Writer Eve Tushnet, who says of herself that “being gay and Catholic is literally my job” has written a followup to her 2014 book Gay and Catholic: Accepting My Sexuality, Finding
Community, Living My Faith. In her new book, she writes to other “gay Christians,” urging them to “come and see how the Lord delights in his gay children.” The thesis of Tenderness: A Gay Christian’s Guide to Unlearning Rejection and Experiencing God’s Extravagant Love,
is that God offers himself and his ardent love to his gay children, and he offers us as gifts to our churches and loved ones—but Christians have made it unnecessarily hard for gay people to trust in God’s tenderness. Thus even—especially—gay people who grew up loving God often need to rediscover him, uncovering his hidden, tender face.
In Tushnet’s eyes, the Church has not been a loving Mother to those she calls “gay Christians,” but rather a “mistress who holds us in contempt and punishes us mercilessly, arbitrarily, and forbids us even to speak what we’ve experienced at her hands.” She wrote her book, she says, with the goal of “alleviating suffering caused by injustice or silence and showing” to her readers “the beauty of the life Christ offers”; she wants to help them to “rejoice that [God] knows [them] as [they] truly are.”
As a repentant man who lived for a time under the deception that I was a “gay child of God,” I find Tushnet’s views mystifying and her harsh words about the Church unfounded. No doubt there have been some in the Church, who have, in the name of the Church, engaged in what the Catechism would call “unjust discrimination” towards people confused about their sexual identity. Yet as an institution, both in her teachings and in her ministry towards men and women who identify as LGBTQ, the Church is not the cruel mistress Tushnet depicts. Tushnet claims each example she gives of suffering represent “thousands and thousands” of people, who she says have had their “lives distorted by shame and despair” and “false conceptions of God” at the hands of the Church.
And yet Tushnet gives no objective evidence to justify her claims; her examples are all anecdotal. Many of her stories are sensationalist. For example, Tushnet speaks of children who were beat up by their father after coming out. I don’t doubt that this happened to someone Tushnet knows, but arguing that this has happened to “thousands and thousands” is irresponsible and an exercise in catastrophism. I have been involved for decades in ministries for people who left the gay lifestyle, and I have never met anyone who was beat up by their father for coming out—though I’ve met men who were beat up by their fathers for other things; being beat up by deadbeat fathers is certainly not limited to children who come out. Nor can this be blamed on the Church.
Sadly, included in Tushnet’s list of sufferings visited upon “gay Christians” are many things which helped people like me leave the gay lifestyle behind. For example, Tushnet considers it a form of suffering when priests in the confessional say, “You’re not gay. You’re a beloved child of God.” In Tushnet’s eyes, this message is “that those two are opposite things.” For those who have fully converted to Catholicism and accepted all of the demands of chastity, which include both sexual abstinence outside of marriage as well as accepting what the Church teaches us about our sexual identity, those in the Church who told us our identity was as a beloved son or daughter of God helped us to follow the words of St. Paul who urges all of us to be transformed through the renewal of our minds by putting off the old man, which for us necessarily includes rejecting the world’s understanding of sexual identities. Additionally, Tushnet unfortunately holds scornful views of the ministries and books which helped us to find healing for the wounds which led to our homosexual desires, such as the books of Leanne Payne.
The majority of the suffering described in the pages of Tushnet’s book could only be considered a form of suffering if the Church’s anthropology was somehow flawed. Page after page of the “suffering” outlined by Tushnet is the result of her not believing or accepting what the Church teaches her and other “gay Christians” regarding their sexual identity. Thus it is self-inflicted. The story of the Rich Young Ruler is helpful here. Though he went away sad upon hearing the Lord tell him that he needed to sell all he had and give the money to the poor, the sorrow he felt as a result was not the fault of Christ. So too with most of the complaints Tushnet levels against the Church.
As a loving Mother, the Church says people such as Eve and I should be treated with “sensitivity, compassion, and respect.” Where legitimate forms of “unjust discrimination” or suffering have taken place at the hands of people in the Church, the Church must repent, and in Tushnet’s long list of grievances, there are, to be fair to her book, some examples of this sort of suffering. Most, however are examples of what the late Alice von Hildebrand would call “illegitimate suffering”, which she defines as “sufferings which are consequences of our false and sinful attitudes. God does not give his grace for such self-inflicted sufferings–this is why they are unbearable.”
No wonder Tushnet and other “gay Catholics” see the Church as a cruel mistress. By choosing to embrace the false sexual identities of the world, they shut themselves off from the grace of God in that area of their life. Thus, they feel unbearably aggrieved when the Church doesn’t agree with them.
This seems to explain the disdain Tushnet has for the bishops’ teachings regarding homosexuality. In her first book, she wrote of being “furious with bishops who say dumb things about gay people,” describing how their statements on homosexuality “asymptotically approach…understanding at the speed of a dying snail.” In her new book, she says part of her goal is to “revive gay people’s trust in God—a trust our shepherds have too often damaged or even killed, but which our tender and good Shepherd can restore to life.”
Unfortunately, “gay Christians” like Tushnet have always seemed like lost sheep to me, who, once found, tell the shepherd who finds them that they really aren’t lost, since they think they know better than the shepherd where and how they will flourish. Tushnet’s disdainful view of the bishops is not surprising, when you consider this stunning statement in Tenderness:
I enjoy being gay. I love the communities my experience has given me; I love spending time with other gay people, especially other gay Christians. I love the insights this marginal, outsider experience offers—the queer perspective on contemporary American and Christian life. I love noticing and attending to the beauty of women. The world is full of beautiful ladies! What a joy. What a gift to notice it.
This is dumbfounding to me and to every other man or woman I know who has repented from their past life lived as gay men and women. We are under no illusions that “being gay” is in anyway good, as the 1986 Letter on the Pastoral Care of the Homosexual Person makes clear when it speaks against those who give homosexuality “an overly benign interpretation,” or who view the homosexual condition as “neutral, or even good.” Tushnet told her readers in her first book that the 1986 Letter sadly isn’t “a jewel in the Church’s crown,” and said of the words quoted above that they are “especially unilluminating.” This is no surprise, coming from someone who claims to enjoy being gay so much.
For those of us who have repented of our “love of being gay,” we believe that the reason those words of liberating truth are unilluminating to Tushnet is because she appears blinded by her affection and attachment to the land of Sodom. She is stuck, like Lot’s wife, looking back with fondness at that sterile and unfruitful land, not realizing that it is nothing but the valley of the shadow of death. And yet from this stuck place, Tushnet, both in this book and in her first book (as well as at her blog and in other writings), sees herself as having a more global vision than the Church for what “gay people” really need from the Church.
She sees her experience as pioneering, exceptional, and unique, frequently saying of herself that when she entered the Church, “I didn’t know any other gay people who were willing to accept the Church’s sexual ethic. I didn’t even know of anybody like that.” (This is hard to take seriously, since the Courage Apostolate would have been on her radar with a quick Google search.) From that point on, her life seems to have been consumed with trying to fit her love of being gay within the Church—and believing that her time outside the Church as a lesbian helps her point the way forward for the Church.
From this position as a self-appointed expert on what she calls on her blog, “Gay Catholic What Not,” she frequently makes magisterial statements, such as in this book, when she states, “it’s typically easier for a gay person who grows up outside the Church to know God’s love than for a gay person who had a Catholic upbringing,” and contends that “[t]he children of the Church, who should be the most confident in God’s love, the ones who know best what God is like, are instead the ones who grow up uncertain of God’s love and afraid that there’s no place for them in the Church.”
One wonders on what basis she makes these rather broad claims, but I think it stems from her choosing to still remain “on the margins” of her chosen queer life, instead of fully entering into the beauty of the Church’s teaching on homosexuality and chastity. If she doesn’t see the Church as honoring the ways she wants to live out her “lesbianism,” then she’ll naturally see the Church as a hindrance to anyone else who grows up in the Church with homosexual desires. This, I think explains the following question she poses, which I found sad and absurd:
What if gay people were safer in our churches than in the secular world? What if we could find more ways to give and receive love within the Church than we do outside it? If this seems impossible, it only shows how far we have strayed from the path the Lord has called us to walk.
Tushnet, alas, due to her own professed love of “being gay” is blind to the truth that those she calls “gay people” are already safer in the Church than they are in the secular world. Those of us who have shed the false identity of being LGBTQ have found what she seems to be so desperately looking for: there are indeed more ways to give and receive love within the Church than exist outside of it.
The problem for Tushnet is that she wants to express her love as some holy form of “lesbian” love within the Church, whereas converts, such as myself, have learned that anything that is “LGBTQ love” is always a perverted and distorted form of love. That Tushnet isn’t able to see what we’ve found just shows how far she has strayed from the path the Lord has called her to walk. She needs to leave the halfway house she’s constructed of the Church on the outskirts of Sodom and Gomorrah, slough off the old man, and rejoice that God knows her as she truly is: a woman, whose sexual identity is created for motherhood, not lesbianism.
If Eve Tushnet doesn’t see God’s tenderness in that noble calling, then she cannot, I believe, possibly be relied upon to reveal God’s tenderness to anyone else.
Tenderness: A Gay Christian’s Guide to Unlearning Rejection and Experiencing God’s Extravagant Love
By Eve Tushnet
Ave Maria Press, 2021
Paperback, 224 pages
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.
Dear, dear Eve: Personhood cannot be ascribed to one’s unnatural sexual proclivities. There are only human persons- male and female. It is pure nonsense to refer to someone as a gay “person.”
Deacon Peitler is correct. A person created in God’s image is not homosexual by nature, rather by election, “unnatural sexual proclivities”. Saint Stephen consistent with his sacramental ordination as deacon preached the Gospel and taught the faith and was martyred for it. Our Church recognizing this heroic deacon as our first martyr.
I don’t usually quote Pope Francis unless what he says is an unambiguous testament to the faith. Eve Tushnet appeals to tenderness extensively in the sense of God’s delight in the active homosexual, although that perception is far from or indifferent to Apostolic tradition.
“The Lord leads, the Lord leads His people, the Lord corrects; I would also say: the Lord punishes with tenderness. The tenderness of God, the caresses of God. It is not a didactic nor diplomatic attitude of God; it comes from within, it is the joy that He has when a sinner approaches. And joy makes Him tender” (Pope Francis homily Casa Santa Marta 10.12.19).
Francis perceives tenderness as the response to the repentant sinner, whereas Tushnet an expectation of God as she envisions His embrace of her perversion. He [Pope Francis] elsewhere referred to this form of compassionate ‘sweetness’ in the parable of the Prodigal Son, and the Father’s rushing out to meet him when he spies him from a distance returning. Sentiment is an affirmation of a good, or an evil. The latter contrived to validate oneself, or some other’s impropriety as one would wish, rather than what is revealed [by grace, either received or rejected since it is a conscientious free choice ad liberum arbitrium], as true and good.
Thank you, Father. Both St. Stephen and St. Lawrence are models for speaking truth. There’s an awesome painting of both these martyrs in the narthex of the Church at El Escorial.
I have not read Eve Tushnet’s book, but if what you have written here captures exactly what Tushnet has written then Bravo! Your points are just spot on! Well said and goes right to the heart of the matter. That you’ve been where she’s at makes it even more compelling.
I give the caveat because a certain woman PhD reviewed a book here and grossly misrepresented the book.
“The closing paragraph is superb:
“If Eve Tushnet doesn’t see God’s tenderness in that noble calling, then she cannot, I believe, possibly be relied upon to reveal God’s tenderness to anyone else.”
Surrendering to yourself and not to God is the problem no matter what sin you commit.
I have never read this put so well. Thank you.
I’m profoundly disappointed that Catholic World Report would publish such a ridiculous article, trashing a wonderful book written by a brilliant and holy woman. David Laidlaw’s problem is a hermeneutical one, expressed in the old Latin proverb: “Quidquid recipitur ad modum recipientis recipitur” (Whatever is received is received according to the mode of the receiver.)
There’s an editorial problem with this online journal.
Thomas,
“Quod dicis nihil sapit. Nemo qui legit, alius esse potest, quam qui sunt.”
(What you are saying makes no sense. No one who reads can be anyone other than who they are.)
Well, I think there’s an editorial problem with classifying something as a book review when it actually reads as a deep and personal criticism of another person. At times CWR does seem to have an obsession about sex.
“Caveat emptor”
Let the buyer (or reader) beware.
“Well, I think there’s an editorial problem with classifying something as a book review when it actually reads as a deep and personal criticism of another person.”
Considering the nature of the book and how works focused on sexuality are often very personal, it’s hardly surprising that criticism of what Tushnet states might have a “deep and personal” tone to it.
This review–and, yes, it is a review–quotes Tushnet’s book(s) dozens of times, as well as refers to other aspects of the book. I’ve been writing book reviews for decades and have read thousands of reviews during my life, so I’m fairly confident that I know a book review is.
“At times CWR does seem to have an obsession about sex.”
I think you should explain further what you mean by this, which I find both a silly remark and a sly bit of slandering.
Since last summer, CWR has run reviews of two books on marriage. None on “sex” during that time until this book by Eve Tushnet.
On March 22nd, CWR ran a piece titled “The Tyranny of Sex Denialism” by Sister Renée Mirkes. On February 14th, CWR reposted a piece on homosexuality by the late Dr. Mark Lowery. In early December 2021, CWR an a piece by James Kalb on “The Question of the Sexes”. On The Dispatch, which is the sub-features section of CWR, a March 29th essay by Stephen Adubato took up the topic of “Sodomy, smoking, and and the inversion of vices”.
Over the past several months, CWR has run several pieces/news briefs on clerical sexual abuse, the German synodal/episcopal obsession with “same-sex” relationships (including the suggestion by Cardinal Marx and others) that the Catechism’s teaching on homosexuality should be changed. Those pieces, of course, are newsworthy as (for those who might be oblivious) there a lot of people inside and outside the Church who want changes made to the Church’s teachings about marriage, sexuality, the sexes, and so forth.
So, out of the numerous (hundreds) the book reviews, features, and subfeatures that CWR has posted since last summer, there have been a handful squarely focused on “sex” (as in the the sexual act and/or the sexes). But serious readers will note, I think, that almost all of the CWR pieces (and the CNA briefs) are really concerned about anthropology, morality, and truth. In other words, we don’t run lewd or improper pieces on “sex”.
Now, back to Sister Mirkes’ essay on gender ideology (to take up Pope Francis’ phrase, which he has used many times—perhaps he is obsessed?), mentioned above.
Currently, it has 61 comments. 24 of those comments were made by a certain Todd Flowerday.
Who, sir, is really obsessed?
I’m just offering two things: responses to people who have asked me questions, including you. And also providing a faithful Catholic alternate response.
If we are to be obsessed, it should be about our Matthew 28:19-20 mandate. Not sex.
CWR is not “obsessed with sex”, as you claim. You continue to offer straw men. And now while making claims that have no basis in fact at all.
No, you are playing games. And you still need to explain to me how it is that CWR is “obsessed with sex”.
No, Carl.
My qualifier was “At times.” It’s not a constant thing here, but when the topic comes up, people here, mainly commentators and occasionally contributors, zero in on sex.
Ms Tushnet is well-known in both gay and Catholic circles for promoting celibacy as an appropriate expression of same-sex attraction. Yet the reviewer glosses over it. Mr Laidlaw doesn’t mention it.
There are no games here. Just a tendency for some Catholics to circle the wagons. Often unnecessarily. *At times* it’s not enough to promote Church teaching. If one doesn’t adopt the group tone, one comes under immediate suspicion. The outsider doesn’t even need to be read carefully.
You know well my tone here is twofold. One, focus on the Church’s mission of evangelization. Two, don’t be bullies and jerks to others.
So, when CWR does occasionally post pieces on sex (that is, on pieces about gender ideology, sexual immorality, marriage, anthropology), those pieces tend to focus on the topic they are about.
And that is “obsessive”? So, again, what about your constant (dozens) of comments on those same pieces? Not obsessive?
Todd, not a good idea ever to lie and deceive, but beyond folly to do so in Holy Week. There is no such thing with or of God, of a Catholic alternative, good or bad, there is “only the same Catholic, today, yesterday and forever’…Holy Triduum mercies and miracles
There is a problem in today’s society with acceptance of “anything goes” under the guise of “kindness”. Homosexuality has been condemned for a very long stretch of man’s history. It is not quite the same as the people themselves being condemned, although many choose to interpret it that way.I have gay friends and I am sure many straight people do.I have issues with the gay/LBGT movement trying to normalize what is a VERY minority philosophy/activity, and more to the point, making a concerted effort to indoctrinate very small children in this area, in opposition to religious and parental values. As a result laws must now be passed prohibiting liberal teachers and school districts from doing so. As the article points out, chastity is to be observed by ALL Catholics. Its unfortunate the church does not focus on this from the pulpit more often. Overlooked are widows and widowers , who lose a spouse, often while young, and then spend DECADES living a chaste life. I count myself in that category. No, it is not always easy. But this IS what is expected, and it most certainly is possible.
So if I’m understanding you correctly, you believe that people can intentionally and regularly disobey the Bible’s clear teachings on sexuality and still call themselves Christians? You may want to read and meditate on Romans chapter 1. It paints a rather frightening picture of people like you. Repent and move toward the truth while you are still able to do so.
No, you don’t seem to be understanding me at all.
Thomas James,
We do not know that Eve Tushnet is holy. How can she be holy if she is espousing ideas opposed to God’s revealed will?
As for brilliant, that she can’t even make a coherent exposition of why Scripture and Tradition has always condemned this sexual perversion testifies to a clouded mind.
The dimmed mind is always the beginning of perversion, the illumined mind leads to repentance and conversion back to God.
God loves a sinner. He hates the sin. The Church does likewise.
The Church is also composed of flawed and fallible people who sometimes hate the people. or at least decline to love them as Jesus loves.
It’s not a question of love, it’s a question of truth and obedience. We are under no obligation to support, defend, or affirm people’s sins. The gospel calls us to repentance and faith.
Not entirely or exactly true. While it is true we are under no obligation to support, defend, or affirm people’s sins, we are called to dine with sinners and associate with them. It’s basic Imitation of Christ 101. Doing so implies it’s not an opportunity for the Christian to be a bully or a jerk.
And when Ms Tushnet cites personal experiences of a lack of love and that others have related the same, catechism 2478 obliges us to take her subjective experience truthfully and seriously.
The object of the Christian is not a preservation of a personal purity as we understand it, distancing ourselves from sinners, as we see them. The object is presenting the person of Jesus, whole and entire, as best as we can muster.
Flowerday says: “… we are called to dine with sinners and associate with them.”
Duh? NO! Where in scripture or in the Catechism or in any Catholic magisterial teaching do you find that? Rather, Scripture has it:
“But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one.” (1Corinthians 5:11)
Criticized for eating with sinners, Jesus said “Those who are well do not need a physician, but the sick do. Go and learn the meaning of the words, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ I did not come to call the righteous but sinners.” Matt 9:12-13
We are called to imitate the Lord. We are likely called to mercy, a teaching Saint Paul would certainly endorse. Sorry/not sorry, but we are indeed called to a fruitful spreading of the Gospel, not being socked away in our own comfort zones with like-minded folks. Sure, we can hang out with our friends and family. But if we’re choosing effective imitation of the Lord and following his mandate, we’d best be prepared to socialize with those we consider any manner of sinner.
No, Todd, Christ 101 says, to leave them, stomping their dust even from your feet’; ‘I am writing to tell you that the person you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother in Christ but who takes part in sexual sin”;’for what part does light have with darkness; “If anyone comes to you but does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your home or even greet him”…. Triduum and Easter mercies
Todd,
Jesus nowhere commands us to eat or associate with sinners. Neither can I find that He command that we imitate Him. If you have a reference, please supply.
Jesus did say to follow Him, listen to Him, learn from Him, pick up our cross, etc. He did tell us to be leaven, light, and salt to the world, but we are not to let our salt or leaven or light become dim, stale or lose its flavor. We are each responsible for keeping our lamps filled with oil so that we may meet him. We are to be in the world, not of it. If one part of the body (i.e., Mystical) leads us to sin, we are to cut it off.
Sure, Jesus called and ate with sinners, then He cured them but NOWHERE DOES HE COMMAND THAT WE EAT AND ASSOCIATE WITH THEM. He himself did not associate with that spirit whose sins He detested: Satan. He walked away from those who would harm Him (until His hour as decreed by His Father came). He did not cure those without faith in Him. Why should we??
Mercy. Through the Church, the Spirit of Mercy advises we perform: [Note nothing there about eating and associating.] Instead, we are to pray for the dead (those living in the state of mortal sin as well as those physically dead). We are to admonish the sinner, not ‘associate’ with him.
The Seven Spiritual Works of Mercy
To instruct the ignorant
To counsel the doubtful
To admonish sinners
To bear wrongs patiently
To forgive offenses willingly
To comfort the afflicted
To pray for the living and the dead
Flowerday: Re: imitating Christ. Read very carefully one will not be misled.
“Brethren: Be imitators of God, as very dear children, and walk in love, as Christ also loved us and delivered Himself up for us an offering and a sacrifice to God to ascend in fragrant odor. BUT IMMORALITY AND EVERY UNCLEANNESS OR COVETOUSNESS, 😮LET IT NOT EVEN BE NAMED AMONG YOU😮…. For KNOW THIS AND UNDERSTAND, THAT NO FORNICATOR OR UNCLEAN PERSON, OR COVETOUS ONE – FOR THIS IS IDOLATRY – HAS ANY INHERITANCE IN THE KINGDOM OF CHRIST AND GOD. Let no one lead you astray with empty words; for BECAUSE OF THESE THINGS THE WRATH OF GOD COMES UPON THE CHILDREN OF DISOBEDIENCE. DO NOT, then, BECOME PARTAKERS WITH THEM. FOR YOU WERE ONCE DARKNESS, BUT NOW YOU ARE LIGHT IN THE LORD. WALK THEN, AS CHILDREN OF LIGHT,…. (Ephesians 5:1-9) [Emojis and emphases added.]
We are not to NAME deeds of IMMORALITY or UNCLEANNESS.
The caps don’t really help.
Ephesians 5 is addressed to the community of Christians. Not to non-believers. As Catholic Christians we naturally hold ourselves to the highest standards. That is what Jesus preached in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) urging his followers to a higher sanctity than the religious leaders of the day.
How to resolve these passages from the epistles when Jesus didn’t shy away from eating with tax collectors and sinners, or conversing with Samaritans or Roman soldiers? His mission and purpose was not to “the house of Israel” by his own admission, but to those he deemed lost and in need.
Eve Tushnet’s book is designed along these lines. She didn’t write it for us, at least not the ones commenting here. She didn’t write it for Mr Laidlaw or for this site. Dc McManaman is right; listen to him. Stop “biting and tearing” (Gal 5:15) at other faithful Christians.
Todd Flowerday,
How does Jesus love?
Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more.
Also, “Will you pass the pita bread? Can a pour you another cup of wine?”
Todd,
No wonder you think what you do since you’ve come up with your own scripture.
???HUH???
This looks and sounds like a mocking of something we hold to be holy. And this, during Holy Week.
No. It’s not. Really.
Me thinks you have an issue with the spirit of confusion. Suggest you pray to the Holy Ghost/Spirit for blessing you with truth and understanding, in these matters. You spread on evil concept as even satan quotes the bible for his own purposes.
Like so many others – she leads with the guilt trip, designed to make others feel guilty for her discomfort, unhappiness, what have you. The inevitable result of anyone accepting the mantle of responsibility is the impossibility of having any kind of a conversation on this or any other subject when one person leads with the guilt trip and the other puts up with it.
“This is dumbfounding to me and to every other man or woman I know who has repented from their past life lived as gay men and women.”
This perspective may well be accurate, but it is also a minority view.
Many Christians get twisted up about these issues. One can be a heterosexual person and still concede, “Yes, people in the Church, individuals and the institution, have mistreated and sinned against gay persons.” Even the saved and converted are imperfect in this life, and bear the burden and shame of sinning against others.
Todd Flowerday wrote:
“This perspective may well be accurate, but it is also a minority view.”
Your point, sir? Are you saying that morality is a matter of popular opinion?
The majority of Jews of Jesus’ time did not believe He was the Messiah. According to you, does that mean He wasn’t?
* * *
Todd also wrote:
“One can be a heterosexual person and still concede, ‘Yes, people in the Church, individuals and the institution, have mistreated and sinned against gay persons.’”
Um, what article are you even responding to? Are you seriously saying that the fact that some people are rude and inconsiderate invalidates the Church’s teachings?
Whom are you taking issue with? Who’s in favor of cruelty?
Certainly not the Catholic Church. As the author observes early on in the article, the Church states quite clearly that gay individuals should be treated with “sensitivity, compassion, and respect.”
Surely the fact that some Catholics fail to live up to the Church’s teachings can’t shock you. You must have noticed that happening once or twice before.
My point is that “converted gays” are in the vast minority of people who are, or who “have been” gay.
And, I’m responding to what I view as an overly personal attack on a Catholic who has a good reputation for orthodoxy and faithfulness. Reviews/op-eds that veer into personal attack is just the Church shooting itself in the foot. Keep an eye on the goal, people: we want to convert people to Christ. Not insult them and chase them away.
And now, I take it, you are insisting that this review article “insults” Eve Tushnet. How so? Seriously, I think you have moved the goalposts so often that you have no idea where they are or what they are.
The metaphor isn’t really working here. “Insults” applies to people Ms Tushnet knows as well as a few I have known. She and I are already in the Church, and there’s pretty much nothing the commentariat here can say to change that. I’m thinking more the attitudes encouraged by this so-called review.
yes, Carl, please stop satan from these sacrileges here in Holy Week…
Oh Todd,
The author just explained in a brilliant and easy to understand prose how Tushnet is anything but faithful and orthodox. So long as she clings to her disorder and wants to baptise that disorder as a good, then she is not faithful and neither is she orthodox.
Todd, you said: Even the saved and converted are imperfect in this life, and bear the burden and shame of sinning against others.
True, but the truly converted and know that they are imperfect, know that they must work towards perfection and this work consist on completely turning away from their sin and not celebrating it as Tushnet seems to advocate for. The converted who works towards justifying their perversion and calling it good is not converted at all, but is rather a tool of the evil one masquerading as the tenderness of God.
It’s like Jesus saying: I don’t condemn you, your sin is not sin keep doing it.
Even the pagans know they are imperfect. Christians must identify as aspiring to a higher plane of religious life that just the ordinary stuff.
Todd, proposing acceptance of perversion is not aspiring to a higher place. It’s remaining in the muck and insists on remaining in the muck.
Mark 2:15-17
My brother came ‘out’ at 61 after 36 yrs. of marriage and 3 children. He said he had been abused in the seminary by an older seminarian.I emotionally distanced myself from him and his partner during those years. He would occasionally call me and ask for prayers as he wanted to ‘save’ his soul. Hooray for catholic guilt I thought. After on and off years he finally found Courage and has been celibate since then. He said while he is gay , he does not lead a gay lifestyle. Thank God for the Catholic Church.
I will pray for your brother and his struggles. May I just add that the statement that “someone IS gay” is inaccurate since “IS-ness” implies an existential reality. It’s more accurate to say that someone struggles with homosexual impulses, inclinations, attractions, etc. Too many people equate homosexuality as an identity. It is not.
Two Eves. One, our first, mothered our sorrow and suffering. The other, our sister, increases the same.
Pundits and progressive ‘catholic’ critics a la writers at Patheticos, Non-catholic-Reformer, and Amerika lauded Tushnet’s first book, but others alerted and alarmed at its imbalance. We ought to pray and pity, then carefully consider Eve’s words but not take them as carte blanche representative of anything approaching universal good, truth, or beauty. I made the mistake once of buying her book then passed it on to a ‘gay and catholic’ cousin who promptly threw it away, characterizing it as’silly.’
It seems that Tushnet does not consider that all men are prone to effects of original sin. She herself is affected. All have warps, warts, and imbalances; if Tushnet finds Catholics at fault or failing to live up to her vision of love, she should understand that the image of God is blurred, veiled, and hidden in the souls of imperfect men; the category of imperfect includes Eve, whether gay or not, recovered or actively practicing vile sins of the flesh, Catholic or not.
If Eve seriously wants men to reflect her vision of God, she herself needs to work on perfecting Him within herself. He does not abide with sin. Eve’s ideas of others, herself, and of God fail to show Him according to His perfection.
OTHERS ARE NOT TO BLAME FOR ONE’S OWN WARPED VISION. A continual, continuous and interminable focus on sins of the flesh, representing oneself as a be-all-end-all knower and keeper of Pandora box of horror, shows empathy the way out the door. That door leads neither in nor out of a homosexual closet. It is also not Catholic.
Meiron, could not post a reply to one of your posts above, so doing so here.
Yes, we are to associate with sinners as Jesus did, not meaning simply in the historical or physical presence manner, but with the same mind and heart that He associated with them – to witness the Father and call them to the healing and conversion of and to the Father…He associated with them to free them to be the Father’s as He is with the Father. He lived what He commanded and He commanded what He lived: commanding us, “come follow Me’, “love one another as I have loved you” – associate with the sinners in the interior and exterior manner as I/He did, follow Him in this so that we are loving one another as He loved us while we were still his enemies and sinners…if someone does not respond, then the association ends, ‘leave the person/fig tree to their own devices’ [Lk 13:1-9]; ‘leave them and go outside, stomping their dust even from your feet’…and 1 Cor 5:11, as you already witnessed….yet keep in mind the context of the verses prior, 9-10 – I wrote you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people. I was not including the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world.… From verses 9-10 we see we associate with this group of sinners until they refuse to bear fruit or honestly engage {same as Luke 13 above}, then we shake this dust off us in testimony or witness to them that they have refused our association inviting them to the Father and have rejected Him and so our relationship as it has been must end so that we can, like Jesus, go on to others who will or might be open, “for what part has light with darkness, the righteous with the unrighteous [2 Cor6:14]”….blessings
I will pray for all who feel the inclination of ,so called gay tendencies, have the strength to overcome the evil temptation of this particular sin. As I hope they pray for me to overcome my tendency to also sin though be it not of this form.
I suggest you all purchase a copy of the book and read it, before congratulating this author on what I see as a very foolish article. Gosh! She’s on our side, for crying out loud! The book is a masterpiece, especially chapter 2. David Laidlaw is focusing on incidental aspects of her book, aspects which are accurate nonetheless–clergy have said utterly short sighted and pastorally “nincompoopish” things over the years that might seem innocent if you are straight, but seriously problematic from a pastoral point of view if you are gay. The book is not about the blindness of the clergy, but about charity, love of Christ, service, the love of God and the importance of celibacy. Why this author missed that is beyond me. And of course her examples are anecdotal! Did you expect a rigorous statistical analysis, the result of a double blinded and peer reviewed study? She has far more experience than so many of us who are not gay, which is why I suspect that her data is far more extensive than a few instances here and there. As for bishops who have made statements “asymptotically approaching understanding at the speed of a dying snail”, that’s one of her best lines, and true without question, and easily applicable to David Laidlaw.
The credibility of CWR takes a hit with articles like these. I agree with the comment above about editing. There should be a larger editorial team with greater diversity of perspective so as to better filter out articles that are short-sighted, cynical and arrogant.
Stop shooting our own soldiers, especially those doing such good work! We need more people like Eve Tushnet.
“clergy have said utterly short sighted and pastorally “nincompoopish” things over the years that might seem innocent if you are straight, but seriously problematic from a pastoral point of view if you are gay.” This hardly applies to gays alone.
Deacon, during Holy Week???
The author of the CWR speaks of the holiness of God, His Love and relationships directed or denying that Triune Love….your reply seems to showcase the problem, which the author well witnessed – the rejection of God and His Own Eternal Communio of Love for the devils deadly lies….prayerfully reflect on the final paragraph.
Helping people and community to ‘go and sin some more’ and calling it joy, love, tenderness, is not a work of the Lord and His Children, but as Jesus says in John 6, a work of the devil and his children…. please, one must be a deacon of Christ not the enemy….
What part of Tushnet’s advocating celibacy do you not understand?
Deacon, I do think this write up, from a site selling the book, says a lot more for what the book is written for/how:
Description
What would happen if gay Christians began to believe the truth about God—that he loves all people unconditionally?
In Tenderness, Catholic writer and speaker Eve Tushnet says trusting God’s love would be the beginning of a transformation, not only in the lives of gay Christians but also in the Body of Christ itself. She offers hope and companionship to those who have been deeply hurt by their parishes, a wound that also damaged their relationship with God. Tushnet also offers practical guidance from her own journey as a celibate lesbian.
Tenderness explores scripture and history to find role models for gay Christians—including Jesus, King David, Ruth, St. John, Mary, poets, mystics, penitents, leaders, and ordinary gay people who have found unexpected paths of love. The book also offers guidance on living through or recovering from the painful experiences that are all too common in gay Christian life—from familial rejection and weaponized Christianity to ambivalence and doubt. Weaving her own story with resources, prayers, and practical actions that can help gay people trust that God loves them, Tushnet renews our understandings of kinship, friendship, celibacy and unmarried life, ordered love, personal integrity, solidarity with the marginalized, obedience, surrender, sanctification, and hope.
This book is primarily for gay Christians, but it also offers a window into their experiences and needs that will make it useful for anyone in pastoral care or who wants to be a better friend to the gay people they know.
Alice von Hildebrand was correct in identifying these types of sufferings as self-inflicted. The ‘gay’ community doesn’t just want to be accepted, but demands everyone else ‘celebrate’ their sexual behavior. They dance around with their flags and put on a big show saying “Look at us, we’re ‘special’, we’re proud of our uninhibited sexual proclivities, and you must accept, accommodate and promote our lifestyle”. When we don’t submit to their demands, they are just so crestfallen. This indicates a severely immature mental development level on their part.
I personally don’t want anyone else knowing about my sexual proclivities and certainly wouldn’t go chanting about them in the street, begging for everyone’s sympathy. This isn’t due to unwarranted inhibition, it’s called self-respect, humility and r-e-s-p-e-c-t for others.
One wonders why on this green earth they want anything to do with the Catholic Church when there are so many other (ostensibly Christian) organizations that would gladly validate their lifestyle, unless they subconsciously know that The Church (with it’s teachings) has the truth that they really seek. Perhaps they are just bent on destroying all good things as they have destroyed their lives.
They can live as they will, continuing to condemn all who don’t agree with them, enjoying all of their partner(s) and treating the recurring infections. But they should understand that the afterlife will be much much worse for them. After all, if they want to be in the Church, they must know that there is an afterlife.
As for ‘PRIDE’, read Proverbs 16:18. If you want to be in The Church, read the book.
Well said!
Thank you, a very wonderful article.
As we are in the Beloved’s Holy Week, I would like to place the discussion into its real sitz in leben, that is if you will, this is not about the Church’s Teachings, but rather the Beloved’s Teachings intimated to the Church to us His tenderly loved children. Without realizing it, most likely, Tushnet and others are rejecting the tender and extravagant love of the Triune Lover…not a Teaching of the Church, nor even the Master – but the Triune extravagant, tender lover, on Calvary, dying for us to finally see and know His Love that is Offering us the New Exodus into the New Creation of Loving as God originally in all tenderness and extravanze first Created us to love, and now even more tenderly and extravagantly has Redemptively ReCreated us that we will love as He sweetly made us to do so in the beginning, man, male and female, with Him in all the extravagant tenderness of sweetest love, wisdom, perfection, peace, blessedness…. Blessed be the Triune Lover and God, Blessed be the Triune Lover and God become man, that man becoming God, may Love as God, Redeemed. A most blessed Holy Triduum and Easter-time!
Todd Flowerday wrote:
“Also, ‘Will you pass the pita bread? Can a pour you another cup of wine?’”
* * *
Todd, you are portraying yourself as Catholic while mocking the Eucharist? During Holy Week, as Cory observed?
I am appalled.
I hope CWR takes whatever steps they deem necessary to protect their users and the Catholic faith from this kind of scandal and contempt.
and then there is this:
“Tenderness is a book so open, insightful, wry, and generous that I devoured it in one sitting and wished it was longer. By turns hilarious, frank, heartbreaking, and ultimately hopeful, it is an inspired, irresistible read that manages to instruct without injuring and makes us long to bring about the world Eve Tushnet can see so clearly.”
Elizabeth Scalia, Editor at-large at Word on Fire Catholic Ministries
Mr. Laidlaw,
Thank you for your great courage, clarity, charity, commitment, and sacrifice. Your essay embodies all of these qualities with a sound understanding of Catholic theology and morality. Your distinction between legitimate and illegitimate suffering is critical. Everyone is aware of their suffering but not so many look to Christ and His sacraments to detach themselves from what is causing illegitimate suffering within.
God Bless,
Jim Gill
Enough Sir Flowerday: Your posts too often tend to be self-serving, repetitive, and moderately annoying. If we can’t agree that putting sin on a pedestal and not holiness is wrong … then we are most certainly doomed.
Judgement and condemnation on matters related to LGBTQ+ people pushes questioning young people away and sometimes, toward a hopelessness that statistics show can lead to suicide. Why is it so frightening to imagine that God, who created the genders of male and female, and is thus above the concept of gender, made some people perceive themselves differently? The rich young man who spoke with Jesus about eternal life said he followed the ten commandments. The only reference to sexuality in them is the command to not commit adultery. In Matthew 25:31-51 Jesus explains the criteria on which human beings will be judged. That criteria has to do with how we treat each other, and if we recognize Jesus in others. How would Jesus treat the author of this book? He’d be a friend of hers, to the shock of everyone around him.
The gospels are pretty clear that Jesus was not friends with everyone. He consistently called out those who were misinformed in their theology and self-righteousness in their morality. Obeying God and honoring His truth are the most important things.
Language has “gender.” People have “sex”–or rather, a biological “sex”–XX or XY.
.
(There are some folks who have XXX, XXY, XYY; those are considered chromosomal abnormalities and the folks who have those gentic issues often have physical issues as well, as a result of the chromosomal abnormality.)
.
If folks have trouble with their “sexuality” it is likely because they do not understand what sex is for, which is reproduction.
.
There is nothing in the Ten Commandments about obeyng traffic laws, but most people who drive know to obey them, lest they get into a car accident.
All the preceding commentary aside, I would like to comment about the practice of describing a “gay Christian” or a “lesbian Catholic” in quotes, as if the two were mutually exclusive. Does a sexual sin disqualify you from your religious identity? This would imply that anyone who commits a sexual sin is a Christian or Catholic in quotes only… Right? Does this mean that there are also “Christian porn readers” or “Catholic spouse cheaters”, “Christian fornicators” or” Catholic masturbators” who have disqualified themselves from their religion (or faith?) on the basis of their sins? These are not rhetorical questions; I am really looking for plain and honest answers. Because the implication of the quotes was that thing in this article that sits uneasily with me. And to take it further, does this mean that any kind of sinner is Catholic or Christian in quotes only, or does it only refer to sins of sexual perversion? Are we also going to church with “Catholic thieves” or “Christian tax evaders”? “Catholic alcoholics” or “Christian overeaters”? “Catholic gossipers” or “Christian liars?” Does anybody see where I am going with this? And where do you draw the line? When I look in the mirror, can I see a beloved child of God or will I inevitably see a “Christian sinner” who is “Catholic” in quotes only? Regardless of personal opinions or official Church teaching, it is the use of the “quotes” in the article that gives me pause. I am afraid that if we treat people like certain sins disqualify them from membership in the Family of God, our churches will quickly be empty. And in fact, anyone can see… They are becoming empty.
My understanding (I could be wrong):
.
“Gay” refers to someone who is committed to the lifestyle of sodomy. They enjoy it, don’t see it as a sin, and see no reason to avoid it. Said person may or may not be “married” to another “gay” (bisexual?) person.
.
So, yeah “gay Catholic” isn’t possible because that kind of behavior is forbidden to Catholics (or, talk to God–He was pretty clear that kind of thing is forbidden everyone).
.
So a person could be a homosexual or same-sex attractied, but not be “gay”.
.
I don’t think most people who commit fornication, or contraception, or tax evasion, or any other number of sins, identify themselves and/or celebrate their sin. In fact, most people don’t think about these things at all.
I think the genuine answer to your question lies in the mind and behavior of the sinner. People commit all sorts of sins but as Catholics, the question is, are they trying to amend their behavior? Are they trying to control that tendency? Do they go to confession and are they contrite, which is a criteria for forgiveness? People active in the Gay and lesbian and Trans front seem to be well out there in public fighting to normalize their situation, all in contrary to Catholic teachings. Clearly they are NOT contrite and have no intention of seeking forgiveness. I do not include here those gays etc who indeed ARE trying to live by church teachings, such as those who go to COURAGE meetings. But then those folks would not likely be the types to advertise their personal sexual orientations at street marches.As Christians we are not supposed to categorize and label people , or judge them. However those who go out of their way to create public scandal for the faith by acting contrary to church teaching should not be ignored either. I seem to recall St. Paul having no trouble calling out people who were guilty of overt sins. Abortion defenders Biden and Pelosi come to mind.
The people who angered and frustrated Jesus in the Gospels were those who acted like hypocrites.
Yep: they knew the moral teachings of the Law but insisted those teachings did not apply to them. Or that those teachings were not needed.
Carl you do realize Eve follows the teachings of the Moral Law and advocates gays who become Christian do that?
It is not hard buddy.
Right. Jesus didn’t like hypocrits–those who said one thing and acted differently. Judeo-Catholic teaching has not changed in the past 4000 years, and it will not change in the future for the sake of those who refuse its eternal wisdom as God’s path for mankind’s happiness. You would have a hypocritical Bible??
Sodomy opposes nature. Sodomy opposes the Creator of nature. The ocean has its limits. The mountains are only so high, and man cannot breathe under water or above certain altitudes. God commanded his first man and woman to ‘subdue’ nature. He did not command them to re-design it, were that possible.
Neither did God first create two men or two women. He told his first man and woman to be fruitful and to multiply. Two men or two women cannot do that.
Yes, you are correct. Hypocrits, those who act against nature’s laws, frustrate Jesus. Hypocritical people who think that rules of nature and of God do not apply to them are sorely mistaken. So yes, you are correct. Hypocrits frustrate their own nature, and they frustrate those who aim to help them discover the true, the good, and the beauty of the ways of nature and of God.
Homosexuals can be the same kind of hypocrites that made Jesus angry. For example, often they are like Herod I, “the Great”, at the time of the Magi: conniving. Or, in regard to their own sense of virtue, they equivocate -like Pilate. Or, they can be very gossipy -like the Sadducees.
Then when you correct the homosexual he wants to retort and rebuke with “homophobia”. Considering the roots in the languages, this is somewhat ridiculous.
It is to be remembered of that Herod the Great, that he was the betrayer of the Hasmoneans; that he was a seducer of women; that he was a murderer; that he executed his Hasmonean wife; and that he assassinated Aristobulus III the Hosmonean to prevent him becoming High Priest.
Per WIKIPEDIA, Herod the Great died of a “putrefying” sickness that became known as “Herod’s Evil”.
I think it’s worth pointing out that Eve Tushnet lives celibately. What I think she means when she says she enjoys “being gay” is not that she enjoys deviant sexual acts with other women (because she’s celibate) but that she recognizes her same-sex attraction is not something she needs to hate about herself. In some way, she sees it as a struggle God has allowed her to face in order to lend a different perspective to the conversation on sexuality within the church.
Also, it’s important to note that the author of this article is a man, and that when he hears Eve speak about her “attraction to beautiful women” he’s inadvertently thinking that Eve’s attraction is equivalent to the way a man is attracted to a woman. And it’s not. Women experience attraction differently than men do, often focusing on the person as a whole. That is likely what Eve means. And she is likely trying to point out that this attraction leads her to recognize the beauty of women more clearly.
But does Eve acknowledge that for a woman to be sexually attracted to another woman is a disordered passion? You arent expected to throw yourself over a cliff because of the reality of Original sin but you are expected to avail yourself of God’s grace to face the reality of it in your life.
Eve believes gays should be chaste. That is they should refrain from gay sex?
This article doesn’t point that out and leaves many of the Low Brow thinking Eve is one of those heterodox liberal Catholics who wants the Church to endorse homosexual relations.
that is uncool. She is on OUR SIDE!
see also:
“Fall of Father Dr. Wolfgang Rothe alias ‘Whisky-Vicar’ (…And he fell, and his fall was great – Mt 7,27)”:
https://www.salon24.pl/u/edalward/1290891,the-fall-of-father-dr-wolfgang-rothe
or
https://gloria.tv/post/LUpCzi9KybgA23DjcZtZGjKNw
The only Faithful Catholic response is one that begins and ends with refusing to identify any beloved son or daughter, brother or sister, husband or wife, father or mother, according to sexual desire/inclination/orientation, for that would first and foremost sexually objectify all beloved sons and daughters, in direct violation of God’s Commandment regarding lust and the sin of adultery while denying The Sanctity of the marital act within The Sacrament Of Holy Matrimony,
Love Is rightly ordered to the inherent personal and relational inherent Dignity of the persons existing in a relationship of Love,is devoid of every form of lust.
One should never underestimate the value of a friendship that is grounded in authentic Love because, in denying every form of lust, it serves only for that which is Good, Beautiful, and True.
Lust does not serve for the Good of any person thus it can never serve for The Common Good.
It seems to me that she uses the term ”gay” much like someone in Alcoholics Anonymous uses the term “ alcoholic.” Someone in AA would call herself an alcoholic despite because of her proclivity to have uncontrolled drinking. However, this type of alcoholic is committed to stop drinking. In fact, alcoholics find that only other alcoholics can help them stop drinking. In the program they find fellowship and encouragement. Eve seems to be implying much of the same.
Alcoholics often only marry other alcoholics and many of their friends are alcoholics. This isn’t to glorify alcoholism but to encourage each other thru a fellowship of those with similar experiences.
I don’t personally know if it is prudent to call oneself “gay” but at the very least we should be charitable in our reading of Eve and try to understand where she is conning from,
What practical implications might Tushnet’s experiences have for religious communities and their approach to LGBTQ+ issues?
What criteria does Alice von Hildebrand use to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate suffering?