Mr. Gonnerman is surely right that Christians of all sorts have often failed to relate to people who have homosexual inclinations or relationships, or who belong to a gay community, in praiseworthy ways. Christians of all sorts are called to do better, to embody speaking the truth in love.

At the same time, I am uneasy with Mr. Gonnerman's formulation of the truth we are called to speak. He writes that according to Catholic teaching, "homosexual acts are immoral, but the presence of homosexual inclinations is not." I believe Catholic teaching would add that homosexual inclinations are intrinsically disordered.

But I wish to resist the bifurcation of act and inclination. If the act is immoral, how can the desire to commit it be blameless? If inclination covers a whole way of thinking and feeling that naturally issues in actions we deem immoral, how can that way of thinking and feeling escape moral disapprobation?

A possible objection: a temptation to sin is not itself a sin, for as we know, Jesus was tempted in all things, and yet without sin. My response to this objection is that I think we should distinguish being tested and being tempted. In modern parlance, temptation seems to include sustained longing, meditation on the desired act or object, a barely conquerable struggle to refrain from the object of powerful yearnings. Could Jesus have experience a powerful yearning and sustained desire to commit adultery (e.g. with married woman) and yet be considered sinless? I think most of us would answer no.

Perhaps there is a way to dinstinguish such temptation from the inclination that Mr. Gonnerman considers immune from moral disapprobation. I am skeptical that there is such a way, nevertheless, I would like to hear from those who think there is such a way.

Mr. Gonnerman has tried to gather a single grape (a teachable moment) from among the thorns of our cultural persecution. Certainly, every moment can be seen in this light...Paul could have regretted his failed efforts to reach out better to the Roman community before they beheaded him.
What is needed today, especially from First Things, is clarity. And it clouds the issue to ignore one of the overarching themes of modern Leftism, which is to bully Christianity into submission via false accusations of our "inhumanity" and "ignorance". Mr. Savage, working for the Obama machine, clumsily used a "stick" while Mr Gonnerman's article uses a "carrot" but the message is the same: Christians are ignorant, inhumane bullies of our gay brothers and sisters.
I think Americans are the most tolerant and loving people the world has yet seen...thanks to American Judeo-Christian values...not manipulative Leftism.

Not to entirely disagree, but I think there is an additional complication, which is the generalized refusal of the so-called gay -- I still struggle with the question of what it means to BE gay, although the author seems to define it as an inclination rather than a behavioral choice -- the gay community to accept the support of those of us who would say that we see such actions as sinful and self-destructive.

I have nothing but the greatest respect for those who carry the cross of homosexual attraction and somehow resist, or even strive to resist, the temptation to act on it. But I have no doubt that such an opinion would make me a target for excoriation, or worse, in most secular contexts or if confronting contemporary attitudes toward homosexuality.

Acting "gay" was a matter for teasing in the 50s and 60s, never the impetus for bullying, in my recollection. Bullying was always about perceived weakness and may, in fact, be a method of strengthening those who have what it takes to overcome it, which may be of no small psychosocial value, contrary to popular opinions on the matter.

At any rate, the current shift toward bullying of "gays" may well be a product of the insistence of many to brandish such private matters, thus exhibiting poor interpersonal boundaries, and thereby promoting the abuse of others who display similar characteristics.

Someone somewhere has undoubtedly said these things better than me, but I'm not well-read enough to have found it. Still, here goes. While I take for granted that the presence of homosexual desires in an individual is a condition that occurs more or less without their concious consent, being "gay", accepting the socio-sexual-political worldview of the gay community, living "in the life" as it's so often put by it's practicioners, is most certainly a conscious choice. It's also an outlook that puts its adherents in diametric opposition to the Church and its teachings. People posessed of homosexual desires who can come to the Church in humility and with respect for its authority with regard to their circumstances will find a family. People flying a different flag and owing allegience to other masters aren't looking for a family. I suspect that most often many of these people are there more to infiltrate and weaken the resolve of the Body. This doesn't relieve the Church of it's obligation to minister to those who present as gay, but it does suggest that its efforts will meet with very limited success. The Dan Savages of the world are hell-bent to see to that.

Mr. Gonnerman,

Re: "The all-encompassing rhetorical tool of the lifestyle" is used to reduce the entire identity of gay people to sexual activity, and thus our response to all concerns of gay people becomes an automatic no."

If you will forgive me for being blunt in my observation: When people self-identify with the words, "gay, lesbian, homosexual, bisexual, and so forth," (eg: I am gay) they are reducing their identity to a sexual activity and making their sexual activity central to who they are. Why should others be blamed for recognizing they are making this central to who they say they are and what they say they want from society? Should Christians be blamed for objecting when gays say their sexual activity is primary to who they are, and that they want their sexual activity accepted as good and celebrated as good? Christians do respect the dignity of their personhood and their being made in the image of God. It is those who call themselves gay that seem to miss that being made in the image of God is primary and central to who we are.

Re: "adherence to orthodox sexual ethics" and "The traditional sexual ethic is the only possible antidote to the rampant commodification of human persons in contemporary culture."

As far as I can tell, this is the crux of the problem. The world does not want orthodox sexual ethics irregardless of sexual orientation.

One thing that's missing from the article is a discussion of the hypothetical Catholic who, along with the first commenter above, says, “I’m sorry, we can’t do anything about bullying, because it says right there in 'Homosexualitatis problema' that being gay is disordered.”

To the author: thank you for your refreshing honesty and clear mindedness. But I am afraid you're like those so-called moderate muslims I keep hearing about whenever the media tries to convince me Islam is not the problem, that there are plenty of muslims opposed to violence.

My personal experience with a very large gay community has been completely opposite (I spent 4 years in Univ. next to one). The second you signalled any, whether religious or not, any, any at all discomfort with total hedonistic abandon you were put down as nothing more than a hateful nazi. If you said you believed marriage was that arrangement which brings forth new life in lifelong committment you were mocked or else torn to shreds and ostracized. I am not making this up. The so-called moderate, thoughtful gay people like yourself are IMHO almost non-existant or else have been so bullied into silence they might as well join the ranks of the "moderate muslims". I hope this does not come off in any way as insulting or trying to disuade your from your work and your lifelong committment to living in chastity but seriously, there is no more angry, vicious backstabbing community than the one that preaches tolerance etc. all day long.

PS Defending the man who turned someone's familial name into a short-hand for fesces is also plain wrong. I understand your point of view and agree with it but seriously that man should be ashamed of himself.

Mr. Gonnerman,

Re: "The church has far too often, and for the most wrong-headed reasons, failed to be family to gay people."

If I may be allowed to continue to be blunt, I, for one, am tired of identity politics and their demands for the church to bow to their grievances no matter church doctrine. Identity politics has no place in the church (eg: feminism, gay, and so forth). The church family consists of sinners with a multitude of trials, tribulations, needs, and besetting sins. Are "gay people" prepared to be unselfish and serve the other family members needs? Or do they want to demand that their needs are greater than the widows, fatherless, orphans, elderly, disabled, those afflicted or recovering from all kinds of abuse, or those afflicted with a besetting sin (alcohol, drugs, porn, and so forth)? Do "gay people" truly suffer more bullying than other groups or is "bullying" the cause celebre of the week and/or the vehicle being used to manipulate others?

Has anyone escaped suffering and pain in their lives via some form of being bullied, scorned, shunned, and so forth in their lives? If "gay people" want to be part of the family of God, it is theirs, but it is unrealistic to expect to be treated as though "gay" needs are greater than everyone else's needs or that "gays" suffer more than others. Families are messy. Are "gay" people prepared to serve their messy families or do they only want to be served? Do they even considered how many people there are with needs in the church? Widows? Elderly? Orphans? Disabled? Church is not all about "me, myself, and I" - it's about all of the children of God with faith in Christ being central and the cohesive element in the family of God.

I agree with Susan's comment, which is excellent. The "me, myself, and I" complex is a serious problem in the Church - and in society - today.

In addition, Gonnerman's piece is quite weak in the sense that he does not provide a single example of HOW the Church has "failed to be family to gay people."

And in the cases in which the Church has reached out to the gay community (via "LGBT" outreach, ministries etc.), it seems the fruits of these efforts have often been angry dissenters.

-

It is interesting that what comes across in most of these comments is not love or acceptance of the person, but a lot of whining about everyone's problems with the "gay community".

Maybe experiences with mainstream "gay communities" does teach us from experience that many living an active homosexual lifestyle are not open to change, and are defensive.

That is clearly not the author. And none of these responses read as accepting the person. It just comes across as judgmental.

Man needs community, and if a single homosexual cannot find it in the Church, perhaps that is why so many end up embracing their "gay identity" and becoming an active part of the "gay community". At least there they are accepted, even if it isn't as a person, but just as a sexual activity.

Christians are called to love the sinner and hate the sin.

I see everyone's got the "hating the sin" part down.

I am disappointed about the tone, and in many cases, substance of these responses.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/badcatholic/2012/05/our-godawful-objectification-of-men-with-same-sex-attraction.html

I agree with much of what Joshua Gonnerman has stated: indeed, the Catholic Church has fallen short of being the hands and feet of Christ to men and women like him and I. However, as a fellow Roman Catholic who is committed to chastity, I find it troubling that Joshua would use the phrase "gay" to describe himself.

The Roman Catholic Church is quite clear that we are mistaken in calling ourselves gay or straight, homosexual or heterosexual. These are distinctions She refuses, (and wisely so), to refer to mankind, as we see in this 1986 document, penned by then Cardinal Ratzinger:

"LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
ON THE PASTORAL CARE OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS

The human person, made in the image and likeness of God, can hardly be adequately described by a reductionist reference to his or her sexual orientation. Every one living on the face of the earth has personal problems and difficulties, but challenges to growth, strengths, talents and gifts as well. Today, the Church provides a badly needed context for the care of the human person when she refuses to consider the person as a "heterosexual" or a "homosexual" and insists that every person has a fundamental Identity: the creature of God, and by grace, his child and heir to eternal life."

The notion of a "gay Catholic" or a "straight Catholic" is something which the Vatican doesn't accept. Even if the terms have become conventional in usage, we must be reminded that, as Pope Paul VI stated, it is the Church that is expert in humanity. The terms homosexual and heterosexual are man-made classifications of the human person, coined in the middle of the 19th century. Embracing the notion of "being gay" lends itself to a false anthropology of the person, something Joshua and I have discussed at great length in the Catholic Forum of the Gay Christian Network. Though I applaud Joshua's stance on the need for the Church to be loving, I find it problematic that he used such an iconic enemy of the Church's teaching on sexuality to make his point. I also find it problematic that he consciously used the terms "gay community." One of the aspects in which the Church provides freedom to men like me is to allow us to free ourselves of the societal construct of what it means to "be gay." The concept is a novel one in the history of mankind, and as a man who isn't gay, or homosexual, but who lives with same sex attraction, I find the clarity of the Catholic Church liberating.

A cogent exploration of the linguistic and moral errors of the term "homosexual" can be found here. http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=18-10-036-f

I would also point readers of First Things to this article by Fr. Paul Scalia concerning labeling oneself as "gay," and the problems associated with this.
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/a-label-that-sticks-1

I'm a little surprised that most of these comments seem like efforts to qualify Mr. Gonnerman's point by reiterating the "clarity" they feel is lacking in his article, and reminding readers of the disordered nature of homosexual inclinations. I thought Mr. Gonnerman's article was perfectly clear in this regard (he would hardly strive for chastity in his own life, and reiterate the importance of the Catholic Church's teaching on sexual ethics if he was trying to hedge on this point), and frankly, I doubt there are many readers of First Things who are confused on this issue. Had Mr. Gonnerman chosen to emphasize it, he would have been preaching to the choir.

Judging by just a few remarks that have been made so far, Mr. Gonnerman's articulation of the issue is an important corrective that is not merely addressing the "choir." The anonymous commentator above reminds us that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered (as if we had somehow forgotten in the two minutes we were reading), but then states that he wishes to "resist the bifurcation of act and inclination." For a clarification of what the Church ACTUALLY says, I would point him toward article 2358 of the Catholic Catechism which clearly states that the Church does not consider homosexual tendencies to be chosen, and hence are not in themselves to be condemned. If we fail to distinguish between inclination and act, then we make the persons themselves objects to be shunned on the basis of their temptations -- a view which flies directly in the face of a very long tradition of Christian ethical teaching. We MUST distinguish between inclination and acts with regard to any sin, or else the individual effectively becomes his temptations -- which is precisely the view that Mr. Gonnerman is trying to counteract. By destroying this distinction, the anonymous commentator is allying himself with secularist activists who insist that the act and the person are one -- something I am sure was not his intention.

As far as I can see, Mr. Gonnerman's article is a reminder of what principled Christian culture should look like, and I'm grateful if he sees some blind spots that I would never notice.

The need to be more family to our homosexual brothers and sisters is something to continue to work on and thus Gonnerman is partly correct as such. There are also numerous homosexual Catholics that have written extensively about how they do feel greatly at home in the Church, homosexual seminarians and priests who have expressed the same and of whom I have known intimately from years in the Church, the seminary and now as a priest. I have interacted and grown close with many homosexual men and women in the parish - some of whom are also married - as both a friend and as a confessor. A hands on pastoral understanding of such situation beyond an academic and historical perspective (albeit invaluable) will aid in actually knowing and loving people - whomever they are. One cannot love sociological knowledge as such. One can only love what one can put one's arms around - another person. And there are many who do just that. And it certainly isn't done in the way Dan Savage or his ilk do so.

Two quick notes.

To TheMoz:
I very much agree that Savage's smear campaign against Santorum was puerile and reprehensible. I would never defend such tactics. But to say that someone is right in one way is not tosay that they are right in every way.

To DPierre: the "thus" litany is a selection of such examples.

Mr Gonnerman should have done his homework first. Courage - A Roman Catholic Apostolate, has been ministering to homosexuals for a generation. The group is Here's the website link: http://couragerc.net
Their work is not for the faint of heart.

Mr. Gonnerman,
Thanks for your article. As you are an active member of the Church, you must have found this family you mention. I would be interested in your experience on this issue. Two additional things struck me while reading your article that I thought worth mentioning. The first is that your title is misleading. Try adding the word ‘once’ to the end of the title. It doesn’t provoke nearly as much with this addition, but it better reflects the piece. The second issue concerns the distinction between same sex attraction and being gay. I recall Fr. Neuhaus writing cogently on this distinction. You identify yourself as a gay Catholic. Why not identify as someone who struggles with same sex attraction? Sincerely,
PeterG

Reading the comments, I recall John Kenneth Galbraith's observation: "In the choice between changing one's mind and proving there's no need to do so, most people get busy on the proof."

It's distressing that every comment so far has entirely missed the point of the article. The fact is there are gay people. And I'm using the term "gay," here, as the author does--to signify the inclination. You can nitpick about the terminology--perhaps you prefer "homosexual" or "person with same-sex attraction"--but such pedantic niggling masks the very lack of charity that the author is at pains to point out. Whatever you call them, there are gays who strive to be chaste. The question then is, how can we show our love for these neighbors? Moreover, if we don't help the gays who want to be pure, how can we convert the gays who don't?

Some preposterous claims about homosexuality have been thrown out in these comments, the most ridiculous being that we should blame a gay for his inclination. Does anyone really think that someone wakes up one morning and decides to be attracted to people of the same gender? Most impartial psychologists ascribe homosexuality to conditioning. Genetics could also be a factor. Either way, the homosexual is not responsible for his own disorder.

Some non-sequiturs have been put forward as refutations of the article. Yes, there are people of bad faith in the gay community. So what? Does that mean we are any less required to help the people of good faith in that community? And while it is true that Jesus would not have had homosexual inclinations, if we only helped people who had problems that Jesus had, then we wouldn't help people with pathologies of any kind, to any degree, nor would we help sinners generally.

Ironically, all the needless hostility in the combox further cements Mr. Gonnerman's point. We straight conservative Christians need to be more loving toward our gay brothers and sisters.

The fact that nearly every comment on this article instantly goes on the defensive about how the Church is bullied or takes the author to task over his self-identification as a gay man proves his point better than the article itself.

Having same-sex attraction forms one's life and identity in highly significant ways. I wonder if you'd quibble if someone refused a drink with "I'm a sober alcoholic." Would you insist that they call themselves "a person with alcohol addiction" before you really listened to them? There are valid reasons for referring to oneself as a person with same-sex attraction, and there are valid reasons for referring oneself as a gay man. I suggest we actually let the people dealing with the temptations in question make the choice.

Congrats to Gonnerman for writing an excellent essay, and bravo to First Things for publishing it.

Is my personal experience really so unique that few have experienced the hostility and psychological thuggery that can go on in environments that are inclusive of gays and so find civility and rules of conduct suspended? That was certainly my experience in the book industry and in law school. Not an invariable experience but a reliable one. The Church does specifically reach out -- I've seen it in my diocese. Our human destiny is salvation after all. But who and what is it that has politicized American life beyond any restraint?

A "quibble," perhaps, but is it really necessary on this website to quote Mr. Savage verbatim? What's next? The "F" word? I'm sure he uses that on a regular basis. There seems to be no sanctuary from the language of contempt.

I recently heard a monologue delivered by Dan Savage that really helped me put his comments about Scripture into perspective. It dealt directly with his relationship to the Church, and especially to the deep Catholic faith of his mother. It was very moving, but also very sad. Clearly, the God of Jesus Christ has a history with Mr. Savage, and vice versa. I'm sure that his public struggle has played out, and will continue to play out in the private lives of many, many others. Here's the link to his piece: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADDo5PT_ToI. Eamus perseverant orantes.

The problem is that it's so, so hard to do what Jesus did and asks us to do. It's so much easier to create an ideal and punish those who don't or can't conform.

I know some people at church who struggle with same-sex attraction, and it is a serious cross to bear. But then so is being a recovering porn addict, or socially anxious, or poor, or chemically sensitive, or fat. Sure there's a lack of support for some gay people. Just like there's a lack of support for other people who have the socially less-acceptable struggles.

And that brings one back to the original problem: it's so easy to resent and blame the church community for not loving and helping enough. It's much, much harder to learn to forgive and serve the people in the next pew who persist in snubbing and looking down on you because they like to think your spiritual leprosy is more unclean than theirs.

If we were expected to go to church based on how other members treated us, most of us wouldn't go back. That's why the only reason that works long-term to to go to church for God and ourselves.

It's very, very hard, and doesn't seem fair, but it is what we're asked to ldo. All of us. Gays too.

I imagine Joshua Gonnerman reading the comments here, shaking his head, and saying, "They're proving my point."

Readers of On the Square, as Elizabeth Scalia (among others) can attest, is not receptive to pieces that suggest a more pastoral approach to gay people.

I have pointed out a number of times that, without changing anything at all about it's teachings on homosexuality, the Church could treat gay people (including those in same-sex relationships) very similarly to the way Pope John Paul II speaks of dealing with the divorced and remarried. Probably 50 years ago, if there had been a forum like On the Square, and someone had suggested what John Paul says in his talk (see the link at the end), his words would have been just as poorly received as Joshua Gonnerman's are here. Let's hope it doesn't take 50 years for Mr. Gonnerman's ideas to be accepted.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1997/january/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19970124_plenaria-pc-family_en.html

More and more I am becoming disillusioned with what I see as "delusional thinking" in so-called Catholic commentary.

I don't see the problem as being one of insensitivity by the great big Catholic Church towards those with a homosexual orientation. What I do see more and more are homosexual activists responding to the Catholic Church and Catholics who disagree with the behavior in very hateful ways and excusing the Catholic Church of hate. What I believe is at the heart of all of this, is the desire for recognition by the Church that homosexual behavior is not sinful. Since the Church has made it very clear that homosexual behavior is not, the Church is accused of not being inclusive. Next comes the "guilt" some Catholics feel with the Church not being inclusive.

All are welcome in the Church. We are not asked at the door what our sexual orientation is before we are permitted to attend Mass. What people seem to be missing is that we are ALL called to chastity depending upon our station in life. None of us are excused!

As someone who is a gay Catholic man and strives to follow the teachings of the Church regarding human sexuality, I am often struck by the gap that seems to exist on this issue. Many people, who do not deal with this issue personally, are very quick to dismiss those of us who do. We are automatically grouped with the "gays" and are accused of wanting to undermine the Church's teachings when we really would like to have a discussion about how the Church chooses to express Her teachings. There is often a disconnect between our experience of homosexuality and how the Church speaks of it and how that is communicated to the average Joe in the pew.

For example, the Church only uses the term "intrinsically disordered" when speaking of homosexual tendencies. I have never seen an official document from the Church that speaks about the tendency to want to murder people as "intrinsically disordered" nor the desire to want to overeat as "intrinsically disordered," but they are. This use of the term by the Church to single out homosexual men and women has the unintended effect of creating a special class of sinners when really homosexuality is no better or worse than any other sexual sin. For those of us, who experience these tendencies, the fact of being singled out in this way informs, sometimes negatively, our relationship with the Church and with our fellow believers. Now, please do not get me wrong. I'm not asking that the teaching be changed, but I am asking that it be reformulated in a way that helps to better reflect the lived experience of many people. For example, why the need to mention anything about "homosexual tendencies" at all as if they were a special category of temptation. Using this language is imprecise and leads to all kinds of thinking that we are disordered in terms if our physical, mental, emotional, psychological states when the Church is only speaking in the moral order. It does not aid acceptance but puts gay men and women outside of the rest of humanity in some ways.

I must take issue with the first comment. The Church no where says that inclinations have moral component to them. Yes, they may direct one to sinful actions, but as long as we do not follow the inclination, then there is no sin. If we engage in "sustained longing, meditation on the desired act of object, a barely conquerable struggle to refrain from the object of powerful yearnings," then, if I'm not mistaken the Church would traditionally say we had committed a sin because we have gone past the realm of temptation at that point. (I'm reminded of the "partial versus full consent to unchaste thoughts" questions on many examinations of conscience.) The first commenter is confusing the issue with his or her comment.

It does strike me that there is lack of understanding or even a desire to want to understand what someone may mean when he writes that he is a "celibate or chaste, gay Christian." Has it ever occurred to people that when someone says they are "gay," it is something more than just merely sex. Why the need to be reductionist about it? By making statements like that, the above commenters are merely proving what Mr. Gonnerman has written in his column.

I really don't understand Susan's vitriolic comment above. I don't think gay people, who want to be part of the Church, see their needs as greater than the widows, fatherless, orphans, elderly, and all the other groups she mentions, but they just want to be included in those groups, to be loved and supported in their struggle with sin as everyone else should be. I don't understand why Susan seems to imply that gay men and women should not be included with other sinners. This comment comes off very judgmental and filled with a great deal of hate for one particular group of sinners in the Church.

Concerning the use of the word, "gay" to describe himself, we have to begin somewhere in describing ourselves. Language is important and is by nature limiting in some way or another, but we also need common language when we dialogue with others. Ron Belgau has written an excellent blog entry concerning this, and I think it helps explain why the use of the word "gay" can be useful. http://spiritualfriendship.org/2012/04/08/whats-in-a-name-2/

The other thing that strikes me about the issue of homosexuality and all the concomitant debates is that it tends to reduce the Church to just another political action committee. I understand that we have a right to enter into the debate on these issues as citizens of our various countries and states, and I'm not saying that Christians should not engage in public debate. However, I am concerned about the perception of the Church as just another political organization rather than the living Sacrament of the Incarnation of our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ. I know the gates of hell will never prevail against the Church, but in these post-modern, post-Christian days, I sometimes wonder if the Church as an institution would do better to spend more time on the spiritual renewal of Her members rather than trying to change laws in a secular country that is only nominally Christian. if we work to change people's lives from the inside, it can only have a positive effect on society as a whole and will bring about a more lasting change than any piece of legislation could ever do. Because as it stands now, the debate will never stop regardless of what laws are passed. Just because North Carolina passed an amendment banning gay marriage does not mean that those seeking such laws are going to stop. I firmly believe that the Church would do better to stay out of the political realm as an institution and concentrated more on the work of bringing souls to Christ. Leave the political realm to individual Christians.

[Dan Savage] recounts a hypothetical Christian who claims, “I’m sorry, we can’t do anything about bullying, because it says right there in Leviticus, in Timothy, in Romans that being gay is wrong.”

Look, anyone who uses a "hypothetical" situation like this is patently disingenuous. How does one "recount" a hypothetical? It is a falsehood. Show me one Christian (other than the Westboro Baptist church) who has ever used words like the above quote. It's lazy and desperate to set up make-believe straw men to evoke people's sympathy. The Church is not the enemy of people with same-sex attraction. It is grossly dishonest to suggest otherwise.

Joshua Gonnerman has written a thoughtful article, worthy of deep consideration on our parts.

And yet I see these trash comments by oh-so-orthodox readers who -- instead of listening to what Mr. Gonnerman has to say -- immediately begin to spout off their own agendas and even dare to attack the deep longings of his heart.

Such ignorant comments demonstrate that the readers have not even a beginner's understanding of emotion and sexuality. They also betray a pharisaical spirit of superiority.

If you folk wonder why Catholicism and Orthodoxy are not seen as attractive, look to your own vicious, thoughtless remarks to a fine, loyal, dedicated Catholic who is on your side -- and be ashamed.

As a regular visitor of the Gay Christian Network, I am seeing many of the same arguments put forth here, as is done there--and indeed, even see the same "monikers." If anyone wants to fully understand how people who have actively chosen the "gay label," and their desires to see the Catholic Church change in her teachings, including expunging the phrase "intrinsically disordered" from the Catechism, I suggest you join the Gay Christian Network and join the Catholic Forum. There is a plethora of debates, lead by many self termed "Side B" Catholics who embrace a full gay identity, and even encourage the change of the Church to embrace this as a possible category of the human person. There is much disdain held for the Magisterium, even though they readily admit to the necessity of the teachings of chastity.

Mr. Gonnerman has done his homework on Courage, for what it's worth. He doesn't have much good to say about them, sadly, despite the fact that it is the only ministry approved by the Vatican.

To quote the article about linguistics which I linked to earlier, terms have meaning.

"The words in which we express our ideas have consequences. To insist that words be used rationally and consistently is a first small step toward recovering moral reason. We should, therefore, refuse to accept “gender” as a relativistic substitute for the fundamental difference indicated by “sex,” while the latter term is expropriated to mean any kind of physical coupling. Above all, we should not acquiesce in the labels “heterosexual” and “homosexual,” when we are referring to men and women.

To concede the validity of such linguistic novelties is to allow the ideologues of the sexual revolution to control the terms of the debate. “Male” and “female,” “masculine” and “feminine,” designate normative components of actual human nature: anatomical, physiological, affective, and rational.

“Homosexuality” is now used to suggest that numerous urges and actions that deviate from these norms hold equivalent status as an element of human nature, but the peculiar use of a natural organ or faculty does not change its nature. A man can walk around on his hands, but that does not turn hands into feet; and society ought not to be obliged to redesign sidewalks and staircases to accommodate compulsive “handwalkers” (manambulants?), even if they are born with the inclination.

No really existing class of persons of a specific, distinct nature corresponds to the word “homosexual” in the way that men and women are distinct, complementary kinds of human being. A claim for specific “homosexual rights” is, therefore, frivolous, and the word is merely an ideological construct aimed at undermining the sexual norms inscribed in human nature."

Part of the freedom the Church provides is to present us with the appropriate mirror within which to view our lives. The term "gay" is not something which God desires for us to use about ourselves, and in using the term, and self-identifying as such, we embrace a false view of man.

This is a fascinating conversation, and I think the tone of all the commentors has been fair and well intentioned. It so happens we have Christopher Yuan speaking at our church for a series of talks over 6 weeks I think it is. He has a great story and has been well received by the good crowds who show up each Wednesday evening. His started out the teaching portion of his talks (the first night was given to his story, found in a book released last year), with a survey showing how Christians are perceived by young people today, both Christian and not. I knew which survey he was talking about, because it got a lot of press a year or two ago. The number one perception of a majority of even young Christians was that the church is (we'll include both of our great traditions--I'm a P) anti-homosexual, which even beat out judgmental.

I brought up a point that is important for conversations like this at First Things, and any other conversations we have about this issue. Americans in a very large way are conditioned by the messages that come from three sources: media, entertainment and education. All three of these broad and ubiquitous professions for decades have caricatured Christians as judgmental, homophobic Neanderthal hayseeds. The reasons most of these young people see Christians the way they do is NOT because we are that way, but because they've been told over and over and over again that we are that way. The reality as some comments here said is completely different.

And I would say the same thing about the church not being a "family" to homosexuals. This goes two ways. Most of those who see themselves this way have as well been programed to think of Christians and the church as the enemy. Yet I would wager a lot of money that most of them have never met or had any kind of intelligent conversation with a committed Christian. And the only reason this is even an issue is because our cultural elites never stop shoving it down our throats (just wait till next fall's new TV season). As I continually point out and as the Dan Savages of the world make very clear, the hate and bigotry is almost all on the side of the secularists who can't stand traditional morality and the God and Christians who stand behind it.

Frank Gibbons, you might remember the sermon of Pastor Sean Harris, which basically advocates bullying children, who exhibit any kind of effeminate behavior or "butch" behavior, into acting straight, so yes, there are other Christians out there that basically do what Dan Savage said they do. If you were a gay Christian teenager sitting in that congregation, do you think you would feel welcome and loved? Maybe so, but I'm guessing many would not.

Hi, Joshua--you wrote:

"Each made clear their adherence to orthodox sexual ethics, but each nonetheless received a venomous response from many of their Christian readers."

But herein lies a significant problem. While I would offer no excuse whatever for "venomous" responses as you describe, part of the problem is that "adherence to orthodox sexual ethics" is not merely lauding someone with SSA for not sexually acting out.

"Not sexually acting out" is simply not equivalent to what the Church means by "chastity." Rather, "not sexually acting out" is called "continence." And yet some will say that the "continent" gay man is actually being "chaste," despite the fact that he is in love with another man whom he lives with.

I certainly wouldn't expect you to disagree with this statement, but when someone claims adherence to "orthodox sexual ethics" while still believing that a "gay couple" can be considered "chaste" (simply because they are not sexually acting out), it creates enough dissonance as to deserve critique.

God bless you!

Deacon Jim R

The authors points are all valid and the authentic Christian is called to sensitivity, compassion & ministry to the gay community. The comments of Mr. Savage reflect the wounds of a youth marginalized and exploited by both "Christians" & a sexual revolutionary left that has used him and people like him to advance the notion of consequence free sex.

Mr. Gonnerman asks an awfull lot however in light of the times we live in...(but so does Christ). The ability of people to develop a language that both teases out distinctions between impulses, identity, and politics amoungst a mainstream culture that has intentionally conflated these concepts for revolutionary gain.

I myself was bullied relentlessly in highschool (my nickname was AIDS) to the point that I transfered out of my public school and headed to Catholic boarding school. Certainly Catholics and all Christians can except the notion that young people should not bully their peers for real or percieved sexual orientation.

The authentic Christian however is confronted with the fact that any real concern and advocacy in this area will be used by the left as an excuse & platform for indoctrination of the young in gay identity politics. It will also have the effect of confusing the faithfull concerning the much more consequential debate over the definition of marriage.

People have limited attention spans and limited time and energy to devote to topics of human sexuality. The cultural left is using sympathy for homosexuals to push for agendas far beyond the bullying of young homosexuals and the bigotry twoard adult homosexuals.

Unfortunetly any overtures made twoard these ligitimante issues will simply help the left make gains in these trying times. They have turned homosexuals into their latest prolitariate. As such occomidation and sympathy will be used only to extort further gains socially & politically.

Mr. Gonnerman would do well to cede this elementary point about the practical consequences of an engagment strategy. For far too many, as Mr. Savage himself makes clear; the issue of bullying is simply an opportunity to push a larger agenda (despite the validity of the claim).

As Frank Gibbons says in his post, it's hard to respond to hypotheticals, and, as Mary points out in hers, it seems that the big push seems to be not so much "Gays must be included in the church", as "Gay behavior must not be considered sinful," and to make Catholics feel guilty for following the church's teachings about mariage, and homosexuality.

There are, after all, churchs, such as the Episcopal church, and the United Church of Christ, which take a far more permissive attitude towards homosexuality; yet, instead of joining such churches, the big push always seems to be on the Catholic church, and how it must change become more "inclusive"---with little, or no, discussion as to what, exactly, such inclusivity should entail. Elizabeth Scalia suggests celebrating homosexual priests, but this sounds a bit. . . odd. We don't celebrate heterosexual priests. Shouldn't all good priests be celebrated---as priests, not a particular sexual orientation?

She also talks about admitting priests' have weaknesses---but, again, we don't celebrate the fact that a given priest suffers, say, from alcoholism, or can't keep his head around women Yes, priests are human, and it is good to acknowledge this; on the other hand, must we start celebrating sinful behavior, just to show how inclusive we all are? Yes, priests are human, and sin like everybody else. On the other hand, they are supposed to represent Christ in His church. A certain standard is expected of them. Lower those standards, and you're headed for trouble (as witness the on-going pedophilia scandal)

Is the Church planning on changing its teachings about marriage, and homosexuality? Because, unless it is, there's going to be a limit on how inclusive it can be on this issue, no matter how charitable, or well-intentioned towards those with same-sex attraction it is. For instance, unless the church changes its teachings, there can be no same-sex marriage---hence, no Catholic singles groups for gays. Dances, social affairs, get-togethers can all be problematic, since these usually involve male/female interaction, or are directed at couples. Are these affairs going to be banned, so as not to offend anyone? Or will gays be allowed to bring "dates", providing they're not having sex with them----which will, of course, raise the question of near occasions of sin, etc. If gay couples are having sex, then, of course, heterosexual couples are going to wonder why sex outside of marriage okay for them, but not for heterosexuals. So, exactly what will inclusivity consist of?

Lastly, I'm troubled by the whitewashing of Dan Savage, and the claim that Leviticus---not teachers, not lax school administrations or uninvolved principals, is the cause of bullying in the schools. I'm also troubled that so many simply slough off his bullying of Christian schoolkids, and Savage's singling them out for ridicule---an act which may very well lead to their being very un-hypothetically bullied by their schoolmates, who've absorbed Savage's message that these kids are mean, narrow-minded, Christians, and their Bible is bigoted.

as for Christians not doing enough to stop bullying---nobody, Christian, atheist, Buddhist, totally secular, has done enough to stop bullying, though it's a terrible problem, and is directed at all sorts of kids, not just the ones perceived as gay.

Again, I really don't believe that the Bible, or Leviticus, is responsible for this bullying. (Homely kids, "Geeky" kids, the mentally retarded and disabled are all prime targets of bullies; I don't see how this can be blamed on the Bible.)

As for Dan Savage---well, let's just say he's got a lot of chutzpah, setting himself up as some sort of anti-bullying champion.

As Ferd says, I think we're being set up in a carrot-and-stick situation, here; the real issue isn't bullying at all.

I don’t have a lot of patience for the scolds here a la Michael e. To whit -be ashamed you vicious Pharisees who dare attack the deep longings of his heart. How ironic! Or were you going for parody? I for one enjoy First Things because it challenges me, and generally inspires a robust conversation among my fellow readers. Mr. Gonnerman is an adult who wrote a worthy and provocative article for First Things. I think the conversation has been productive and largely respectful. We do him no service by demanding kid glove treatment for the comment section here.
@Scott,
Thanks for your thoughtful response.
I think the examples of overeating and murder don’t exactly fit with same sex attraction. Certainly there is not a widespread political movement to embrace either one (unless you count abortion). I agree that we can single out the sexual sin that we are not tempted by as somehow extra heinous, and that heterosexual sexual sin can be just as gravely sinful as homosexual sin, but I don’t see how dropping ‘intrinsically disordered’ will be more helpful or more truthful. Thanks for the link to the identifier ‘gay’ – I will give it a read. Finally, to your point about the Church not advocating for public policy, and focusing on internal spiritual renewal instead, such a course of action will not achieve the end the Church seeks. It is not an either/or, but a both/and on this issue. Pick a gravely sinful issue other than gay marriage and apply the same logic, and I think you will agree with me.

Great article! Thanks for writing this, Joshua Gonnerman, and thanks for publishing it, First Things!

I agree except with one this; the use of the term "gay" by Catholics. That was the only problem I had with Shea especially since the man didn't even identify, as those who are being help to live the Christian life are brought to an understanding that their identity doesn't hinge on their orientation - they are a child of God as everyone else.

Through all the soulful tragedy of Dan Savage's message, I think Joshua Gonnerman has written a pensive article that requires much reflection. Too often we separate people along political or social lines and treat them accordingly, when what is necessary is to see each and every person as Our Lord sees him or her. We must move beyond and behind the name and self-proclaimed status to see Christ in our neighbor and bring them to the Truth and to Him.

It seems that Mr Gonnerman feels that the preception of gay identity resting on sexual activity is a disordered construct of the Church. Church here being understood as the the rank and file parishioners. I understand this rather to be a proper recognition of the gay community's self-perseption. When I use 'gay' as the primary descriptor of myself, i have made my desire to have sex with members of my own sex the basis of my self recognition.

However, he is absolutely right when he notes the horrible impact of the Church, again the rank and file, saying "no, the acts are wrong" but the gay person hearing "no, you really aren't fully human, in fact you don't exist at all." If we are to be Christ to our gay bretheren, we cannot deny them their dignity as humans. And that means we can't say things that will sound like that to them, even if those things are true. We need to find a different way of talking to them; one that assures them that we Love them and do not judge them. One that echos the foundation of all of the Church's teachings. Only when we can talk like this, will we have any success maintaining a dialogue before, during and after we might judge things they are doing.

It is important to remember that the Lord loved us when we were still in our sin. To not offer the same gratuitous love to others means that I do not love them as He has loved me. But that is my job as His disciple. My only job.

I also need to keep in mind that sharing the Faith and Truth is not an exercise in getting others to accept my thinking. It is an opportunity to so fully live out the reality that Jesus Christ is Love Incarnate that those around me cannot help but be drawn to Him.

Finally, Courage has been mentioned a couple of times. I would ask that everyone check out the website (courageRC.org) to find out more about us. We are not so much a ministry to, rather we are supporting ministry of catholics facing the struggles of same sex attractions. Then, share the information with family, friends and especially priests. And please keep us in your prayers.

A normal experience of Christian life is to be able to love Christ while at the same time, say, wearing a wedding ring, going to a prom or dance, holding the hand of a boyfriend or girlfriend, having a photo of a loved one or one's children in the office cubicle, writing a poem to an attractive person.

Normally such expressions are heterosexual, and congratulated by culture and by church alike. Most of us would feel absolutely stifled and caged if we were told we could never express such romantic interest in a beloved human being.

Yet when it comes to homosexual Christians, I read in these comments (if I understand them correctly) that any such romantic feeling is "disordered" and that the Christian who falls in love with others of the same sex is somehow against the teaching of the magisterium if he or she accepts the idenfication of "gay" or "lesbian".

Straight Christians would never submit to such a straightjacket, as if they had to deny and renounce every romantic feeling they ever had. It is inhuman and an absurdity, and if you think I am a scold for saying that, I am sorry you are unable to walk in the shoes of another.

@PaxRomana: I am not a Catholic or a member of the GCN Catholic forum, but I am saddened you imply that the Catholics there are somehow unworthy.

@PeterG: I’m not sure why the examples I gave of overeating and murder don’t fit with same-sex attraction. The tendency to overeat can be as deep seated as same-sex attraction, and the compulsion to kill can be “intrinsic” in some. I should clarify what I meant. My point was not necessarily to disregard the use of the term “intrinsically disordered,” but rather to question why it is only applied to one particular group of people in the Church. In some way or another, we all have desires and tendencies that are “intrinsically disordered,” and the Church would do better to clarify that point rather than singling out one group of people.

Before you can address the revealed theology concerning sexual intercourse, don't you have to face it in the raw i.e. naturally? The problem with homosexuality only appears when trying to see what it is FOR, i.e its teleology (or rather lack of one). I think we get a little too hung up on sentimentality even before we know why would we want to be for or against this or that sexuality, even in a pre political sense.

My question is less why are gays attracted to the same sex, but rather why are they definitely NOT attracted to the opposite sex? While the psychological formation of sexual desire is quite mysterious, the most obvious fact of nature is that (a) organisms seek to reproduce by instinct and (b) humans reproduce only heterosexually. The most interesting hypothetical to consider for me is: if two men could procreate sexually, would the Church or the Bible oppose their union? While this is very speculative, I think it quite obvious that they would not. Sexuality and childbirth can never be separated without completely unmooring man from his bodily and political nature. If we understand gays to be involuntarily so, then that makes it possible to see them as cripples to be deselected by evolution (for what cannot breed cannot be naturally selected).

Gays are obviously capable of heterosexual intercourse, so what is the real problem? They are not "attracted"--fine but can they do the act? "Yes, but this is a violation of their nature or their fundamental desire." It is strange that any living thing could have a "natural" desire that would ensure it could never reproduce, never have children with their own sexual mates. Such a desire actually appears unnatural, reflecting some kind of defect or harmful intervention. (Our genes can hardly know we have artificial insemination or surrogate pregnancies.)

I have two "gay" friends who see themselves as married. Fine, why argue with them about it? But I note that they will never be able to have a child who is equally one's versus the other's. At best the child will have a mother who is not part of the family, so already the child either cannot grow up with a mother or must begin by living with two families. And which family has the first allegiance? Living in an atomized, technologized, welfare state has made these concerns less critical and obvious because they have blunted our acquaintance with the limitations of nature. And since how can Catholic theology ignore those?

Scott,

When I said show me a Christian other than the Westboro Baptist Church who was against bullying because of scriptural injunctions, I included all elements of the lunatic fringe.

But since I'm a Catholic, let's focus on the Church's attitudes toward those with same sex attraction. I'm 62 years old and have never heard a priest speak against homosexuality from the alter or in any other situation. In my eight years of Catholic schooling I never heard a nun or lay teacher mention homosexuality. Nor have I heard any Pope or bishop rail against those with same-sex attraction. I've been in the same parish for almost twenty years and I have never heard anyone make a derogatory remark about a gay person.

The haters in this game are the Dan Savages and the Andrew Sullivans. They are the bad guys not because they're gay but precisely because they spew hatred.

My personal attitude toward bullying is that (for a person over the age of reason) it's a serious sin and in many cases it's a mortal sin. Gay bashing is a mortal sin.

I commend Mr. Gonnerman and First Things for this article. Christian churches as well as the secular media and academia seem to solely define the gay identity by their sexual behavior. As if being ‘gay’ is only and entirely about same sex physical activity. I offer the idea that being gay has nothing to do with sex- at least not of any definitive significance. Just as a married persons or a celibate person (religious or secular) relate to others and the world in a unique way, so I argue do gays. Gay is neither all male nor female nor a composite but a unique perspective or relationship with life and with other persons.
God created human beings (“man’) in His image. And God is neither male or female nor some composite. Singularly, He created male and female. God did not create heterosexuals, homosexuals, lesbians or transgenders. Each of us is born a human being first in His image and that’s how He relates to us. Our mental, physical expression et al are subsidiary.
My Catholic Christian duty and belief is to relate with all human beings first as human beings. The Christian churches as well as the secular culture and academia need to jettison this obsession with sex. And, I suggest, all the various Christian churches abandon this myopic view of gays as only sexual objects. Life is not about sex.
Life is working and struggling to live a righteous life so as to enjoy this earthly time and most especially to warrant entry to Heaven.

Why on earth would we fret over an admittedly purely hypothetical Christian in a circumstance that has not arisen, especially since there is no reason to think it will? Why, after all, wouldn't they just say, "We're doing everything we can!" and then tell the kid that he should try to get along better with the other kids, like any other bullied kid?

And why o why is this bullying so unlike others that it's the only type that deserves sympathy or assurences that life gets better?

Mr. Gonnerman does not reference an attitude that I hold as a Christian, i.e., that a gay identity is a lie. And if it is a lie, it engenders all kinds of complicated approaches to addressing the affliction of same-sex attraction.

The word “gay” and even the word “homosexual” have been politicized out of existence as a reference to what a person afflicted with same-sex attraction must come to terms with. “Gay” more often than not refers to a person who believes that same sex attraction constitutes an ontological reality, that somehow one’s identity is constituted in one’s sexual orientation, and if Catholic he will most likely, if logical, come to believe he must find a way to get the Church to embrace that identity as fixed; but the problem with this scenario is that if the “gay person” must at all times practice chastity, then the Church is denying the reality of the person him-her-self, which is a form of violence. The ultimate danger in this is that well-meaning secular psychiatrists, psychologists, counselors and teachers feel a need to identity what child has this sexual identity and intervene to help the child adjust to that sexual identity (them not being violent like the Catholic Church). And if, as I suspect, there is no such thing as a sexual identity, then all kinds of abuses along with permanent damage can occur when intervening and assigning children a sexual identity. And trust me, it won’t end with a gay identity.

For example, we know that the vast majority of children who experience same-sex attraction outgrow or otherwise depart from that orientation, but many professionals are presently identifying this same-sex attraction in children, and the children are then assigned to “support-groups” that “help” the child adjust to their real identities. And as we know, this leads to those children not only embracing indoctrinated false information of who they are as persons, but the behavior that goes with it. Anyone who claims the contrary is simply naïve or lying. Couple this with what we now know in neuroscience, that repetitive thoughts and behavior change the brain, a child who would otherwise outgrow or otherwise transition out of same-sex attraction can easily end up with permanent same-sex attraction, bio-chemically fixed in the gay identity.

I am certain that for Catholics, at least, we must seriously consider whether there is such a thing as a gay identity, keeping in mind that that identity has not been established scientifically. What has been established is that many children go through phases where they experience same-sex attraction, and the vast majority transition out of it, unless they are pulled to one side and indoctrinated into believing they have a gay identity, an identity, by the way, that has been established not by professionals, but by a network of adults who, unlike Mr. Gonnerman, are convinced they must engage sexually with persons of the same sex to actually be who they are as persons, and who then set out to convince professionals to adopt their ever-widening definition of what a gay person is. This will remain the norm, and if we Catholics embrace that notion, we will end up supporting the damage now being done to children, for we will simply be stating that yes, there is such a thing as a gay person, but we don’t want that person to be actualized.

It was courageous of you to write this Joshua. As Christians we are called to look for Christ in each other, and treat each other accordingly. But in practice this takes heroic virtue. Honestly, I think fear keeps us from becoming saints. How many Christians are uncomfortable around gay people, and avoid welcoming them into their social circles, or worse, gossip about them behind their backs? Such behavior, although not malicious, could be very hurtful to others and eventually provoke the kind of reaction that comes from Mr. Savage. However, before we judge others too harshly, let us look inward to see if there are any forms of hidden discrimination in ourselves. How many of us would have taken the time to care for the dying on the streets in Calcutta like Mother Teresa instead of looking the other way and going about our business? How many of us avoid the inner cities because of our fears of gang violence, and cause us to inwardly make judgments of others with visible body art and piercings and avoid them? How many of us judge others by their looks and avoid them if they are overweight or not personally well groomed, or wear clothing that is out of fashion? How many of us avoid or judge others with mental disabilities like ADHD, or make judgments about the parents of such children? And how many of us avoid the homeless, the poor and the unemployed or make judgments and comments about them as if they have chosen such a lifestyle and nothing can be done to change it? We all have certain crosses to bear, some seem more burdensome than others. We all have hidden fears that prevent us from following Christ unreservedly and becoming saints. But in general I would give others the benefit of the doubt and assume they are good hearted but perhaps spiritually blind in one area out of fear when we feel from them the sting of rejection or discrimination.

I don't know why this is provoking so much negative reaction and eager hair-splitting. (I'm not including every comment above, just to be clear.) Surely we can agree that it's hard to be a faithful Catholic with a homosexual orientation? And that one in such a situation must seem to have a choice between an invisible, unsupported struggle, and an easy, pleasurable, publicly accepted celebration of that orientation. Aren't we called to help our brothers in Christ who are undergoing temptation and need support? Yes, we are. Period.

I remember it had been a trying day when I walked back from my Senior Philosophy class in 2009. It was close to graduation; the sun was out, the jasmine was in bloom, my thesis on justice, mercy and the Divine Comedy was finally done, and we were getting ready for our final on the Tertia Pars of the Summa Theologiae, not to say anything of Einstein's relativity and the understanding of the notion of being in Aristotle's Metaphysics. And, of course, the final seminar on the Phaedrus, in which Plato argues that all true philosophers must in some sense be erotic lovers.

Tired, wearing the untucked collared shirt under my college hoodie, bedraggled, a few hours behind on sleep, I walked through the gate of my dorm(s; they were one building), Sts. Peter and Paul, and was relieved to notice that the front patio, normally unstaffed at that time of day, was not vacant, but that Joshua was there, with, I think, some sort of pipe; he was reading something, I think in Latin, but it was more likely something about Racine's Phedre, on which he had written his own thesis if I recall correctly.

I plumped myself down in the familiar chair. Exhausted, I was still relieved, because I had some issue or another with some question concerning whatever; it wasn't about Dante today, though it well could have been. I suspect it was about the usual affairs of school administration that were occupying us. The subject did not much matter. Where Josh was, I was assured of a good conversation. And indeed I had never a reason to suspect otherwise. On Aquinas, he was as good as any of us, and often had some knowledge of the background owing to keeping good company with those folks who spent all their time focusing on Aquinas alone. (There were a lot of such people at Thomas Aquinas College, especially from our year and before.)

I recall we talked for several hours. This was not unusual. Also not unusual was our habit of reaching a point in the discussion where to say more would be past the ken of human beings; angelology, the Beatific Vision, questions of very specific moral theology. This was always, above all, comfortable. There was no awkwardness in these things; we were brothers, we were dormmates, we were cohorts in the pursuit of Catholic truth -- and it was always Catholic. After examination, all heresy was readily cast away.

When we graduated, aside from my own pride of success from such a school as our alma mater, which has well been advertised by First Things and really by all half-decent Catholic periodicals, and which is known to produce good and honest students of Aquinas, not to mention people who strive not just for ideological but personal holiness in life, I could not help but feel a thrill as my friends, one by one, walked up to receive the right to turn their tassels. And Joshua was among the people I was happiest to see receive the degree, though I was happy for my whole class.

At this time, there was no thought in my mind of his sexual inclinations.

Indeed, there never was, not the whole time we were at the school; when he revealed them to us out of a desire for a deeper honest brotherhood, I was not fussed, because why should I have been? He was abiding by Church teaching; these inclinations were neither a suffering, nor a burden upon him, by his own admission. Nor, I think, were they a great tribulation upon the lot of our little platoon. Nor should they have been. And in fact nothing has changed between us. He is my brother. He is a brother to all who know him well. And he is a Catholic; this makes him a brother to all Catholics. As one who has never had a brother according to biology, I appreciate this more fully than many. I continue to rely on the wisdom he has.

So when I saw that he had been published by First Things, of which I was a regular reader since high school and Fr. Neuhaus, I was overjoyed, as were most of us. When I saw how delicately he described a sentiment that has occurred to so many good Catholic writers of late, a real question for the Church's praxis, though not for her doxa, I was thrilled to see him say what he said.

Then I read the combox.

If we are Catholics, if we are truly devoted to understanding our brothers and sisters, if we truly hope to be true and outstanding lights to our culture, we must seek to understand people as people. Not as reducible to ideologies. Josh certainly is not; it would be a rather shallow brotherhood if he was, and we would long since have had a quarrel of rather epic proportions. (And I think the good folks at TAC who learned to fear mentioning Dante and Virgil when I was in the general environ, lest they be locked into a conversation of similar proportions, will attest that I know my epics. So, for that matter, will Tony Esolen, who was kind enough to say some very nice things about me and to assist me in the formative process.) What he is saying is something much more profound than that we should accept some ideology.

The Jewish Holocaust survivor Emmanuel Levinas said that in the face of the Other we see the infinite. He perhaps thought that this was God, or something of God, because God is the foundation of ethics ultimately. The Roman Catholic philosopher Robert Spaemann, of the University of Munich, refined this, saying that what we encounter is the other person, in their "being-in-itself", or Selbstsein, where we realize that we exist in their world as they exist in ours; the infinite that we experience is the image of God, the dignity of the human person. And we experience this most of all among created human persons in our friends, who Aristotle and Aquinas argued are as a second self in a very, very deep sense. Aquinas said the purpose of society was friendship; the society of God culminates in the communion of saints which we confess in the Creed, the ultimate community of truest friends in Christ and the ideal to which we aspire as Christians even here on Earth.

Joshua is not presenting to us his personhood as such; that is assumed, because he, as all others here, confesses faith in Christ, and lives it, and to have that supernatural virtue is to require personhood first. What he is presenting to us is the circumstance of many persons, of many Christians, of many *Catholics*; it is the circumstance of our brothers and sisters in Christ, not as ideological pawns but as people attempting to work out their salvation in fear and trembling. Last I checked, we heterosexuals are in the same boat. But we have mitigating factors: we can become priests without stigma; we can be married; we can have the joys of prudent sexual companionship. To be gay is not a decision for Joshua. It is a situation. And that situation makes demands not made of straight people; the chastity he lives.

So to be so peremptory as to state that he is defining himself in terms of a vice is not just silly but missing the point; he does not have that vice, because vices are chosen. He has inclinations, things which neurophysiologically dispose his body towards something he chooses against, and this needn't be any more onerous than a heterosexual choosing not to be promiscuous. What it is is lonely. So people who strive to live this life of chastity, as all of us strive to live virtuously, tend to associate for the sake of achieving that good; they seek out their brothers. And when they do, one sees the inevitable difficulty of the fact that there is a stigma associated with, not just the action, but even the inclination, onerous or not. And this is against the teaching of the Church. Or if there is not a stigma, there is indifference; and as another survivor of the Holocaust, Elie Wiesel, noted in his book Night, the worse between hate and indifference, among those claiming to have humanity, is indifference, because hate indicates at least that one has an interest.

This is not to say that what we have here, of course, is the Holocaust. Josh himself would (and probably will) inform me that the comparison is always risky. But what we learned from the Holocaust about the human person, what we learned from John Paul II's preaching against dehumanization by socialism, what we learned from Pius XII's sheltering the Jews, what we hear from Benedict XVI (may he have a hundred more happy years!) about the importance of "caritatis in veritate", must be put into practice with regard to our brothers and sisters, no matter how they are; and if their different circumstance demands different treatment, then for them to mention their different circumstance to this end is no reduction of their personhood, but the expression of our duty of love to them AS that duty is conditioned.

And I for one have no trouble with Josh's "identity" as a "chaste gay Catholic", because he is already my brother, I already knew his situation, and I have long since recognized that he is as Catholic as the rest of us in it; perhaps more so, because to be heterosexual and Catholic has no special stigma, but to be gay and yet truly Catholic inspires bile. I hope that you all, brothers and sisters in Christ, will accept your brother for who he is.

"Christians have appealed far too quickly to their traditional moral views to avoid offering support to gay people."

i believe that Jesus has called on me to do many things (and He knows i've fallen horribly short many times), but none of them required that i "support" any political faction or special interest group.

Mr. Gonnerman:

How do you respond to the homosexuals and their straight advocates who claim, with a straight face, that simply being a Christian who holds a belief in the Bible and what it says regarding homosexual acts - that they are sins of sexual immorality and even an 'abomination' - in fact constitutes a prima facie instance of "bullying" of gay people? Gay PEOPLE are not the enemy - we wrestle not against flesh and blood. But the idea that homosexuality somehow trumps Christian belief and Scripture IS a real enemy, representing an existential threat to the church and believers of all denominations unwilling to bow the knee to the idea that homosexual behavior is the same as skin pigmentation or gender in the eyes of God, regardless of what Scripture says.

That is why many of us have a real problem backing the anti-gay bullying movement - because it is for many an easy way to silence Christians who proclaim that any sexual relationship but that between a man and a woman, united in marriage, is sin. They cannot show where in the Bible it says anything different, so instead they insist we ignore the many passages dealing with homosexual acts as sin. And many call us bullies simply for saying: "No. Sola Scriptura. I am a Christian."

Well, I'm glad to see that the people of this blog are more than happy to prove the author's points about the church's continued insistence on rejecting any idea of homosexuality. It's always good to have an article whose very veracity is proven by the people who were the intended demographic. I'm not going to lie, as a moderate, I had thought that Joshua had made a wise choice by putting this article on a conservative blog. After all, an article about how we should be nice to gays and actually treat them like human beings rather than as the alien 'them' would be rather pointless on a liberal blog, just as an article about the benefits of small government is essentially out of place in a conservative blog. Mostly liberals and conservatives tend to preach to the choir, because it's easy to do, and you know the choir will agree with you. Joshua has stepped away from the Ouroboros that is most political/religious debate, showing great courage to reach across the aisle in hopes of bringing people together. However, it would seem that the conservatives of the world are not yet ready to actually love their fellow men, or even their fellow Christians. I suppose this should come as no surpirse, considering the amount of vitriol that is often found simply between different denominations, or even between different churches of the same denomination. I had hoped that this was more of a friendly affair, like the way the different branches of the armed forces give each other a hard time, but if so, it would seem that the reason for the lack of actual hatred is not because Jesus taught love or anything of the sort, but rather so that the hatred can be turned against people who are even MORE different than Southern Baptists are from Baptists. Incidentally, nobody really cares about your delusions that being gay is a choice. Being full of hate is a choice. Being hated, however, is not.

Whether homosexual acts are considered sin or not, the overarching question that needs to be answered is how do Christians reconcile their own singling out of sexual orientation as something to be confronted, usually in an adversarial manner despite claims to the contrary, when we are all sinners and Christ treated all sinners with love and forgiveness?

Thanks to Mr. Gonnerman and his college roomate..60 years ago, a fellow parishioner was asked to leave our diocesan seminary. Of course, not being a family member, I did not know why this happened. Several years later, this handsome man was found on Christmas eve hanging in a closet in his office. He had married, fathered children - but his dear wife said that every evening he dressed in her clothes and walked around the neighborhood. As a nurse in obstetrics for 50 years, I have witnessed some unusual babies, with many deformiites, etc. I don't believe that we , as a church, have tried to scientifically understand these tendencies and are more apt to condem than understand taht this is our brother, look at him or her and see the suffering body of Christ - and Yes, leave the judgement to Christ!

Then I read the combox.
Well, I'm glad to see that the people of this blog are more than happy to prove the author's points

I do not know how the two of you acquired the idea that Mr. Gonnerman should be free of polite criticism and rejoinder, but you ought to lose it. Mr. Sundram, you and the rest of us might benefit if your comments were concise and relevant.
---

As to the original post, some of us might wonder what it means, when you get down to the brass tacks, for the Church to function as a 'family' to one or another set of its parishoners. The Church in the occident is sorely in need of institutional reconstruction and renewal and attempting to function as an encompassing set of social relations for certain bereft parishoners is not what you might call a proximate or even intermediate goal.

I have read most of the comments (and by the way, really great article), and so many are attacks that seem to be attacks on Mr. Gonnerman's personhood. Here's a man, who is actually trying to have a dialogue, who is in all his authenticity and in his relation to our Creator, attempting to grasp this whole issue, truthfully, guided by his own intellect and conscience.
In any case, it is so easy to leave a comment that will remain in this virtual world; sending it, and being done with it. But I wonder, what would one do if one is face-to-face with Mr. Gonnerman? Would one recognize his inherent dignity, his personhood, his individuality? Would one do the same thing if one looked into Mr. Gonnerman's eyes, and truly recognized the otherness of the Other?

Art Deco notes that Mr. Gonnerman's view is not exempt from "polite criticism and rejoinder."

I agree. To say that any who raise objections are guilty of using "their traditional moral views to avoid offering support to gay people," which I take to be Gonnerman's point, is perhaps proving that at least some of those objections are entirely justified.

That said, I am edified by the discussion. Let us by all means carry on and God bless us.

"But I wonder, what would one do if one is face-to-face with Mr. Gonnerman? Would one recognize his inherent dignity, his personhood, his individuality? Would one do the same thing if one looked into Mr. Gonnerman's eyes, and truly recognized the otherness of the Other?"

Yes. And I'm sure that is true of almost every poster here. But keep in mind that being open to another's Otherness does not mean one has to affirm his/her waywardness, which might not be an intentional waywardness, but a result of cultural indoctrination. No judgment of the person, just discernment, a seeking after the truth.

Being an older woman, a homosexual, I find it disturbing that the Church's official document from the Authentic Magisterium (the Catechism of the Catholic Church, CCC) concerning the 6th Commandment, seems not to have been digested in its entirety. The Authentic Magisterium has a certain level of infallibility, which subsequent documents from Bishops, do not override.

Starting with Paragraph 2332: "Sexuality affects all aspects of the human person in the unity of his body and soul."

On to Paragraph 2359: "Homosexual persons are called to chastity."

Why are we quibbling about documents that do not carry the weight of the CCC on the use of terms Holy Mother Church uses herself.

Second, the CCC makes it patently clear that Sexuality affects all aspects of one's humanity. Syllogistically, the Church is hard pressed to have it both ways on this issue. Shall we follow this:

1. Sexuality: "2332 Sexuality affects all aspects of the human person in the unity of his body and soul. It especially concerns affectivity, the capacity to love and to procreate, and in a more general way the aptitude for forming bonds of communion with others."

2. "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."

3. Conclusion: Homosexual persons are deeply disordered as persons ... because my inclinations affect all of me in the unity of my body and soul ... and, my aptitude for forming bonds of communion with others.

Teresa,

When the CCC speaks of our sexuality affecting "all aspects of the human person in the unity of his body and soul," it is not in the context of our sexual desires, but our sex, as male and female.

2333 says "Everyone, man and woman, should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity. Physical, moral, and spiritual difference and complementarity are oriented toward the goods of marriage and the flourishing of family life. The harmony of the couple and of society depends in part on the way in which the complementarity, needs, and mutual support between the sexes are lived out."

This whole acceptance of our sexuality is not using the term as the world would use the term "homosexuality" or "heterosexuality," but the historic understanding of our sexuality being the total of our sex, as male or female.

She isn't telling us that our "sexual desires" affects all of our person, or that the modern notion of "homosexuality" affects all our person, but rather our nature as male or female affects all our person.

I think this distinction is important in allowing us to understand that She isn't saying that we are objectively disordered for having these desires that are objectively disordered.

PaxRomana,

I beg to disagree with you about the understanding of the CCC on Sexuality. As the CCC makes adamantly clear, Sexuality lies in the complementarity of our genders with the culmination being in the sexual union of man and woman, clearly as heterosexuality. The logic of the CCC is patently clear.

Please reread this sentence:

2332: Sexuality affects all aspects of the human person in the unity of his body and soul. It especially concerns affectivity, the capacity to love and to procreate, and in a more general way the aptitude for forming bonds of communion with others.

Note, "the capacity to love and to procreate"

Homosexuality is considered objectively disordered, as is. Homosexual affectivity renders our "capacity to love and to procreate" disordered.

The Catholic Church is absolute telling us homosexuals that our Sexuality, our capacity to love in an 'ordered' way is impossible. Please read the supplemental idea of why homosexual men cannot be priests: to wit, they lack the capacity to 'affectively' be Fathers. If the Church felt that homosexual men may indeed in fact be chaste, many have, even in the situation of seminary life ... the Church still feels the homosexual men have a disordered capacity to act as Fathers, Shepherds to a flock.

PaxRomana, if the Catholic Church wanted to state what you said, She would have stated as such. Your interpretation of the 6th Commandment in the CCC, is just that: an opinion, and absolutely contrary to the mind of the Church.

PaxRomana, simply reread your CCC quote of 2333. Physical, moral, and spiritual difference and complementarity are oriented toward the goods of marriage and the flourishing of family life. The harmony of the couple and of society depends in part on the way in which the complementarity, needs, and mutual support between the sexes are lived out.

Homosexuals are incapable of a true complementarity between the sexes. So, the Church is in fact stating that homosexuals, as such (and NOT sexual desires) are disordered in their very personhood, because we lack the ability of real complementarity in relationship with the 'other'. The 'other' for the homosexual is not one's gender complement.

Magisterial teaching does NOT say that a homosexual orientation is "intrinsically disordered," but only that it is "objectively" disordered--a crucial distinction though pastorally not understood.The "intrinsically" disordered label applies only to homogenital expressions. That might be small comfort to gay and lesbian Catholics, but we need to understand theological language correctly if we are to engage in a civil dialogue.