is talking. But with respect, you should insist at least as much as on what you actually advocate than on what you criticize. Otherwise one is left with the impression that chastising is more important than conveying the hope of salvation. Which is very much how you sound after reading. And what is the purpose of truth if it is not redemptive?… The Son of God did not have to bother with Incarnation then.
“All right, so I gather that promoting chastity can never be ‘chaste’ enough for you depending on who is talking.”
You gather wrongly. Did you actually read the article? Are you familiar with what the Church teaches about chastity? Do you know what the Catechism says about chastity? For instance:
In other words, sexual intercourse is for those who are married, and marriage means a man and a woman, etc. That’s what the Church teaches, and has always taught. It is not, as you apparently suggest, the teachings of Mr. Russell alone.
Please. So you say that disagreeing with the deacon means I ignore what “chastity” is. By the way, his reply is the only positive statement he has made in this debate (albeit all in quotes/end quotes, as if it was hurting), rather than just rounding up against someone or something. And you heartfully concur. I rest my case.
You made a case?
I agree
Mr Russell, with all due respect, there are no treatments or cures for homosexuality. If there are successful cures, please point to then. Some gay people can remain chaste and even marry an opposite sex person and be happy that way. That is right and fine for them. But make no mistake: their sexual orientation has not changed.
DanM, spirit is real and not garbage-y. We have it from God that we can defeat what pesters us when we persevere. First of all we have to admit the right target; which is that the condition is against nature and identity and must be uprooted not left “innocently restful doing no harm” or “idled”.
Whether you became homosexual or you were “born like that” or whatever; these are not the targets. You must move against it to true manhood or womanhood with the aim of having no taint from it but taken up in all grace.
Nothing else qualifies for your baptism.
I am “straight, but my son is “Gay”. You state… “Disordered experiences of sexuality like same-sex attraction are a privation of the full goodness of what sexuality really is”. The Catholic Church may be in a state of privation because it obsesses over sexual identity. I know that my son was born Gay and I have few qualms or trepidations about it. Being a good Catholic David did not come out of the Catholic closet until high school. He developed a fear that he would go to Hell because he was born Gay and the church believed that one chooses the gay life. Sad.
“The Catholic Church may be in a state of privation because it obsesses over sexual identity.”
No, the secular realm is in a state of privation and darkness because it obsesses over sexual identity. If that’s not clear to you, then I kindly suggest it’s because you live in the shadows of that same darkness. Each day, I glance through and read articles from dozens of secular newspapers, journals, and sites—and they are almost all obsessed with “identity”. It’s a religious cause for them, and we live in a time of great conflict over this precisely because the Church, despite often lacking leadership, stands her ground on the truth about human nature and sexuality.
What “ground” does the Church stand on? My guess is on the silly position that Gays choose their lifestyle. How interesting. How could any Gay person choose a life style that is fought with danger and naysayers. The Bachmans, operate a “clinic” in Minnesota entitled “Pray the Gay away”. They are evangelists on the loose. I haven’t seen a word on their success or failures. Unchecked “authorities”. What did you say about religious freedom?
“What “ground” does the Church stand on?”
If you do not believe in the Church’s teachings, why do you keep pretending to be Catholic?
“My guess is on the silly position that Gays choose their lifestyle.”
They do choose their “lifestyle,” that is, their behavior. They are human beings and not beasts with no will and no possibility of controlling their own behavior. You insult and debase them by acting as if they are incapable of resisting temptation.
“How could any Gay person choose a life style that is fought [sic] with danger and naysayers. ”
If you are saying they do not choose their temptation, I agree. If you are saying they don’t choose their behavior, you are wrong. Clearly, many *do* choose a lifestyle that is fraught with danger, and that people rightly call evil. Your argument, carried to its logical conclusion, is, “No matter what you’re tempted to do, go ahead and do it because if you’re tempted to do it it isn’t wrong.”
If you want to know about the successes and failures of the Bachmanns’ clinic, do some research. It has nothing to do with this article.
“What did you say about religious freedom?”
Pointing out that those who say “I’m gay” offend chastity and contradict Church doctrine has nothing to do with religious freedom, unless it’s your belief that “religious freedom” means that you get to dictate the Church’s doctrine.
This is a tough room, morganB. But rest assured that Carl has put you in your place.
What of Always Our Children”? Has it been tossed out at this point?
If your son had been “born” a zoophiliac would you accept/tolerate it? Would God?
May we learn to be merciful when approaching this topic that is no doubt quite painful for many.
Jan, you are wise and humble
A zoophiliac or a psychopath–whew that would be difficult and painful to cope with! No joke. Not that you asked me, but I cannot imagine losing my love for my child.
Except there is zero evidence that people are born that way. Parents obviously are tempted to say that because they don’t want to look at themselves, as the real cause is often found in the home, e.g., boys growing up lacking a proper bond and role model with their father, being sexually abused as a child. We should have great qualms about someone having ssa because it is very self-destructive: people with ssa have very high rates of other psychological and emotional problems, substance abuse, suicide rates, life expectancy many years lower than the average, the dangers of homosexual sex that can even lead to death (e.g., aids). And these problems are not the result of the non-acceptance of it, as is sometimes claimed, an argument which also has little force today especially. Is that what you want for your son?
So what do you tell your good, Catholic son in light of the Catholic Church and Scripture?
How exactly do you “know” that your son was “born gay”?
The idea of being born gay is the general understanding that sexual orientation becomes concrete and therefore immutable either in the womb or very early on in childhood. That is my understanding of the research and the meaning of “born gay.” People who belive this, or that sexual orientation becomes concrete, know in their minds that there’s nothing you can really do about it– the orientation.
Again you raise the very points that need attention. Don’t mean to zone in on you.
What you say applies to any and every sin, evil and malformation. The claim to a neutrality for homosexualism is groundless, it’s another malformation and another evil and another sin.
Editing my comment above MARCH 23, 2024 AT 10:07 AM, first sentence, ” ….. spirit is real and not meant to be garbage-y.” We are constantly finding new ways to engage the evangelization or just share sensible conversation with someone who is open to hearing.
It might too, open the heart of someone who so far refuses to hear.
We can’t just go around saying “okay if that’s the way you feel about it we should help you pervert yourself and everyone in the whole society”.
I am emulating Bishop Schneider. When a non-Catholic encounters the faith for the first time it is not because of the other religion is was in nor because of his system of non-belief. It is because the sense and reason God places in him gets caught up in the reality he comes to in that moment; and these are the true parts that relate and endure with Jesus Christ Who is the Truth.
There is a big difference in the inclination towards homosexuality and the act itself. The former does not justify or excuse the latter.
“From a moral standpoint three levels are to be distinguished: tendency, attraction, and activity. Homosexual tendencies in any person are within the normal range of human nature, whose fallen condition includes every conceivable kind of impulse that with sincere effort and divine grace can be controlled. Sexual attraction for members of the same sex may be partly due to the peculiar make-up of certain individuals or, more often, the result of indiscretion or seduction and presents a graver problem; yet this, too, is not by itself sinful and may in fact be an occasion for great supernatural merit. When the condition is pathological, it requires therapy. Active homosexuality is morally indefensible and has been many times forbidden in revelation and the teaching of the Church”.
Entry under Homosexuality in The Catholic Dictionary (Hardon, John, Image Books, 2013)
The father of lies wants to:
A. Separate us from God.
B. Separate us from our true identity.
Satisfy either one, and both are accomplished.
Homosexuality is at the source of the current crisis in the Church
A comment–and then two questions and a testimony “above my pay grade”. Please bear with me as to unavoidable length…
First, homosexual inclination is one thing (not a sin), while the non-celibate and active homosexual lifestyle and culture are quite another, just as for others non-celibate activity outside of marriage is also a moral issue and a challenge. Everyone human person, as such, deserves respect.
Second. There’s an under-reported claim about fetal development. Other than the discredited quest for a “homosexual gene,” is it possible that physical sexual differentiation appears first, even while fetal chemistry continues for a few weeks to conform to the mother? (British Broadcasting Corporation [BBC], Part 2, “Your First Nine Months,” July 2016). For daughters, it is held, the female conformance continues uninterrupted into adulthood, while for boys an inhibitor kicks in—enabling the unborn male child now to fully develop in alignment with his male chromosomes. In those possible (?) cases where the pre-natal inhibitor is itself inhibited, or absent, then with scientific investigation, might this rare and abnormal condition be detectable and eventually correctable, either pre-natal or later? (Or, from the start, is this BBC documentary unsubstantiated?)
In any event, simply growing up in a broken home without a respected or at least a known father figure to emulate is demonstrably a huge factor in recent decades.
Third—-and much more broadly—-there’s the autobiographical testimony by homosexual writer Andre Gide, as explained by his biographer and as highly relevant now to our post-1960s culture of “readiness,” sexual experimentation, and victimization (the “nephew” thing). Gide “emphatically protests that he has not a word to say against marriage and reproduction [BUT then] suggests that it would be of benefit to an ADOLESCENT, before his desires are fixed, to have a love affair with an older man, instead of with a woman. . . the GENERAL PRINCIPLE admitted by Gide, elsewhere in his treatise, that sexual practice tends to stabilize in the direction where it has first found satisfaction…”(Harold March, “Gide and the Hound of Heaven,” 1952, caps added).
March concludes (way back in 1952!): “to inoculate a youth with homosexual tastes seems an odd way to prepare him for matrimony.” But why “prepare him for matrimony” at all, when a U.S. Supreme Court fatwa can simply redefine “marriage” itself as an artifact of “homophobia” (Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015)?
And fourth, as for addictions in general, even overindulgence in digital and virtual reality games is now known to produce corresponding neuro-chemical changes in the brain itself, e.g., dopamine which is responsible for reward-driven behavior. Pornography is reported to be more addictive than heroin or cocaine. A recent MRI study at University College London strongly implies that even a habit of lying tends to suppress the part of the brain (the amygdala) that responds emotionally to a “slippery slope” pattern of small and then larger lies (reported by Erica Goode, New York Times, October 25, 2016).
Having once questioned fetal sexual differentiation, I borrowed my medical student friend’s embryology text. It was some time ago, but I remember that there is some marker or portion of the Y (male) chromosome which science determines is the location which relates to the development of male genitalia. When this marker is absent (as in the XX female person), even if the Y chromosome is otherwise intact, the genitalia may not descend and develop externally…These cases are rare but do happen in fact. Please don’t rely 100% on my memory here. Best to consult an embryology text. This differentiation begins to occur fairly early in development. It is my vague recollection, that it happens fairly early, in the 6-8 week range.
The book had some discussion of an inhibitory factor which I either read but did not comprehend, or this was only presented as a hypothesis for further research…I simply don’t recall.
I think it is sad that the homosexual has become the new tax collectors and lepers. Condemnation and judgementalism has taken the place of understanding and compassion.The Church teaches that sex is for procreation and relationship. The former is denied homosexuals but the latter is proven possible by the many homosexual couples that have been together for over 50 years. Why are the very elderly denied marriage because they can no longer procreate?All animals procreate only humans can love each other.Being homosexual is not a choice any more than heterosexuality is a choice.
It is not really true that the Church teaches sex is for relationship–not to mention procreation. If that were true, pre-marital sex would be permissible. Sexual union instantiates a specific kind of relationship, a one flesh union (a marriage). The two become sexually and reproductively one organism, a union of persons. That is simply not possible for two people of the same sex. Only a female can receive the body of a male, and so only a male can sexually give himself to a woman. This is why celibacy is so important today–it is a witness that happiness is not about intimate sexual relationships. Rather, happiness is Christ, and he calls some of us to celibacy–and not just clergy.
You really missed the whole point of the article. There is no such thing as “being homosexual.” Until that is understood, everything else remains chaotic and non-Christian in the discussion of sexuality.
The act is disordered and is a choice. A chaste relationship is a relationship.
This is an outstanding article, clear, accurate, and honest… all requirements of charity. I continue to be amazed at how many good Catholics, who strive to be of one mind with the Church on every other issue, nevertheless believe in and adopt the language of modern sexual Identity nonsense. Dcn. Russell is quite correct: Once you accept the phrase “I’m gay,” you are on your way to denying the Truth of human nature, and ultimately, that what the Church teaches is the Truth of Christ.
So far all I have read or heard in the decades of “gay” stories, dramas, comments etc has been all about them. I have yet to see anything about the wreckage and hurt around them for others. My favorite brother of 4, that I loved from my beginning, blamed me and hurt me and our mother all our lives for His CHOICE to ACT out the gay lifestyle. Not for BEING gay but acting on it. No one in our family ever ever judged or hurt him, he did us. Most of the blame came to me for converting to Catholicism. I only loved him. It seems to me that there has been way too much noise and effort to make others believe their unreality. Me thinks they protesteth too much. Or identity is not in our sex but in God our Father and who He says we are. I have been a mother, wife and daughter etc but never thought that was my identity. I am God’s child, that is my reality and I live from there. He has given us many ways to see what He expects of us if we love Him with all our Heart and follow His commandments. Therein lies the rub. That is what they do not want. In discretion I say, consider the expression of seed which is the final destination of physical love. Do you really believe where it goes for them is what is real and right?? It is not just about relationship. We have a biology. Any child understands seed and natural world. Put some energy into reality I say. I am tired of it. He died from it.
Thank you, Mr Russell. This is without a doubt the best piece I have ever stating the Church’s position on this issue. I will keep this to share with others. Excellent, Sir!
Except that it’s not “Church” position. It’s the author’s position. This man is not entitled to speak authoritatively for the Church on this topic. Never will be since he didn’t receive any solid education not to mention the holy orders. If you wanna meditate on the issues he addressed, do it but take it with a grain of salt unless you want to fool yourself.
Yes – the words (gay/homosexual) should not exist for Catholics and be offensive.. WE need to not be afraid of saying that and start listening to Jorden Peterson and free speech.
The very good book ‘Eternity in the Midst of Time ‘ would agree ; time is given to us as a gift , to help make of us what God desires for us , including bringing the sacredness of the moments in the life of our Lord into the moments in our lives . Thus , asking for and receiving the love and joy of our Lord and His Mother , indeed of all of heaven , at the moment of the Incarnation , into the very beginnings of our own lives , asking for same for others in our lives too , in the Hail Mary prayers , said with trusting love ..to thus also undo the spirits of fear of life ,deep hatreds and envies against those through whom God brings forth life – let us hope and pray that many would find that the fallen traits and wounds are all rather similar , denying who Good is and what He can do , the same lies that have its roots in the pagan and related faiths as well . Nothing fashionable in all that either , only what the Good Book calls those who do not have reverence for The Lord .
Can’t saying that “I’m gay” merely be a shortcut way of saying that they have a same sex attraction? If a person needs to clarify the word “gay”, they can always say that they are gay, but not homosexual because they are not acting on it. It doesn’t have to be a statement of their primary identity. It can be as innocent as saying that I am Irish or Italian. Having a same-sex attraction is not a willful sinful state in and of itself.
Irish and Italian are not temptations to commit a sin.
Why would there be any reason for the person to announce what sins he’s tempted to commit?
Very good reply
But what of “Always Our Children” from 1986?
No mystery why the Church is losing members.
Jesus never rebuked a gay person.
Jesus did however, rebuke the Pharisees.
Extremely proud to be the mother of a GAY son and three other straight children!!!
Very sad, that there are Christians who consider my son’s life an abomination.
Very heartened by James Martin and others who view members of the LGBT community as humans loved by God.
“No mystery why the Church is losing members.”
The Church, worldwide, has actually grown from about 614,000 in 1965 to about 1.2 billion today. Yes, it loses members; it also gains members. But it’s really not about the numbers; it’s about truth.
“Jesus never rebuked a gay person.”
Nor did he ever, say, rebuke a wife-beater, a animal torturer, a serial killer, etc. But he did, interestingly enough, rebuke a pope once.
More seriously, do you think that the Incarnate Word, who insisted that he came to uphold and fulfill the law (Matt 5:17ff), would fail to uphold the law’s moral teaching about sexuality and marriage? Especially when he so strongly condemned divorce (Matt 5:31-32)? And, of course, there are the many condemnations in the New Testament of fornication, adultery, homosexuality, etc., with Romans 1 a clear example of the early Christian condemnation of homosexual acts.
“Jesus did however, rebuke the Pharisees.”
He rebuked many of them. And for what? In many cases, it was because they claimed to uphold the Law, but failed to actually do so; many of them would find ways around some of the teachings of the Law, thus justifying actions that were immoral. Come to think of it, that’s what a lot of Catholics do today when it comes to the Church’s teachings about sexuality, marriage, contraception, abortion, etc. But it’s also important to note that Jesus met with Pharisees, such as Nicodemus, and recognized that they wished to follow the Law and live holy lives. Come to think of it, that’s what a lot of orthodox Christians do today when they insist that we need to follow the full teachings of the Church.
“Extremely proud to be the mother of a GAY son and three other straight children!!!”
Okay, fine. But what, exactly, does it mean to be “proud” that one’s child is “gay”? Seriously.
“Very sad, that there are Christians who consider my son’s life an abomination.”
Possibly. Or is it that there are Christians who simply say, as I do, that sex outside of marriage is immoral and that homosexual inclinations are, as the Catechism teaches, disordered?
“Very heartened by James Martin and others who view members of the LGBT community as humans loved by God.”
I’ve never meet a serious Christian who thought that anyone who described themself as “gay” or “LGBT” is not loved by God. But, as Jesus told the woman caught in adultery, “Go and sin no more.” That’s for everyone—both the “Pharisee” and the “gay”.
Not much has been said about the driving force of sex which we are all born with. Our Creator in his wisdom and love for us, made it strong and pleasurable, so that we His people will be happy and multiply. God also gave us a free will so that we would exercise self control and so that His gift would be used responsibly and not be used for purely selfish gratification. The sexual union between a man and women who are married is (should be) self-giving and open for children. Sexual activities outside this kind of union, such as masterbation, anal sex, oral sex, sex with animals, things, and so on, is purely selfish and not self-giving. As such it is also selfishly guarded and protected as normal, as born with, as my right, as not to be judged, as being described with euphermism such as, gay, queer, lesbian and alike. If someone announces that he is gay, I would like that person to tell me exactly what that means. If I get an answer what would it be like?
I fully side with Ron on this topic. I’m sorry to see this article attacking his proclamation of the truth.
A badly needed article which should be publicised as widely as possible. So many otherwise good and intelligent people think that it’s harmless, or even loving, to call someone “gay”.
What could be more hateful and hurtful than to tell someone that some particular sort of sin that he’s tempted to, actually DEFINES who he is and puts him into a distinct category of persons?