As Church Shifts, a Cardinal Welcomes Gays; They Embrace a ‘Miracle’

[Peter_J]

I’ll add that CAF was founded by people who fought against liberalism in the Catholic dioceses back in the days when it was widespread and a serious threat.

I don’t know you, but Hi.

I think it’s safe to say that your view of Catholic history – nay, Christian history in general – is much different than mine. And indeed, different even from most traditionalist Catholics here who just want to go back to how things were in the “good old days” (crusades, inquisitions, etc).

 

[reggieM]

I don’t know you, but Hi.

I think it’s safe to say that your view of Catholic history – nay, Christian history in general – is much different than mine. And indeed, different even from most traditionalist Catholics here who just want to go back to how things were in the “good old days” (crusades, inquisitions, etc).

Hi Peter.
I guess you’re right about that. I don’t know if that’s good or bad really, but I have been involved in traditional Catholicism for a long time – and from that I learned a lot of the good and some of the bad aspects as well. I would not want the good old days, certainly. I also count several, very liberal Catholics including some priests, as good friends and I learned how to understand their commitment to God (I think I learned!) and perhaps why they struggle to accept what the Church teaches.

I want to offer another thought - I hope to help and certainly not to hurt anyone, but in the interest of real life and the way I see things.

Two very close friends - gay men (who were in a celibate partnership at the time) decided to join my parish, which is the most conservative/traditional place in the diocese. I thought that was strange - why not the many liberal places where homosexuality was accepted? But these gentlemen were sincere and intense in their faith and they knew that Christ established one Church teaching the Truth, and they didn’t want a watered-down or worse, a false version. So, they participated frequently. However, I think anyone could guess what would happen eventually. There was friction and some conflict at times.

Of course, charity, love, mercy, kindness, gentleness towards others – these are traditional Catholic values! They’re virtues. But in the culture war that is even in the Church at times, there’s a militant feeling, which I’m sure you know about (referencing the inquisition and crusades) so there’s not much room for other virtues.

But I also had to counsel my friends. They were hurt, angry and frustrated. But I almost had to say “you can’t have it both ways”. I honestly think it is too much to expect a very traditional Catholic congregation to have lots of openness and tolerance for out-of-the-closetness. It’s just not part of the package.
Yes, maybe someday that will change. I would say that Fr. Harvey was a very conservative/traditional priest himself and I have attended Courage meetings myself and they seemed to mix love of the true Faith with compassion. So, it’s not impossible or unheard of. It’s just that we’re talking about families and people in the pews who have their own crosses in dealing with the culture war.
It may be too much to expect them to even understand what gay sex is supposed to be all about, or take a real interest in that. It’s far outside of their worldview for the most part.

But anyway - thank you for your observation, Peter.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

But I also had to counsel my friends. They were hurt, angry and frustrated. But I almost had to say “you can’t have it both ways”. I honestly think it is too much to expect a very traditional Catholic congregation to have lots of openness and tolerance for out-of-the-closetness. It’s just not part of the package.
Yes, maybe someday that will change. I would say that Fr. Harvey was a very conservative/traditional priest himself and I have attended Courage meetings myself and they seemed to mix love of the true Faith with compassion. So, it’s not impossible or unheard of. It’s just that we’re talking about families and people in the pews who have their own crosses in dealing with the culture war.
It may be too much to expect them to even understand what gay sex is supposed to be all about, or take a real interest in that. It’s far outside of their worldview for the most part.

So, essentially, you are asking gay people to let Traditional Catholics enjoy their safe spaces where they are shielded from ideas that they find offensive and difficult to understand.

I hope for everyone’s sake, then, that no Traditional Catholic ever has a child who is “gay” or even “suffers from SSA”.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I don’t know you, but Hi.

I think it’s safe to say that your view of Catholic history – nay, Christian history in general – is much different than mine. And indeed, different even from most traditionalist Catholics here who just want to go back to how things were in the “good old days” (crusades, inquisitions, etc).

Wow, Peter, that’s harsh.
And not quite accurate to boot.

I venture to say that your education regarding ‘crusades, inquisitions’ etc. is not quite accurate (not your fault, revisionism and antichristian worldviews have been de rigueur for the last 4-5 decades).

And that makes it rather difficult to have a reasonable conversation.

If somebody is convinced that I believe in some ‘halcyon time’ where knights went out, looted peaceful people, forced innocents to ‘convert or die’, committed all sorts of atrocity for gain, and called it ‘God’s will.’

If somebody is convinced that I believe in some ‘halcyon time’ when one could be hauled out of bed, tortured and killed because I supposedly was a heretic and that this was a good thing, and it was ‘The Catholic Church’ that did it, and called it good. . .

If somebody is convinced that I want to bring this back, and that I want to stop every single bit of tolerance, love, inclusion, and diversity in order to lockstep all people, kicking and screaming, into worshipping “MY” God, a cruel, vindictive, god who is all about ‘rigidity’ and ‘rules’, and never about love and mercy. . .

just because if somebody asked me I would say, “You know, I think that the Latin Mass is beautiful too.”
“I think women wearing hats was a neat custom”
“I think it was good that Catholics used to: Have May crownings. Recite the Angelus. Have family rosaries. Abstain from meat year round. Wear ‘Sunday best’ on Sundays. Obey ‘blue laws’. Have family altars and holy pictures in their houses. Have a family Bible. Have a Mary garden. Observe rogation and ember days. Knew that July was the Month of the Precious Blood. Knew their patron saint. Went to Catholic schools whenever possible. Paid attention to decency by not attending R movies, by not using foul language and profanity, etc.”

Oh the horror! The horror of a person who found goodness in ‘traditional Catholic practices and customs’!! Obviously I want to drag people back to the crusades and inquisition as ‘taught today’, those bloodbaths of insanity and intolerance. . .

No need to talk to me any further. I have been labeled and found. . .‘traditionalist’, therefore bigoted, blind, and evil.

Move along folks, move along. . .

 

[Rau]

…But I also had to counsel my friends. They were hurt, angry and frustrated. But I almost had to say “you can’t have it both ways”. I honestly think it is too much to expect a very traditional Catholic congregation to have lots of openness and tolerance for out-of-the-closetness.

I think it would be clearer if you did not use unclear expressions such as “out of the closetness”. If I understand you, you are saying the 2 men lived together, displayed an emotional closeness to each other, implied (or declared) that they were gay, though they did not engage in a sexual relationship (presumably the latter was undeclared).

Is that accurate?

 

[Rau]

So, essentially, you are asking gay people to let Traditional Catholics enjoy their safe spaces where they are shielded from ideas that they find offensive and difficult to understand.

What is the “idea(s)” you have in mind here?

I hope for everyone’s sake, then, that no Traditional Catholic ever has a child who is “gay” or even “suffers from SSA”.

It’s a tough gig I think for the child, and for the parent. I’d hope no one has to deal with it (unlikely though that be), as child or parent. And whether one subscribes to “traditional” catholic practices should make no difference. The church does not have “traditional” and “progressive” moral teachings.

 

[at9009]

I’ve see both, personally. Including on here.

I have as well.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

What is the “idea(s)” you have in mind here?

Merely the idea that gay people exist at all, apparently.

It’s a tough gig I think for the child, and for the parent. I’d hope no one has to deal with it (unlikely though that be), as child or parent. And whether one subscribes to “traditional” catholic practices should make no difference. The church does not have “traditional” and “progressive” moral teachings.

Well, I wasn’t the one who brought up the idea that it was unfair to expect Traditional Catholics, specifically, to be accepting of open homosexuality.

 

[Rau]

Merely the idea that gay people exist at all, apparently.

That’s not how I read what was presented. That would seem to be the least tolerant interpretation of the scenario described (and very imprecisely described at that).

Well, I wasn’t the one who brought up the idea that it was unfair to expect Traditional Catholics, specifically, to be accepting of open homosexuality.

“Open homosexuality” is no clearer than “out of the closetness” - it describes a wide spectrum of situations. Two men presenting for a civil wedding ceremony is “open homosexuality”. A man who confides his homosexuality to his family and close friends is “out of the closet”. If posters continue to use vague and unclear language, the only “fact” that can be distilled with certainty from those descriptions is that the protagonists experience same sex attraction.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

That’s not how I read what was presented. That would seem to be the least tolerant interpretation of the scenario described (and very imprecisely described at that).

Okay, what about “Gay people aren’t some tiny insignificant minority who live in gay ghettos in crazy liberal cities like SanFran and NYC, and they can’t just be dismissed as just a bunch of sick deviants who have nothing in common with Good Catholics”.

Or “There actually are people who identify as both Catholic and Gay and some actually do come to Church and may even gasp be sitting in the next pew from the Good Catholics!”

“Open homosexuality” is no clearer than “out of the closetness” - it describes a wide spectrum of situations. Two men presenting for a civil wedding ceremony is “open homosexuality”. A man who confides his homosexuality to his family and close friends is “out of the closet”. If posters continue to use vague and unclear language, the only “fact” that can be distilled with certainty from those descriptions is that the protagonists experience same sex attraction.

I agree, the discussions is hampered by such language. Maybe I should have just used RM’s own term of “out of the closetness” but that’s very confusing too. Hope he can offer clarification on what he meant.

 

[Peter_J]

“Open homosexuality” is no clearer than “out of the closetness”

I’m afraid that’s true. Wikipedia says “Homosexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender.” and similarly with other dictionaries. Homosexuality is a word with two different meanings, so I tend to avoid using it.

But I’m not seeing the problem with the phrase “out of the closet”. “In the closet” is of course a metaphor, but it’s pretty widely agreed to refer to not disclosing one’s sexual orientation.

 

[Rau]

Okay, what about “Gay people aren’t some tiny insignificant minority who live in gay ghettos in crazy liberal cities like SanFran and NYC, and they can’t just be dismissed as just a bunch of sick deviants who have nothing in common with Good Catholics”.

That appears to have nothing to do with the matter under discussion.

Or “There actually are people who identify as both Catholic and Gay and some actually do come to Church and may even gasp be sitting in the next pew from the Good Catholics!”

Why the gasp? Your remark seems disconnected from the discussion.

I agree, the discussions is hampered by such language. Maybe I should have just used RM’s own term of “out of the closetness” but that’s very confusing too. Hope he can offer clarification on what he meant.

I previously remarked how that term is also inadequate in this conversation.

 

[Peter_J]

So, essentially, you are asking gay people to let Traditional Catholics enjoy their safe spaces where they are shielded from ideas that they find offensive and difficult to understand.

I hope for everyone’s sake, then, that no Traditional Catholic ever has a child who is “gay” or even “suffers from SSA”.

I would add that the number of gay people (including those in the closet) who would actually want to attend a traditionalist Catholic or fundamentalist Protestant church is probably extremely small. (And I’m guessing that not too many traditionalists or fundamentalists are saddened by that fact.)

Sigh.

 

[Rau]

…But I’m not seeing the problem with the phrase “out of the closet”. “In the closet” is of course a metaphor, but it’s pretty widely agreed to refer to not disclosing one’s sexual orientation.

How does one exit the closet? Does it require telling everyone one meets or at least a preparedness to do so? Perhaps that is the current day meaning, though previously we’d say one “comes out” to specific people. And I guess “coming out publically” is easier than it used to be given the majority now hold the view that same sex sexual behaviour is in fact “good” and SSM a must-have social cause. Given this situation, I can understand why many would feel no need to regard the inclination in any sense a personal and private matter.

 

[reggieM]

I think it would be clearer if you did not use unclear expressions such as “out of the closetness”. If I understand you, you are saying the 2 men lived together, displayed an emotional closeness to each other, implied (or declared) that they were gay, though they did not engage in a sexual relationship (presumably the latter was undeclared).

Is that accurate?

First - I fully agree that the expression is not clear but I see the term “closet” used so frequently I thought it might be useful.
I would ask also, when people say “out of the closet” what does that mean?

But yes, you’re accurate in the description. It was a tough situation for them. But it’s hard to know what is right.

1. They were counseled by good priests, praised for their celibate commitment, and support of each other and their faithful attendance at Mass.
2. The idea that they lived together was seen as a very good thing by the same priests, including our traditionalist pastor. It was believed to be a good way for them to build community.
3. I know of their commitment to chastity and they did live it. (They had separate rooms, but otherwise also lived as a “couple”)

But wait a minute. What if we had a young man who wanted to live with his girlfriend? Would there be praise and support for that? If they were seen going home to the same house, arriving at church in the same car, sitting together, emotionally close?

I’m just saying it’s weird.

But the main point - in any traditionalist parish, certain behaviors from people are going to raise red flags. That’s just the way it is.

 

[reggieM]

“Open homosexuality” is no clearer than “out of the closetness” - it describes a wide spectrum of situations. Two men presenting for a civil wedding ceremony is “open homosexuality”. A man who confides his homosexuality to his family and close friends is “out of the closet”. If posters continue to use vague and unclear language, the only “fact” that can be distilled with certainty from those descriptions is that the protagonists experience same sex attraction.

Good points.

 

[reggieM]

I’m afraid that’s true. Wikipedia says “Homosexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender.” and similarly with other dictionaries. Homosexuality is a word with two different meanings, so I tend to avoid using it.

Wikipedia says 'Gay is a term that primarily refers to a homosexual person or the trait of being homosexual." So, in either of these cases, if a person says “I’m gay”, that could mean the person engages in sexual behavior.

But I’m not seeing the problem with the phrase “out of the closet”. “In the closet” is of course a metaphor, but it’s pretty widely agreed to refer to not disclosing one’s sexual orientation.

I think “closet” mostly referenced concealing a SSA, but in any case, as discussed elsewhere, I don’t think it’s clear what it really means to be in a closet or out.
At the very extremes, yes. A guy who announces what he does all the time with his partner and joins gay groups and crusades (like a co-worker of mine does), it not in the closet.
But when it comes to “gay celibate” - that’s where it gets confusing.

 

[at9009]

But when it comes to “gay celibate” - that’s where it gets confusing.

The vast majority of people use gay to simply mean attracted to others of the same sex. It does not imply a particular belief on the morality of same sex acts or anything. So a gay celibate person is a person attracted to others of the same sex but choosing to lI’ve a celibate life. It’s not that complicated and its.not rocket science.

A simple solution would be rather than just assume the worst if someone doesn’t use your preferred three letter term you take one second and muster an once of charity and ASK what they mean. The language police bs on places like here is rather annoying when ssa vs gay is inconsequential for most of us who actually deal with this cross.

 

[reggieM]

The vast majority of people use gay to simply mean attracted to others of the same sex. It does not imply a particular belief on the morality of same sex acts or anything. So a gay celibate person is a person attracted to others of the same sex but choosing to lI’ve a celibate life. It’s not that complicated and its.not rocket science.

Yes, but we were talking about the context of “closeted” and what that means and whether it is good or bad. So, the terms gay, SSA or homosexual can refer to radically different things. The simple identification “I’m gay” can cause more confusion than if a person does not identify himself that way. Beyond that, there can be an expectation given to the non-gay world that there needs to be tolerance and understanding of what gay-sex is. I wonder why. We obviously can’t all be psychiatrists or sex-therapists. Also, there’s a difference between a celibate person who understands why gay sex is irrational (or even abhorrent) and a celibate person who thinks it is actually somewhat normal but avoids it through a rule-based morality. In the latter case, various resentments can arise even when gay-sex behavior is condemned. Additionally those persons can work to move society towards a greater acceptance of gay sex behavior, even if they don’t practice it.

A simple solution would be rather than just assume the worst if someone doesn’t use your preferred three letter term you take one second and muser an once of charity and ASK whst they mean.

That might be effective in some situations, but in my experience, asking if a person is celibate or not usually results in some kind of offense being taken. But I go beyond that - could I ask “why do you call yourself gay”? Again, in my experience that doesn’t go very far. It’s just one of those double-standards that we have to live with. A man tells me “I’m tempted to have sex with other men”. Can I ask him “why would you ever want to do that?” Well, he’s sharing his sex inclinations with me, but if I ask him what made him ever want to do something like that, I will be perceived as insensitive. But it has to go both ways. It’s pretty insensitive to go around saying “Hi, I’m Dave. I frequently have temptations to have sex with other men. Are you cool with that?” But that’s what “out of the closet is”, Now Dave will also say, “Don’t worry though, I don’t act on those temptations”. What good is that doing for him or me? Does Dave expect me to try to help him? But at the same time, I can’t ask Dave what makes him think about other men that way and want to have sex with them?

I’ve been blessed with some gay friends who actually, after building trust, would get into a conversation at that level. Although I still find it hard to break through barriers and defenses. Of course, I’m not their confessor or psychiatrist. But again - they’re sharing their temptations so clearly I should be permitted to investigate what is going on.

“Hi, I’m Dave. I’m tempted to eat 3 large Dominoes pizzas by myself in one sitting and then puke it out just after. But don’t worry, I don’t do it. I hope you’ll understand.” Ok, and I can’t ask Dave “what makes you want to do that”? I can’t try to figure out if there is some other way - or is he condemned to having that particular temptation for the rest of his life?

For me, helping Dave means helping him move beyond “white knuckling” and also moving beyond identification of himself with any particular sinful tendency. That’s spiritual maturity. We are not our temptations or our sins. We are being perfected by God and He has a holy destiny for us where our flaws and defects can be overcome and we can be more complete persons, in Him. Our temptations help us get there, yes. But we are not chained to them, necessarily. It takes some work, of course.

But a gay celibate person is more accurately (and better, in my view) a person committed to chaste celibacy. Just like Catholic priests and religious are. The designation “gay” does not add anything. It just qualifies the nature of the temptation.

It’s like a person who says “Hi, I’m bisexual”? I can’t ask “how do you know that”? Is my friend who was once gay and now happily married “bi-sexual”? In my opinion, in the Catholic context, all of that tagging of people is irrelevant and unhelpful.
We are all sinners. We all have crosses. We all have temptations. A person can be tempted to have sex with man, woman, inanimate object (porn) or any other thing. Temptations happen. We might even sin in various ways, or have bad habits. But we are all made in the image of God and we are being transformed into Christ - and He has envisioned us as being perfected in the kingdom one day,

Sure, in the context of therapy, confession, spiritual direction or confidential discussions with close, trusted friends - we talk about our struggles.
But “out of the closet” usually means something much more than that.

The language police bs on places like here is rather annoying when ssa vs gay is inconsequential for most of us who actually deal with this cross.

You’re probably right but I don’t understand the distinction you’re making.
Peter posted the Wikipedia definition of homosexuality - which showed conflicting ideas. For me, homosexual, gay, SSA - it’s all the same thing.

But that’s exactly the problem. “Out of the closet” means a person is saying something about themself and usually it’s “I’m gay”. Again, I don’t see how that is helpful to the celibate person or anyone else actually (with the exceptions I just mentioned above).

 

[Peter_J]

How does one exit the closet?

There’s no one answer to that, but I would just say that in many cases when a gay person comes out of the closet it might be a “dropping the bomb” experience. But if the parents embrace the mind of the Church (I’m thinking particularly of the same document I mentioned in the other thread, Always Our Children – see for example the section “Accepting your child”) that shouldn’t be the case.