The New Homophiles

Never before has a devout, vocal, and coherent group of educated, thoughtful, and orthodox gay† Christians sought to articulate what the Church’s teaching might mean for someone who is not attracted to the opposite sex.

Chris Damian wrote that in the blog—Ideas of a University—he ran at Notre Dame University where he took an undergraduate degree in Philosophy last year. Damian also studied at the Angelicum in Rome and is now working on a law degree at the University of St. Thomas. Damian is gay and a faithful Catholic. He’s describing a new school of which he is a prominent member—out and proud men and at least one woman and their straight friends calling for the Church to “develop” Her teaching on homosexuality.

They are the New Homophiles†† and they accept the Church’s teaching that sexual activity can only occur between married men and women. They oppose a redefinition of marriage to include anyone else. They are fine, if that is the right word, with living celibate lives. They do not want to stop being gay; they don’t believe they can or even should. They believe God made them gay so they want to be known as gay and they want the Church to accept them on those terms. And they believe being gay is part of God’s plan and vocation for them.

They believe the Church’s teaching on homosexuality and certainly the way it is often talked about by Christians is highly limiting, often insulting, hardly ever welcoming, and in desperate need of development. They are out to change that with their lives and with their writing.

Eve Tushnet may be the progenitor of the New Homophiles. The eccentric and often brilliant daughter of a non-observant Jewish Georgetown law professor and a Unitarian legal activist, Tushnet grew up in Washington DC and knew herself to be gay from a young age. At Yale she came into contact with what’s called the Party of the Right, a part of the Yale Political Union, and the birthing place of many noted conservatives.

She told New York Times columnist Mark Oppenheimer that the Catholics she met at the Party of the Right taught that the presence of sin does not “mean you are bad” but that “It means you have a chance to come back and repent and be saved.”

Tushnet is out, proud, celibate, and a Catholic faithful to the Magisterium. Tushnet says she is in love with the Church, its “beauty and sensual glamour.” She loves the Church’s “insistence that seemingly irreconcilable needs could both be met in God’s overwhelming love: justice and mercy, reason and mystery, a savior who is fully God and also fully human.” Tushnet is a true believer but she also speaks fondly in remembrance of her own lesbian experiences. All this is enough to give faithful Catholics vertigo.

Elizabeth Scalia, who is not gay, came to prominence under the nom de blog The Anchoress and is now the editor of the Catholic portal at Patheos. Her brother was gay and died from AIDs and she is perhaps the Momma Bear of the New Homophiles.

Scalia usually treads lightly but surely on the question of homosexuality. She likely understands how difficult this new message is for the kind of Catholics who read her.

She began one provocative column at First Things quoting gay playwright Larry Kramer who told a television audience at the Tony Awards in 2011 that gays “are a very special people, an exceptional people, and that our day will come.” Scalia answered, “… perhaps Kramer is right. Perhaps homosexuals are in fact ‘special and exceptional others,’ whose distinctions are meant to be noted. Perhaps they are a ‘necessary other’ created and called to play a specific role in our shared humanity.” Note the careful triple “perhaps,” a columnist’s way of taking something off the fastball but throwing a strike nonetheless.

Gay exceptionalism and charism are a regular theme for the New Homophiles. Gabriel Blanchard who calls himself “a gay, anarchist Christian” used to believe that celibacy was a kind of second prize, behind marriage and the priesthood.  He is now fiddling with the idea that he is gay because he is celibate, that his “homosexuality was incorporated, or permitted by God, so as to help me discern my vocation to lay celibacy?” He claims gay exceptionalism allows gays to have “lower tension in dealing with the opposite sex” and “a more intuitive understanding of certain forms of mysticism.” Perhaps.

One of the most prolific of the new school is Joshua Gonnerman who is studying for a PhD at Catholic University in Washington DC. He, too, believes in gay-exceptionalism; there are many things he finds valuable about his experience of being gay, and considers that same-sex desire can be a gift to the Church, a sign of contradiction.

The New Homophiles believe because of their gayness they have a unique ability to build close friendships, something that is lacking in our modern age. Chris Damian points to the intense friendship John Henry Newman had with another priest, going so far as insist he and the priest be buried together. Damian says flat out that Newman was gay and that the friendship with Father Ambrose St. John was the fruit of that. Perhaps.

They are inspired by the work of St. Aelred of Rievault, a twelfth century Abbot and writer considered one of the Cistercian Fathers, who wrote a seminal work still read closely in Trappist monasteries, “On Spiritual Friendship.” Aelred has been adopted by many gays, some of whom celebrate his feast day. Some claim he was gay though gays have a penchant for claiming historical figures as gay, often with little real evidence.

Their ideal is that you can draw close to someone of the same-sex, love them intimately and intensely, yet never cross the line into sexual activity. They point to the relationship between Jesus and young John as a model. Recall John was the “one whom Jesus loved” and who laid his head on Jesus’ chest, something if done today would clearly be considered gay.

But here they are playing with the hottest of fires. Perhaps this is possible for Christ and for saints like Newman but for others it could be a serious problem. This is why married men should avoid intimate friendships with women and why priests should also. This is why married men and priests who form intimate friendships with women often lose their way and ruin their vocations.

Experts at lay celibacy include the Numeraries of Opus Dei. These men and women commit themselves to apostolic celibacy, live in community and dedicate their lives to Christ and spreading the good news through close friendships. But you will never find male or female Numeraries becoming close friends with the opposite sex. It is quite literally playing with fire.

Other experts at lay celibacy include every faithful Catholic who has never been married or who has been widowed. They, too, are called at least for a time, perhaps their whole lives, to celibacy.

There is also something at least a little bit narcissistic about this claim of gay-exceptionalism, that they are experiencing things no others have ever experienced, or that they have unique gifts given to them by dint of their sexual orientation. One of the writers even speaks of the contributions of gay culture though most people would only know the caricature of camp, show tunes and dressing up.

What they want more than anything is a development of doctrine. The Church teaches that homosexuality is “objectively disordered” and that homosexual sex is an  “act of grave depravity.” The Church sees homosexuality as a psychological issue the genesis of which “remains largely unexplained.” There is clearly a long way to go from this to Church seeing homosexuality as a gift not just to the gay person but to the Body of Christ.

The gauntlet they are throwing down is for themselves and for us. For them it is to live chastely, to have intimate nonsexual friendships that will never cross the line.

For us it is to accept them as they are and not believe they must be changed. We may hold that their homosexuality is an Augustinian thorn as many of them do. Similarly we may even hold that it can be a kind of sickle cell anemia, a malady that also comes with benefits, as one of them wrote. But we may not hold that there is anything really wrong with their orientation.

The conversation is fascinating and I must admit I started out annoyed. After all, there are good men and women trying to be faithful but who reject the gay identity, and others who are trying to deal with the underlying psychological genesis of unwanted same-sex attraction, a process the New Homophiles largely dismiss. It will be hard for many of us to believe the Church ever could develop to the extent wanted by this school of writers and thinkers. From a disorder to a gift is a long long way to go.

The New Homophiles are not without their gay critics. In two weeks I will write about them.


†  Defining and using terms in this debate is fraught with difficulties. Gay can be a political term of the sexual left. Many consider homosexual to be pejorative. Then there is “same-sex attracted.” I am using “gay” out of deference to the good people I am writing about.

††  Homophile was the term used for gay groups in the 1950s and 60s, prior to the birth of the modern gay rights movement.

Austin Ruse


Austin Ruse is president of C-FAM (Center for Family & Human Rights), a New York and Washington DC-based research institute. He is the author of Fake Science: Exposing the Left’s Skewed Statistics, Fuzzy Facts, and Dodgy Data published by Regnery and Little Suffering Souls: Children Whose Short Lives Point Us to Christ published by Tan Books. His forthcoming book from Tan Books, written with His Eminence Raymond Cardinal Burke, is expected this spring. The views expressed here are solely his own.

  • JOhn

    Oh, dear. Where to start! Yes, I believe as the church does that homosexuals should be welcomed among us as long as they avoid sexual acts. However, I do wish they would get over their narcissism. The church isn’t about YOU! Please leave your egos, pet obsessions and constant self-referencing at the umbrella stand of the church. The church’s teaching is spot on, built not only on God’s law but also on thousands of years of knowledge of human nature. It will never change – get over it, folks!

    • naturgesetz

      Actually homosexuals should be welcomed even if they are engaged in sexual acts, just as cohabiting and adulterous heterosexuals, alcoholics who still get drunk, and couples who practice contraception should. We do not place them in positions of honor, but we understand that the Church is, as the Pope has reminded us, a field hospital for sinners. We are not allowed to condition our acceptance on the avoidance of sin. But we recognize that repentance and conversion are the work of God’s grace in the soul, and we should not demand that God work an instant conversion. Rather, we should try to imitate the patience of God, who never gives up on any of us as long as we’re alive.

      • Guest

        That means people accept they are sinning and seek to amend their life. It does not mean obstinately denying the truth and scandalizing others.

        • naturgesetz

          “Obstinate” is an important word. “Conscience” is another. A person has an obligation to form his conscience properly, but there are many factors which can impede the formation of a correct conscience. Invincible ignorance can be present. We cannot demand that people seek to amend their lives when they do not realize that something they are doing is wrong.

          A person can sincerely believe that his conduct is not sinful, even when it is objectively wrong. While a person follows his erroneous conscience, striving to live what he believes is a good life, his pastor must judge what is the most prudent way to lead him to understand the truth and to live according to it.

          But I think it is important for us to step back from this theoretical discussion and realize that the people the article is talking about, do in fact realize that homosexual activity is wrong and have committed themselves to celibacy.

          I’m just saying that there are other people: people who don’t understand that homosexual behavior is wrong. God wants to reach them. And if his grace has led them to have faith in Jesus Christ and the sacraments of the Church, if he has thus drawn them into the Church as the place where his grace will slowly work on them, woe betide us if we drive them away because we judge them insufficiently virtuous here and now.

          • John


          • Guest

            Not buying it. Their personal culpability is not the concern. As you state they are Catholic so their obligation is clear. Just saying one is loyal while at the same time playing this game of “gift” and such is not consistent with Church teaching. The nuancing and bending of the issue is not help but confusion. Church teaching is clear and helpful this novel idea is political not theological.

          • Guest

            I should add that scandal is mostly denied. Woe to those that lead others astray by false pastoral labels.

          • Adam__Baum

            Invincible ignorance can be present.

            A good bit of invincible ignorance is self-imposed.

            • naturgesetz

              The self-imposed invincible ignorance may itself be culpable, but as I understand it, that acts which follow from it are not, since one must follow even an erroneous conscience.

              I like your take on sinners in church, but there seem to be others who think active homosexuals should not be in church.

              • Adam__Baum

                No, it’s not that “active” homosexuals shouldn’t be in Church, it’s that they should be like the rest of us-sinful and sorrowful, not out and proud.

                If you allow yourself to be defined by your sins, you are well on the way to being defeated by them.

                • naturgesetz

                  If you do not recognize your temptations, you are well on the way to yielding to them.

                  The problem is that when you have people with erroneous consciences, sometimes invincibly so, at least over the short or intermediate term, just proclaiming the truth will not instantaneously convince them of their error, no matter how forcefully or repeatedly you do it. What is needed is patience to let the Holy Spirit work on their hearts so that in God’s own good time, they can come to realize how wrong they have been. The grace of the sacraments is the ordinary way in which God works to sanctify Catholics.

                  If, in their error, they are out and proud, they need our compassion, and our prayers for their conversion, not our condemnation. Pray for the enlightenment of their consciences, and try to love them as God does.

                  • Adam__Baum

                    In other words, say “pretty please”. We’re not talking about recognition, but definition, something you want to avoid.

                    • naturgesetz

                      I don’t deny any of the doctrinal definitions. I do think that harping on them in the context of a discussion about people who also accept them shows a spirit of judgment and rejection.

                      It’s like reading about people who are successfully controlling their weight through careful dieting and saying,”Gluttony is a sin, and gluttons need to repent.”

                    • naturgesetz

                      Oh, wait a minute. You mean how they “define” themselves? If so, my previous comment is off point for what you said (but I’ll leave it up because I think it’s relevant to the thread as a whole).

                      “…defined by your sins…” But someone who is chastely celibate cannot define himself by his sins of unchastity, since he isn’t committing them.

                      More generally, I think there is a false dichotomy at work here: one which says, “either you are defined by your faith/salvation/following of Christ or you are defined by your sins. But until we get to heaven our sins and temptations are part of our reality. Yes, we are redeemed, but that doesn’t mean we are sinless. And if there is still sin in our lives, we need to acknowledge it and bring it to God for forgiveness. If there is temptation, we need to bring it to God for strength to overcome it. And if the surrounding culture, above all the culture of the Catholic laity, insists on viewing people with a homosexual orientation as homosexuals rather than as beloved children of God, then it becomes necessary for these pariahs to band together for mutual support and to try to bring their fellow Christians to repentance. The non-homosexuals are at least as guilty of defining homosexuals on the basis of their sexual temptations as the homosexuals themselves, and with much less justification — the homosexual must strive against his temptations. They are none of anybody else’s business.

                      So why do the homosexuals speak publicly? Because they need to cry out for justice — against the injustice of bullying, harassment, gay-bashing, against the injustice of firings from secular employment without cause, against the despair which leads a disproportionate number of homosexual teenagers to attempt and to commit suicide — against the refusal of people who imagine themselves to be good Catholics to truly and sincerely accept them with respect, compassion, and sensitivity, against the soul-destroying repetition by people whose business it isn’t, of the phrase “gravely disordered.”

                      I hope this is responsive to the point you were making.

      • John

        Hi naturegesetz. I see what you’re getting at. We are all practicing sinners, hopefully trying to eradicate our own particular sins. Practicising homosexuals can be in church as long – like the rest of us sinners – they recognise that what they do IS a sin and they genuinely try to reform. God Bless.

      • Paul Tran

        Although all sinners are welcome in church, but they must first recognize their sins and repent. There too many who onlypay lip service to God and continue to sin sadly. I agree that conversion is not instantaneous but our faith is not about looking back at our sinful past but toward a sense of renewal in the light of Christ our Savior. And it is this sense of renewal , which can be rocky at times, that we need to focus on.

        • naturgesetz

          “…but they must first recognize their sins and repent.”

          Nobody ever goes around checking on everyone to make sure they’ve recognized their sins and repented. Nobody tells the couple who haven’t repented on in vitro fertilization, “You haven’t repented yet. You’re not welcome here.”

          Imagine how much additional space we’d have at Christmas if we barred the door to people who are contracepting and see nothing wrong with it.

          Recognition of sins and repentance is something which will happen in God’s good time if people are open to his grace, but it’s not a precondition.

  • jacobhalo

    Rarely, do I not have an opinion on an issue. I am absolutely stumped as to where I stand on homosexuality. Were they born gay or is it a learned behavior? There is therapy for gays to become straight. There isn’t therapy for straights to become gay. I am plainly baffled.

    • Watosh

      good point

    • TheodoreSeeber

      “There isn’t therapy for straights to become gay.”

      There is, it’s just informal, and done by gay teenagers all the time. They target confused kids who are misfits, and can be very persistent in trying to get a heterosexual kid who simply hasn’t matured yet to be gay.

      I strongly suspect that a majority of cases of “gay conversion therapy success stories” are actually kids who weren’t born gay- but were targeted in this fashion.

    • Guest

      Not sure why you are baffled? Homosexuality is deviant. It is not ordered toward the good. Heterosexuality is normal. Why would there be “therapy” to go from health to pathology? It makes no sense.

    • naturgesetz

      The “therapy for gay to become straight” is so useless that Exodus International, the primary provider of the therapy, realized earlier this year that it didn’t work and closed down. What they had been calling success wasn’t making gay people straight, but helping them to become chaste gays. But they continued to have their homosexual inclinations.

      • Austin Ruse

        I know several noted psychiatrists who have successfully treated thousands of men and women for unwanted Samesex Attraction.

        • Guest

          Do you support their use of pornography in treatment?

        • naturgesetz

          When you say you know them, do you mean you know them personally, such that they have personally told you of their successes?

          Do the thousands of whom you speak profess to have no remaining same sex attraction, or do they say they no longer act on the attraction (and perhaps even engage in heterosexual activity)? I ask this because it seems from what Exodus International said when they shut down, that those they successfully treated who subsequently married found that they continued to experience same sex attraction even while married to opposite sex partners. The real question is what is “success” as these psychiatrists call it.

          • Austin Ruse

            I personally know psychiatrists and I know of psychiatrists who have treated thousands for unwanted samesex attraction. What is success? It depends on what the patient wants. Most want to deal with teh underlying psychological issue that led them to samesex attraction and then simply not to act out on them. Otehrs want it gone altogether and want to marry someone of the oppositive sex. Depending on the needs and desires of each patient, all things are possible. The ex-gay community is vast and growing.

            • naturgesetz

              I think characterizing such a broad spectrum of results as “success” and the wide range of individuals univocally as “ex-gay” renders the terms meaningless and useless for discussion.

              • Austin Ruse

                Well, one of the problems in this whole area is of definitions. What makes someone a homosexual, for instance, has such a broad range of answers, that almost any definition can be considered meaningless. But in this area, like i said before, it likely depends on the intention and goal of the patient. Some want simply to stop acting out but are fine with teh inclination. Others never want the feeling again. Others want other things from therapy. To say that different goals in therapy means that therapy is meaningless, would apply equally to many differnent, perhaps all, psychological maladies.

                • Guest

                  True and that applies to physical pathology as well. Not every problem can be treated to the same degree in every person.

                • naturgesetz

                  Just to be clear, I wasn’t saying that therapy is meaningless, just that if one is going to say that therapy is “successful”or that people are “ex-gay” when the terms are being used to apply to different things in different cases one hasn’t put forward a meaningful assertion as one would if the terms were used only to denote a change from homosexual orientation to heterosexual.

                  • Austin Ruse

                    I have been privileged to spend time on this issue with two of the most credentialed and recognized psychiatrists in the country. They have treated hundreds of patients for unwanted same sex attraction. They say that it’s treatable.

                    One psychiatrist who led the charge to take homosexuality out of the manual has publicly said he has treated thousands of patients for this.

                    That thre are different goals and therefore different outcomes and some of them that fail, does not change this reality. It can be treated.

                    • naturgesetz

                      This reminds me of a friend who finally went to see his doctor for a persistent cold. What he had was pancreatic cancer. But the good news was that it was treatable. In less than three months he was dead.

                      Of course a condition can be treated. But a cure is another matter.

                      Of course, any therapy which enables or assists a practicing homosexual to stop homosexual activity and live chastely despite ongoing SSA is very valuable.

                      At any rate, I think I understand what you are saying, and it is not an assertion that it is always possible to eliminate SSA or that that is the usual result of “successful” treatment.

                    • Ron Belgau

                      “One psychiatrist who led the charge to take homosexuality out of the manual has publicly said he has treated thousands of patients for this.” Who are you referring to here? Robert Spitzer?

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Ron, I’m not aware Spitzer did. He might have. I’m aware that late in life he gave into pressure to ” apologize” for his earlier study. It should be noted that the journal that published his work has not withdrawn his paper.

                      But… I was referring to Nicholas Cummings:

                • KathleenWagner

                  Careful, Austin: naturgesetz may be setting you up to be deposed by the public prosecutor at some future date when it shall have become everywhere illegal to help individuals who seek to reverse their homosexual inclinations. I’m saying nothing.

      • Art Deco

        that Exodus International, the primary provider of the therapy,

        Just to point out that Exodus was an umbrella organization for congregational ministries, not a service provider. It undertook fundraising and public relations and had some sort of branding program. It also held an annual conference. The organization began to implode financially around about 2009, so the board was compelled to shut it down to avoid insolvency. Its offices had around 10 employees ca. 2010 and their was a field officer.

        Exodus had a small board. Two were staff members (which is unlawful for philanthropies incorporated in New York), one was the staff director’s hometown pastor, one was that pastor’s wife, two members were a husband and wife who sell evangelical cassette tapes out of their house (of which the husband is retired military), and one was a lapsed education professor who has a mail order business selling materials for schooling your children. I have never heard of a putatively national organization with a board so small and that has to be the motliest collection I’ve ever seen in charge of an incorporated philanthropy.

        The staff director was appointed in 2001 at the age of 29, running Exodus half time for some years and then full time from 2004. For some years previous, he had been lay staff at a succession of evangelical congregations in Florida. He is a protege of a megachurch pastor named Clark Whitten and appears to have taken to Exodus full time when Whitten resigned from his congregation and elected to plant a new one. The staff director took community college courses for several years prior to 1996 but has no degree; he had put in some time as a bank teller. It is a puzzle as to what they thought his skill set was.

  • Steven Jonathan

    Whether or not they were born that way is mired up in a false dilemma. There is the fundamental question between being and doing that must first be answered, and then it will be clear, if one understands we are not what we do, that homosexual activity, gravely disordered no matter how special we find ourselves, it is in the “addictive behavior” family, not in the “accidents of birth” family.

    The arguments for this exceptionalism are purely pathological and rooted in the sin of pride. It is just the camel’s nose under the tent, no matter how much of the camel we invite in, it cannot be welcome to stay, this is not up to us.
    Interesting article Mr. Ruse, thank you.

    • john

      Very well put! I understand that there is a difference between heterosexual activity which is, in fact, moral (praiseworthy, actually) under certain, surprisingly precise conditions (ie: in marriage, open to life, etc.). But those conditions make it illicit for MOST Americans nowadays. Still, the activity still has a fundamental moral goodness. Homosexual activity has no possible moral goodness. The thing is, MOST of us are tempted by some form of disordered appetite (liquor, money, heroin, cheesecake, power, neighbor’s ass, etc), but it would be extremely foolish to boast of our special temptation, or that our temptation is a positive good–not an evil to flea from–because it’s harder than someone else’s. They must repent, just like the rest of us.

      • Matthew

        “And He has said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for power is
        perfected in weakness.” Most gladly, therefore, I will rather boast
        about my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me.” 2 Cor 12:9

        If we do not boast of our weaknesses, our bretheren will not know how best to support us in our struggles to attain sanctity. It is not that homosexuality is good, it is that it is a trial which brings people to sanctity by the fact of their struggling against it. But there are positive side effects: the inclination to form close friendships one would not otherwise have formed, perhaps? God is the master of bringing good out of evil. We have to try to find the good, in the context of the church.

      • KathleenWagner

        This is what I say. Are people proud of having an inclination toward adultery, or covetousness, or cruelty? One might be proud of the fortitude and self-abnegation with which one resists this disordered inclination, but of the inclination itself? Nonsense. Homosexuals are not exceptional at all. They’ve got a cross. Surprise! So has had every other man or woman who ever breathed the air of this vale of tears. Encouraging onesself to dwell on the specialness of one’s disordered appetite is a bad idea, just as it’s a bad idea to keep thinking about the petty cash drawer and one’s call to holiness in resisting the temptation to rifle it.

  • Mr Flapatap

    Sometimes a person may become incapacitated (physically or emotionally) leaving the spouse with no physical intimacy. People with same sex orientation don’t hold a monopoly. I wouldn’t be surprised if a larger percentage of heterosexual people must be resigned to a life without intimacy than the percentage of people with SSO.

  • TheodoreSeeber

    Later today, thanks to this post, I am going to be writing a post on my own blog about the theology and politics of Rudolf the Red Nosed Reindeer. Does anybody know if Burl Ives was gay?

    At any rate, the new homophiles bother me as much as the evolutionary neurodiversity autistics. Yes, my face blindness fits in with your leftist ideology of total equality- it is hard to discriminate against people when you can’t see them as individuals. But it is a curse, not a blessing, that makes it incredibly hard to have acquaintences.

    I am not exceptional- I am damaged. And so is the homophile, regardless of a talent for friendship. Pride is still a deadly sin.

    • Patsy Koenig

      Yes, pride is a deadly sin that now is viewed by many to be a virtue – and that is extremely dangerous.

      • TheodoreSeeber

        Where it is most dangerous, is how it affects people’s reason. Infertility too is a disability- whether caused by mental or physical processes, but especially when given up not as a sacrifice, but as a point of pride.

    • Calah Alexander

      Aw, Ted, I love you for this.

      • TheodoreSeeber

        Like the references on my blog? Not just the Classic Rudolf the Red Nosed Reindeer- but also that stereotypical autistic, Dr. Sheldon Cooper!

  • Deacon Ed Peitler

    “Gay exceptionalism and charism are a regular theme for the New Homophiles.”

    This is nothing more than a bunch of seriously deluded narcissists. I think these so-called “gays” are getting more attention than they deserve. They crave attention to give their miserable lives legitimacy. Most sane people do not buy this nonsense but most are too intimidated to actually speak their minds. No, “gayness” is a disorder of self-centered narcissism among people who are grossly immature. The attention they crave is designed to feed their insatiable narcissism. That’s why I’ll stop here.

    • John

      I hope you’re not really as uncharitable as this comment suggests, Deacon. I’m not sure what makes you think you can label an entire class of people as “miserable” – especially a group that is committed to living a life of celibacy and living their vocation according to Christ’s teaching. I’m also not sure why you think it’s attention they are craving, rather than a desire to see how they can live a life of holiness within the Church. I hope you extend a more welcoming and charitable hand in real life than you do in the comments section on the internet.

      • Guest

        Why is plain talk uncharitable? Why must every new and bizarre ideology be met with effeteness?

        If these people claim to be loyal to the magisterium they should accept what is actually taught and learn to grow deeper in their understanding and not obfuscate and nuance everything based on narcissism and a persecution complex.

        For goodness sake this is a straight forward issue. Homosexual inclination is disordered. It is not as God ordained. It is not a gift. Only in our self indulgent culture would we even come up with such nonsense.

        • John

          This is not about “plain talk” vs. “effeteness”. This is about helping homosexuals who desire to live faithful lives of holiness. This requires something more than simply telling them they are disordered. It requires helping them to see how their homosexuality can help them grow closer to Christ. It’s the same for helping heterosexuals to do the same. We are all called to holiness and I don’t see anything said in this article or by those mentioned that they are trying to be better than everyone else. They are just trying to get closer to Christ in their lives as homosexuals.

          • Guest

            Please stop. It is not about calling calling anyone disordered. The inclination is disordered and this cannot be said often enough. We live in a culture that almost worships all things “gay”.

            The people in question are not average people walking down the street but activist Catholics seeking to change the understanding of Church teaching in a new and incorrect way. If you want to help them you do not pretend like you are talking to preschool children you are offended each time a wind blows by.

            • John

              Look, I read several of the people mentioned in this article. Not because they are gay, but because they are good writers and are trying, usually much harder than me, to live a life of holiness. If you read them, you would know that what they seek is not at all to change the Church’s understanding of homosexuality, but rather to find ways to bring homosexuals to Christ. It’s not about offense. It’s about charity, Christ, and helping people get to heaven. You and I probably agree on the big picture. I know gay persons trying to live a life of Christ so I just think most Catholics could do better in how they minister/converse/practice their faith with them.

              OK, all done here.

              • Guest

                Those people are very mistaken regardless of their intentions. Why is that hard to understand? That is the point of the article.

                • happiness1535

                  They are not saying their homosexual inclinations are not disordered. They are just finding ways to live a holy life in spite of them.
                  The truth is that there is no evidence that a homosexual inclination can be changed in many cases.
                  They are trying to live godly, loving lives celibately.

                  • Guest

                    If that is true then there is no need to claim the disorder is special.

                    • happiness1535

                      Discussing it publicly does not automatically mean claiming its special. No one would say that about alcoholics or drug addicts to speak publicly about their struggles.

                    • Guest

                      They do not go around calling themselves drug addict Catholics and defining their existence by desire to use drugs.

              • elarga

                Is this the same “John” who wrote above: “However, I do wish they would get over their narcissism. The church isn’t about YOU!” Have you changed your mind already?

          • John

            For me, John, the point is not just about homosexuals genuinely trying to overcome their disorder and be with Christ – a good and honourable thing – it’s about why they constantly have to TALK about it. As someone said, “Homosexuality used to be the love that doth not speak its name; now its the love that just won’t bl**dy shut up!” If you are a homosexual who wants to join the church, you have my sincere admiration and support, but please, just do it – without all the blog chatter!

        • Deacon Ed Peitler

          A needed jolt of sanity. Thanks, Guest!

      • Adam__Baum

        Do you know any homosexuals? Most aren’t the high-earning, smartly dressed metrosexuals that are portrayed on TV.

        • John

          Yes I do. I don’t care what most are like. I care about helping the ones I know get to heaven.

          • Patsy Koenig

            They would get to Heaven the very same way as anyone else would: by denouncing and renouncing sin; not by glorying in sin or in the temptation sin. Temptation to homosexuality is just one of the seven deadly sins, and should be combatted as such. Thieves and murderers are not coddled and praised for their orientation to steal and kill. Nor are they considered “exceptional” because their orientation/temptation is less common than other temptations/orientations.

      • Judy StJohn

        Cardinal George just stated the same plain talk should go on from the pulpit. No more confusion! Another: communicating clearly to the pews, without theological circumlocution (straight talk, a bit like that “Duck” fellow). It is a war that — urgently, at this juncture — must be won. Cardinal George made famous remarks some years back on how, if current trends continue, a Cardinal in Chicago may be arrested in the not-so-distant future. A remark made rhetorically or prophetically, we’re not sure. “I will die in bed, my successor will die in prison, and his successor will die as a martyr in the public square,” the cardinal told a group of priests. “His successor will pick up the shards of a ruined society and slowly help rebuild civilization, as the Church has done so often in human history.”

    • Guest

      Look at the first reply you received and that answers why so many refuse to talk about the truth of the matter.

    • Narcissism is a serious psychological disorder. You don’t, I assume, actually know these people or how their minds work. They do appear a bit self-absorbed, but many young, sensitive people are like that. It may all be nonsense in the end but let’s stick to the arguments instead of calling people names.

      • Guest

        The term is easily associated with the gay movement and gay ideology. This is not news.

        • Perhaps, but it’s not really an argument, either. It’s just name-calling.

          • Guest

            It is not name calling. It is descriptive of the syndrome.

    • Guest

      Does your bishop know that you communicate this way online? As a psychologist I would have thought that you would have chosen your words and tone more carefully.

      • Guest

        What is wrong with his tone or his words? Do you like obfuscation and nuance?

        • Guest

          I believe speaking the hard truth in love. Simply dismissing wholesale a segment of the population and diagnosing them with out meeting them undermines his role as a representative of the Church and as a licensed psychologist. The people of God, especially those who are struggling, deserve better.

          • Guest

            Stop the politics. The Church has a teaching on the matter and pastors care solutions. The unending talking and propaganda is not Catholic but ideology.

        • Guest

          If you are looking for obfuscation read the article in First Things written by Scalia that has sparked much of this discussion and compare it to the comments here. Mr. Ruse is a master of obfuscation!

          • Guest

            MeanLizzie Austin Ruse

            • an hour ago
            This is a copy of a comment further down Scalia. It’s worth reposting up here.

            “Wouldn’t it have been helpful to this discussion to have actually provided a LINK to the post you found so troubling, Mr. Ruse? It’s here:…. The one where I conclude: “Larry Kramer called the gay community “exceptional,” and in doing so he opens the door to question what that means, whether it implies a giftedness that is planned, and meant for all of us. If that is so, our homosexual brothers and sisters deserve a full participation in our human adventure, right down to the “plans of fullness, not of harm; to give you a future and a hope.”
            But those plans, in the life of every fully-engaged human, involve not just gifts but also challenges, not just “yes” but also “no,” not just satisfaction, but also sacrifice, not just ourselves but also obedience. That’s the fullness; it comes from embracing the plan, but it is not easy.

            And in that case, it’s possible that not everyone will be so keen to applaud the idea of sexual exceptionalism, and its costs.

            Nothing is free, save grace, but it is no cheap thing.”

          • Guest

            I read her article and am glad Ruse wrote his.

      • Deacon Ed Peitler

        I guess I could write the same thing but sign in as “Guest.”

  • AcceptingReality

    I’m not the brightest bulb in the chandelier for sure, but are the New Homophiles forming their identities based on their sexual orientation? Aren’t faithful Catholics supposed to be Catholic first and everything else is ancillary?

    • Matthew

      This is a great question! And one that every gay catholic has to wrestle with, and which these “new homophiles” have to answer often. Of course it is true that we are Catholic first! But Identity does not stop there for anyone. Are you a Catholic Doctor? Lawyer? Wife? Husband? Diabetic? Homosexual? Each of these things profoundly affects how you perceive life and faith, and we all must help each other to carry our crosses. One who struggles with homosexual feelings does not simply feel the desire for homosexual intercourse. It entails a significant difference in how they relate to people in general. You would not say a diabetic was defining themselves by their disease because they had to keep reminding you to stop baking them cookies! But a person who finds themselves to be homosexual must often struggle to be understood by even their closest friends. It is not enough to say ‘Catholic,’ because ‘Catholic’ is such a large tent. In fact, it is a Universal tent.

      • Hi! I have a question with regards to “identity”… Is it possible for our brothers with homosexual feelings to live a devout Catholic life, without the need to label themselves as “homosexual”? I mean, won’t the label of “homosexual” limit their spiritual growth since they identify themselves publicly as one? Everything they do will be because they are devout Catholic homosexuals… Not because they’re devout Catholics- period.

        It also make me wonder if this “gay-exceptionalism” is just a cry for acknowledgement/ affirmation/ acceptance for their condition?

        I’m not making a point here. I’m genuinely asking. I have new friends who identify themselves as practicing homosexuals. And like you said, I am struggling to understand them as they are trying to cope with my Catholic beliefs. If there is a new “movement” out there then I’d like to learn more about it.

        I hope my questions came clearly across. I’m having a bit of difficulty expressing myself in English since it’s not my native language. Thanks and I look forward to your response.

        • jacobhalo

          Why would people tell others that they are practicing homosexuals. I never heard a heterosexual say the same. Like any addiction, you need to have will power. As Jesus said, the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. As Nancy Reagan said about drugs, just say no.

          • naturgesetz

            I really think you;re missing a large piece of what the article is about. The “new homophiles” are not “practicing homosexuals.” They are celibate homosexuals who seek to remain chaste despite the particular temptations they are subject to. They are looking for ways to support one another and for ways for the Church to support them in their quest to remain chaste.

            • Guest

              They seek to reinterpret theology in a way that contradicts the truth.

              • LH

                “They seek to reinterpret theology in a way that contradicts the truth”

                This seems obvious to me.

            • AnthonyMa

              There’s no such thing as a celibate homosexual. Homosexuality is defined by the act, not the thought. No one is guilty of theft if he thinks about stealing but doesn’t do it, the same is true of deviant sexual practices. Of course, as the Son of God taught (Mathew 5:28), we should refrain from thinking about sin also.

              • Bill

                Perhaps the term “same sex attracted” is more appropriate.

              • naturgesetz

                Your definition of “homosexual” is not the way most people understand the word. My dictionary (Webster’s New World College Dictionary, Fourth Edition) defines homosexual as ” adj. of or characterized by sexual desire for those of the same sex as oneself — n. a homosexual individual.”

                • AnthonyMa

                  But then is a thief someone who is attracted to stealing but doesn’t steal? An adulterer guilty for thinking of cheating? The sin of homosexuality occurs when the person engages in the deviant act, not before.

                  • naturgesetz

                    I agree, it is only the act that is sinful. A homosexual is not guilty of sin simply for being tempted to the activity. But that does not change the meaning of the word in common usage. Thus, the word is imprecise —unlike words like adultery and theft. Homosexuality can mean the condition of the one who is attracted to the same sex, or it can mean same-sex activity. It would be convenient if it didn’t have both meanings, but it does have them. So it’s better to be clear about what we mean by saying homosexual orientation/same sex attraction for the inclination, and homosexual activity for the sin(s).

                    If you simply say ,”Homosexuality is sinful,” you’ll confuse a lot of people who will think you’re talking about the orientation. And if you think every time someone mentions homosexuality, they mean the sinful activity, you’ll misunderstand a lot of them.

                    • Carol Leeda Crawford

                      God defined us as male and female not as our character traits, thoughts, behaviour or desires. When God demands, and yes He demands we turn away from sin and walk with Him, He sees our sincere efforts to avoid the near occasion and His Grace will abound sufficient enough to avoid the sin. I encourage individuals both male and female to stop identifying themselves as their desires. All, everyone of us has a Cross to carry, the cross is Christ’s and He has already won the battle. I challenge you to consider your desire to have the identity accepted as God given, and not as the result of sin as Paul explains clearly in Romans may be the starting point of acceptance of acting on your desire. There are many of us who will gladly hold your hand and walk with you on the road to a deeper relationship with God, where I is insignificant in relationship to Him who made us: to know Him, to love Him and to Serve Him.

                  • entonces_99

                    “Thief” and “adulterer” are terms applied to people who commit certain sins, not to those with a strong predilection toward those sins. “Homosexual” is not analogous to “thief” but rather to “kleptomaniac.” And yes, a kleptomanic *can* be someone who is strongly tempted to theft but doesn’t steal.

                    • AnthonyMa

                      Although I would agree that homosexuality is a mental disorder like kleptomania, I would argue that until the individual gives in to his deviant urges, he is not a homosexual. All human beings are created by God as heterosexuals, there are some disordered individuals who are drawn to sins such as homosexuality, bestiality and necrophilia, but if through prayer and self-restraint they are able to avoid these sins, they are not deviants. Again, it is the act that defines the sin, not the thought.

        • Matthew

          Think of it this way: if a person goes to a meeting, stands up and identifies themselves as an ‘Alcoholic,’ they have (somewhat) publicly put a label on themselves. But it is not the LABEL that limits them. The true, personal, particular facts of them being addicted to alcohol limits them. The labeling is the first step to achieving spiritual growth, to name the problem, face it, and work through it. But are they now going to do everything because they are “a devout Catholic Alcoholic?” Yes and no. It doesn’t touch every single aspect of their daily lives, but it certainly affects more than a casual outside observer would assume, and it would be imprudent of them not to let the knowledge of their condition affect how they conducted themselves in their daily lives. It would also be imprudent of them not to tell at least some other people what they struggle with.

          Now, should they go public, and write a blog, and speak at conventions about their difficulty? That would be a matter for prudence, but certainly it is good for society to have public examples of alcoholics who have had success in living a full integrated life, informed by their struggles. It gives hope to those who are just coming to terms with the problem. It helps their families to understand and help them.

          Are they crying out for “acknowledgement/ affirmation/ acceptance for their condition?” Well, yes! Their condition must be acknowledged in order to be dealt with. Their human dignity must be affirmed, their condition must be accepted, not for the purpose of saying “you’re fine just the way you are,” but for saying “It is okay to be where you are right now. But you must not stay there! We must help each other to grow in virtue.”

          • Guest

            No, the Church discourages self identification with disordered sexuality. The help that is needed is not public reinterpretation of this distorted ideology.

            • Matthew

              It depends on what you mean by self-identification. One does not want to make their sexuality the primary aspect of their personhood. But it is necessary to growth in virtue to be able to identify and categorize habits of the soul which need to be tempered. The catechism of the Catholic Church does make reference to the homosexual person, where it says “2359
              Homosexual persons are called to chastity.” The manner in which they are speaking here is the same manner I intend when I speak of a homosexual person: it is a prominent enough part of the soul that it demands recognition in order to be dealt with, but I and the church do not mean to reduce a person to their disordered sexuality whenever we speak this way.

              • Guest

                It is mostly a private issue not one for public discussion. Any defect it’s be identified but not paraded out as if it is central to all else.

                • Matthew

                  Perhaps ideally. Unfortunately the reality in this country is that those who lead a publicly gay lifestyle in the secular world have persistently presented and promoted their harmful life philosophy in the media and in the political sphere. If someone is confused about how to live given that they have these inclinations, the loudest example is the one presented by the secular media. Wouldn’t it be immoral not to discuss it, or to refrain from presenting a moral alternative to that lifestyle? It’s not that it is central to all else, but neither is it a minor issue.

                  • Guest

                    The Church gives the truth and pastoral care. That is not the issue. The issue is these folks find it insufficient. They want to find some way to dress up ideology as theology.

                    • mary jo anderson

                      Is this a fine line that is being stretched too far? The Church teaches that a person suffering with homosexual inclinations cannot be mistreated because of the inclination. And yet, the teaching is also clear that homosexuality is an objective disorder. An objective analysis would suggest that it is unwise to self identify with a disorder. It does border on justifying the disorder as a non-disorder, because to be “out and proud” of the disorder is in itself a disordered perception of one’s situation. A Gay philosophy of “exceptionalism ” seems to hold that “gay is good.” But it isn’t, it is disordered.

                      Blind is not good. It is a deficiency, a disorder of the mechanics of sight. Blindness can be lived with, and a blind person can learn to compensate for loss of sight, and the blind person has much to offer and much to enjoy. But no blind person would posit a blind philosophy that held blindness as an objective good in the world. The blind person may develop deep insights about the human condition precisely because of the suffering he endures, and thus have much to offer others and the society…but what he offers is not a blind theory of being.

                      This is not to suggest that some deeper theology of friendship ought not be explored. I fear that what is truly lost in this discussion is the saintly model of agape love for one’s dear friends in faith. True love transcends physicality, and this includes husbands and wives. After all, once we are in heaven there is no marriage, but there is friendship of the highest order.

                      No theology of friendship between persons of the same sex can ever take a Gay understanding of friendship as its basis. Please note that this does not mean that persons with homosexual inclinations are incapable of true friendship–but only that the Gay philosophy can have no part in such a friendship. That philosophy is informed by the same sex desire, even if un-acted upon, and seeks recognition as Gay, and is not informed by the desire for the eternal good of the other. No, what is meant here as a proper basis of a philosophy is what Belloc described as “faith and friendship under one roof.”

            • Adam__Baum

              It’s not even identification with the sexuality, it’s definition. It’s worsened by the assertion of some sort of chauvinistic pleiotropy.

            • NDaniels
          • Thank you. Your response helped a lot. I know what to say to my new friends now.

            I’m a bit overwhelmed by the number of responses here. They each have a point. And I’m not really sure how to respond to most of them.

            Anyway, I look forward to your next article. Merry Christmas and God bless.

          • Guest

            Who says alcoholism is a gift? Who promotes as normal and healthy? Which media claims it is as normal as eye color variation?

            You do not have to answer as my questions answer themselves. The works accepts alcoholism as pathology. The works sees homosexulsism as healthy and normal. So, your analogy fails as the world has inverted the truth.

            • Matthew

              We are in agreement. I didn’t put forward either alcoholism or homosexuality as gifts, but as struggles. But a struggle can, in a way, be a gift, insofar as all crosses when accepted and borne with grace are redemptive. I do disagree with the ‘works’ (do you mean World?) which says that homosexualism is healthy and normal. But through Christ good can come from every evil.

      • Adam__Baum

        The comparison between one’s sexual impulses and one’s profession defines non sequitir.

        • Matthew

          Both can be significantly large aspects of one’s percieved self-identity. Here they are used together under the category of “things which profoundly affect how you perceive life and faith.”

          • Adam__Baum

            It’s an irrational comparison. A profession is an acquired skill set, not an affinity of unknown genesis. Stop it.

      • NDaniels

        Catholics are Universal, but this does not change the fact that there Is only One Word of God, and thus there can only be One Spirit of Perfect Love Between The Father and The Son in the ordered communion of Perfect Complementary Love that Is The Blessed Trinity.

    • NDaniels

      Catholics recognize the truth about the inherent personal and relational essence of the human person, who, from the moment of creation at conception, has been created in The Image and Likeness of God, equal in Dignity, while being complementary as a son or daughter. God desires that every son, becomes a Good son, and if he is a brother, a Good brother, and if he becomes a husband, a Good husband, and if he becomes a father, a Good father; God desires that every daughter becomes a Good daughter, and if she is a sister, a Good sister, and if she becomes a wife, a Good wife, and if she becomes a mother, a Good mother.

      God did not order us to live our lives in Loving relationship with one another as objects of sexual desire/ orientation, as that would be a violation of God’s Own Commandment regarding lust and the sin of adultery.

  • somnipod

    Oh yikes… yes, the Church is to welcome those bearing their crosses, but I am suspect of this, like anything else being supported on Patheos these days. What is “gay”? Last I checked it means to be happy. Homosexual idealism is only an avenue that will lead to acting out on the perversed disorder. Prayer and conversion is needed, the Church is here to get souls into heaven. It’s not a social club

  • Watosh

    If normal has any meaning then homosexuality is an abnormal condition, from a biological and a social standpoint. Possibly some are born with this inclination due to some biological accident, there are cases of hermaphroditism I believe on record, but human behavior is very pliable, malleable if you will, and that can result in a variety of strange behaviors. the other day I saw an interview on TV with a man who insisted he was in love with his car, and he didn’t mean that he was merely fond of his car, no he claimed he deeply loved his car. But today there is a glamor to “coming out”as a homosexual. An athlete that came out not too long ago got his picture on the cover of Sports Illustrated.” The big news featured in the major media today is the story of the Methodist minister who was defrocked for marrying his son to another man. He was portrayed as a victim of ignorant prejudice in some church members. He was portrayed as being forced to choose between his son and his religious beliefs, and who could fault him for choosing his son. Besides he pointed out his son at one time was contemplating suicide brought on by trying to contain his homosexuality. I mean all the PR stops were there. The news media for the past few years has always portrayed homosexuality in a favorable light, and invariably depicted those who expressed opposition to homosexual acceptance as “homophobes.” When I lived as an outsider in rural WV, there was a person in our club who was reputed to be a homosexual, but Harry was a hard worker and acted normal. He was in fact president of our civic club. But one time another member, had too much to drink and called Harry a name. We voted to have this fellow expelled for that. However the membership were upset as the fellow who had been expelled had a lot of close friends and when sober was very likable. I liked him myself. So they had a special meeting to protest the fellow’s expulsion. I was a vice president the time and had handed in my resignation to Harry as I could no longer spend the time working at the club. Harry called me and asked me to hold my letter and to appear with him at the meeting. Now it did appear Harry was probably a homosexual, but he did not do anything to deserve the insult that was given him, so I told Harry, “Harry I will be at your side in this.” And we faced down an angry mob. The expelling held. Please don’t anyone call me a homophobe because I don’t encourage homosexual behavior.

  • jpct50

    Narcissism fits with my experience of those you write about.

  • Carol Leeda Crawford

    Well if I didn’t know better I would believe we are attempting to define individuals as their desires. Sorry, I believe with my whole heart that God who made us in His image and likeness would not support us in identifying ourselves as our thoughts, feelings, desires or behaviour. St. Paul made it very clear these desires are the result of sin in Romans. Our inclinations have evolved to all kinds of variables too many and varied to specify in exact terms. God’s Grace is sufficient said St. Paul, so those who have the inclination are able to choose not to act. I encourage you to take it a step further by dis-identify yourselves from these desires. You have thoughts, yet you are not your thoughts – etc with the other dimensions through which we are able to express (feelings, desires). God gave us the gift of free will. The Act of Will facilitated through Prayer and Grace will give us the Truth. “homosexual and heterosexual” are terms not individuals. We were created male and female in the likeness and image of God. Please choose to identify yourselves as a child of God made in His Image and Likeness. God’s Grace is sufficient to lead us to redemption and the Truth.

    • AnthonyMa

      Carol, you are like a voice crying out in the desert. If only a quarter of the world could think as straightforward and clearly as you. Excellent comment.

      • Carol Leeda Crawford

        Anthony if you go to Holy Spirit Interactive or google I am not Gay I am David you will read an excellent article by David Prosen, a man who lived the gay lifestyle for a long time. God has graced him with great insight regarding same sex attraction and misidentifying oneself as our desires or behaviour.

  • Guest

    Thank you for this good article. You help expose a new and terrible ideology. No matter the intentions of these misguided people the effects will not be good for the Church or society. They want to make pathology into a gift. Instead of accepting our crosses and placing them in proper context we want certain ones to be a “gift” as if we are special.

    Is this entire attitude not part of the “gay” ideology? This notion that certain people are set apart and have this special thing only they have. It turns common sense and reason backwards. It is not a development in theology but inverting it.

    • Adam__Baum

      It isn’t terribly new. Homosexuals have been referring to the rest of the world derisively as “breeders” for a long, long time.

      Welcome to the intellectual underpinnings of Pamela Sargent’s “Shore of Women”, a dark dystopic novel about a saphhic matriarchal society.

      • Guest

        It is really absurd that people want to put a new face on an old vice. In fact, it is sickening. As a civilization we have lost all sense of proportion, decency, and sin.

  • JERD

    This is very interesting. In one sense every individual is exceptional. We each have our unique gifts that God has given to us. Conversely, we each have our unique crosses to shoulder. To those who share a gift or burden together, are they not exceptional together; exceptional as a community so to speak?

    Example (Not a perfect one, I know): A child with Downs Syndrome is exceptional. Their love and simplicity are blessings; they are exceptional in that regard. They are also exceptional in that they are burdened with limited intelligence. Isn’t a group of them living, working, and learning together equally exceptional?

    So too with the homophile. He is burdened with a concupiscence toward homosexual behavior. It is an affection that is gift and cross. Why not seek to live the gift and carry the cross at the same time? Is there a risk of “crossing the line?” Of course, but aren’t all of us with unique gifts and crosses at risk of crossing the line?

    • Guest

      Using that logic then pedophilia is a gift.

      • JERD

        In this sense any tendency toward one sin or another is a gift:

        Our free will to choose what is right and good in spite of the temptations that plague us is a gift. God’s great love for us is reflected in the freedom we have to choose to do His will or not; to overcome our evil tendencies or not, in the face of the temptations that confront us. Without the stark tension between our sinfulness and our freedom to escape from it, the gift of our free will would be a fraud.

        In short, our concupiscence gives us an opportunity to reject Satan and reach for holiness; to reach for God.

        • Guest

          The problem with using the language of “gift” is that our modern culture perceives such things in a manner much less academic and pedantic as it may be used here.

          The notion discussed in the article is an expression of our decadent culture. It is not some novel and brilliant theological insight. It is part of our absurd need to make every incorrect act seem less disordered. Why can’t we just admit it is one more cross?

          • happiness1535

            I choose to frame it this way.

            My SSA is a cross. However, blessings do flow from bearing the cross in a holy way, namely celibacy. They include being able to more fully devote myself to serving others, forming better, more spiritual friendships with women and those men I am not romantically attracted to, etc.

            That it what I understand the writers referred to here as saying.

            • Guest

              How is that different from a single heterosexual person?

              • naturgesetz

                The single heterosexual person can look forward to the very real possibility of marriage and holy sexual activity, the emotional support of a spouse, and engaging in loving service of others in the persons of spouse and children.. The homosexual can’t. Therefore the homosexual is compelled to look elsewhere for emotional support and ways of engaging in loving service to others.

                • Guest

                  That is not true at all. There are many heterosexuals that cannot marry for various reasons. Where is the political activity for them? Where is the agitation for a “new theology”? Are they exceptional too?

                  • naturgesetz

                    It is true in the same way that saying the ability of heterosexual couples to procreate, and the inability of same sex couples to procreate is a significant difference which means that gay”marriage” is not the same thing as true marriage — which justifies the state in recognizing only heterosexual marriage.

                    You ought to be intelligent enough to understand that most single heterosexuals have the option of marriage but no single homosexuals have the legitimate option of marriage to one to whom they feel true sexual attraction. You also ought to be intelligent enough to realize that I was writing in generalities about heterosexuals. So why are you making this faux-naif smart-alec reply?

              • Thomas R

                For me I’d say if they choose to be single for life it might not be different, except for maybe a greater sense of otherness or if you prefer “strangeness.”

                I think it might make sense to think someone with SSA could develop a greater empathy with others who struggle with disordered desires. Alcoholics, smokers, over-eaters, anorexic people, etc. Or that they could find a way to have it lead to that even if it gives no natural “gift” toward that.

            • Adam__Baum

              “forming better, more spiritual friendships with women”

              That is true unless the friendship results in a romantic attraction that can’t be fulfilled. Friendship is a two way street, and between persons of an opposite sex, not infrequently a prelude to other feelings.

              Many years ago, I had a long standing “friendship” with an attractive, but emotionally damaged woman ( a conversation with her mother resulted in a plea to “fix” her, which should have been a warning) who I worked with. There were numerous intimate conversations (some quite frankly, at a level of that could only occur between individuals who had a mutually simmering sexual attraction), weeks where we lunched several times together, proposed business collaborations, etc.

              I always hoped that it was a prelude to something else. Ultimately an older and wiser individual had to explain to me that I was wasting my time, that she was unwilling or unable to recognize that we had exhibited all indications of mutual attraction.

              Point is-while you consider your SSA to be an insuperable impediment to having an intersex relationship, don’t assume that women feel the same way. The old saw is women pursue men thinking they can be changed, men pursue women thinking they won’t change.

              • happiness1535

                The best female friendships (and these are not nearly so intimate as what you describe) are actually with women much older than I am. They are not looking for romance with me.

              • happiness1535

                This post is very demeaning to women.

                Women of all ages tend to stop flirting and treat me like a brother soon after spending much time with me. I think they sense that I am SSA subconsciously.

                You, as an OSA male are in no position to give any sort of advice, since you have not had the same experiences.

                • Adam__Baum

                  Nice try, but it is about a specific woman, not “women”.

                  Then again, you have even less basis to advocate for women than I have to speak for homosexual men.

    • Patsy Koenig

      You are implying that God Almighty gave the homosexual temptation; but God absolutley never tempts a person to sin. The orientation/temptation to homosexuality can be dealt with in the same manner as any other sin – through prayer, fasting, almsgiving, works of penance, works of humilty, and the first and foundational gift of the Holy Spirit: the holy fear of the Lord.

      • JERD

        No, God doesn’t “make us” sinful, or make us susceptible to temptation. Just like any evil or tragedy, he allows it to occur. The question is “why?” It is a question that has dogged theologians forever.

        But you are correct in your response. The homophile must pray, fast, etc. just as we all must pray, fast etc. to escape the temptations that befuddle us.

        I think what the homophiles are saying is, “I am tempted just like you, but they are different temptations. In the eyes of God, that does not make me ‘objectively disordered.’ I am no more objectively disordered than any other sinner.”

  • Adam__Baum

    Why is Eve Tushnet “brilliant”? Other than growing up in the perfect “interfaithless” home, going to the right schools, and putting a pen to paper to coin things like “Hobbies include sin, confession, and ecstasy”, what has she accomplished in 35 years?

    I tire of people being called “brilliant” for doing nothing other than writing. Tell me when she starts a thriving business making duck calls.

    • Guest

      If you read Catholic blogs and websites you will see the names mentioned in the article and a couple more on the lecture circuit of so called orthodox groups. It is shocking.

    • Objectivetruth

      Note to self: Never do an interview with GQ magazine.

    • Austin Ruse

      I guess because much of what she writes is well beyond my learning and understanding!

      • Adam__Baum

        Austin, I’ve heard the same thing said by those that pick up Das Kapital or Keyne’s General Theory. There’s a difference between impenetrable and brilliant, sometimes complexity is a sign of disorder.

        I guarantee you that Adam’s Smith’s Wealth of Nations and Henry Hazlitt’s Economics in One Lesson are never thought to be above anybody’s head, their brilliance lies in their clarity.

        Then again, tens of millions haven’t died and the world isn’t swimming in trillions of dollars of debt because of Smith and Hazlitt.

        • Deacon Ed Peitler

          Adam, you nailed it (as usual) not only about Smith and Hazlitt but about those whose discourse is impenetrable and passed off as beyond brilliant simply because someone doesn’t have a flippin idea what the hell the author is saying!

  • John O’Neill

    Many adulterers and adulteresses are sincere Catholics; videlicet, Ted Kennedy and most of the Kennedy family and ex president Bill Clinton meets this paradigm. Will Notre Dame and other American Catholic institutions recognize the dignity and worth of those who are proud to have been born serial adulterers? Just thought I would pose an interesting question. The same goes for all those sincere and faithful polygamist out there will they find support at Notre Dame? We live in interesting times.

    • Guest

      That is a good point. Many who commit adultery excel at politics. Perhaps it is a gift? They can express themselves in a cogent manner that really moves people. They have so much energy and creativity that it spills out in other ways that are non traditional. How many can become president and have relations with multiple women? Perhaps it is time we re-look at the theology of the sixth commandment? We need to develop a greater and deeper understanding of why some men need to have multiple partners. Makes sense, right?

    • JERD

      You miss the point. To have a same sex attraction is not a sin. A married man can be attracted to another woman. That is not a sin. To act upon the attraction is the sin.

      Heterosexual attraction is a gift. Acted upon morally, it results in a good (marriage, reproduction).

      What the homophiles are saying is their sexual attractions are as much a gift as heterosexual attractions. And the result of the gift is not the sexual act, but rather the celibacy they choose in the light of their homosexual tendency.

      They are proposing I think a change in language. Discard the “disorder” language which does not recognize the gift of their given sexual tendency.

      • Guest

        If that is their point it is nonsense.

        • Matt

          It is not their point. most of this article was straight out of Ruse’s imagination rather than the reality of what these people write.

      • Patsy Koenig

        To glory in one’s adulterous temptations is the deadly sin of pride; just as it is prideful to glory in homosexual temptations. One should never identify themselves according to their temptations.

        • JERD

          Good point. Something to think about.

        • Guest

          What you say used to be common sense. Now, to say that may be seen as “hate”.

      • Deacon Ed Peitler

        I was born with progressively worsening nearsightedness. It was not a “gift” given to me by God. In fact, God created man in his original innocence with perfect eyesight. I do not think that my eyesight defines my identity as a human person; it is an artifact of original sin and I must accept what is and adjust accordingly.

        I acknowledge that my poor eyesight is a physiological dysfunction. I do not go around pretending that my eyesight is normal. I don’t bore people with constant reference to my poor eyesight – insisting that what is dysfunctional is simply a variant of normal eyesight. I do not insist that the State grant me a license to drive a car without having to wear corrective lenses. I do not expect everyone to accommodate to my dysfunction. I am a mature adult and must learn to get on with it. I do not bore people with endless conversation about whether my nearsightedness is genetic or environmental (as my mother used to say, “Don’t sit so close to the TV or you’ll ruin your eyesight.”). I can accept the fact that I will never be able to be a fighter pilot because of my eyesight and perform a myriad number of other tasks that normally sighted people are capable of doing.

        Homosexuality is not normal. it is a disorder of passions in that the object of the passions is not as God intended from the beginning. Original sin is to blame. It is what it is. To have these disordered passions is no more morally objectionable than is the fact that I am nearsighted. Those with same sex attraction cannot be granted licenses to marry no matter what civil authorities say in response to political pressure – no more than civil authorities should grant me a driver’s license without corrective lenses. If I choose to operate a motor vehicle without corrective lenses, I am morally culpable especially if I kill someone while doing so – that someone being me or someone else.

        Let’s all resolve to return to sanity.

        • Neihan

          Well put.

        • Guest

          Well said. The problem is your overlords do not want you to convey the truth in this manner. You must speak in more code.

        • JERD

          The debate here is not about same sex marriage. It is about the teaching that homosexual tendencies are “objectively disordered.”

          Your eyesight analogy is interesting. Your right, you feel no need to define your identity by your eyesight. But, that is because science has made nearsightedness of little consequence to anyone. Corrective lenses allow you to see perfectly. Not so homosexuality. There is no “corrective lens.” They will forever be homosexual. Wouldn’t your nearsightedness dominate your life if there were no corrective lenses for you? In fact you might be shunned by society because of your defect. You may be discriminated against.

          Your right “to have these disordered passions is no more morally objectionable than is the fact that I am nearsighted.” That is exactly what the homophiles are saying.

          • Guest

            No one knows about most disorders unless the person reveals it. That is exactly the point. Same sex attraction is not some pet idea to be trotted out for sympathy or support. It is to be dealt with the way the rest if humanity deals with their problems.

        • happiness1535

          These people are not advocating legalizing same-sex marriage.

          They do not bore people with endless conversation. They talk about these things on blogs which people voluntarily choose to read.

          • annmarie

            They are out and proud. They are trying to normalize their disorder and get everyone else to do so also. Out and proud. They will give permission to people with what could be transient homosexual attractions to stay so attracted.

            They should get a list serve and keep their musings private amongst themselves. Quit glorifying a a disorder.

            • Guest

              Exactly. There is no new moral understanding of this issue. What we have are political and sociological ideologues attempting to graft novel and “queer” ideas onto Catholic moral teaching. Why?

            • happiness1535

              None of these people are proud of being gay. They do not want normalization of the attraction, just support in living a chaste life.

              Forget the “list serve” garbage. It is a person’s voluntary choice which blogs they read. It was YOUR choice to read this piece. No one else has any responsibility.

              Enduring homosexual attractions are not a result of “giving permission” They just happen to a person and cannot be changed. Thus, a person must find a way to live a chaste, holy life.

      • cestusdei

        It may not be a sin, but it IS an objective moral disorder. It is not a gift.

      • Guest

        Homosexual attraction is disordered. To change the language is to change the truth. To compare it to heterosexuality as if they were on the same moral plane is to lie.

        • JERD

          I don’t think they are saying it is on the same moral plane. The tendency to be attracted to another person sexually is neither moral nor immoral. It is the sexual act that follows that carries the moniker of moral or immoral. I may have a tendency to lie, but if I do not lie, I have not sinned.

          What seems quite interesting in their thinking is that they recognize that to act out their tendency is a sin, thus they must be celibate.

          I think they are saying that to call their tendency “disordered” distinguishes them uniquely from all other tendencies that may lead to a sinful act; placing them unjustly beneath the “plane” (to use your term) of all other sinners. A position they claim they do not deserve.

          • annmarie

            The tendency to be same sex attracted is indeed not a moral disorder, but it is a disorder of nature.

          • Guest

            Not all sexual attraction is rightly ordered. Some attractions while not sinful when not acted on still can raise moral concern. The gay agenda hates that. That want that stigma removed. But, that disorder raises concern and should raise concern. Political correctness and a false understanding of theology has led many to think the disorder is no big deal. That contradicts theology and common sense.

            They want it to be viewed as innocuously as possible. It is not. It may not be sinful but it is a problem.

            People should read Ratzinger’s on the pastoral care of homosexual persons. It us balanced and does not downplay the disorder at all.

      • mary jo anderson

        Their homosexual attraction is not a gift and has already been defined as a disorder. Any attraction to any disordered desire is a cross to bear, not a gift.

    • Not to mention those who are sexually attracted to children and young teens…does the Church really want to get into that “special gift”…?

  • Mike Smith

    “Their ideal is that you can draw close to someone of the same-sex, love them intimately and intensely, yet never cross the line into sexual activity.” I don’t understand this concept. Drawing close to someone of the same sex and loving them intimately and intensely is NOT what makes you a homosexual. Being tempted to cross the line into sexual activity IS what makes you a homosexual.

    It is a logical knot to suggest a homosexual is defined by wanting close relationships with people of the same sex. They are defined precisely BY their desire and lust for the same sex. Honestly, if that’s how you define it, loving others intimately and intensely and drawing closer to them, then we are all implored to be homosexuals…

    EDIT: I also kind of scratch my head at the notion that God designed our temptations that we struggle with every day.

  • CadaveraVeroInnumero

    Out the door. Will come back. Finally, finally, someone has both the grace and dare to walk this onto the public square.

    The Anchoress is misguided. Knew that years ago, in Los Angeles, when I stopped manning the corner of Hollywood and Vine.
    The conversation can’t resist the telling of personal stories – know that – but if the homophiles are on the battlefield for the Church to bloody up dogma development, then we should meet them there. Brothers and sisters they may be, but in this case theological logic tells us that we must also be faithful to the “Excluded Middle”.

  • Dave

    I think that it is a misperception that God made them gay. It is abundantly clear, perhaps proven, from animal studies, that animals who are in polluted environments have greatly increased probability of sexual problems. Homosexuality is one of the problems seen. Infertility, physically deformed genitals, and animals of one sex acting like they are the other sex are all problems documented among animals. Once an animal population is subjected to a more healthy environment, these problems gradually decrease in subsequent generations. Now, I ask you, gentle reader, might not the same thing be happening among human beings?

  • Patsy Koenig

    You should be denouncing this nonsense. Homosexual orientation is just the modern word for temptation to homosexual acts. To glory in one’s tempation is preverse; and you should be clearly stating so. By airing this perverse attitude as even worth considering, makes you an accessory to the homosexual agenda. Repent!

    • Matt

      Reminding people once more that the individuals Ruse writes about do NOT glory in their temptations. Everything in the article about “gay exceptionalism” is completely from Ruse’s imagination – notice he provides no quotes or links to back up his statements. All Ruse is doing is airing his own perverse interpretations

      • Guest

        What baloney. The people, and others, he writes about are out in the culture pushing this new ideology. It is not Catholic.

  • tamsin

    St. Thomas holds that pride is the most grievous sin.

  • DeltaOneSix

    Austin Ruse failed to point out that the Catechism calls all persons who have same sex attraction to live chaste lives. Here is what the Catechism have to say about it.

    2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

    2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

    2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

    I posted all 2357 to 2359 so you won’t think I just pick and choose quotes from the Catechism. Give credit to people who struggle with same sex attraction for being chaste. Would you prefer that they live in sin as oppose to chastity?

    • Austin Ruse

      They are required to be chaste, just as we are. I don’t think i was avoiding anything. I think all faithful Catholics understand they have to be chaste.

      • DeltaOneSix

        Eve is chaste. Do you presume that Eve sin, and where is your evidence of that?

        • Austin Ruse

          Your comment is a non sequitur. Perhaps you can explain.

  • Derek Schramm

    Let’s see where they are 25 and 50 years from now. Will they join GLAAD and HRC in their support of all things wicked or will they support the Bible, the Catechism, and the Magesterium?

    • Amatorem Veritatis

      I would settle for seeing how they are doing at 5 years. That would be a statement of commitment that could probably be sustained.

      • Guest

        How you treat them will have an impact. If the repeated message is “shut up and go away,”some day they will.

        • naturgesetz

          Well said!

  • Ruth Rocker

    The Church already teaches that having same sex attraction in and of itself is not sinful. It is acting on that attraction that is condemned. I applaud them for their choice to remain celebate. It’s too bad that the defining characteristic for these people is their sexual preference and not that they are a human being full of the dignity bestowed on them by God. All of us have “thorns” to deal with in our lives but most of us do not define ourselves by those thorns.

  • cestusdei

    They are almost there, but there is something disordered about homosexuality. It may not be their fault, but it is not something to be proud of either. Even if they cannot change they should not see homosexuality as a good thing, but rather a result of the effects of original sin.

  • R. K. Ich

    Flamboyancy, if I recall, is nowhere listed among the seven virtues. “Gay exceptionalism” is a nightmarish misnomer driven by the self-same evil spirit who is at the reins of broadcasting and normalizing the outlook of these tortured souls.

    I greatly pity their condition, and do not understand the cross the Christian faithful who are plagued by this unnatural disposition must bear; but I detest incessant politicking and propagandizing to silence consciences (if not theirs, then ours).

    At the end of the day, the “progressives” (that all-too-eager band of vandals rioting against our beloved civilization) make everything about sex — because the most delightful of physical passions is shackled by its very nature to the institution of family. If they can destroy the family, which is the most immediate physical expression of the Holy Trinity, they can strike at the image of God.

    The whole wretched sodomite counter-culture has the fingerprints of the Father of Lies all over it: it steals, it kills, and it destroys.

    • mary morstan

      Let’s not confuse politicking and agendas with those with homosexual tendencies who are striving to live chaste lives in a culture that offers very little support to chastity, homosexual or heterosexual, married or single.

      My daughter used a term recently that I found helpful. She described someone in the entertainment industry as a “political homosexual”, meaning it’s all about agendas & changing society and silencing consciences of others.
      There are, however, many people wanting to be chaste who recognize they are drawn to the same sex. The vocabulary that faithful Catholics use to help such people strive for holiness is too often hate-filled, and yes, untruthful: “despicable, wretched”. We Catholics must keep growing more faithful, more chaste, more loving, more encouraging, more prayerful, more sacrificing to help all our brothers and sisters in Christ.

  • Pingback: I am “THE MOMMA BEAR of New Homophiles!”()

  • I can see how these “homophiles” could regard their same-sex attraction as a gift from God – as a martyr could regard the hangman’s noose, or the starvation bunker, as a gift. It is a severe, deep challenge that can be overcome by faith. Not to take away the desire, but to receive it as something that, with faithful obedience to Him, God can most certainly work to the good for those who love Him and are called according to His grace.

    This culture is sex-obsessed, and perhaps in the logic of God needs martyrs who even through suffering, can refuse to be overcome by sexual desire. The world always needs the witness of saints. The more outrageous the unbridled and self-gratifying “gay community” becomes, the more light-giving in the culture would a celibate group of homophiles be.

    • Guest

      If they want to be faithful then they ought to embrace church teaching and accept the inclination is disordered. There is no need to play it up as a gift.

  • “Gay exceptionalism”…? Oh, come on. Let’s call this nonsense what it is: narcissism. Or, worse, elitism.

    I’m sorry for people who struggle with same-sex attraction, just as I am sorry for anyone who struggles with any unasked-for, unwanted burden, but there’s nothing particularly exceptional about that particular burden.

    We all have burdens. Some of us just don’t go around blasting them to the public and insisting we get patted on our heads and given a gold star for having them. This “gay exceptionalism” nonsense is just another manifestation of the incessant, narcissistic attention-seeking that’s running rampant in our society.

  • Suzanne Graf Slupesky Beck

    Why classify yourself by your ‘sexual orientation’?? I am ‘straight,’ but I don’t dwell on it and bring that into every teeny little niche of my life like these ‘gays’ tend to do!! And i don’t get even CALLING yourself GAY if you are supposedly ‘celibate, devout, and faithful to the Magisterium’. GAY to me is an ACTION, ie acting on those impulses, so if you aren’t acting on them, they why refer to yourself as GAY? I just don’t get defining your entire life by how your get sexual pleasure.

    • naturgesetz

      I think you misunderstand how the word “gay” is generally used today. It is generally understood to mean homosexual, without any implication as to whether one is sexually active. People with homosexual tendencies who aren’t acting on them refer to themselves as “gay” because that’s the correct word for it in informal contemporary parlance. People speak of realizing that they are gay, not when they have trier first homosexual activity, but when they realize that their feelings for someone of the same sex are sexual attraction.

      And they “dwell on it” because they realize that it is something that makes them different from most other people, and not only different but widely disdained, sometimes outcasts — there are still teenage children being kicked out of their homes when their parents learn that they are gay. They dwell on it because society dwells on it. They also dwell on it because it is something they need to deal with without either the possibility of marriage or the general acceptance that straights have.

      • Objectivetruth

        “Dwell on it”……

        We can dwell on and be obsessed with anything, especially sinful tendencies. We can obsessively dwell on homosexual acts, adultery, fornication, revenge, money, anger. Or we can dwell constantly on Christ, which is Jesus’ way of telling us to “pray constantly.” By dwelling first on Christ, our obsessive dwelling on everything else (our sexual orientation, for example) melts away. As Paul tells us, “I count everything before Christ a loss.”

        Dwell primarily on Christ. You’ll then realize things such as our own obsessions such as sexual orientation and desires fade away. It’s the definition of “JOY”:

        1. Jesus first.
        2. Others second.
        3. You, third.

  • hombre111

    Good article, Austin. You bring our attention to an interesting development in the story of Gay Catholics, and you also provide some caveats. Priests find themselves in a double bind. If they have a close friendship with a woman, people think they are having an affair. If they have a close friendship with a man, people think they are gay. So, I always tried to have a friendship with a couple, which worked well.

  • Mark

    Yes, God forbid that straight men and women ever become friends for fear of slipping up! Life is messy and spiritual growth is about spiritual risk-taking and learning from mistakes. Get over it!

    • Guest

      That is not the issue. The issue is transforming a disordered desire into some item it is not.

      • Mark

        And what exactly is the difference, practically, besides whether this label (“disordered”) is applied to it??

        The article speaks of “never crossing the line,” but I’d say this: if it came down to a choice between risking sinning by (as it were) “excess” of love, and risking sinning by a deficit (virtue being the mean)…Christians, I’d think, would prefer the former. But apparently not.

        • Guest

          The issue is minimizing what is a desire not ordered toward the good. The false choice you set up is typical of gay movement. It is to play down the seriousness of the matter, mistakenly compare it to heterosexuality, and then demand we all accept this desire as something special. This new ideology Ruse writes about is even more dangerous. It claims to be faithful to the Church but walks a fine line while calling for a new theology that wants us to view disorder as specialness. Not buying it for one second.

    • Austin Ruse

      Yes, Mark, it is a profoundly bad idea for married men to have an intimate friendship with a woman not his wife. it is a kind of betrayal and also very dangerous. The Ordained spend a great deal of their time and energy guarding their heart and so should the married.

      • happiness1535

        You should not have written this article. Gabriel Blanchard’s equation with sickle cell anemia does not indicate he is happy he has SSA.

        A man can be emotionally intimate with his mother or sister (adopted or biological), and no one would assume anything sexual. People who speak with the absolutist terms you do never seem to explain that.

        Sorry, but close emotional relationships of some sort are necessary for healthy human existence.

        Under your framework, any close same-sex friendship is too dangerous, because it might lead to sexual temptation. An opposite sex friendship is dangerous, because it might lead to temptation for one party and scandal to others. A friendship between a SSA man and SSA woman would be perfect for lack of sexual tension. But, it is hard to find and under your framework, scandal would be involved.

        So, a compromise must be made somewhere. If one earnestly asks god for help and accepts an inner spiritual transformation, one can become emotionally close to any person without sexual temptation if the sexual expression is not in his will.

        That would be beyond your comprehension if you are a straight man who is happily married. You have no need to become close with people who you might experience sexual temptations with that you cannot act on.

        The hostility in the comments results from the fact that people are very used to a universe where their relationship rules work and they need fight maniacally against anyone who cannot use their rules. That is why people with SSA must stand up and find a place.

        • Guest

          This is exactly the propaganda that is contrary to Church thinking. Please read Ratzingers documents.

          • happiness1535

            Please explain why a man can be emotionally intimate with his mother or sister (adopted or biological), and no one would assume anything sexual.

            • Um, please explain why you need this to be explained…

              • happiness1535

                Because it is incoherent with the claim that one can never form close friendships with the opposite sex without sexual temptation.

                • Thomas R

                  In fairness later statements by him seem to indicate he means the kinds of friendships where you go to the movies together (alone), go on camping trips together, cry on each others shoulders, etc.

                  And those kinds of friendships can be pretty close to dating someone. That they’re not with two men is because neither could be attracted to the other. Now I still have a bit of a problem with it because I don’t think every man, straight or gay, has the potential to become attracted or confused about any person of the sex they’re attracted to. The closest male friend I think I had I was not remotely attracted to and I think I could maybe even go camping with him, or something, without it “confusing” me on any level. He’s straight, he has a slightly odd voice, and a lazy eye.

                  But I could see how a “go to movies together, cry together” friendship with an SSA male my age could be problematic. I think I’m old enough now it wouldn’t matter, but in my early twenties I think it would have been unwise. (And even now I could see how a highly emotionally charged situation with an SSA male or OSA female could “turn into something.” Or if I were drunk, not that I drink.)

                • There’s a difference between “close” and “emotionally intimate”, plus the nature of the familial relationship precludes any potential physical intimacy. Not that it hasn’t happened, although The vast majority of people are naturally squicked out by the thought of sex with their relatives.

      • Thomas R

        I don’t think I believe this unless by “intimate friends” your meaning take baths together and napping together. If that’s not what you mean I know I don’t believe this. It makes men out to be weak almost to the point of pitiable.

        Men are capable of having close friends of the opposite sex without it turning into sex. At the very least what if the woman is elderly and infirmed? You really think a married man being close to his elderly mother’s bridge partner, or something, is necessarily “playing with fire”? Seriously? You think priests never have nuns who are close friends? Or that if they do it turns sexual? That’s almost puritanical. (Possibly you could argue the culture is puritanical and that the issue isn’t the friendship itself but the appearance of scandal the friendship may cause. Even then if my brother became close to an elderly wido friend of my mother I doubt that would be scandalous)

        • Guest

          Yes because this issue is about a married man having a relationship with a woman many years his senior. Why can’t we be honest and stop the games?

          • Thomas R

            I am being honest, I think this idea is nonsense and I don’t think anything in the Catechism or tradition says this. And that many things in the history of the Church might even go against it. (As I said unless by “intimate friendship” we mean a friendship where you’ll see each other naked or discuss your respective sexual feelings. Also there is a tradition of avoiding having men, married or unmarried, live with women who they aren’t married to)

            At best it’s a personal policy some follow to avoid problems or scandals. If you truly feel that lust is so powerful in you, not meaning you personally, that you can not be close to even an elderly woman without it becoming inappropriate than definitely obey such a policy. But if you can maintain a modicum of self-control I don’t see why it would be necessary.

            And to tell me I shouldn’t have a close male friend because I have same-sex attractions is not a rule and I would most definitely not obey it.

            • Guest

              No one said one cannot have close male friends. Disinterested friendships are the key.

              • Thomas R

                Okay I think I may understand it.

                Are we saying an “intimate friend” means like an intense or even something like a preferential friendship?

                I could see where that could be a problem. If a married man’s friendship with an elderly woman reaches the point he values her equal, or superior, to his wife that would be bad. But I’d think that might be true even if his friendship is to a man.

                If I had a friendship with a man where I was also “interested in him”, as in placed loyalty to him above other people (or maybe “longed to be in intimate situations with him, such as alone in a room with him without any distractions like music or TV”), I could see how that could become problematic. Is it something like that?

        • Austin Ruse

          You can either mock or really try to understand what someone else is saying. You choose to mock. OK.

          No, I am not talking about a married man being friends with the bridge partner of an elderly lady.

          I suspect you are not married and are quite young so you do not understand the problem that a married man having an intimate relationship with a woman not his wife can be.

          If you get married, you should understand that having another woman as a “best friend” would pose very serious problems for your wife. Additionally, attachments form and those attachments can and often do lead to a betrayal of the wife and the married state. This is simply something that mature married men understand.

          • Thomas R

            Well that’s sad. My Mom has close male friends, I’m not sure if her best friend is male but it wouldn’t surprise me if that’s so, and is very Catholic. She lead to my Dad’s conversion. It’s unfortunate if us men are really that much weaker. I still don’t think we are, and am confident you’re wrong, but granted that you believe what you’re saying.

            Also no I’m not married and I’m sorry if I was too mocking. I just haven’t really known people who think this way outside old novels and silly gossips.

            • Austin Ruse

              I very seriously doubt your mom lays out her most intimate feelings to a man other than your father, that she has dinners with another man alone, goes on vacation alone with him? or they talk on the phone every night. This what we are talking about. This is an intimate friendship. Of course I have women who are friends but their not intimate friends.

              And please stop laying out this friends with an elderly person canard. That’s a straw man and beneath you.

              We live in an age of infidelity. We must guard our hearts and only give them to our wives.

              • Thomas R

                Oh I guess I misunderstood you. Thing is I’m not entirely sure either parent has any friendship like that with anyone. I’m pretty sure my Dad doesn’t. I’m not sure any of my married siblings do.

                That level of friendship I think could be problematic in a marriage even if it’s not to the opposite sex. I’m sure there are women who feel jealous or shorted if their husband goes out every night, and spends weekends with, some guy friend of his. Although I’ll grant it would be less problematic than if it was with a woman who isn’t a close blood relative.

                I’m sorry I misunderstood. I still kind of feel your wrong though, but what you’re saying makes sense in most cases.

                • Austin Ruse

                  Very big of you adn much appreciated…

      • Deacon Ed Peitler

        One could easily engage an experiment. A married man could say to his wife, “I am planning on having dinner alone with my intimate friend Mary Jane.” If your wife responds, :”Have a good time, Joe,” you’re on fairly safe territory. If, however, her response is, “You gotta be kidding me” or “And why is it that you cannot invite me to join you?” then you’re likely on a very slippery slope. Given the ‘solid’ footing that most marriages (including Catholic ones) are on these days, I’d strongly recommend swearing off on dinner with your opposite-sex intimate friend if you’re married.

  • “Tushnet is a true believer but she also speaks fondly in remembrance of her own lesbian experiences”

    Wow. This reminds me of a St. Bernadette quote. When questioners asked St. Bernadette what a sinner was, she answered, “Someone who loves sin.” I think that about sums this crap up.

    • Calah Alexander

      Gosh, then we’re all screwed. I know my entire spiritual battle is fought on the battleground of how much I love sin. If yours isn’t, I’d love to know your secret, but I’ve got a sneaking suspicion it’d be pride.

      • Objectivetruth

        Sorrow. Pure sorrow for my sins.

        • Thomas R

          That’s very good of you.

          But if someone is say an alcoholic I think it’s likely not all their memories of drinking will be “pure sorrow.” Maybe that’s a sign they’re not as penitential as you or as they should be, but if their Confessor accepts it I think it could be presumptuous to say “Your priest is a fraud, you must be more ashamed than this.”

          Plus, for me, I realized if I focus too much on my sorrow it’s negatively affecting. It doesn’t make me commit the sin less so much as it leads me to feel I’m too rotten to even face a priest in Confession. (Indeed I avoided Confession for like a decade due to the “My sins are so repellent I can’t face a priest” or sometimes even “My sins are so repellent, but the priest isn’t being tough enough on me.” And for the record I am still a virgin, the sins I mean are in the lust variety not actions with anyone) If the goal is to make disordered people be faithful members of the Church I do still feel you need some kind of lifeline to keep them from despair. Maybe the “New Homophiles” are going a bit too far on that, but I can see why they need something. Surely we don’t want them to think “God cries out for vengeance against my shame, I will put my hope in that he will kill me to stop me.”

          • Objectivetruth

            We all have (in some respect) disordered proclivities. Trust me… sins as a heterosexual are pretty repellent and at first tough to approach the priest in the confessional with. But there was something deep inside me that needed to be told that these horrible sins ive committed needed forgiveness. By trusting in the Church’s teaching that the priest sits “in persona Christi”, the relief and grace I feel after confession is unbelievable!

            And agreed….maybe the new homophiles are going a little too far, but it’s a great step in the right direction. We’re all on a journey. It looks like they’re journey has a good start.

      • When I converted, I didn’t “look back” on my extremely unchaste party-filled life in a “fond remembrance.” That’s the antithesis of “putting on the new man.”
        Therein lies the difference.

    • Adam__Baum

      I liken this to a jewel thief who has given up thievery, but still talks about his or her “last big score”. There’s still an attachment to the sin.

  • A thought-provoking piece. I don’t
    presume to doubt their love of the church but, while their intentions
    may be good, some of their reasoning seems gravely flawed. Most
    notably, their insistence on the pure goodness of being blessed with
    homosexuality (but celibate!), while stemming from good intentions,
    is highly problematic. The Catechism explicitly calls the homosexual
    “inclination” (not just homosexual acts, mind you, but even
    the mere inclination) as “intrinsically disordered.” As
    such, to rejoice in the inclination as itself good and a gift from
    God and as a positive part of one’s personal identity is like saying
    “I do not want to stop being blind; I don’t believe I can or
    even should. God made me this way so everyone else must accept my
    blindness.” Yet, we can accept the blind person and still
    recognize blindness for what it is – a disease, a physical deficiency
    – and not love them any less because of it. In fact, it is often when
    we meet someone struggling from some kind of poverty that our hearts
    are moved by grace to love them even more deeply. God can bring good
    even out of an evil situation and can, as Pope Francis said in a
    recent homily, make even the sterile bear fruit. God can use a
    person’s disordered sexual inclination (whether it be homosexuality
    or otherwise) and bring them graces even through their deficiency. We
    do not need to declare homosexuality good or a gift to recognize the
    goodness that God can draw from it or the goodness of the person. The
    Catechism states this and what the New Homophiles are preaching seems
    to directly contradict it. This call for the church to “develop”
    her teaching should be approached with caution. I worry that, while
    trying to overcome the stigma of the homosexual inclination and see
    those suffering (and I use the word suffering very intentionally
    here) from it accepted by Christians, the New Homophiles, in their
    eagerness, flirt with heresy.

  • Pingback: The Rise of the New Catholic ‘Homophiles’ | Catholic4Life()

  • naturgesetz

    I’m not sure that calling a homosexual orientation a gift from God is either prudent or correct; but others have pointed out that people living with various diseases come to see their disease as a gift because it has led them to good things, such as awareness of their need for God, greater appreciation of the people in their lives, a heightened realization of the preciousness of time. So too, it may be possible to see a homosexual orientation as a gift not as if it were good in itself, but in its spurring the “new homophiles” to seek way of growing in chastity amid a culture which places little value on that virtue.

    It seems to me that to the extent the new homophiles can succeed in find ways of living joyously and chastely, they can be a real beacon for young homosexuals, showing them that — contrary to what our culture tells them — they don’t need to be sexually active in order to be happy.

    What many commenters seem to have ignored is that the article is talking about Catholics who are striving to live chaste lives. What they are doing is trying to find helps along the path of virtue, and it seems to me that instead of heaping scorn on our struggling fellow Catholics, we should be applauding them for their commitment to virtue.

    As for “narcissism,” I think people should realize that homosexuals still find themselves — as individuals and as a category of individuals — looked down on by a large part of contemporary society outside the media and political elites. There are many to whom the new homophiles’ commitment to chastity makes no difference — the contempt remains. In such a societal milieu, it is only natural that they would seek to affirm their human dignity.

    Those who are not homosexual don’t have the experience to enable them to say what will or will not help them remain chaste. Even the approved Catholic organization for homosexuals, Courage, recognizes that chaste friendships can be very important helps for living chaste lives.

    Finally: the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in the midst of saying what is wrong with homosexual activity and calling homosexuals to chastity, also calls all Catholics to accept homosexuals with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. I ask all who have offered comments on this article to ask yourselves: are you truly accepting of homosexuals; are you truly respectful; are you truly compassionate; are you truly sensitive? If not, and if these qualities do not show in what you say and write, the Catechism indicates that you need to change.

    • I ask all who have offered comments on this article to ask yourselves:
      are you truly accepting of homosexuals; are you truly respectful; are
      you truly compassionate; are you truly sensitive

      The principles of good faith require you to assume the above of anyone and if you doubt it, the burden of proof is on you. Otherwise, we get into highly distracting rabbit trails.

      • naturgesetz

        There is no burden of proof, because I am not asserting anything about any specific individual. It would be a colossal waste of time for me or anybody else to go through every comment here and see if there was anything specific that suggested a lack of acceptance, respect compassion or sensitivity.

        Rather, I simply invited everybody just to look into their own hearts — not asking anyone to judge anyone else — because the overall, cumulative effect I got from reading all the comments was a sense that there were people who were more interested in putting homosexuals down rather than taking satisfaction in the striving for chastity which the article reported.

        If your sense of the comments is different, if you think everything was accepting, respectful, compassionate, and sensitive, fine: it struck us differently. It’s not a problem for me that different people have different impressions.

        • Good. Stick to the topic at hand and knock off the kafkatrapping.

  • GenericB

    Wow! I’m really quite amazed by the negative responses. The new homophiles are in a real sense without a home. Much of the gay community has rejected them because their lives point to the reality of sin. Now the Church community calls them a bunch of narcissists and just wants them to shut up. I think that many of them feel a responsibility to others to let them know there is another way. Everything in the culture tells gay people that they simply need to accept themselves and live a “gay lifestyle.” These individuals have accepted the hand they’ve been dealt and are determined to live as our Lord would want. Society needs their witness. They are real people who struggle, deal with isolation and loneliness. They also deal with bigotry from gays and Christian people much like those who have commented on this blog. Many have dealt with years of not accepting the cross they’ve been given, praying every night that it would be taken away, and it never happened. They have struggled with self acceptance and coming to know that God has not rejected them because of their condition. They have come to accepted that they will live their life alone without a mate. Most of this struggle taking place without anyone else being aware of it. To simply call them narcissists dishonors the incredible struggle they have gone through to arrive at their convictions and to sustain them. Rather than beating up on these people, how walking with them a bit and help them carry the cross.

    • The problem lies in this notion of “exceptionalism”, that God has somehow created a class of people, identified by their sexual orientation, who are automatically capable of some mysterious woo-woo ability to be better people than the great unwashed masses ( aka: straight people).

      Everyone struggles and no one knows what fighting temptation costs another person. This entire notion of gay exceptionalism is EVERYTHING Christ stands against and Satan delights in.

      • happiness1535

        None of the profiled people think of themselves as exceptionalists or better than others. That is purely from the imagination of Austin Ruse.

        • Austin Ruse

          So when Blanchard says gays have a unique insight into certain kinds of mysticism and Damian says gays have unique abilities to have close friendships, and Scalia says outright that they are exceptional, all this is from my imagination?

          • Objectivetruth

            As Adam_Baum sometimes correctly posts: “Never let the facts get in the way of a good rant.” Great article Austin. You have presented factual evidence, while the trolls that swoop in on your articles bring their jamming machines.

            • Guest


            • Guest

              Well, it appears that the rant was Austin’s. He certainly did not let the facts get in his way.

              • Austin Ruse

                Brave anonynous poster…what facts did i get wrong?

          • happiness1535

            It is grasping at straws to find positives in their life. If you notice, Gabriel admits the drawbacks are serious.

            Gabriel does not think of himself as higher than others. That is purely in your imagination. In fact, very much the opposite is true. He is, in fact, very prone to depression and suicidal thoughts.

          • MeanLizzie

            Wouldn’t it have been helpful to this discussion to have actually provided a LINK to the post you found so troubling, Mr. Ruse? It’s here: The one where I conclude: “Larry Kramer called the gay community “exceptional,” and in doing so he opens the door to question what that means, whether it implies a giftedness that is planned, and meant for all of us. If that is so, our homosexual brothers and sisters deserve a full participation in our human adventure, right down to the “plans of fullness, not of harm; to give you a future and a hope.”
            But those plans, in the life of every fully-engaged human, involve not just gifts but also challenges, not just “yes” but also “no,” not just satisfaction, but also sacrifice, not just ourselves but also obedience. That’s the fullness; it comes from embracing the plan, but it is not easy.

            And in that case, it’s possible that not everyone will be so keen to applaud the idea of sexual exceptionalism, and its costs.

            Nothing is free, save grace, but it is no cheap thing.”

            • Austin Ruse

              So sorry if it came off that I was troubled. I thought it was interesting. And that it fit into others along the same line.

              • GenericB

                Shame on you Mr. Ruse! The post is beautiful and sound. And you took it totally out of context. Then you allowed a whole discussion to go without once referencing the full text. You have an agenda for sure and from what has been shown here, it is not the truth.

                • Austin Ruse


                • Austin Ruse

                  Please explain how I got this wrong? I do t believe I did and she has not contradicted me. So, please explain.

              • NDaniels

                I am very troubled. The fact is, all of us have various types and degrees of disordered inclinations, some more difficult to overcome than others; it is a sin to not desire to overcome our disordered inclinations and become transformed through God’s Gift of Grace and Mercy.

          • happiness1535

            Scalia may be off the mark. But, Blanchard and Damian are both correct, so there is no homophilia.
            SSA people will naturally have special insight in relating to saints who may have had SSA. As far as close friendships, it should be obvious that someone with no hope of ever marrying will value friendships more than you would.

      • Thomas R

        Could there be a way of indicating gays are different without solely being focused on their difference making them worse than other people?

        I’m not saying there is, but I think some of them might be struggling their way through something like that. Not “I’m better” but “I’m different, why?” I think the answer a few here prefer is “You are different, because you are bad and your life is a battle against your own natural inferiority.” Or at least I think that’s how some might hear it.

        • Of course there can be and should be. We’re all different and yet we all have so much in common in spite of our differences. I agree that the way the Church speaks of and to gay people is appalling. Of course, I also think the Church”s hyper focus on all sexual matters is appalling. It amounts to little more than utilitarianism and it’s too often led to some deeply evil and seriously creepy mind sets and practices on the part of the institutional Church and individual Catholics.

    • Guest

      What absolute nonsense. The Church has provided the true answer. Strange new ideologies can not replace authentic truth. They are. It some unique class. To claim that is to play into their drama.

  • Pingback: A scattered “reader’s response” from a New Homophile | Spiritual Friendship()

  • Matt

    I’m sorry but this article is no where close to reality and, consequently, many of the comments are way off base.

    I have followed this group of people for many months on their various blogs.

    I have not seen a single thing that would indicate “gay exceptionalism” nor anything that would indicate they believe God “made them that way” (permitted – yes, able to use them as he has promised to use all things – yes, made – no). There may be some claim to having the ability to form deeper friendships but it is based more on the deeper need of a celibate individual to rely more on non-sexual friendships because of the lack of family ties.

    So I’m not sure where in the world you are getting your impressions from.

    • Gee, I don’t know — maybe from the article because I actually read it…?

      • GenericB

        I agree with Matt. Having read these folks, “gay exceptionalism” is not a constant theme. I thinks it is more of a hook that the author was using.

        • Austin Ruse

          I didn’t say “constant”, I said regular. And I stand by what I wrote. They believe same sex attractoin has given them special gifts for themselves and for the Church. Specifically, they believe those with samesex attraction has unique abilities to be empathetic, to build close relationships, and as one said a unique understanding of certain kinds of mysticism. This kind of thing is a regular part of their work.

          • Except that I live in the epicenter of the gay universe – literally ON Folsom Street in SanFrancisco — and this just isn’t true. A handful of prideful gay Catholics may enjoy thinking this about themselves but it is by no means universally true of all gay people. Gay women rarely seek out friendships with men and the friendships gay men develop with women are often as objectifying, albeit in different ways, than male-female relationships can be.

            • Austin Ruse

              As I said in my piece, no less than Larry Kramer said the same thing at the Tony Awsrds. Now maybe Larry Kramer and the New Homophiles are the only ones but I doubt it.

              • Yeah, but how many people is that? Like, half a dozen? Statistically and factually meaningless. But maybe someone will do a study. Me, I’ll just go on encountering each person, individually, where they’re at in that moment like Christ did.

                • Austin Ruse

                  Yes, maybe they’re the only ones.

                  • You know who I feel sorry for? The poor gay dudes who have absolutely no artistic talent whatsoever and/or who are kind of antisocial and introverted. Guess some gays are more “exceptional” than others.

                • Austin Ruse

                  And I would just point out, I never said if was all gays. I said it was these gays and you said I made it up.

                  • Huh? I never said that at all. That was other people. But once a lot of people start commenting it gets confusing to sort out the thread. I know you were writing about something others were putting out there.

        • Guest

          They have a propaganda point they use. It is not consistent with Catholic theology but with gay ideology.

      • Matt

        By “You” I meant Ruse. I

        But your answer is enlightening. You read an article was was largely invented out of wholecloth fromthe author’s imagination and responded to that – the only problem is that his imagination had nothing to do with reality so what you are responding to exists only in Ruse’s head.

        • Austin Ruse


          • Luke

            You misrepresent Scalia’s presentation of “gay exceptionalism.” That is bad journalism. And if it was done intentionally, it is also immoral. Who knows how you have misrepresented the others.

            • Austin Ruse

              Please explain how…

            • Guest

              Ruse is telling the truth. You may not like it but he is. There are people he did not mention that push this same ideology and they get media time on orthodox Catholic outlets and it is time these issues were exposed.

            • Austin Ruse

              Luke, Please explain how I misrepresented Scalia or anyone else? I would appreciate specificity.

            • Austin Ruse

              Still waiting..

        • Objectivetruth

          Chris Damian and his blog only exist in Austin’s head? Read the article again.

          • Matt

            Chris Damian is real, His blog is real. The first quote in the article is real. The rest is pure fiction. Most comments are responding to what Ruse said ABOUT these people rather than what they themselves said (and not that Ruse did NOT include full quote are links so that people could actually find out what the people were saying or to back up his imaginings)

            This article is just a perfect example of bad journalism and the damage it can do.

        • Guest


    • Austin Ruse

      Then you really have not read them. That kind of thing, gay exceptionalism, is very present in their writing. The alternative to God made them that way is that same sex attraction is the result of something psychological. None of them believe this.

      • happiness1535

        The distinction is not helpful. Like it or not, same-sex attractions are, for some, exclusive and enduring, and cannot be changed. That is what matters.

        They must find ways to adapt to life despite that and you have no useful advice.

      • The homeless dude who frequents the area outside my building and rants to no one in particular about various conspiracy theories at the top of his lungs doesn’t think his problems are the result of something psychological either.

        Not that I claim ssa is a psychological disorder — I suspect there is no one definitive cause of ssa and I am more likely to believe people ARE born that way than to think it’s a form of mental illness. In spite of my other comments I’m actually pretty liberal re gay marriage.

        It’s this notion of exceptionalism that defies, well, the fact of Christ. And that the people making the case for gay exceptionalism have a personal stake in the matter.

        Plus, there’s an insidious form of bigotry going on here — claiming that all gay people are endowed with unique abilities isn’t that far a cry from the idea of a master race on the one end of the racist continuum or that all black people are inherently lazy and looking for handouts on the other.

        • happiness1535

          It seems odd to equate SSA with pedophilia but then support gay marriage.

          • I don’t equate ssa with pedophilia. And I don’t “support” gay marriage. Try again.

    • Objectivetruth

      It doesn’t appear that you’ve read the article.

  • Pingback: What Attracts Young Men to the Priesthood -

  • Alphonsus_Jr

    Such pathetic cognitive dissonance resolution.

    Of course there’s nothing to celebrate about either sodomy or sodomitic inclinations.
    Think of it like this: both murder and sodomy are two of the four sins that cry out to heaven for vengeance. Let’s say I have strong inclinations to murder. I successfully resist these inclinations. Would I then go on to identify myself according to my inclinations to commit the sin of murder, perhaps by calling myself a philohomicidalist? And would anyone encourage me to do so? Of course not. Yet those possessed of the sodomite perversion are encouraged to identify themselves as sodomites, or rather, “gays.” Insane.

    As for changing the Church’s doctrine on sodomy, it’s part of the deposit of faith and is thus in fact unchangeable, no matter what one may say or wish. God’s law is a given, not something to be remade as we wish. The Judas Council Revolution (otherwise known as the Second Vatican Council of 1962-65) has of course created much confusion on this point via its insatiable lust for novelty and conformity with the world. Its architects and propagators will answer for it accordingly. And eternally.

    • Objectivetruth

      God gave us two books: the book of nature (natural law) and holy scripture. Sodomy violates the teachings of both books.

    • Thomas R

      “Think of it like this: both murder and sodomy are two of the four sins that cry out to heaven for vengeance.”

      I have to admit I wasn’t aware of this term. (The other two look to involve cheating the poor)

      I’m not an SSPX person so the rejection of the Second Vatican Council isn’t for me, but what you’re referring to is in the Catechism. I admit knowing it now I’m not sure what to think. It’s hard for me to see homosexuality as equivalent to murder. Equivalent to adultery, fornication, or being an inveterate alcoholic? Yeah I saw it as that.

      But the “akin to murder”? Well it does explain my father, but I admit I would struggle with believing that. If that is what the Catechism means I guess I’ll have to believe it, but I’d really struggle with “homosexuality is akin to murder.” Most of the Bible, when I read it, placed it in litanies of sexual sins. (I’m not even sure my Dad compared it to murder)

      • Alphonsus_Jr

        It’s certainly counter to today’s sodomite propaganda. I strongly recommend that all readers search the internet for this essay:

        Tactics of the Homosexual Movement, by John Vennari

        As for the SSPX, those of us aligned with it don’t reject Vatican II per se, but only the many errors, ambiguities, and novelties it spews. We therefore embrace anything in it that’s consistent with the deposit of faith. It’s precisely this fidelity to the deposit of faith that forces us to reject the many errors, ambiguities, and novelties of this Judas Council.

        • Thomas R

          Actually I don’t think this would have the affect you want. As I said I wasn’t born in the 19th century or even the 1950s. Thinking of sodomy as akin to murder seems so blatantly extreme and detached from reality I doubt I could naturally believe it. If I have to believe it, to be Catholic, I guess I’ll have to try because Catholicism is so important to me. But this would be akin to “I have to believe something completely insane to believe all the other stuff.”

          I’d hate to think I’d have to make that choice. But I’m not SSPX, or sympathetic to that, so maybe I don’t.

  • Pingback: SATURDAY EDITION | iwannabeasaint()

  • Lucky

    Looking at the comments… thanks. You can keep your Church. It’s batshyte crazy insane hateful of homosexuals. I wouldn’t want to be among you. With friends like you who would need enemies?

    • Objectivetruth

      I’m guessing you’re a homosexual that lives out the gay lifestyle?

      • Actually, it wouldn’t surprise me at all if he wasn’t because in my experience, the most vocal defenses of the indefensible come not from practicing homosexuals, but by ideologically-addled heterosexuals. A Catholic with same-sex attraction put it this way:

        The worst, by far, are heterosexuals, who are all about gay rights,
        though. This may be because they are the majority, but in a certain way I think it’s deeper than that. I think their defending of homosexuals is
        driven by a couple things. One, it comes from this weird perverted
        notion that you always have to protect the weak and “not judge” No
        Matter What. It’s derived, I think, from Christian notions of love, but
        it has to turned into this terrible monster known as modern liberalism.
        It’s actually become the case that defending the weak is more important
        than identifying the truth. This whole idea is rampant, and it’s pretty
        much suffocating to any real discussion on moral issues. “Don’t judge!
        What makes your life any better! You’re just filled with hate!” etc.
        etc. etc. Everyone has to be equal, no matter the stakes, no matter
        what. If you imply Anything to the contrary, you’re basically Hitler who
        wants to kill all gay people. And while this push is definitely from
        the gay community (it’s how they gain their power), it’s most strong
        (and most despicable) from straight people. It’s despicable because they don’t know what they’re doing. They just bandwagon on someone else’s slave morality to the degradation of everything around them. And worst of all, they’re Zealous about it. They get mad, scary mad about it.

        • Objectivetruth

          Agreed, great quote. It’s similar to the visceral, “victim” reaction by the gay community and liberal/atheistic cable news channels such as CNN and MSNBC to the GQ/Duck Dynasty article. If the gay community were on the side of Truth, would they really need to react so strongly to a guy that makes duck whistles?

    • Guest

      You want what you want. It is that simple.

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour

    It is worth reminding ourselves how modern the concept of “the homosexual” is. It is the product of the mediccalisation of the condition in the 19th century.

    Michel Foucault has, rather drolly described this.

    “Sodomy, that of the old civil or canon laws, was a category of forbidden acts. Their perpetrator was nothing more than the juridical subject of them. The nineteenth-century homosexual became a personage: a past, a case history, and a childhood, in addition to being a character, a life-style and a morphology, with an over-inquisitive anatomy and, possibly, a mysterious physiology. Nothing that he was, escaped his sexuality… It was consubstantial with him, less as a habitual sin than as a singular nature…. The sodomite had been a lapse; the homosexual was now a species.” [« Le Volonté de Savoir » (Gallimard 1976 p 59) [My translation]

  • LH

    The people in the world today deserve this kind of confusion. Gay is now a gift? It was a mental disorder not too long ago, and before that, sexual deviancy was a punishable crime.

    • Thomas R

      As I understand Catholicism, I’m Catholic, though our trials can be useful. Some saints would state that they were chosen because they were stupid, or horrible sinners, to show the glory belongs to God and not themselves. Likewise there can be a value in handling a mental disorder or weakness.

      I’m not precisely gay, but I have same-sex attractions. I think in a way struggling or dealing with that has humbled me and maybe even helped make me kinder to those struggling with other disorders. But also I think if one only describes it as a purely negative, or says even chaste homosexuals trying to be faithful are still “beneath” others or disgusting, you could end up encouraging them to fall into despair. (That their damned no matter what so they might as well either just die or give into their lusts)

      • Guest

        The answer is not false theology that makes disordered desires some type of gift r that those with these desires are in some way better off. Why must this one particular issue demand special classification? This is not theology but ideology.

        • Thomas R

          Well actually the “gift” talk I think could cause an unhealthy pride, so I do see something potentially worrisome in that. Particularly if you only see it as a gift. (“Yeah God made me gay so I can be celibate and empathetic to the opposite sex and basically I’m all kinds of awesome. Celibate Gay Pride woo hoo!” or whatever)

          But I do think there are times you do have to deal with a person’s somewhat unique situations. If a person’s bipolar, and say hypersexual during mania (which can happen I believe), telling them even their randiness is a wonderful gift probably is a little absurd or confusing. But I don’t know if it’s absurd to say that their journey in dealing with mental illness can have value or be made to have value to others.

          • Guest

            Yes, but what you describe is traditional Catholic teaching. That is not what this article is about.

            • Thomas R

              Ahh I see. I think some of these “New Homophiles” vary.

              But feeling that you’re cursed and afflicted can, I think, reach the point of becoming unhelpful. (Or be narcissistic too in a different way) So some of them might be overreacting a little, to avoid feelings of despair or self-pity, but I guess I’m more sympathetic. Some of you want them to feel that their attractions are equivalent to homicidal desires or pedophilia and I just think that’s not going to happen. I’m not saying you do, but if one believes that must happen (that SSA people must consider themselves akin to murderers and pedophiles) then you must resign yourself to pretty much every American or European under-40 leaving the Catholic Church. Because, even if we don’t have those attractions, it’s just very difficult for us to think that way.

              It’s like Thomas Aquinas, I think, believed prostitution was preferable to masturbation. And if so I think he was logical to think that. The prostitute is already in a state of mortal sin and the solicitor would at least not be committing an unnatural act. Although considering cultural changes you could expand it from “prostitute” to “any irreligious woman who is promiscuous and as long as you don’t use a condom or contraception.” But if I had a son I feel like I’d have trouble teaching him that idea. Maybe this is a sign I’m tainted by modernist culture, but “you’d be morally better to find a fallen woman to fornicate with” just feels weird.

              • Was it Aquinas or Augustine who put forth that idea? I thought Augustine but I’m not sure and I’m too lazy to track it down, lol.

                It’s wrong thinking, of course. Not everything that falls out of a Doctor of the Church’s mouth or drips off the end of his pen is necessarily solid thinking. Hopefully we no longer think of “fallen women” (ever notice there’s no such thing as “fallen men”?) as less human than the supposedly virtuous women.

                These days teen boys (and grown men, both married and single, both gay and straight) have internet porn which removes sexual behavior from flesh and blood humanity even more. Not a good thing.

                I just wish people could just be people, no one of us better than the other. I think it’s far more disordered to believe in “exceptionalism” or elitism than it is to be gay.

                • Thomas R

                  Aquinas might have been quoting Augustine, seems like it was something like that.

                  Augustine had his own issues with things. Aquinas I don’t think did so much so it does seem like something that might originate with Augustine.

      • Deacon Ed Peitler

        I might be the one who is confused but if someone finds himself sexually attracted to another of the same gender and possesses the inner integrity to realize that these passions are disordered and resolves to not act upon them because sexual acts are reserved between two persons of opposite gender who are married, then why is it that anyone else needs to know the intimate details of his life????????? Why the compelling interest in sharing the most intimate details of one’s inner life????? Has someone sent out a request for everyone to reveal all in the public forum???

        • happiness1535

          Unfortunately, people notice if someone is 26 and has never dated a girl.

          Maybe if we could make lay celibacy more respected, there would solve some of the problem.

          • bonaventure

            There are many more reasons why a 26 years old has never dated a person of the opposite sex.

            Some reasons may be plain and simple: mental, psychological, physical, spiritual, emotional weakness.

            Or cowardice.

            Or addiction to pornography.

            Or a dysfunctional family and one’s inability to cope with it.

            Or a willful rejection of a genuine vocation to the priesthood or the religious orders, rather than attraction to the same sex.

            Or a combination of all of the above, whereby a person is called to either marriage or the religious life, but they reject their vocation because they are weak cowards addicted to pornography, and have the unfortunate baggage of a dysfunctional family, etc.

            • happiness1535

              Those are all bad reasons. If that is what you will assume, I would rather tell the truth.

              As I said, if lay celibacy could be better accepted, the problem would be eliminated.

              • Pat

                Exactly, lay celibacy is not some safety net that is only there to catch those who cannot function in a “real” vocation. It is a legitimate and honorable vocation itself, and should not be reason to assume some sort of dysfunction or moral failing on the part of the individual called to it.

        • naturgesetz

          I think what you call the compelling interest is the realization that there are lots of “closeted” homosexuals striving to remain chaste — closeted because they correctly fear that they will find overt rejection or subtle exclusion and disdain if their orientation becomes known. Those who are “out” share details of their lives and struggles out of love for those who struggle alone, to try to encourage them to persevere, to point to ways that they might find helpful, despite the uncharity, lack of acceptance, disrespect, lack of compassion, and insensitivity which come at them from some quarters.

        • Thomas R

          I actually don’t mention it in real life, but online I found a few people who are trying to be chaste but feel extremely lonely and discouraged. I wrestled with the decision some, but I feel like some of them need encouragement or someone to relate to.

          But even other than that I think there could be reasons to mention it as there are reasons to mention you’re an alcoholic. From what I understand of chastity we are supposed to try to avoid certain situations that are or were or can be occasions of sin for us. So to do this I kind of have to lie about what I’m doing. It’s not as overly dramatic a thing as some act like “the closet” is, and much to most of my life has nothing to do with this, but I could see how it might be relaxing or more honest if I didn’t have to just hope no one will notice that I find some actor in romantic comedy attractive. Knowing that if they do notice it’s going to become some big family debate with the more liberal relatives thinking I should now get a boyfriend and the more orthodox ones now thinking I’m vaguely disgusting or pitiful.

      • LH

        Having homosexual desire is a disorder of the mind. The best thing to do is to be chaste, prayerful, and work to eliminate the disorder–not to settle with it, accept it, and make it a happy part of your identity.

        Yes, that sounds simplified, but this is a small opinion post that I doubt more than five people are going to read anyway.

        • Thomas R

          I tried to make it go away several times, it’s not going to happen. There are plenty of people who try to eliminate it and it just won’t go away for them. You don’t have to believe that, but even many of the places that try to “treat it” admit the desires often or usually don’t entirely disappear.

          Many disorders of the mind, and I do accept it’s a disorder, can not be entirely cured. Sometimes you just have to make the best of things.

          • LH

            Thomas R, you said: “I tried to make it go away several times, it’s not going to happen.” Do not be so defeatist. Do not discredit yourself or the Almighty’s ability to cure or help cure you of this scourge. It can be done. It can. I pity you, truly. I mean, I really can relate to your struggle. Any honest person wanting to achieve a blameless life has their struggles, and yours is a kind that can be obvious to all. I do not know how to convey my sincerity in this.

            If you’ve entertained this kind of a mind for twenty years, then it is entirely possible that you will have to work for twenty years–maybe even twice that–to finally achieve the peace in your mind that you’ve sought for. Frequent use of the sacraments is also important. But also, and this is very important, learning about what God has given you as a man, and learning what a gift woman is to man–that will help you to become more appreciative of your natural gift. As a man, you have inherited many great things and abilities that you may not understand are yours. This, too, helps.

            I hope I wasn’t too late in writing this. Merry Christmas this Christmastide. Fight the good fight.

            • Thomas R

              Certainly it being cured or going away entirely is not impossible in that nothing is impossible for God. Although I’ll hesitantly I admit after this many years I’m not sure how I’d feel if it did just go away. It’s like if my OCD “went away.”

              But I don’t know. For me I feel like the main thing for now is to remain celibate and try to do what I can to be as chaste a celibate as I can or grow in chastity. And constantly warring with myself is something I no longer see as all that helpful for that in my case. Warring about it can just make me think about it more, or my mind try to overcompensate with excessive OSA lust, which isn’t what I think is exactly ideal. But I pray on this matter, and that I increase in chastity, every night and try to muddle through. We all have our stuff.

              If it comforts you though it’s not really “my identity.” I don’t belong to any gay sites or even belong to Courage, even though Courage is acceptable by the Church so far as I know.

  • Guest

    In his footnote, Mr. Ruse states:

    “I am using “gay” out of deference to the good people I am writing about.”

    Well, Mr. Ruse. I am offended by your use of the word “gay” instead of “homo-sexual”. The word ‘gay” used to mean ‘happy’, but no longer since being co-opted by the homo-sexuals. Consequently, most people are confused by the real meaning of the word ‘gay”, and it is people like you who are responsible for this confusion. I think you owe those of us who wish to protect the traditional meaning of the English language an apology, and promise to use the word “homo-sexual” and not “gay” from now own. You are forgiven, but go and sin no more.

  • Mike Gannome

    What’s next, pedophile exceptionalism?

    • Guest

      Yes, why does disordered attraction to same sex get this special category?

  • uncle max

    Jesus has a birthday coming up, and what he wants is simple – a humble and contrite heart

    no more, no less

  • john654

    Now that “society” has made homosexuality a “civil right” and certain scriptures “hate speech” the intolerant tolerant are going to enforce “Gay exceptionalism and charism”
    on everyone in this country, including our Priest. Oh, and by the way, I’m done with Bill O’rielly.

  • dan What love of the truth got to do with it ?

  • Yes and amen! This post also seems to touch on something I’ve now observed over the last couple years in certain corners of the Catholic blogosphere–a reduction of the Church’s teaching on chastity as applied to homosexuals such that, as long as homosexuals don’t physically/sexually act out, they are being “chaste”. When this gets so reduced that you hear fellow Catholics speaking of their “chaste gay couple” friends, something is really wrong.
    “Friendship” is one thing–“gay couplehood” is another. “Gay couplehood” doesn’t fall under the meaning of chastity. Somewhere below a commenter cites the Catechism passages on chastity, which make it clear that chastity involves the whole person, not just physical behavior. Referring to anyone as a “chaste gay couple,” for example, is self-contradictory and morally problematic…
    As such, I thank you for an excellent and articulate post!

  • SoDakCatholic

    I don’t know why gay people have the need to tell the world they are gay. Can’t they just shut up about their sexual orientation and be normal? I rejoice that they are going to remain celibate and they believe marriage for them is wrong. That is good. Too bad more don’t think like them.

    • givelifeachance2

      I think the point is to set the stage for accusing the Church of discriminating if she won’t hire/employ those who say they’re homosexual (but chaste).

  • Guy Fox

    The idea that homosexuals are more capable of close friendships is obnoxious. In fact, quite the opposite because friendship requires that the relationship is not sexual, and success depends upon that it is in no way encumbered by any form of sexual attraction. Gay exceptionalism, furthermore, has already been tried and it is a big failure. We have legions of feminized men in the Catholic clergy, and masculinized women in religious life who fancy themselves as an elite. This crew is wholly responsible for the destruction of Catholic culture; the current bleak demographic reality facing the Church in the West is a proof of this claim. Even more pathetic is the faghagism that has replaced the worship of God for the cult of personality around highly intelligent, charismatic homosexual personalities in the priestly caste. We all know how that turned out.

  • Evagrius

    The inclination to sin, although not sin itself is nevertheless classified by the Church as “objectively disordered.” The Greek Fathers had a word for disordered thoughts – “logismoi’ and correctly identified their demonic origin. In the Latin west, the term “concupiscence” often conveys the same notion. Although in the west, the origin of such thoughts is more often identified with ‘lower’ human nature. The disordered thoughts themselves are not regarded as sinful; it only when a person consents to the evil within such thoughts that sin begins. Think for example of Matthew 5:28 “but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” The precursor to consent is dialogue with logismoi, which the Greek Fathers counseled strongly against. Why? because the demons are more powerful than us and will quickly overwhelm a human person’s meager powers of reason. It is only through refuge in Jesus Christ, that the logismoi can be defeated. What the homophiles seem to be advocating is not only dialogue with logismoi ,but also a celebration of logismoi. This is not tweaking Church doctrine around the edges, it is more akin to Nietzsche’s trans-valuation of values (Umwertung der Werte).

  • naturgesetz

    Here is a reaction from one of the “new homophiles.”

    I wont attempt to summarize it. But he does have his points of disagreement with Austin Ruse’s article.

    • Austin Ruse

      Even in this blog post, he rejects teh notion of gay exceptionalism and then within a few sentences explains how gays are exceptional, not always, but that they tend toward exceptionalism.

      • Except that they don’t, but if you point hat out you’re a “hater”. Methinks some folks have a lot of growing up to do.

      • Thomas R

        I do see how that can be problematic. I was thinking what some of them meant is that because chaste/celibate individuals can’t have romantic or sexual relationships friendships are more important to stave off feelings of loneliness or disconnection. Like how a blind person might have to focus on their other senses, not that being blind literally or inevitably means you have greater hearing. You just don’t have the “distraction” of sight. They can’t have marriage so have to figure out what’s best for that.

        However I admit I’m a celibate who doesn’t really have close friendships outside my family. I seem to be less prone to loneliness than many people. I’m not sure why, it might just be my temperament. (At points I’ve seriously considered being a religious hermit, but I have a physical disability that might make that impossible. I’ve also considered being a monk, but fear I’d never master the discipline and used to I feared that the SSA would make it a problem to live constantly with men. That part of why I didn’t become a monk I never mention in life) But I don’t want to assume others are like me or that they’re just lying about perpetual singleness being lonely for them. And also, like many celibates, being an uncle and sibling is pretty important to me. If I was celibate and an only child I think I maybe would be lonely. (Am I saying SSAs have a “gift for being avuncular?” Well no, I don’t think so, but possibly they/we would place more effort on being a good uncle as we might desire to be a good something.)

  • bonaventure

    The so-called “New Homophiles” are hardly new. Their flirt with sin is already a sin, and their belief in exceptionalism and superiority is as old as Satan’s lie.

  • daisy

    Here’s the bottom line: the homophiles demand that we all stand by and clap and cheer anything less leads you subject to harrassment, firing and shunning.

  • CadaveraVeroInnumero


    (FCH = Faithful Catholic Homophiles)

    1. This is the nub & rub of (faithful) Catholic Homophiles. (Should that be tagged as an “ism”?) Homosexualism, as an ideology, is a total reordering of human sexuality. It is an aggressive agenda to redefine the human person.

    2. The first step in that reordering is the equivocation of heterosexuality and homosexuality. That has already been accomplished in the general (Western) culture. Think of your own hesitancy (better yet, fear) in how you hedge your public conversation. When someone mentions they have a “gay” relative, do you say “I will pray for him as he struggles through
    this. I will pray that the Lord will grace him with a righteous hatred for his sin. I will pray for his repentance, that God surrounds him with good and godly people”? No you do not! Why is that? Answer that question and you will perceive (within yourself) how far the ideology of homosexuality has succeeded. It is almost near total – with a boost and an assist from Faithful Catholic Homophiles (FCH), no less. Maybe the FCH vanguard folks do not have that as a marching order, but they clearly understand the benefit of having a particular “social fear” installed in the culture. In short, the benefit is theirs, as they campaign to “reeducate” the Church into the new slogan, “Yes, love the sinner, but let hating the sin fade away”. For the sin (CONDITION or ACT, or whatever) is a gift, the means to participate in the life of God in a special way, an exceptional way. God meets us in the midst of our homosexual condition in a way in which he does not do with heterosexual people. Our CONDITION is a threshold into friendship with God in which others are excluded. It is our special knowledge (our gnosis), our act of knowing God. We may even say that when God became human (see how clever we are) he took into himself the full human condition, which certainly includes homosexuality (we’re not quite sure about pedophilia, though, but who knows) When we say that God took the homosexual condition unto himself, incarnated himself into (with) it (what is the correct Nicaean/Chaldeoean phrasing?), we are not implying that God changed (heaven forbid, converted) it. God accept the return of his gift, our homosexual condition, and made it complete, whole, worthy of his life-giving presence.

    3. That sort of thing. That’s the underlying theology of the FCH folks. Of course, they will not put it boldly, for the Church is not ready for it, but they are relentless in their campaign to reeducate the People of God. Success if right around the corner, for the major hurdle has been jumped. The majority of Catholic laity and clergy have already graduated from the reeducation camps where they picked up the notion (the “ism”) that the homosexual CONDITION has equal standing as an aspect of Creation as heterosexuality.

    4. See how clever they are, these brilliant wordsmithy FCH folks? All they are asking of us (of you) is to focus on the CONDITION of homosexuality. Please, they assure us, we are not asking you to picture out the ACTS of homosexuality; that would be imprudent. Just think,
    they tell us, of the homosexual CONDITION as a cozy domicile of their human person, the bone and marrow that hold their bodily selves together. The word is out, God does. See it has the place where God meets them, and the habitat where God takes residence as he visits and nourishes the homosexual person. God knows that their homosexual CONDITION is what was given to them as a gift of Creation. We would not say that He made us, gifted us
    if that was not so.

    5. It is so subtle, this sweet sweeping up by twilight into the night. So dark – as a mother bear hiding her homophilic cubs in the hibernating cave from the bright glare of a winter’s sun.

    6. Relax. No need to think about what they, the “gays”, do between the sheets. God will take care of that, because is capable and willing to dwell within the homosexual CONDITION with
    them. (Don’t quite know about the pedophilia CONDITION, though!) Certainly, no need to picture out homosexual ACTS when it comes to the FCH vanguard phalanx; because (and I absolutely trust their word) that they are chaste, that there are no homosexual ACTS squirming about between THEIR sheets.

    7. But there is something they are not telling you: something they know in their very homophilic bones. UNLIKE HETEROSEXUALITY, the homosexual CONDITION is voraciously dependent upon the homosexual ACT; this relationship is so intertwined that it defines them, it gives birth to their identity. Once more, the ACT itself defines and nourishes the CONDITION. But didn’t we just say that the FCH folks don’t do the deed? True, we’re quite willing to place faith in that confession. We embrace it. But they know that the ACT
    mother and nursemaid of the CONDITION.

    8. But we don’t say that about heterosexuals. See, you report back to me, the FCH folks dwelling within their homosexual CONDITION is no different than we regular Joes and Janes dwelling within our heterosexual CONDITION. And you, with your reeducated thoughts, push
    the analogy: heterosexuality (the Adam and Eve thing) is also a CONDITION that can be held, totally integrated into the person, without being acted upon. So why not “the gays”. (Did
    you say pedophiles? Maybe not.)

    9. Boy, a reeducated mind is difficult to talk to! Quiet! Sit down! Once more: that’s not the point, let alone afalse comparison. We’ve already laid down the controlling premise: homosexuality and heterosexuality are not equal, they have no equal standing: on any terms (theologically, metaphysically, ontologically, ethically, historically, psychologically, biologically – even of the evolutionary kind). The only place where homosexuality and heterosexuality
    have equal footing is in the political culture – but what shifting sands that is. Wait until Islam imposes Sharia Law upon us!!

    10. We need to talk about homosexuality and Dissociative Identity Disorders (DID).
    11. We need to talk about homosexualism and its devastation of male friendship.
    12. We need to talk about homosexuality and the Eastern Orthodox’s take on it.
    13l We need to talk about homosexual exceptionalsim and its roots in the writings of Aleister Crowley, Catherism, Manicheanism, Radio Werewolf, Aztec Nagualism, The Temple of Set, Roshaniya, Church of the Process of the Final Judgment, the Ayran Brotherhood, Islamic Jihadism, Aldolfo de Jesus Constanzo, Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, the pedophilia recognition movement, Ritual Abuse Syndrome,the ugly insult given to Cardinal Newman (actually, the imposition of current Catholic homophilia politics onto him, why Pope Francis appears to be amused that the Advocate magazine plastered his face on their cover as a gay supporter, the absolutely destructive influence of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation.i

    • NDaniels

      True, for God did not create us an order us according to sexual desire/orientation, as that would be in direct violation of God’s Own Commandment regarding lust and the sin of adultery; we are, and have always been, from the moment of our conception, sons, daughters, sisters, brothers, husbands, wives, fathers, mothers, called to live our lives in Loving relationship with one another, in communion with God.

  • tj.nelson

    I have written about this phenomenon many times – it is good to know someone notable has chosen to address the issue. I have come to a similar conclusion as you – when you wrote:

    “The conversation is fascinating and I must admit I started out annoyed. After all, there are good men and women trying to be faithful but who reject the gay identity, and others who are trying to deal with the underlying psychological genesis of unwanted same-sex attraction, a process the New Homophiles largely dismiss. It will be hard for many of us to believe the Church ever could develop to the extent wanted by this school of writers and thinkers. From a disorder to a gift is a long long way to go.”

    However, I disagree with the suggestion the ‘orientation’ itself is a gift, and I reject the idea of gay-exceptionalism – it is indeed a narcissistic notion, if not elitist. The tone of several gay Catholic bloggers betrays their sense of superiority when the question of gay and Catholic emerges, they also often deflect comments and even acknowledgement of most SSA blogs and articles which are not within their orbit. Most of them also tend to reject Courage Apostolate and its groups. But I digress.

    As for the possibility to “live chastely, to have intimate nonsexual friendships that will never cross the line..” That is entirely possible – although “intimacy” suggests some sort of physical engagement – which may be extremely difficult for many – especially young people. Better terminology would be close friendship.
    Thanks for making this trend known – I appreciate your posts on these issues. God bless you.

    • Emotional intimacy, I imagine, is what “they” mean, but that’s a dangerous game as we decidedly unexceptional “breeders” can attest to. /eyeroll

    • Austin Ruse

      Terry…get in touch with me…

  • Dcn Dan

    “The Church teaches that homosexuality is “objectively disordered” and that homosexual sex is an “act of grave depravity.”” – Indeed, nowadays this kind of comment receives the wrath of the media and also from many in the Church. Political correctness and not wanting to “offend” others by calling their disposition disordered and their activity sinful … has become the golden calf of our modernistic, secularist culture. Unfortunately, many in the Church are all to willing to jump on this bandwagon, simply because they do not want to be criticized. “Blessed are you when they persecute you…for my sake”. Peace.

  • Brian F Hudon

    “However, they are called passions of ignominy because they are not worthy of being named, according to that passage in Ephesians (5:12): ‘For the things that are done by them in secret, it is a shame even to speak of.’ For if the sins of the flesh are commonly censurable because they lead man to that which is bestial in him, much more so is the sin against nature, by which man debases himself lower than even his animal nature.”

    ~Saint Thomas Aquinas

  • Pingback: Friendship and Erotophobia | Spiritual Friendship()

  • Marc

    What nonsense. Substitute in the article any other sinful proclivity to replace homosexuality and the entire proposition becomes ridiculus.

  • Nathan

    When in confusion, one useful indicator for testing the sinfulness of one’s proposed actions is to consider how one goes about defending it. It goes without saying that God uses broken vessels to achieve His perfect aims; it is quite another thing to celebrate brokenness.

  • Objectivetruth

    I once read that in the Old Testament, the reason why people refer to each other as “brother” and “sister” is a way to remind the person that we are all children of God, and really are truly brothers and sisters. As a married man, I look at female colleagues at work as my “sisters”, no different than my biological sister. This helps quell any sexual attractions or desires for them. They are fellow children of God, and once you look at others with that set of spectacles, they cease to be a sexual object and become my true sister (or brother) in Christ. It’s all how you view the other person. Honestly, this really helps and brings peace. And the benefit for the female coworker is I become a trusted brother to them, and a deeper, truer friendship is established based on trust, respect.

  • naturgesetz

    Here’s a post by one of the “new homophiles” about the “dangers” of friendship.

    She seems to imply that for two gay men who are attracted to one another, an intimate friendship would be risky. So a gay man would be wise to limit his intimate friendships to people to whom he is not sexually attracted. But she also is very clear that her own experience tells her such safe friendships are possible.

    • Objectivetruth

      But why can’t two gay men go in to a friendship saying “we will make Christ our focus, not our desires.”? To make themselves brothers in Christ?

      • naturgesetz

        They could, but that isn’t usually uppermost in most “normal” friendships.

    • Here is the heart of my concern as this discussion unfolds: the manner in which “homo-eros” is–or is not–being treated. If the assertions being made are such that they make room for or affirm “homo-eros” in itself, then the assertions stray from the Church’s clear teaching that “eros” is indeed “the gift of love between a man and a woman.”
      Is that which is homo-erotic something to be affirmed so long as the experience doesn’t result in direct sexual activity? That is, is it an intentional *part* of the “intimate frienships” being considered? Or, is that which is homo-erotic in need of purification and transformation such that it ceases being “homo-eros” and instead gives way to either ordered “eros” or entirely to “agape”?
      It seems to me that the path forward in this conversation involves coming to terms with the fact that “homo-eros” is the essentially disordered inclination that “is” same-sex attraction and thus cannot be affirmed but must be transformed.
      In this light, it becomes really no different than the disordered erotic impulses experienced by heterosexual persons. These, too, are not to be affirmed or considered to give rise to anything “exceptional”, but rather they are to be transformed (ordered) toward that which is good.
      And it’s the “ordering” of such impulses (not the original “dis-ordering”) that gives rise to that which is “exceptional.”
      Agree? Disagree?

      • naturgesetz

        Makes sense to me.

  • Kay

    I’ve run into one or two Christians who say they’re gay and have taken this route, of just being celibate. I think it’s fine. Jesus did say that some were made eunuchs, whether that has anything to do with this or not, I don’t know. A lot of members of my family who were not gay never got married, just lived out their lives as bachelors or bachelorettes. I’m on that road myself. And I also believe sex is reserved for marriage, so I guess I’m celibate for the time being. ha.

  • bhrush

    so if someone loves someone of the same gender but has no sexual connection ( celibate) are they homosexual or homophiles.. or are they just people who like myself loves my son, loves a number of buddies who are great friends. why would one classify self as a homophile.

  • John Uebersax

    Reality check: the topic of homosexuality is 100 times less important than that of the Church’s inability to oppose US militarism, which has all but destroyed this country. Yet the former receives 100 times more attention. This 10,000-fold disproportion is utterly beyond reasonable justification. It ought to alert people: the devil cares less about gay marriage etc. than about keeping Catholicism disorganized, divided, confused, distracted.

    • Guest

      The threat to civilization by so called gay marriage is one of the most serious. It redefines family and opposes the authentic rights of children. To deny this is to deny reality.

    • Art Deco

      1. There is no such thing as “U. S. Militarism”.

      2. What injures the common life and has injured it for decades has little or nothing to do with the military.

      Stop lying.

  • Marty

    What Austin Ruse has articulated in his article is that the “new homphiles” deny, either explicitly or by implication, that the temptation to homosexual act is,what the Church teaches it is: a disordered attraction. A problem. Really, that’s what it comes down to.

    But it is. That is the root of Catholic teaching here and to deny it to take steps away from that teaching. The ideal of human existence is laid out in Genesis: male and female, building community with each other and with God, their coupling being an embodied expression of that communion.

    For a man to seek this with another man, and to find the idea of that intimate, full-bodied, life-generating communion with a woman eilther repulsive, strange or foreign, *is* a disability. It’s a disordered attraction *just like the Church teaches.” It may be deep rooted, but so are most disabilities and disordered ways of relating to the world.

    Ruse is spot on.

    • Adam__Baum

      For a man to seek this with another man, and to find the idea of that
      intimate, full-bodied, life-generating communion with a woman eilther
      repulsive, strange or foreign, *is* a disability.

      And it’s no harder to demonstrate that asking what would happen if everybody had SSA-the end of humanity. Of course, some on the secular left regard humanity as a destructive parasite on the goddess, so anything to reduce the “surplus population” is a good thing.

      • Pat

        And if everybody was a heart surgeon, no one would grow food and the population would become almost nothing in a matter of months.

        Most people do not and never will be primarily or exclusively attracted to the same sex, so any hypothetical situation positing such is only a thought experiment and nothing more.
        One may as well speculate what would happen if the gravitational constant suddenly changed dramatically. It would not be too problematic to logically extrapolate the results, but the situation being extrapolated from is not one that could exist in reality.

        • Guest

          Adam is correct. The problem is comparing disordered actions with morally neutral things is that you draw erroneous conclusions.

          • Pat

            I was pointing out the flaw in way he was applying the Categorical Imperative by demonstrating a more obvious case of the same misuse of the logic.

            I was not comparing same-sex-attraction to being a heart surgeon. I was pointing out that the idea of everyone having same-sex-attraction is fundamentally not dealing with the real world but instead a hypothetical situation that is about as plausible a world with no farmers and 6 billion surgeons.

            Just correcting a misapplication of Kant. That’s all.

            • Guest

              I do not think he was using that kook Kant. He was pointing out that misuse of the sexual act leads to annihilation. It is common sense not decadent philosophy.

              • Pat

                His argument was attempting to use the Categorical Imperative. That’s not even in question. It is exactly the form of analysis he was using. That’s Kant.

                You’re free to think he was or wasn’t using any particular philosophical concept, but anyone who is even passingly familiar with Kant would instantly recognize that it was in fact, a misapplied form of the Categorical Imperative that Adam was using.

                Seriously. It’s Kant.
                Anything in the form of “Just imagine what would happen if everyone did .” is Kant.
                Though more often than not it’s applied incorrectly, to be fair.

        • Adam__Baum

          Congratulations on your poster child post for non-sequitur. If their were no heart surgeons, many would die. SSA does not have a biological purpose.

    • Guest

      Exactly correct. All the nuancing and obfuscating, and false compassion cannot change the facts.

    • Pat

      And yet there are people on this very site who insist that anyone who is a victim of that disability is thereby sinning and argue that the only possible way the disability would persist is if they are intentionally sinning.

      Or who say we should not comfort the sick in the case of this disability, and instead defy the Catechism’s requirement that we treat them with respect, compassion, and sensitivity…just because–being exiled from much of society and some of the most common experiences of society because of their disability–they have come to identify it as a badge of honor in an attempt to maintain some semblance of self-esteem when faced with disrespect and insensitivity due to a disability they are already suffering because of WITHOUT us adding to it with scorn or negligence.

      For if it is a disability, Christians are called by God to comfort them, to try to ease the pain and disruption of a normal life their disability causes, not to cast them as some foul “other” to be avoided.

      • Guest

        This is your narrative. It is not the truth. You rationalize bad behavior and disorientation by accusing others of being the problem. It is deflection and propaganda.

        • Pat

          Which part is not the truth?

          That the catechism says it is disordered and constitutes for most of them a trial?

          That we are specifically called to comfort the sick?

          That the catechism specifically says we must treat them with respect, compassion, and sensitivity?

          Which of those isn’t a fact? The works of mercy or the phrases I am using directly from the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

          I am not talking about their behavior, because I’m not talking to them. I am talking to practicing non-same-sex-attracted Catholics about what the Church commands of US.

          Furthermore, what part of what I said was propaganda?

          Substitute any other disability that causes a significant disruption in normal life, especially one that makes others loathe to interact with the individual and what I said makes just as much sense. Why is this disorder, this disability, which in most cases can be managed but not cured, just like many, many other disorders and disabilities, so much different that it’s okay to shun this particular kind of disabled person?

          It is difficult, especially when dealing with those who lash out because of bad experiences in the past of people treating them in a less-than-Christian manner, but we aren’t called to walk the wide, easy path. We walk the straight and narrow, and sometimes that requires us to be kind to people who aren’t kind in return.

          • Guest

            No one has advocated shunning or acting without compassion or sensitivity. The problem is redefining terms in a way that makes stating the truth wrong.

  • Invincible Hope

    I do not know what is scarier here, the
    fact that there are Activists is the Church seeking to redefine a
    tendency/compulsion towards sin as a “blessing” that one should not
    even desire to over come if one was given the option. They “want to be
    known and gay”, they want the “Church to accept them on their
    terms” (the Church already accepts them btw – it just has a problem with
    the accepting a desire towards a disorder as something the Church need to
    “develop” into a qusi-virtue).

    Homosexuality has seemingly become it own religion/fad these days – Supposed we
    (the Church) did what they are asking with the previous sexual fad of
    contraception. The Church did not cave to the thousands of
    “Christians”, media, theologians etc that wanted the pill to be
    declared a “virtue” — and decades later after being nearly the only
    Christian group to hold out against that pressure we find out that the pill
    causes abortions, hurts women & marriages, and standing upon nature & moral
    law was the proper stance.

    There has been NO proof that Homosexuality is generic (born with/made that way)
    despite BILLIONS spent by the government and activist groups on research in
    hopes of reaching that conclusion. However there is proof that certain horrible
    events (such as abuse when one is young) can however cause homosexual tendency
    and other sexual deviance.

    Is having these obviously smart, articulate internal activists trying each day
    to alter the Church from within into caving to modern social pressure a problem,
    caving to accept “their” brokenness under “their” theology
    as strength? (No Church Doctor/Father/Mother in our long history has joined
    them in their conclusions DESPITE the Church having been dealing with the sin
    of homosexual acts & the problem with many agendas pushed by activist
    homosexual individuals within the Church for centuries) consider the often
    brought up examples of the alcoholic or pedophile. Both could argue that they
    were born/made that way (there has actually been a gene identified that is
    linked to alcoholism) but neither of those issues has members and welling
    meaning non-members seeking the Church to declare their alcoholism as a good
    thing (no it is the overcoming or alcoholism/pedophilia through the strength of
    Jesus that is one’s boast in weakness – and at that overcoming one ceases to be
    an alcoholic/pedophile). Take this line from the article as one of the
    countless examples: “Tushnet is a true believer but she also speaks fondly
    in remembrance of her own lesbian experiences.” She, God bless her,
    speaks fondly of her own lesbian experiences ,, suppose a pedophile attempted
    to say that. Just forget the actual facts that those who self-identify as
    lesbians have a much much higher rate of depression, drug use, and abuse of
    other self-identifying lesbians. The incidence of physical and verbal
    abuse within the relationships is Much Much higher, A study in the Journal of
    Interpersonal Violence examined conflict and violence in lesbian relationships.
    The researchers found that 90 percent of the lesbians surveyed had been
    recipients of one or more acts of verbal aggression from their intimate
    partners during the year prior to this study, with 31 percent reporting one or
    more incidents of physical abuse.[69]

    In a survey of 1,099 lesbians, the Journal of Social Service
    Research found that “slightly more than half of the [lesbians] reported
    that they had been abused by a female lover/partner. The most frequently
    indicated forms of abuse were verbal/emotional/psychological abuse and combined
    physical-psychological abuse.”[70] etc…

    There is a great article
    on how the terms “hetero/homo-sexual” as intrinsic identifiers to
    ones very person is a modern and devious development with damaging effects upon
    individuals and society since it’s inception.

    So is the above what sets off alarms in me about the article, OR, is it that
    the Author of the article a president of a CATHOLIC FAMILY and HUMAN “RIGHTS”
    INSTITUTE… This is getting as long as
    the article itself, so I will be brief but among please look at his, Mr. Ruse,
    own activist writing style as he countlessly pushs his support of this “Homophile”
    movement upon his readers and be aware.
    The examples given are all seemingly “perfect” people not struggling
    with homosexuality but rather finding their strength in it (and it does appear
    they find or are seeking actual strength in it as opposed to God and the
    sacramental lifestyle). He makes broad one-sided statements, such as
    the “possibility” of Newman being a homosexual, under the writes guise of other
    parties making the call to which he maintains his objectivity with a simple
    inserted “perhaps”.

    Let’s look at this: First, there is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever that
    Newman has any homosexual tendencies,
    (as per his biographer Fr. Fer) and Newman’s writings certainly suggest
    he did not, so the only item put forth (as amazingly also thrown out there by
    this article and left dangling) is his simple desire to be buried near a close
    friend [what would they be saying about poor Newman if he asked to be buried
    near a female friend, the poor saint is in a lose lose situation as you can
    see]. CS Lewis is buried in the same
    grave as his brother, at both brother’s request. And CS Lewis was married
    during the latter part of his life to a woman he grew to love deeper than a brother
    (if you read his writings) but it is in his brother’s grave he now lays.. so [sarcasm]
    would we thus have cause to believe CS Lewis had Homosexual Incestuous tendency…
    should I say “perhaps”, no of course not.

    Finally, I could go on
    and on but will offer one last example to shorten things,, THE AUTHOR HAS THE
    GALL, to write “Their ideal is that you can draw close to someone of the
    same-sex, love them intimately and intensely, yet never cross the line into
    sexual activity. They point to the relationship between Jesus and young John as
    a model.” This is okay, and can be true
    (although as a married man I no better than to draw close to another (and under
    this case it would have to be a female I would be attracted to to equivocate
    with the homosexual attraction being discussed) females other than my wife
    thinking I could “love them intimately and intensely yet never cross the line
    into sexual activity”… this would be considered foolishness by many.. I can and
    should love them Godly from a distance,… so even that point the author conveys
    can be debatable BUT BUT BUT the author
    CHOOSES to follow it with, in the authors own words now: “Recall John was the
    “one whom Jesus loved” and who laid his head on Jesus’ chest, something if done
    today would clearly be considered gay.”
    WOW … my young son lays his head lovingly on my chest all the time. My own Father is Greek, and when I have been
    with him in that country (very expressive emotional people, like Italians J , it is a different
    culture) he and I have dear friends who are fellow guy’s who we greet with a
    hug & a kiss on the cheek, who lean against us etc… it is not a “CLEARLY be
    considered gay” thing but a cultural and time thing. Look at all the men dancing together (ever
    seen fiddler on the roof) and not with women for centuries… John did this the
    just before Jesus Died on the cross (the apostles knew the dangerous sentiment
    going on and that they and Jesus may killed soon… I’ve seen soldiers and others
    in situations where death is possible actually lay their head lovingly one the
    chest of a friend (of the same gender), it is human nature, it is cultural, it
    is a deep expression of caring but it is clearly NOT homosexual in nature.

    Thank you for
    your time to anyone that read all this,, sorry if it is jumbled as it was typed
    quickly and off the cuff as a response to a dangerous movement . I support their living within Church
    teaching, I support and love them as people , but I do not support the wolf in
    sheeps clothing “homophile” movement within the Church any more than I
    supported the movement for contraception use as a valid, beautiful, responsible
    expression of spousal love that was/is also pushed by activists at the detriment
    of society, the Church community, the very nature of family, and especially the
    individuals, themselves, who are pushing is the wrong while it harms even and especially
    them. AND I, and those whom share my opinion
    do so out of & are led by love, and only love.

  • Art Deco

    One does get the impression of a good deal of attention-seeking behavior with all of this, particularly re Gonnerman and his chums. (One did not get that impression of David Morrison, who was writing on these topics about 15 years ago and gave up public commentary after a few years). Under most circumstances, it is quite irregular to make a public point of one’s personal vices. (Some of us noticed that subterranean editors at First Things allowed these characters to bogart a lot of pixels, which deleting acerbic commentary about them. Familiar).

  • “He’s describing a new school of which he is a prominent member—out and proud men and at least one woman and their straight friends calling for the Church to “develop” Her teaching on homosexuality.”

    Oh! …The Church needs to develop Her understanding of homosexuality! As if the Church, in Her two thousand years, hasn’t ever dealt with homosexuality. What a crock.

    Just as the rest of the modernist heretics that have flooded into the Church, continue to bore out all Divine substance, hollowing Holy Mother Church into an institution of anthropocentric worship, and resurrecting every single ancient heresy as if they were new, these homosexual modernists contend that Holy Mother Church is deficient in Her understanding of the fundamentals of the “homosexual person.”
    That term in and of itself is a fallacy, as persons, in substance, are not their sexual orientation.

    I’m not a limp-wristed Catholic. We are the Church Militant for a reason, in constant battle with Satan on earth, ..and crap like this makes me furious.
    I pray that these people repent and desist from what they are trying to achieve… but until then, we should not even give these modernists “God-speed” lest we become complicit in their wickedness.

    • Objectivetruth


  • Bill

    I am comfortable with the concept of “New Homophile.” Would then, the Church, encourage this individual into the priesthood?

    • Gay men and those with other sexual issues were encouraged to enter the priesthood in the past. Didn’t turn out well, to say the least.

    • givelifeachance2

      How can someone with a disordered understanding of sexuality possibly minister to those entering the Sacrament of Marriage? Is this not possibly a good explanation for much of the annulment crisis – that they had (at best) clueless pastors administering matrimony (a word which means “mothermaking” but a homosexual wouldn’t understand).

  • CadaveraVeroInnumero

    Looks like we’re still discussing!

    Mr. Ruse, awhile back ask the right question, the need in this conversation for proper use of words. Such as his, “How should homosexuality be described?”

    Wish in this forum we could be a bit barnyard-like. Would help in the definition business. If the definition is confined to homosexual acts the definition tends towards limitation. Let’s see: the male sex member put here and there (both for receptor and initiator – often a matter of roles based on the pairing). There, that’s it. Definition done.

    Maybe (and it should) the definition should expand to secondary acts which lead (groom) towards the primary acts. Pushing the definition out further, it should also include the element (the agency) 0pf intent: the desire, the rehearsal upon the emotions and within the mind of the secondary and primary acts. Then comes the actual planning to place oneself (or, to place another) into a position to activate those acts. Also, to refine the definition, for those who are abstaining from both the secondary and primary acts, the definition should include the active remembrance of past homosexual acts (and relationship), using them as markers in one’s personal identity, means of relating to the others and the world at large.

    So, again, what is homosexuality? What is it that one (a Faithful Catholic Homophile, FCH) must abstain from in order to claim he/she is not participating in sin.

    So, again, strip away the ACTS what is left of the homosexual CONDITION? (If that is possible.)

    Is the homosexual CONDITION simply a matter of preference of “hangin’ out) with one sex over the other. (Actually, that’s a cheating notion. For, on the level of comfort, many homosexuals – thinking mostly of “gay” men – they deal with a great sense of unease with other men unless the connecting tissue is sexual attraction. I’ll get a hell for saying that, but so be it.)

    So what is it? We have known from time immemorial what homosexual ACTS are, so, putting aside the ACTS, what is left? Since, according to the New Homophiles, we are now instructed to dignify the homosexual CONDITION, what is it? What is the homosexual CONDITION of the “homosexual person”? Come one, guys, what is it?

    Or, is the crux of this conversation just an attempt to pretty up those barnyard ACTS?

    NEXT TIME: Is it more difficult for homosexuals be to chaste than heterosexuals? Humm!!

    • Thomas R

      I would think it is in the condition of having one’s primary or exclusive sexual attractions/thoughts be directed at one’s own sex.

  • KathleenWagner

    “Note the careful triple “perhaps,” a columnist’s way of taking something off the fastball but throwing a strike nonetheless.”

    Is it? I’d have said it was just bad writing. I used to do that sort of thing before I learned better – in high school.

  • Pingback: Monday, 12/23/13 | Tipsy Teetotaler()

  • Judy StJohn

    O, the tricks of the devil are so very wily! The devil is the ultimate trickster. What a ‘crock’ this crap is all about! Anybody can change with God. These people are working for the devil and always trying to take down the church. That is the job of the devil. Don’t fall for this garbage. A saint once said, all sin should make us vomit.

  • CadaveraVeroInnumero

    Most likely, we are approaching the end of traffic on this article – being Christmas and all. Even so I highly encourage you to read the article linked below by Robert Oscar Lopez. (A bi-sexual man, but much despised by the homophile community – maybe even by Faithful Catholic Homophiles (FCH).

    Much more than than the article suggests. Much more. In a few sentences hew devastates the self-deluding “urban myth” of “I knew i was gay when I was five”. Read the paragraph in which he sums up his life: it is also, more than you care to admit,


    The author does not use the “exceptionalism”, but the very notion of “homosexual exceptionalism” is slain and left bleeding on the this battlefield once his points are seriously taken.

    Link it, open it, read it. I dare you.

    “Why I Cannot Blame Russia and India for Taking on the Gays” by Robert Oscar Lopez. Site: American Thinker. (Go to archive, read his others.)

    ALSO: Go read Ms. Randy Engel’s mult-ivolume work, “The Rites of Sodomy”. (Also available on Kindle )Disagree, rip her thesis apart if you need to. I don’t care. But she needs to be considered in this campaign to to transfigure the CONDITION of homosexuality into a “gift”.

    In the upcoming Synod on the Family – though the issue of remarried non-communing Catholic will be thew forefront public concern – the underlying, undercurrent agenda will be this homophilic furor over the “giftedness of the homosexual condition”. This is the agenda item on which the secular 9and homophilic Catholic) press will be focused on. It is this issue upon which they give give their final judgment on the papacy of Pope Francis. The synod will yield or TIME magazine will need to plaster a a cover with an Obama-like “We Apologize”; The Advocate will need to put the pope’s face on their cover, but this time with a bulls-eye target. Are you ready for that?

  • Pamela

    I am truly trying to have an open mind about this, but I have never accepted the idea that homosexuality is anything more than a sexual perversion. For a homosexual (I’m sorry, but I refuse to use the term “gay” which, for me, will always and forever retain it’s original meaning of “happy”) to think he or she is a faithful Catholic because he or she has chosen to remain celibate boggles my mind. Our catechism is clear on this: homosexuality is disordered and sinful. Why on God’s green earth would anyone want to be recognized–to even be valued–because of his or her perverse sexual preference?
    And the now celibate lady in this article who “looks back with fondness” on her lesbian relationships…?! Are you kidding me? She should be on her knees praising God that she has escaped her slavery to this sin! Imagine a confessed adulterer looking back with happy memories of his steamy affair.
    Again, my mind is open to the Truth, but this redefinition of homosexuality isn’t cutting the muster.

    • Adam__Baum

      “Our catechism is clear on this: homosexuality is disordered and sinful”.
      Homosexual ACTS are disordered and sinful. The inclination is a temptation. If somebody remains chaste (even after indulging) that is a cause of celebration.
      I think the example of Christ telling the woman caught in adultery is instructive here.

      • Pamela

        My point exactly.. Homosexuality IS nothing outside of the “act” … if you have the desire for perverse sex but refuse to give in to it, than you are not a homosexual any more than you are a car thief because you had the desire to steal a car but didn’t give in. We are to avoid even having sinful thoughts, because they increase the temptation and lead to the sinful act. So calling oneself “homosexual” is laying claim to a desire for perverse sexual behavior and putting oneself in grave danger of submitting to the temptation. Just give up the label of homosexuality and get on with your life as a good and faithful Catholic.

        • givelifeachance2

          Bump this one to the top! And all the gay-hooraying is a tremendous threat to impressionable youngsters who had no idea they were signing up for lifelong celibacy by adopting the label “gay”.

        • Thomas R

          One shouldn’t think of oneself as one’s disorder. But I don’t think that means one must deny the disorder exists. Being aware of one’s disorder might make it easier to avoid the sin.

          I will admit some things I’ve read here do trouble me. I really think I have been a more faithful Catholic the last few years, or trying, and I’ve argued against those who think homosexual actions can be justified by the Bible or Christian tradition. I certainly thought I was quite orthodox on this. But some things said here are well discouraging. I mean I don’t believe them, I still think of homosexuality more as a mental disorder akin to alcoholism, but there is some basis for thinking I should. And much of them amount to that I’ve been too kind to others or myself. That I should be far more severe, intolerant, and maybe even unforgiving. That thinking homosexuality is a grave sin is not enough, I must also support the ostracizing or maybe even imprisonment of those who practice it. And even if that made sense that’s not going to get people, in this society, to behave better. (Besides putting homosexuals in a prison or institution might make sinning in this manner even easier) It’s just going to make Catholics sound like fanatical crackpots.

          It’s like in principle I can see the logic in saying we should live under a Constitutional Monarchy, or Republic, that has the Catholic faith as the established church. Or that women should not be allowed to vote for the reasons the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia seems to argue. But understanding the logic doesn’t mean I believe that or could easily make myself believe that. And even if I could repealing the Nineteenth Amendment or trying to make the US an officially Catholic nation is a fools errand. The Catholic Church did adjust to a world where Catholicism isn’t the established religion even in majority Catholic nations. And where I had to read Voltaire for a class.

  • givelifeachance2

    To use the word “gay” is to accept the behavior as positive, and to actually promote it to your readers. Substitute “sodomy-attracted” and you can see a truer side of the affliction, which has never been proven to be hardwired.

    Why single out sodomy for exceptionalism? Why not overeaters, those tempted to murder, or cannibalism?

    It “gaydom” that is because of the constant “thrum” of the marxstream media, which aims to obliterate the family. Once “gay” (even “celibate” (!?)) marriage (!) is possible, the state will have the proper matrix to farm out its test-tube conceptions en masse. Bus t even so, asking homosexuals to live “like brother and brother” is about as promising as just eating one Dorito. Or as promising as Notre Dame just “engaging” with Obama rather than the kinging of Obama that actually took place.

    • NDaniels

      A false ecumenism is dialogue without desiring conversion. We engage others with the hope that they will be lead to Christ, and thus Salvation.

      Christ Has Revealed, through His Life, His Passion, and His Death on The Cross, that Love is desiring Salvation for one’s beloved. The Sacrifice of The Cross Is The Sacrifice of The Most Holy, The Blessed Trinity, “For God so Loved us that He sent His only Son…”

      Outside The Catholic Church, there is no Salvation, for it is through, with, and in Christ, in the unity of God’s Holy Spirit, that The Body of Christ exists, although there will be some, like The Good Thief, who will come late to The Fold. At the end of the day, it is still a Great Mystery, but it is no mystery that we exist because Perfect Trinitarian Love exists.

      “No one can come to My Father except through Me.” – Jesus The Christ

  • Christophe

    I was considering responding to the year-end donation appeal from Crisis, but not after this article from Mr. Ruse.

    • Guest

      Why? You do not like exposing the truth of these matters?

    • Deacon Ed Peitler

      Please let me know the exact amount you were intending to donate and I will then gladly write out a check for that amount. But, please, be honest about the amount.

  • George

    Elizabeth just tipped her hand. She just posted the following to Facebook with the comment:

    “Hands down, the best thing I’ve read on the endless Duck Dynasty story.”

    Wow. The article basically accepts the “Paul was talking about coercive behavior, but we’re talking about loving consensual behavior now” line. So no, she doesn’t accept the teachings of the Church on this issue. She needs to just come out of the closet, so to speak.

    • Guest

      It is one more pseudo- academic piece that places so-called scholarship above Church teaching. We no longer follow the apostles but academic types. Who is the true authority here?

      These types of people will explain away the moral law and replace it with shallow emotions, pop psychology, and slanted academics. The usual suspects.

      • NDaniels

        Identifying oneself or someone else as a sexual object, according to sexual desire, is an act of lust. Regardless of desire or consent, a disordered inclination remains a disordered inclination that one should desire to transform. There are a multitude of men and women, who have been able to overcome their disordered same-sex sexual attractions and develop healthy and Holy relationships and friendships that are grounded in authentic Love.

  • CadaveraVeroInnumero

    Well? Is it more difficult for homosexuals to maintain a chaste life than heterosexuals? Answer – yes. Why? Because homosexuality is a “disordered” sexuality, from the get go. So, what are the implications. Any guesses out there?

    Once more, highly recommend reading the last article by Robert Oscar Lopez:

    He devastates the current myths about homosexuality, especially the agenda of the “gay community”: its ferocious evangelizing of 5th and 6th graders. The author rips the dark veil from the snarling, growling secret of the homosexual life: its all-surrender pilgrimage for homosexuality’s holy grail – youth. Its a god whose hunger is insatiable. Interestingly, with the current “gay” victories trumpeting our moral ear deaf, the gay”community” is unveiling its dark secret with great fan-fair. They are staking their “exceptional” claim upon our children’s bedrooms and classroom; whispering nasties in their young ears, that “You have been gay you were five. It’s time to be mentored in the glories of “gay exceptionalism. For you are special, very special.

    The gay life looks upon the face of God as no other. Limits, boundaries, definitions: when it comes to sexuality, we smash them, release their hold so we can present to God a universal sexual oneness that images God’s universal one. A sodomite life is the only sexual expression that can All this talk about complementarity of sexual opposites is a distraction, a false flag. The goal of sex is the release of one’s sexual oneness into its mirror image – only in that movement can one witness to God’s Oneness, God’s Oneness is total, we could almost say totalitarian. He complements nothing. To be worthy to participates in God’s One Life our sexuality – which is the nourishing taproot of our person, the primary vessel in which God pours his Life – must have no encumbrances, no borders, boundaries, restrictions. Those of us who are homosexual know that (possess the gnosis of that) as no other – and we know that through the sodomite ACT. Our release, our giving of ourselves into the sexuality of one who mirrors us makes us acceptable receptacles for God’s one, totalitarian life.

    Homosexuality is the denial of God’s Trinitariian Life.

    The Cathers, the adepts of the French Revolution with their “Aesthetics of Sexual Terror”, the great rebellion of Romanticism, Neitzsche, the Woten sodomy of Nazism, the Astec Nagual priesthood,Horus of the Nile, the Tantric Master, the crushing, leveling sexuality of Islam, and above all, the smothering cultural influence of Alasteir Crowley: these are the forefathers of “Homosexual Exceptionalism”. The Faithful Catholic Homophiles (FCH) can’t match them, for all their talk of specialized, set-apart spirituality.

    Homophilles are elected for nothing but repentance and conversion of grace.

    (Disheartened and discouraged in BANKRUPT Diocese of Stockton)

  • Pingback: Quacking On About Duck Dynasty, Homoeroticism, And Usefulness Of The Historical-Critical Method()

  • thebigdog

    Rather than apologizing for the empty promise of a “gay gene” — we just receive more arrogant condescending lectures.

  • naturgesetz

    A response from Gabriel Blanchard, detailing where he thinks Austin Ruse gets it wrong.

    His best line, IMO, is, “Take the concession Ruse makes about Christ and certain saints [having intimate friendships]. Well, the Scriptures command us to imitate Christ, and one of the things that a canonization means is precisely that a person is worthy of imitation. If we aren’t supposed to imitate Christ and the saints, then who the hell can we imitate?”

    Another good one: “You don’t see the phrase often today, but Catholic moralists used to talk about the dangers of “morose delectation”: that is, pleasure in thinking and speaking of the wickedness of others.”

    I’ll leave you with the following, but there’s lots more in the post itself: “I think, too, that the language we use — not the essential message, but the language — has serious defects, not because of internal problems, but because of the divergence between what the Church means by certain words and what the culture at large means by them. And the thing is, when it comes to evangelism, it is we who need to go to the wor[l]d. We don’t get to just sit around waiting for them to recognize how right we are because they finally got around to reading a theological dictionary. It is we who must translate our language, not because Catholicism isn’t right, but because it is, and its rightness is being obscured by terminological discrepancies between the Church and the culture. When that is kind of the barrier we’re dealing with, stubbornness over terms suggest pride and laziness rather that steadfastness about the truth. “

    • Thomas R

      That language issue can be a problem. I think I read “Perfidious” can mean “half-believing” so wasn’t that bad a description of Judaism. (Belief in Old Testament, but not new) However the other meaning was so common that after WWII I seem to recall Pius XII had instructions to explain what the prayer about “perfidious Jews” really meant. Then it was just pretty much dropped outright.

    • Guest

      In world that worships all things gay and insists that homosexual desire is normal and healthy I find it disingenuous anyone would call exposing propaganda as taking pleasure in another person’s faults. This type of charge is typical of the gay agenda. We have fallen so far down the toilet we no longer have common sense or any sense of justice or concern for our children.

      As for evangelization we ought to place things in proper perspective. First not everything is about evangelization. We have an obligation to oppose laws and ideologies that help destroy society. Secondly evangelization does not mean adopting false theories to spread the Good News.

      • Thomas R

        I think it’s abnormal and that acting on it is a sin. It is a disorder inclining a person to acts that cut sexuality off from new life and the other sex.

        I just didn’t think that we had to go further than that. Many here seem to believe believe it can be cured and/or to uphold that gays are rapists. I didn’t see that as a requirement of the Catechism as I knew it. I guess you could find some catechism support in thinking AIDS is a curse to kill gays or that Katrina was a punishment for homosexuality, but I’ve never had the sense that’s necessary or even common for orthodox Catholics (including Popes) to believe.

        I really wouldn’t have thought, before coming here, that seeing homosexuality as a disorder that leads one to grave sin (but that people with the disorders can rise above that and maybe even learn something through the struggle. For example the one guy did say the “gift of friendship” was just because they can’t marry so they have to focus on friendship) was all that wussy and liberal. I still don’t want to believe Catholicism equivalent, if only on this issue, to the Westboro Baptists.

    • NDaniels

      No doubt, the terms,”heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, transexual, polysexual…”, are not and can never be part of The Language of Love, for to identify oneself or someone else as an object of sexual desire/orientation, is a violation of God’s Commandment regarding lust and the sin of adultery.

  • NDaniels

    To be chaste is to not have impure thoughts, it is not simply not acting on impure thoughts. Why would someone not desire to overcome impure thoughts of any nature so that they may develop relationships and friendships that are respectful of themselves and others?
    Love is not possessive, nor is it coercive, nor does it serve to manipulate for the sake of self-gratification.
    As the mother of a daughter who developed a same-sex sexual attraction as the result of the perfect storm, this post simply reaffirms what I have witnessed in my own daughter, that the whole concept of “homophiles” is a developmental issue. How tragic that so many are not able to heal their wounds and develop a sense of self esteem that enables them to see themselves and others not as objects of sexual desire but as young men and women, worthy of being treated with Dignity and respect in private as well as in public.

  • CadaveraVeroInnumero

    Here I am, Christmas Eve, and I’m popping a remark on this subject. Why not. This sad Dissociative Identity Disability (moral, spiritual) topic touches upon the souls and lives of far too many. Like the young man, dear to my heart, who is now “took and taken” because he dearly wished to climb Purgatory Hill and blast the life out of the man who raped him: a very much respected homophile in our community. He still lives on the Hill. Or the willowy drop-dead gorgeous “Vogue”, perfectly transformed from male to female; bright, cherry, compassionate, who, on our last conversation, pleaded “It was not suppose to be like this”. Then there is rar sniffing parade of cars pacing up and down Santa Monica Blvd, in Los Angeles – passenger-side windows open – for the peering look and gestering finger; the opening and slamming of doors, the constant stepping in and stepping out, the folded bill, and the often showing of wallet photos of wives and children after the deed was done – especially if the done need to ugly and violent. These are the lives of homophiles.

    Now do read the article below. Why not on this Christmas Eve when shepherds were out in the fields tending sheep. For a harrowing moment, before the great rejoicing of Heaven Hosts, there was the Demon’s Roar. For on that day not only was Our Savior born, but also the devilish nativity of the final battle of this Great War.

    “Reality Bites Gays” by Roslynn Smith (American Thinker)

    And, please, if you haven’t, read the one by Robert Oscar Lopez on “Russia and India” (on that site’s home page). It will lay you prostrate in pray.

    Now, as for prayers, I must do mine for my “took and taken” friend. Going out for that one last gift for the wife, hope I don’t have look across the garland strung street and see the man from Purgatory Hill drive past in his maroon car. Don;t need this day spoiled with that.

  • Michael Ryan

    Its pretty obvious to those of us not isolated from this part of the world not to say a part of it; that this is certainly only rarely a psychological result of trauma and other externals.Because we are a sex selected species though its unlikely its genetic and most likely a virus of sorts.In any case its almost always beyond ones control respecting the orientation itself, and since it effects the mechanics of our species even all species prime directive- the reproductive system which so much of our biology which includes our psychology and its penumbra and umbras of culture is oriented in support of, that resisting this impulse not just away from all but one but away from anyone,is not something many can do, remember those we hold up as examples of that complete chastity have been given a gift or calling of the highest order, not the case of the average catholic gay
    Trust me I am certainly not gay or a gay apologist or supporter of things gay. The priests who abused children were not pedophiles, they were overwhelmingly gays that compared dismally with the heterosexual Priests regarding the biologically natural attraction to youth and I certainly hope the creator has a particularly tortuous fire prepared for them and their co conspirators in the seminaries and Church hierarchies that facilitated this.
    That said the short answer to gays and any that would like the church to change is become a protestant.
    However those willing to struggle as sinners should be understood as either very sick ill individuals, or possibly if its indeed a genetic adaptation the bearers of a burden that benifits our species in some ways we haven’t thought of. Obviously God must have some purpose in both cases and its unlikely to give us something to fight about. My purpose is that treating this meanly or stupidly does not serve the creator.Gay culture for the most part is surely depraved, so is black culture for the most part,and many other cultures we could think of but while the sin is not particularly evil like blackness the burden is particularly hard, Can we as Christians not lessen those burdens without fetishistizing the sin and its support system

  • NDaniels

    God’s Grace and Mercy are available to every person who desires to overcome their disordered inclinations, whatever they may be, so that we are not led into temptation, but become transformed through The Word of Love Made Flesh.

    • Pat

      “These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.”

      The sentence immediately prior to the one you linked.

      Don’t twist the Catechism to suggest that any person who prays hard enough will no longer have to bear a cross that it may be part of their vocation to endure faithfully for life. Miracles happen, but they are not to be treated like a merit badge for sufficient faithfulness and dedication. There is already a reward for faithfulness and good works, and it is one that no one of us could be worthy of without Christ’s intervention.

      • NDaniels

        There are many different types and degrees of disordered inclinations, some more difficult to overcome than others; this does not change the fact that if one desires to overcome their disordered inclinations, with the proper guidance and Love, one can become transformed through God’s Gift of Grace and Mercy. Miracles happen every day.

        • Pat

          There are diseases that can not be cured, but can be managed effectively. In such cases it is best to approach it as something that can be managed, rather than implying that if they are faithful enough, they’ll be cured miraculously.
          That’s setting them up for a crisis of faith if they aren’t cured.

          The same is the case for many people with same sex attraction. There’s no solid science showing a method we can control that reliably does more than manage the condition, so making blanket suggestions that it can be “overcome” is dangerously close to *promising* a miracle.

          I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again.
          Miracles are real.
          Miracles are NOT a vending machine. They are not dispensed automatically in exchange for sufficient prayer and faith.
          Miracles are NOT a merit badge. They are not awarded for being “moral enough.”

          Miracles happen, but they happen on God’s terms, not ours, and we do not know the mind of God.

      • NDaniels

        Trust and believe in The Truth of Love!

        • Pat

          With what frequency are serious alcoholics miraculously freed of their disordered desire to drink to excess, versus how often is the miracle the strength and social support to handle the disorder?

          I don’t get why people insist I don’t believe in miracles when I say that.

          Just because the miracle comes in the form of being able to handle suffering and offer it as a sacrifice (rather than having temptation just go away) doesn’t make it any less miraculous.

          • NDaniels

            Pat, God has been known to bestow His Grace through others who serve as Loving examples to guide us. God desires we overcome our disordered inclinations so that we can live our lives in authentic Loving relationship.

  • FrPhillip De Vous

    I’m afraid I can’t buy this. For any number of sinful temptations, pathologies, disorders, states of mind, etc there can and are a variety of factors that bring those things about–environment, experience, exposure, nature, and nurture. Most of us can’t help how they got there, but we can do something with how we act in relation to them through grace and virtue. It doesn’t really matter what the genesis is, so much as what our actions are, guided by the truth of nature and grace. No sane person would argue that ANY disposition that was out of tune with our redeemed nature is a gift. Such states, which we all experience, are burdens–crosses to be exact. From disorder to gift is not only a long walk, but an impossible one.

    • The majority of LGBTPS&Ms are people who don’t want to go treat their perverted and deformed minds. They seek to pursue every deformity their mind produce. And they keep bringing up reasons to rationalize this one way or another. Until society sends a clear message that they are required to go treat their twisted minds, they will push entirely the other way.
      And they will go corrupt all churches in the most disgusting way right before our eyes.

  • entonces_99

    But you will never find male or female Numeraries becoming close friends
    with the opposite sex. It is quite literally playing with fire.

    In which “literally” means, quite literally, “not literally at all but figuratively.”

  • Marianne

    NARCISSISM, indeed, is the Word for this feeling of being so very “special”.
    Gays (I don´t like the acceptance even of this phoney expressionb!) seem to be totally fixated on homosexuality, whether they are catholics or not, making their sexual orientation the center of their lives, also in their relation to the church.
    Around 200-300 MILLIONS of Christians in the (mainly muslim) world are being brutally persecuted. I now ask Elisabeth Scalia and her gay friends if they consider themselves “more special” than those Christians.
    As for Ms Scalia, she is a very intelligent lady, writing very well., However, I have to admit that I always found her writings somewhat “babbling”; too many words, simply.. That is one reason why I soon felt I could find better and more convincing arguments elsewhere.
    Of course, after her latest stance on gays, as being “special”, my confidence for Scalia has totally vanished.
    All the rest of us have to accept and bear our crosses – and believe me, ms Scalia and friends, that it is not difficult to find people having to carry a much heavier cross than gays do.

    • I don’t know that it makes sense to speak of heavier crosses. It may, I suppose, but really, I think that generally our crosses are crafted for our backs and held up by grace, each fitting perfectly and balanced by God’s love, if we’ll claim it.

    • I suspect her “wonderings” re this topic are her way of reconciling her Catholicism with her brother’s sexuality, choices and subsequent death. IIRC, when he died she wrote that he had rejected the Church – don’t recall if he rejected Christ altogether, but it must have been terribly painful for her, probably still is, either way.

      I agree that she’d be more generally readable if her writing wasn’t so overwrought and emotional, and also if she wasn’t so tediously control-freaky when dealing with others, but maybe that’s partly due to the messed up childhood she endured – one that no doubt contributed to her brother’s lack of faith and maybe even his sexual identity.

    • NARCISSISM, indeed, is the Word for this feeling of being so very “special”.
      Plus, all these “homophiles” are proving is that for a pervert, nothing is perverted.

  • Pingback: Mere Links 12.26.13 - Mere Comments()

  • Pingback: This Week’s Best in Catholic Apologetics -/- DavidLGray.INFO()

  • CadaveraVeroInnumero

    Mama Bear needs to read the link below, so she can protect the cubs.

    Chaste Catholic “gays” are fodder for the agenda folks. It’s war out there. Until the agenda is completely, utterly the totalitarian homosexuals will not be satisfied. They will tolerate the notion of chasteness as long as it is fuel for the fire. And this conceit of “gay exceptionalism” (chaste, God-given, as an admittance into an elevated of God – as no other) is their shield and sword in establishing the radical-sex caliphate.(Do not underestimate their political and cultural lust. For them, the fundamental organizing principle of society is radical – boundary-less, unfettered, fluid – sex.)

    Be so very afraid of GLADD, and their ilk. They are the host that roared black terror, to the watchful shepherds, before the Host of Heaven trumpeted the birth of his fleshly salvation.

    Unprotected, the bear cubs will be devoured by the boards.

  • happiness1535

    I will write something unpopular regarding those with SSA forming emotionally intimate same-sex friendships.

    The risk of sexual temptation is justified.

    The intention is not evil in itself, the emotional benefits of intimate friendship do not result from the sexual temptation, the good results from the emotional intimacy, and avoiding the harm from deprivation of such (suicide, compulsive masturbation, etc.) equals/outweighs the potential evil effect of such sexual temptation.

    The risk can be minimized by befriending OSA people who one is not romantically attracted to.

    Heterosexuals are in no position to counsel about the risks. They have never been in a situation where they had to form emotionally intimate, nonsexual bonds with members of the sex to which they might be attracted. If one is in that situation, and prays to god for the grace to succeed, it can be done.

    • Well, to be fair, persons whose sexual attractions are primarily homosexual, can also form friendship with persons of the opposite sex, just as heterosexuals would do so with persons of the same sex, and thereby gain intimacy without temptation.

      That said, I think you are basically right, and more so, because to the extent that homosexual inclinations are a sort of sexualized overcompensation for childhood deprivation of same-sex camaraderie, the only natural, healthy way to resolve the situation must include same-sex camaraderie.

      It’s like a child whose mother has died while the child is young: she needs mothering by someone, even by an auntie or a kind neighbor, or by her father’s friends’ wives, as a group. In like manner, if boy on some level feels rejected by his father and by his potential buddies, then he is going to need fathering and buddies, especially buddies that don’t have the same emotional deficits (nemo dat quod non habet) and don’t reject him on any level because of his particular needs.

      I think discouraging healthy friendships is always a bad idea, because friendships oriented toward virtue are always a good idea. The best way to keep potentially dangerous friendships (robbers can be friends, after all) good and safe and wholesome is to bring into them Jesus Christ.

      If we keep Jesus Christ as the foundation of anything, that thing can’t go very far wrong.

  • I think it needn’t be an either-or.

    Homosexuality can be ontologically disordered AND like any other cross, be a blessing to those who submit it to the saving power of grace; and not just to them, but to those who know and love them. And those people can in turn use that transformation and grace to reach people who otherwise could never be reached with the saving Gospel of Jesus Christ. If that’s not a special charism, I don’t know what is.

    I think it is an adolescent mistake to overly identify oneself with an particular facet of one’s self. My grandparents come from wherever, but I don’t walk around thinking of myself as German-American or Irish-American. It’s just a silly, childish thing to do. It’s a quest for belonging, and identity through belonging. The only way those questions actually get resolved is through coming to know and love God and the people who know and love us, starting with our family.

    Trouble is, a lot of people who experience same-sex attraction find themselves explicitly or subtly rejected in so many ways, and find communion, however distorted, first in the “gay” subculture, which surely is scarred and battered by sin. That said, I do not have any particular reason to think that it is more scarred and battered by sins so visible to us, than the broader culture is scarred and battered by sins we don’t notice or take for granted.

    And so we come back to it: there *is*, like it or not, a subculture of people who identify themselves and with each other on the basis of their same-sex attraction. Those people often *feel*, rightly or wrongly, rejected by their family, neighbors, and especially by Christians and Holy Church. How then, can we, who as the Church are called to be their mother, reach out to them? Here, if no place else, self-identified gay Catholics can serve a very real role and have a very real charism.

    As a final note, I think that these same self-identified gay Catholics are in a unique position for giving lie to so many of the Sexual Revolution’s mantras, doctrines, tropes, and bits of propaganda. In this way, there is a strong analogy between self-identified gay Catholics and women who have repented of their abortions and are committed to telling people about their experience of abortion as a destructive sin and grace as the means to healing and transformation into a new way of life.

    • Deacon Ed Peitler

      Well stated…a lot to consider here…especially the comparison with women who have had abortions….although the comparison goes only as far as the identified need for repentance on the part of those who acted on their ssa.

      • Right. I think they are not perfectly identical, but I think the analogy is actually further and wider than just the need for repentance.

        Our culture has all these misconceptions that lead to accepting abortion even where we personally wouldn’t have one: the blob-of-tissue trope, the it-doesn’t-hurt-anyone nonsense, and so forth. Women who have experienced abortion and know how deeply it shatters things can give powerful witness.

        In like manner, men and women who have lived homosexual relationships and in a gay subculture can witness to our society the full truth of these things – which the media and intelligentsia of our culture studiously ignore and suppress, because these things aren’t as, um, pretty or hygienic as “Will and Grace” might make them out to be.

    • cajaquarius

      Unfortunately, I don’t think Ruse and his ilk are interested in discussions of silver linings and hidden blessings. That is why he uses the word “homophile” – it is a reference to “pedophile”, made to inspire the same hatred, fear, and disgust for us that you would rightly have for the latter. The celibate gay Catholic represents a danger to those who seek to separate homosexuals like myself out from the rest of the flock of humanity. Visible homosexuals who are open about what they are in the Church help to humanize us and make it harder for the traditionalist to demonize us and kill* us. I may not be of the Side B types myself, but I can appreciate that they are very important lest the Churches they inhabit cloister themselves off from the real world and teach their lies, unchecked.

      * Kill maybe a strong word. The more common tactic of the more civilized and modern nation is to isolate them from family, friends, and similar folks of their kind in order to foster mental illness in the hopes that they take their own lives. A sad but effective tactic and one I am only too happy to cast light on where I can.

      • Cajaquarius, you are clearly intelligent, and not looking for polemic, I don’t think, even despite the bit about killing.

        The thing is that first, one has to admit that homosexuality is not a sin, but a phenomenon, and one that probably cannot be directly influenced by those who experience it to varying degrees.

        I do think that Mr. Ruse, et al., are eager to see brothers and sisters in Christ *not* identify themselves primarily by this inclination, or any other inclination, except the inclination to love Christ. Self-descriptions like “a homosexual” rather than “having homosexual tendencies”, and even more so, “gay”, tend to reduce a person to a single dimension, even if it is arguably the most important single dimension of human life.

        I do not smell any desire in Mr. Ruse’s writings to demonize anybody, let alone kill anybody, or see them commit suicide.

        The second thing that has to be admitted is that homosexual genital expression is no more sinful than any number of other sins, but nonetheless, like any gravely sinful act, is incompatible with life in Christ. Now, saying that these acts are incompatible with life in Christ is not saying that persons who undertake such acts are bad or unwanted in the Church. In any event, the Church is filled with bad and mediocre people like myself, and we are all of us deeply, passionately wanted. What is not wanted is sin, because sin harms the person and the whole community, even if we cannot see its effects immediately, obviously. This “invisibility of sin” is because one of sin’s first effects is to blind us to its real nature and real effects. Also, saying that homosexual genital acts are sinful, that is harmful even if not felt as harmful, is not to say that the Church wants anyone to loveless. On the contrary, the Church warns against sins, in this case, homosexual genital acts, because they harm love, even when they seem to enhance it. The Church would be a bad mother if she did not warn her children away from such things. In essence, the Church’s teaching on homosexual acts is like the world’s teaching on cigarette smoking: it might feel good on so many levels at the time, but over time, it is bad for you, even if you cannot see how.

        The Church might be wrong in this message, but she is not motivated by hate or a desire to demonize.

        The Church wants every human being to know the love of God and to feel that reflected also in their relationships with those around them. Just like some acts are incompatible with love, some acts are incompatible with that. So the Church warns us away, and instead, points us toward the sort of activities that build up life and love: service to family and friends, and especially to the poor; praying and living together; good, clean fun; the sacraments.

        Feel free to email me at if you would like to discuss these things more personally. I wish you all the best, Cajaquarius.

        • cajaquarius

          [Cajaquarius, you are clearly intelligent, and not looking for polemic, I don’t think, even despite the bit about killing.]

          With notable exceptions where someone has made misinformation about homosexuals a personal crusade or a means of making themselves rich/famous (eg Scott Lively, Mark Regnerus, etc) most people who push hurtful ideology or bad science are merely ignorant to the harm they do and I do not hate them for it. I think most are generally good so this wasn’t meant as an attack on others so much as an attack on the flawed ideology. I use harsh language at times so I do apologize if that was unclear.

          [The thing is that first, one has to admit that homosexuality is not a sin, but a phenomenon, and one that probably cannot be directly influenced by those who experience it to varying degrees.]

          I agree. It is very ill understood all around.

          [I do think that Mr. Ruse, et al., are eager to see brothers and sisters in Christ *not* identify themselves primarily by this inclination, or any other inclination, except the inclination to love Christ. Self-descriptions like “a homosexual” rather than “having homosexual tendencies”, and even more so, “gay”, tend to reduce a person to a single dimension, even if it is arguably the most important single dimension of human life.]

          I have heard this before and always find this reasoning quite strange. Would you consider a Catholic who went to school for eight years to learn architecture and, subsequently, refers to himself publically as an architect someone who considers himself an architect and nothing more or an architect instead of a follower of Christ? If not then why do this for someone who identifies as a homosexual or gay?

          [I do not smell any desire in Mr. Ruse’s writings to demonize anybody, let alone kill anybody, or see them commit suicide.]

          Our romantic drive to become one with another is a deep and abiding one that goes beyond mere flesh. I fell in love once with a man who became terrified of the idea of letting me close and disappeared. I still pray for him, still send him letters to let him know I care, and still think of him here and there. Romance and love as inspired timeless myth and stories, from the story of Gilgamesh and Ekidnu fighting over a woman, to the Illiad poem, to the myth of Persiphone, and so on.

          To not admit this aspect is integral to our personality and development as people, both in flesh and spirit, is dishonest. This is not like adultery, theft, murder, or the like. What Ruse is asking us to do – me to do – is deny this fundamental attribute of ourselves. A foundational pillar upon which sits our personality and our selves, every bit as much as it forms the pillar for a heterosexual.

          I don’t think Ruse is an evil man by any stretch but too many of my brethren are hurting and I can’t allow these sorts of statements, even if made in ignorance, to stand unopposed.

          [The second thing that has to be admitted is that homosexual genital expression is no more sinful than any number of other sins, but nonetheless, like any gravely sinful act, is incompatible with life in Christ. Now, saying that these acts are incompatible with life in Christ is not saying that persons who undertake such acts are bad or unwanted in the Church.]

          A point upon which I and the Church will have to agree to disagree. To boil lust down from a dark, selfish motivation to use another human being for personal gratification to a mere act is arbitrary and my conscience cannot accept it. Even back in my Confirmation classes and Life Teen group, no priest or CCD teacher could ever give me an adequate explanation as to why the Church will explore the reasons behind murder to judge whether it is a sin or justified (such as in ignorance, self defense, and so on) yet sex is just childishly black and white in how it is treated. That is another conversation, entirely, though, so I will digress.

          [In any event, the Church is filled with bad and mediocre people like myself, and we are all of us deeply, passionately wanted. What is not wanted is sin, because sin harms the person and the whole community, even if we cannot see its effects immediately, obviously. This “invisibility of sin” is because one of sin’s first effects is to blind us to its real nature and real effects.]

          I agree and seek to fight it in my own way where I can. I have referred many of my LGBT brethren to 12 step programs, treatment centers, and served as a sort of father figure for many of them. Many are resistant to the idea they need help or even have a problem so I am well aware of this invisibility. This may surprise you but, though I may walk the path of perdition, I never stopped believing in absolute morality – I merely came to disagree with the Church’s teachings. This came to a head and drove me away when I wound up falling in love with another man. The funny thing is, I am actually a virgin as far as that goes; I have never been with another man. The very thing that drove me from the Church and kept me from it is the unwillingness to accept that love – a love I still feel – as a sin.

          Without that acceptance, Reconciliation is impossible, as is the Eucharist, or any other Sacrament. Ironically, it is a respect for these Sacraments I was raised with and what they mean that have ensured I shall probably never call the Church my home again for as long as I live.

          [Also, saying that homosexual genital acts are sinful, that is harmful even if not felt as harmful, is not to say that the Church wants anyone to loveless. On the contrary, the Church warns against sins, in this case, homosexual genital acts, because they harm love, even when they seem to enhance it. The Church would be a bad mother if she did not warn her children away from such things. In essence, the Church’s teaching on homosexual acts is like the world’s teaching on cigarette smoking: it might feel good on so many levels at the time, but over time, it is bad for you, even if you cannot see how.

          The Church might be wrong in this message, but she is not motivated by hate or a desire to demonize.]

          Even if I am ex-Catholic I do not hate the Church because I realize her motivation is for good, even if I know she is wrong. I don’t doubt her love any more than I would doubt the love of a mother whose child gets polio because a trusted doctor of hers told her that vaccines cause autism. It is her wisdom I doubt. When her faulty wisdom leads her to become an enemy of the weak, I will stand as one of many shields to protect the sheep she and her misguided followers would seek to cast out into the darkness. Not because I hate the Church but because my conscience demands I protect and love my brethren.

          [The Church wants every human being to know the love of God and to feel that reflected also in their relationships with those around them. Just like some acts are incompatible with love, some acts are incompatible with that. So the Church warns us away, and instead, points us toward the sort of activities that build up life and love: service to family and friends, and especially to the poor; praying and living together; good, clean fun; the sacraments.]

          Appeals to salvation don’t sway me. I remember a boy who sat across from me in one class, when I was a freshman in high school. Girly, overtly flashy, and always smiling. Every week he had a bloodied nose, a black eye, a busted lip; some new injury he carried with him. He still smiled, still walked tall. I don’t think I ever spoke to him once in that time, afraid of joining in his suffering. I was and am a coward.

          I am lucky. I am straight looking – you would never know the truth about me if we met. Many are not as lucky. They pay the price for what I have been allowed to take for granted. Their pain bought me much of the freedom to come out and be what I am today. It bought me the luxury of safety. When I realized this – realized the enormity of the debt I owed these men who have suffered while I went about my own life, focused on my own things, turning my back on them the whole while – I cried.

          Many of these men and women have suffered deaths that would make Christ’s suffering and crucifixion at the hands of the Romans look like a dignified, quiet lethal injection by comparison. I may never repay what these many men have done for me but gambling my soul for their sakes is a good start. Serving as their shepherd and shield for as long as I live is a good start. I’ll not betray them again by kicking them into the flames to save myself.

          I do apologize if I misread that incompatible with God bit but my family has tried these sorts of appeals before so I tend to be overly ready to explain why they are made in vain. I sometimes read too much into things.

          [Feel free to email me at if you would like to discuss these things more personally. I wish you all the best, Cajaquarius.]

          Thank you for the email. I will keep the conversation here, though. Not because I dislike or mistrust you – you seem decent enough – it is mostly for posterity and so that the conversation might help others one way or another. Do take care of yourself as well.

          • Hi there, Cajaquarius. It’s been a while since you wrote me. I wasn’t delaying, but only thinking and praying of what best to say. I came across something that says all I can say, but better. It’s about 40 minutes long, so I understand that if you get to watching it, it might take a while.


            God bless. Drop a line if ever you like.

            • cajaquarius

              Thank you. A priest friend of mine from high school (he was just another peer in high school, he wasn’t a priest back then, but ordained later after we were both out) had actually mentioned this. I will watch it and give it a chance since it seems heart felt, from what I have heard. Thank you for the response.

  • NDaniels

    All persons have the ability to see themselves and others as God Willed us to be, human persons who are worthy of being treated with Dignity and respect in private as well as in public.
    As the mother of a dsughter who developed a same-sex sexual attraction as the result of the perfect storm, I Love my daughter, as I Love all my children, and it is because I Love her, that I desire she learn to develop healthy and Holy relationships and friendships that are grounded in authentic Love and thus respectful of the inherent personal and relational Dignity of the human person. We are, and have always been sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, husbands, wives, fathers, mothers…we have not been ordered to live our lives in relationship as objects of sexual desire.

  • NDaniels

    God has been known to bestow His Grace through others. With thanks an gratitude to Dean:

  • Pingback: Homosexuality and Friendship: A Response to Austin Ruse | Crisis Magazine()

  • Pingback: The New Homophiles: A Closer Look | Crisis Magazine()

  • For anyone who is interested, I had written a post on the matter of the CC and homosexuality, which is very critical of these new homophiles such as Damian and Scalia positions.

    The new Pope, the Catholic Church, and homosexuality: a fish rots from the head down

    The Catholic Church is finished. Not the Church itself, which will be around for millennia, but that Church and that Catholicism that is the cornerstone of a healthy, wholesome social conservative approach to life, including in the spheres of relationships and sexuality, and which
    has this approach as one of the cornerstones of its religious principles.

  • boonkaan

    And how many catholic priests are pedophiles? I think that’s more awful.

    • John200

      Fewer than one in a thousand.

      Fewer than Protestant ministers.

      Fewer than public school teachers.

      Now you can feel better.

  • Pingback: The New Homophiles - ✝ Fall And Die()

  • Michael

    These “new homophiles” are all just cultural Marxists wishing to demolish the Church from the inside. If they were truly pro Ecclesia they would give up their “gay” title and not seek to shove it down the throats of ordinary believing Catholics. That’s all that I’m going to say.

    • cajaquarius

      I really do wish more of them would see how their false brethren in the Church really feel about them and see what a toxic, empty bunch of lies the foundation of the so-called eternal Church truly is. I am all to happy to be a shield to my brothers and sisters like me against the power hungry, lying bullies of the orthodoxy such as yourself. Still, the ones who do want to stay chaste and live by this code do garner my respect for carrying that cross; they serve as a visible reminder to the kids of their parishes that we are human beings, not the ridiculous facsimiles and bugbears that you would make us out to be.

  • Mads

    Fine, but if the Church believes that homosexuality is a disorder, then it has all the possibilities for bringing good out of evil than any other disorder and those afflicted by it have as much potential to help the Church as other people afflicted with disorders.

    And as skeptical as we should be about the movement, let’s not be THAT condescending. Unless we somehow imagine that God is stumbling around without knowledge of what He is doing, there is definitely some purpose homosexuality is meant to serve and some good He can bring from it.

  • Pingback: The New Homophiles: An Incomplete Apologia | Crisis Magazine()

  • Pingback: The New Homophiles, I Guess | Steve Gershom()

  • Pingback: Youth and Same-Sex Attraction: Responding to Austin Ruse (Part 1) | Spiritual Friendship()

  • Pingback: Wednesday 1/29/14 | Tipsy Teetotaler()

  • Pingback: The New Homphiles | Solace in Shared Experience()

  • Pingback: Fostering Civil Conversations about LGBT People and the Church | A Queer Calling()

  • Thank you for the notation on “gay.”