Famous Homosexual Catholics

[frobert]

Well the way I see it, charity demands we think the best of our neighbor, so if they say that they lived celibately then we should take their word for it. Even if they did not live celibately for a portion of their life, there’s no reason to suspect that they did not repent and no reason to think it happened at all.
Besides that, the point of the project is that homosexual Catholics are just as Catholic as anyone else. Everyone makes mistakes and commits sins, and homosexual Catholics are no more likely to do so than anyone else. No matter what may have happened behind closed doors, they set a good example in their words and their appearance, so the idea remains solid

That’s why the celibacy should not be mentioned, to not distract from their good works.

 

[Mithrandir]

Thanks for all the replies!

I am particularly interested in Gerard Manley Hopkins and Andy Warhol - didn’t even know the latter was Catholic! Naturally, he may not be the best example to use, what with the nature of his art…
I shall try and look the others up as well

Completely agree with Butaperson
But maybe I won’t make so much about the “definitely celibate” thing.

Jon S. I do see your point. Perhaps I should have said “same-sex attracted” instead of “homosexual” - after all, Pope Francis has urged us not to label people by sexuality, and I think that’s hugely perceptive. Thank you.

God bless you all!

 

[Modern_Revert]

Andy Warhol was indeed a complex person, but very devout as well.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Coincidentally, there was just an article in our local paper that mentioned that Saint Hildegard of Bingen is thought to possibly have had a female lover.

:nope:

If you research this you will find that it is being pushed by many liberal sites and blogs. You must remember that a Saint’s life goes though quite the scrutiny. If this was the case the Church would be the one leading the news of it. Not some journalist with an agenda

 

[Corki]

That’s why the celibacy should not be mentioned, to not distract from their good works.

I think the point is not that celibacy (really chastity) must be proven but that those who were admittedly not living a chaste life should not be held up as good examples regardless of their good works.

 

[NeedsMercy]

Oscar Wilde is an interesting example. Most of his life he wasn’t a very good practicing christian, but he did recognize it as something wrong towards the end of his life and did try to bear his cross in spite of his attraction to men. I think Catholic author Joseph Pearce has quite a bit to say about Wilde and his religiosity.

It’s interesting too because people want to make him a gay icon, but from what i’ve heard from certain authors he saw it as a kind of curse or sickness.

Oscar was the first one that I thought of, also. He suffered terribly during the last few years of his life, having done two years of hard time just for engaging in homosexual sex. One interesting thing that occurred after his release from prison was his application to do a six month retreat with the Jesuits. Sadly, he was turned down, which hurt him deeply. Nearing death, he asked to be baptized again and the Church complied with a conditional baptism. He did receive the last rites, but I do not believe that he was physically able to receive the Eucharist. Wilde also used a pseudonym after prison “Sebastion Melmoth” , Sebastion being the name of the saint. Before he died, he believed that many of the hardships he endured were the results of his own actions, but who can say?

 

[manualman]

Can you name many famous catholics in history that had foot fetishes? OK, not exactly the same, but not completely off track either. Those with same sex attractions don’t choose to have them. But those with an SSA AND who place Christ at the center of their lives don’t exactly feel the need to go out proclaiming to the multitudes what their largest sinful temptations are, do they?

This is why gay activists like to “find” closeted gays in history everywhere, even in the church. They like to claim that King David and Johnathon of the Old Testament were gay lovers since Scripture makes clear that they had an unusual bond. As if Agape and Filia always lead to Eros…

Same goes for John Henry Newmann and a priest he lived with (and was buried next to, IIRC). Our culture sees such things today and assumes SSA. (And plenty of gay activists like to claim JHN as their own) Personally, I think that’s a sad commentary on the overall state of male-male friendship in our times. It seems we need to go to war before men will become truly brothers with one another (or respect others who do).

The problem perhaps with this whole thread is the unspoken idea that “gay” defines the totality of a person instead of being merely one aspect. A human being, a person who happens to be attracted to others of the same sex. If one honestly believes that there is no healthy outlet for that inclination, why on earth WOULD you go about telling people about it? I have plenty of sinful inclinations, but none of them define me.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Sorry, I don’t really know where this post should go - I hope it’s in the right place!

I’m currently preparing a presentation with a couple of friends entitled “Catholicism 101” for our school theology society. It’ll be on a lot of the controversial parts of Catholic ethical teaching, explaining what the Church actually teaches rather than the rather warped view society often has of Catholicism.

So, anyway, there’s a section on homosexuality and I’d quite like to be able to name a few well-known Catholics who were homosexual - but lived celibately, please - so as to explain the Church in no way considers homosexuals as ‘second-class Catholics’.

Thanks very much for the replies in advance

Mychal Judge, Gerard Manley Hopkins, Henri Nouwen, and Andy Warhol were all quite gay and quite Catholic

Thanks for all the replies!

I am particularly interested in Gerard Manley Hopkins and Andy Warhol - didn’t even know the latter was Catholic! Naturally, he may not be the best example to use, what with the nature of his art…
I shall try and look the others up as well

Completely agree with Butaperson
But maybe I won’t make so much about the “definitely celibate” thing.

Jon S. I do see your point. Perhaps I should have said “same-sex attracted” instead of “homosexual” - after all, Pope Francis has urged us not to label people by sexuality, and I think that’s hugely perceptive. Thank you.

God bless you all!

This whole using the term “SSA” so as to “not label people by their sexuality” is quite absurd as to gay people saying “I am gay” is no more defining than saying “I am [ethnicity]” or “I am [insert nationality]” so while it is “defining” it is merely a part of them not their entirety. Labeling things is something humans do as a matter of nature, see Adam in Genesis.

**Can you name many famous catholics in history that had foot fetishes? OK, not exactly the same, but not completely off track either. ** Those with same sex attractions don’t choose to have them. But those with an SSA AND who place Christ at the center of their lives don’t exactly feel the need to go out proclaiming to the multitudes what their largest sinful temptations are, do they?

This is why gay activists like to “find” closeted gays in history everywhere, even in the church. They like to claim that King David and Johnathon of the Old Testament were gay lovers since Scripture makes clear that they had an unusual bond. As if Agape and Filia always lead to Eros…

Same goes for John Henry Newmann and a priest he lived with (and was buried next to, IIRC). Our culture sees such things today and assumes SSA. (And plenty of gay activists like to claim JHN as their own) Personally, I think that’s a sad commentary on the overall state of male-male friendship in our times. It seems we need to go to war before men will become truly brothers with one another (or respect others who do).

The problem perhaps with this whole thread is the unspoken idea that “gay” defines the totality of a person instead of being merely one aspect. A human being, a person who happens to be attracted to others of the same sex. If one honestly believes that there is no healthy outlet for that inclination, why on earth WOULD you go about telling people about it? I have plenty of sinful inclinations, but none of them define me.

Actually it is quite off track and the hostile attitude your post portrays (whether or not it is intentional) is part of what drives gay people away.

Most gay people don’t go running around telling people they are gay because it isn’t the entirety of them and partially because they are tired of getting told Romans 1 (they heard it the first hundred times, no need to go for another thousand).

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Mychal Judge, Gerard Manley Hopkins, Henri Nouwen, and Andy Warhol were all quite gay and quite Catholic

This whole using the term “SSA” so as to “not label people by their sexuality” is quite absurd as to gay people saying “I am gay” is no more defining than saying “I am [ethnicity]” or “I am [insert nationality]” so while it is “defining” it is merely a part of them not their entirety. Labeling things is something humans do as a matter of nature, see Adam in Genesis.

Actually it is quite off track and the hostile attitude your post portrays (whether or not it is intentional) is part of what drives gay people away.

Most gay people don’t go running around telling people they are gay because it isn’t the entirety of them and partially because they are tired of getting told Romans 1 (they heard it the first hundred times, no need to go for another thousand).

I did not see it as off track or hostile. It seems that one cannot have a Catholic understanding of homosexuality without being accused of being “hostile”

But it is quite common for the hostility to be on the side of the homosexual activists who are quite ready to demean an entire religion.
And that may be your experience with gay people but others may vary. For there to be understanding there needs to be fair dialogue. And it is others who must understand that viewing homosexuality as a disorder is not only accurate, but quite Catholic as well.

 

[JimG]

It seems rather pointless to me to try to identify people by the sexual attractions, which in most cases are a private matter, especially if all we know about the supposed attraction is hearsay or conjecture. It only shows that our own era seems to be particularly focused on sex.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

I did not see it as off track or hostile. It seems that one cannot have a Catholic understanding of homosexuality without being accused of being “hostile”

But it is quite common for the hostility to be on the side of the homosexual activists who are quite ready to demean an entire religion.
And that may be your experience with gay people but others may vary. For there to be understanding there needs to be fair dialogue. And it is others who must understand that viewing homosexuality as a disorder is not only accurate, but quite Catholic as well.

Comparing it to a foot fetish is not logically correct, theologically correct or polite. When you treat gay people as human beings with feelings they tend to be far more amicable than when you treat them as an enemy to be fought and bested.

To view it as a mental disorder is not in fact Catholic.

 

[Corki]

Comparing it to a foot fetish is not logically correct, theologically correct or polite. When you treat gay people as human beings with feelings they tend to be far more amicable than when you treat them as an enemy to be fought and bested.

To view it as a mental disorder is not in fact Catholic.

He didn’t say it was a “mental” disorder but it IS a disorder. This is how the Church speaks about homosexuality. It is an inclination that is not ordered correctly - thus disordered. The Church says that the genesis, whether mental (psychological), medical, or genetic, is undetermined. All possibilities are valid.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Comparing it to a foot fetish is not logically correct, theologically correct or polite. When you treat gay people as human beings with feelings they tend to be far more amicable than when you treat them as an enemy to be fought and bested.

To view it as a mental disorder is not in fact Catholic.

People who like feet need to be treated as human being with feelings too.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Comparing it to a foot fetish is not logically correct, theologically correct or polite. When you treat gay people as human beings with feelings they tend to be far more amicable than when you treat them as an enemy to be fought and bested.

To view it as a mental disorder is not in fact Catholic.

You are being reactionary. It is a disorder.

I would not classify it as a “mental” disorder though.

As a Catholic you should know what your faith teaches as ordered and disordered.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

He didn’t say it was a “mental” disorder but it IS a disorder. This is how the Church speaks about homosexuality. It is an inclination that is not ordered correctly - thus disordered. The Church says that the genesis, whether mental (psychological), medical, or genetic, is undetermined. All possibilities are valid.

The genesis is not only undetermined, the etiology is irrelevant as to the morality.

People who like feet need to be treated as human being with feelings too.

Indeed, at no point did I say otherwise.

You are being reactionary. It is a disorder.

I would not classify it as a “mental” disorder though.

As a Catholic you should know what your faith teaches as ordered and disordered.

If you could please elaborate on how that was reactionary I’d be much obliged. I am sure I would also find it edify, wouldn’t you agree?

It is good to know you would not misclassify it.

I do indeed know what our faith teaches as ordered and disordered. That comment was directed as a clarification for those who read your post as many conservative Catholics appear to misunderstand “disorder” in the Catechism as referring to mental disorder where in fact the Latin word is also used to refer to other moral evils such as lust, masturbation and divorce. My sincerest apologies for failing to make my prior post sufficiently clear for all.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

many conservative Catholics appear to misunderstand “disorder” in the Catechism as referring to mental disorder

That is just plain silly to assert. Please, lets leave the conjecture out of this.

Other than your obvious swipe at “conservatives” I agree with your post.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

That is just plain silly to assert. Please, lets leave the conjecture out of this.

Other than your obvious swipe at “conservatives” I agree with your post.

Well, it is a good thing I did not assert it, isn’t it? To assert it would require me to more or less claim it to be a fact or otherwise act as though it is a fact as opposed to state it as an observance (note the word “appear”).

Forgive me if I mistakenly think that people such as Joseph Nicolosi are popular in conservative Catholic circle.

I often find “conservative” American Catholics as too liberal for my taste. I am of the kind who wears a mantilla to Mass, has a copy of the Liturgy of the Hours and prays the rosary every day.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Well, it is a good thing I did not assert it, isn’t it? To assert it would require me to more or less claim it to be a fact or otherwise act as though it is a fact as opposed to state it as an observance (note the word “appear”).

Forgive me if I mistakenly think that people such as Joseph Nicolosi are popular in conservative Catholic circle.

I often find “conservative” American Catholics as too liberal for my taste. I am of the kind who wears a mantilla to Mass, has a copy of the Liturgy of the Hours and prays the rosary every day.

ok

 

[manualman]

Actually it is quite off track and the hostile attitude your post portrays (whether or not it is intentional) is part of what drives gay people away.

Most gay people don’t go running around telling people they are gay because it isn’t the entirety of them and partially because they are tired of getting told Romans 1 (they heard it the first hundred times, no need to go for another thousand).

Hostile? It’s not hostile to point out that catholics generally don’t go around labeling themselves according to the sins they are particularly inclined to. I’m certainly not going to tell you mine and I suspect you don’t want to tell me yours. That’s my point in the post. It’s going to be hard to compile a list of faithful gay catholics because such people may see no need to identify themselves publicly.

In the secular world on the other hand, gay people DO seem to run around telling people they are gay: rainbow car stickers, pink triangles, parades, particular bars, etc. Not only is there a tendency to identify themselves, but they often seem to have a need to “out” others, both living and dead.

 

[JimG]

Hostile? It’s not hostile to point out that catholics generally don’t go around labeling themselves according to the sins they are particularly inclined to. I’m certainly not going to tell you mine and I suspect you don’t want to tell me yours. That’s my point in the post. It’s going to be hard to compile a list of faithful gay catholics because such people may see no need to identify themselves publicly.

In the secular world on the other hand, gay people DO seem to run around telling people they are gay: rainbow car stickers, pink triangles, parades, particular bars, etc. Not only is there a tendency to identify themselves, but they often seem to have a need to “out” others, both living and dead.

One wonders: if the story “Pygmalion,” or “My Fair Lady,” were being written today, could Professor Henry Higgins describe himself as a “confirmed old bachelor?” Probably not. Declaration of an “orientation” is now considered a duty! In the past it was not so.