The Independent News Source
NCR classifieds - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
In the closet, denying ourselves
by Kate Childs Graham on May. 21, 2009
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
PDF version
Printer-friendly versionSend to friendPDF versionThis past week, a film premiered that has everyone talking about outing. The film, Outrage, seeks to “out” policymakers who, while opposing the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people, are they themselves gay.
Now, I have always maintained an anti-outing stance; that is, I believe that it is up to an individual to decide when, where, why and how they tell people that they are lesbian, gay, bisexual and/or transgender. At the same time, I believe that anyone who is against LGBT rights has a flawed stance, regardless of their individual sexual orientation or gender identity.
On the other hand, I understand the anger some may feel toward people who, in their view, are being hypocritical. For me, though, I feel more frustrated with the societal pressures that force people to deny their true selves and stay in the closet.
My freshman year of college, while I was out to a few close friends and family back home, I was not ready to come out in this new environment I was living in. I thought coming out in college would jeopardize my chances at making friends, being class president, acting in plays and so on. I thought coming out in college would forever relegate me to the freaks table and that was something I was not yet willing to do.
And while I was not ready to come out, I did meet and fall for my first girlfriend. A relationship bloomed which was to become a first in a long string of relationships shrouded in secrecy, fear and shame. One time during that year, a classmate thought she had seen evidence of our relationship and started a rumor that spread to, what at the time felt like, the whole school. I was devastated. I cried. I shouted. I denied it emphatically.
Looking back on those closeted days of secrecy, I no longer feel any real animosity towards the people who sought to out me, even though it was often just for a good piece of gossip. What really strikes my heart when I recall those painful memories is the lack of support from my classmates, my friends, my teachers or my church to shed the secret that had weighed me down since I was in middle school. What bothers me is that I felt as if, for them and for myself, I had to deny it.
These stories of outing, denial, being ashamed of one’s identity and lacking support from the community are all too common and remind me a bit of Peter:
“One of the high priest’s attendants saw Peter sitting there at the fire, and she stared at him and said, “This one was with Jesus, too!”
But Peter denied it. “I don’t know him!” he said.
A little later, someone else noticed Peter and remarked, “You’re one of them too!”
But Peter said, “No, I’m not.”
About an hour later, someone else insisted, “Surely this fellow was with them, too. He even talks like a Galilean.”
“I don’t even know what you are talking about!” Peter said.”
When Peter denied that he knew Jesus, he was also denying a part of himself, his identity as a follower of Jesus. He denied both Jesus and his identity because of the societal pressure to do so. And the moment in which Peter denied himself -- that moment when the cock crowed -- ultimately led to Jesus’ death.
I believe that Jesus died so that no one would have to deny their true selves -- whether Christian or Jew, woman or man, slave or free, gay or straight…well, you all know the song.
Jesus died so that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people would not be afraid to come out of the closet. Jesus died so that policymakers would not have to deny their sexual orientation and lobby against the rights of LGBT persons to prove that denial. Jesus died so that leaders in our church would not be ashamed to have a relationship with a partner of the same sex (or opposite sex, for that matter) and resort to great and unethical lengths to cover up these relationships. Jesus died so that we could all be true to ourselves and to God.
In the end, while I am sure that outing anyone is immoral and unjust, I am equally convinced that we must change the social structures that keep people in the closet -- whatever closet it may be. Only then will we be able to break down all of those walls that divide us. Only then will we be able to live our lives free of fear and shame. Only then will we be able to be our truest selves. And that is just as, I believe, Jesus would want it.
Kate Childs Graham writes for ReligionDispatches.org and YoungAdultCatholics-Blog.com. She also serves on the Women’s Ordination Conference board of directors and the Call to Action Next Generation Leadership Team.
Morality is essential for a
Morality is essential for a spiritual life in Christ. We know that even those walking around who either do not know God or could care less are loved by God. Rejoice in the Ascension! Alleluia! Alleluia!
"Jesus died so that lesbian,
"Jesus died so that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people would not be afraid to come out of the closet..etc..etc."
Actually He died for our sins.
I like this Young Voices idea, but all these authors write for Call to Action blogs. This is hardly a true sampling of young voices.
AMEN, Jeff! So true! Hardly
AMEN, Jeff! So true! Hardly a true representation of Catholic "Young Voices"...but this is the National (anti)Catholic Reporter...so what do you expect??
I've said it before and I'll
I've said it before and I'll say it again: if you don't like what you read in this paper, don't read it! Simple as that.
Using your own logic...maybe
Using your own logic...maybe YOU should just follow your own advice in regards to being Catholic. If you don't like the Catholic Church...just leave it! It's as simple as that.
We read the NCR because we
We read the NCR because we care. Besides, you love reading our constructive criticism.
It is a credit to this paper
It is a credit to this paper that they encourage dialogue with a comment section.
While it is true, Jeff, that
While it is true, Jeff, that this "Young Voices" column may not be a sampling, I do believe it provides a place for these kinds of reflections to be shared. A few months ago I googled "Catholic" and honestly there are very many blogs, websites and online versions of publications where more traditional viewpoints are expressed by writers of all ages.
I am an older (over-Medicare age) practicing Catholic and not a Call to Action member. I have genuinely appreciated the opportunity NCR has been providing to read these articles and to touch the youthful perspective. Hearing from those who stay is far more encouraging than watching those good young people who are walking away...
"Jesus died so that leaders
"Jesus died so that leaders in our church would not be ashamed to have a relationship with a partner of the same sex"
wow! and all this time i fell for st. paul's silly statement that "christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures."
this means we need to make some long overdue changes. everyone please tear out romans chap 1 and 1 corinthians chap 6 from your bibles now, just in case miss graham accidentally sees them and has her delusion broken.
furthermore, the following fathers of the church are now to be considered off limits as they conflict with graham's amazing insight into catholic moral teaching on homosexual acts:
basil
augustine
john chrysostom
cyprian
tertullian
....
i'm sure you all can think of more.
I hope your cruelty and
I hope your cruelty and sarcasm keep you warm at night!
Logic has the same effect on
Logic has the same effect on a liberal as a lead bullet has on a werewolf. This is the typical liberal "victim" approach. Since KCG is a victim, liberals attack any logic against her writings as cruel sarcasm or make other personal attacks against people who disagree with them.
huh, i didn't know the
huh, i didn't know the quality that made someone 'cruel' was their ability to point out the blindingly obvious in church teaching.
No, its about the WAY you do
No, its about the WAY you do it.
well, i'm glad that at least
well, i'm glad that at least you do recognize that what the church of christ has taught on this topic for over 2000 years is blindingly obvious.
Pete the geek seems to be
Pete the geek seems to be stuck on the fact that Jesus died. Scripture and the writings of the early church fathers do not completely define a living faith. Revelation has not ended with scripture or the insights and opinions of a group of men. It is an ongoing, living thing. Christ lives in us. The spirit of God lives in us. How dare we insist that that Christ died and that's that.
Catholic Liberals see sacred
Catholic Liberals see sacred scripture as "living documents" just as secular liberals see the United States Constitution as a "living document." How consistent! Liberals void laws or "interpret" new meanings to enforce their will on others based upon whatever they feel.
i'm stuck on it? because
i'm stuck on it? because thats WHY he came into the world. so that 'in dieing he destroyed our death. rising he restored our life.'
well, perhaps then you can point out god's latest revelation where he states that homosexual acts are NOT sinful? i've looked everywhere and i can't find it.
and you're totally wrong as wrong can be. public revelation is OVER. the catechism itself aknowledges this: "The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ."
the APPLICATION of revelation is not over, of course, but that is a different thing. you will not find any direct teaching of the new testatment or church doctrine thrown out at any time. a more explicit definition will be offered, but it will not be thrown out.
the unbroken teaching of scripture, tradition, doctors of the church, saints, writings of all the popes, the catechism, etc all reinforce the truth that homosexual acts are unnatural and sinful. it's settled. it's done. there is no more chance of that being changed than the doctrine of the eucharist being thrown out.
Don't be an idiot. Is God
Don't be an idiot. Is God really doing a new thing? I don't know; it is not at all clear that God is or is not doing anything here.
What is clear is that human beings are doing what they've always done: found a way to justify their behavior while claiming that God is responsible.
It is unfair to have laws and
It is unfair to have laws and attitude that marginalize people and then point a finger at just how marginalize they are.
It is unfair to have attitudes and santions inhibiting someone's ability to have good feelings about themselves, to form healthy relationships and then point a finger and say "Look how unhealthy they are. Look how unhappy they are" as if that is something intrinct to being homosexual
Christians should be in the forfront in helping all of us to see the gift and joy of who we are, which is the gift from God.
I read The Church's pastoral guidlines for gay and lesbian people. I was saddened by how our leaders have failed in it's understanding of human nature and our relationsip with the devine. What a terrible burden - the secrecy and shame - they want to place on the shoulders and psyche of gay and lesbian people.
Christ said the two greatest commandants were to love God and to love one neighbor. I fail to see how any gay and lesbian christian living openly does not allow one to do that.
"Jesus died so that lesbian,
"Jesus died so that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people would not be afraid to come out of the closet." Finally the mystery is solved. Jesus died so we could be free to be gay. What nonsense. The LGBT (they keep adding letters-soon we will have the whole alphabet) agenda think that by keep repeating their claims of normalcy everyone will believe them. LGBT acts are sinful. One they are done by people who are not married. Two they are sodomy. Don’t push your guilt onto others.
"Jesus died so that lesbian,
"Jesus died so that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people would not be afraid to come out of the closet."
Dear Kate: This is stretching the nature of Christ's redemptive act. Yes, the principles established by deduction may very well demonstrate your case but it is, I think, almost preposterous to make the link as if it is direct.
Social change takes time, part of the resistance to change is, as you state, the hidden hypocricy of those in positions of authority or not, who disguise their homosexuality in homophobia. Let's work on it. Like you I disagree with "outing" people. But that is part of the change process and those who hide behind heterodoxy for personal gain hardly deserve preservation in their lies. Right?
Look, people who oppose the
Look, people who oppose the LGBT lifestyle probably do it for far more complex reasons than hatred towards a society that doesn't allow such behavior and thus forces them to remain closeted. Look, in today's societies being homosexual is an O.K. thing to do promoted by big Hollywood companies and big business as well as by small NGOs. So, stop playing the victim.
The truth is that vaginas were made by god to be penetrated by penises and that's the natural use for those organs. If you don't agree with that, maybe staying celibate is a far better option than being homosexual in the christian sense. Celibacy is also a way to live your sexuality.
WHAT? Vaginas were made by
WHAT? Vaginas were made by God to be penetrated by penises? I thought that Catholic Moral Teaching encompassed more than natural law. Also, if you truly examine our society, you will find that there is still much homophobia and acts of discrimination or hatred. Your statement is like saying that racism or sexism is no longer a problem because some women are CEOS or because Barack Obama is our President. What a simplistic understanding of complex issues.
If you study ANY Catholic
If you study ANY Catholic moral teaching (Catholic, so no Charlie Curran, etc), you will find that all sexual expression outside marriage is always wrong. You will find that marriage is always between a man and a woman. You will find that any sexual action that does not value both the procreative and unitive goods is sinful (that means both contraceptive use and many means of artificial fertilization).
The truth is that vaginas
The truth is that vaginas were made by god to be penetrated by penises.
If that's true, then why are women capable of clitoral orgasm which does not require any form of penetration what so ever? Exactly like penises. God must have screwed up.
"Jesus died so that lesbian,
"Jesus died so that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people would not be afraid to come out of the closet."
Silly, unsophisticated me: I thought Jesus died to atone for our sins.
I'm sure Ms. Graham is well intentioned, but lacks vision. I have no doubt that she has been gay since her earliest awareness of her sexuality but that does not mean God made her gay.
Being omni-sexual was the norm for all societies before Judaism and Christianity. One of the things that made Jews freaks compared to other societies was their ban on homosexual activity. If the Jewish religion got that wrong and was just more hateful than other ancient philosopies, why would anyone be Jewish or Christian?
Not only does the fact the ancient societies were univerally omni-sexual disprove the notion that our sexualities are fixed gay, straight or transgendered from birth, the modern analysis of child molestation also proves at least some became gays by environmental influeces because those molested are far more likely to be gay. However, the intolerance of liberals denies those molested as children who are gay investigation into therapies to treat their condition when that is what they desire.
If you get your wish and we start teaching kindergardeners that one day they can grow up and marry a boy or a girl and it doesn't matter, you will see how environment will change behavior and will see us go the ways of ancient Rome.
The Theology of the Body is a good primer on the primacy of the heterosexual union. It is very sad that you are saddled with this disordered condition through no fault of your own, and we should all keep you in our prayers.
"Jesus died so that
"Jesus died so that policymakers would not have to deny their sexual orientation and lobby against the rights of LGBT persons to prove that denial."
That comment is very judgemental of gay policymakers who are against same sex marriage. Your comments are reflective of the extreme judgementalism of the left that assumes that everyone that disagrees with them is simply ignorant, hateful or in denial. There are many gays who believe that marriage should be reserved between a man and a woman as it is in the best interest for a society as a whole and for children to encourage the bonding of men and women.
I agree with Snowdrop here
I agree with Snowdrop here that all ARE loved by God whether they know him or not. However, the point of this article is that Jesus followers should be like Jesus and see the God in each person/sinner as he did. It's easy for God to love us; we find it more difficult as humans to do His will though. What I liked about your article Kate, is that you realize that it isn't your place to out someone who isn't ready for it. I think that should be true of all of us - I shouldn't show off someone's art work if they aren't ready for the public to see it, I shouldn't insist a shy person stand up and lead in prayer and so on. There are so many ways we "out" each other and it really isn't our place. Our place is to love each person into their fullness of life.
Thank you for compassionate
Thank you for compassionate and, yes, empathetic words. Paz y Bien, Rolando.
"Jesus died so that lesbian,
"Jesus died so that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people would not be afraid to come out of the closet. Jesus died so that policymakers would not have to deny their sexual orientation and lobby against the rights of LGBT persons to prove that denial. Jesus died so that leaders in our church would not be ashamed to have a relationship with a partner of the same sex (or opposite sex, for that matter) and resort to great and unethical lengths to cover up these relationships. Jesus died so that we could all be true to ourselves and to God."
If Soteriology and Christology can be reduced to being "true to ourselves and to God" to hell with it. Jesus didn't come so I could just feel good about being me.
Mark, your comment leaves
Mark, your comment leaves much to be explained. Logically, how did you make the jump that Kate is reducing Christology and Soteriology to "feeling good about ourselves"? Also, what exactly do you mean when you use those terms?
Well, if you start with
Well, if you start with Christian "fundamental theology," you're asking and answering questions about human encounters with the Divine. We name the Divine God, and see examples of that relationship in the Jewish and Christian Scriptures.
Fundamental theology leads, eventually, to both a doctrine of God - some understanding of who God is for Christians - and a doctrine of Christ - both who Jesus is for Christians and who Jesus in Himself. John Courtney Murray's "The Problem of God" is a reasonable starting place for the history of both the doctrine of God and the doctrine of Christ.
The conclusion of the councils of Nicea and Chalcedon were and are that, using Greek philosophical language, you can speak of God as Trinity - three hypostasis in one ousia. You can speak of the Second Hypostasis of the Ousia as having two ousia - Divine and Human - in one hypostasis. That's the so-called "hypstatic union."
Reflection on Jesus in Himself is Christology. Reflection on and understanding of what it is that Jesus-as-Christ does for humans - a convenient (but extremely limited) word is "salvation" - is Soteriology.
The assertion that Jesus came so that people "can be true to themselves" doesn't begin to do justice to a) reflection on Jesus in Himself or b) what Jesus-as-Christ does for humans. Or am I missing something?
Kate, by virtue of her baptism, is dignified by the name Christian. I am sure, by her lights, she tries, with God's help, to be Christ for others, particularly for her partner. But when Kate uses the words "partner" and "marriage," and when I use those words, we are using the same words in different ways. I define and use those words the way the pastors of the Catholic Church do. I think Kate does not. I do not think the meaning and application of those words has changed. I think Kate does. I do not think the meaning and application of those words can change. I think Kate does.
Similarly, in God-talk (the doctrine of God and the dogma of the Trinity), Jesus-talk (Christology) and Jesus-as-Christ-talk (Soteriology), my starting point, ending point, touchstone and reference begin and end with the pastors of the Church. Not because I can't think for myself - I can and I do. But because I call myself Catholic, I constantly test my thinking and understanding against the "mind of the Church" so I can think with the Church.
I think with the Church about human encounters with God as recorded in the Jewish and Christian Scriptures. I think with the Church when I try to assimilate the teachings of past ecumenical councils (Nicea and Chalcedon). I think with the Church when I try to assimilate the teaching of the Greek and Latin Fathers, before and after Nicea. That is how I try to be "true to myself." I don't look to any of those things to *justify* *myself* *or* *my* *choices* *or* *my* *behavior*.
Being "out" - about anything, not only sexual orientation - in and of itself, does not demonstrate the presence or action of the Holy Spirit or my congruity with God-the-Holy-Spirit will for me. That's just one, small my story. A more Christian way to approach this whole issue is that by baptism I died with Christ and was raised with Him. That makes me a both a child of God, Jesus brother and a son of the Church. That's the foundation of Christian anthrolopology right there - that and not where I fit in the "alphabet soup" (GLBTQIAS) continuum.
Jesus did not die so that
Jesus did not die so that people could live lives of immorality. At the risk of being called intolerant or someone given to "hate speech", the consistent teaching of the Church is that homosexual acts are gravely disordered, as they do not proceed from a genine complementarity, they violate the natural law, and they are close the sexual act to the gift of life.
Being a homosexual is not necessarily sinful, since sin implies choice, and often homosexuals do not make a choice to be gay, but the homosexual person is called to a life of chastity, just as unmarried heterosexuals. In questions of morality, the Church has always acknowleged the difference between "being" and "doing". The Catechism points out that, by self-mastery, the support of disinterested friendship, and the consolation and grace of the sacraments and prayer, the homosexual person can approach human perfection. By uniting their suffering and frustrations to the suffering of Christ on the Cross, great grace can be attained, both for the person and for the Church.
Jesus died that we might have life. Jesus died that we might receive the graces necessary to live our Christian callings. He did not die that we might ignore those callings and do whatever we want. He has called each of us to a higher ideal and we are all obligated to strive daily to reach that ideal.
"Jesus died that we might
"Jesus died that we might have life. Jesus died that we might receive the graces necessary to live our Christian callings."
Absolutely. And living in secrecy and shame for the way one is created is certainly not celebrating the life and grace we have received from Jesus. Furthermore, denying the full equality of our sisters and brothers for their sexual orientation or gender identity is no way to identify oneself as living in the life and grace of Jesus. I think that's the point Kate Childs Graham was making in her article, and I for one agree with her.
"sexual orientation or gender
"sexual orientation or gender identity" - define these please. How many sexual orientations are there? Name them and count them. How many gender identities are there? Name them and count them. How do you know there are as many orientations and identities as you name and count and not more? Or less?
If you're going to insist on "full equality" for bisexuals, homosexuals and transfolk, then what about "full equality" for polygamy, polyandry and group marriage? After all, isn't that just the way some folks are wired?
I have to disagree with the
I have to disagree with the author's stance against outing gay politicians who ACTIVELY work against civil rights for gay people. It's one thing to be silent, it's entirely different to be anti-gay. There are consequences to our actions. "Societal pressures" are no excuse for hypocrisy.
Apparently 2000 years of
Apparently 2000 years of Catholicism has been wrong until we have reached this New Age and this new creed. Yes KCG, your "I believe" truly says it all.
For 2,000 years The Church
For 2,000 years The Church was wrong about anti-semitism until it fianlly corrected it's ways. It can be wrong about other things as well.
You should not smear the
You should not smear the Church. Powerful members of the heirarchy have been guilty of anti-semitism, but it was never a teaching of the Church.
You make the false analogy of comparing the sin of anti-semitism to the teaching on homosexual activity in order to make an argument that the Church may eventually change its misguided ways and endorse gay relationships.
I for one agree with John
I for one agree with John David. I think you are looking at this thru a too narrow academic lense. I think that the point is that 2,000 years of anti-semitism bring into question our leaders ability to listen to the guidence of the Holy Spirit. It is not a smear to point this out. The smear is the 2,000 years of this destructive thinking and behavior.
i was wondering when the
i was wondering when the strawmen would show up. didnt take long.
anti-semetism was never a doctrine of the church. it was never taught as part of moral law. it has no backing of sacred (upper case 't') Tradition. the fact that it was practiced (shamefully) my some, and at certain times many, catholics speaks to sinfullness and not to the church teaching it as laudable.
homosexual acts, on the other hand, have always and everywhere been taught to be sinful, with the full authority of the church of christ. that won't change. ever.
I have great sympathy for
I have great sympathy for those afflicted with same sex attraction. I pray that they continue their struggles to lead Chaste and Holy lives.
This article is NOT an accurate portrayal of the Catholic position on homosexuality. Anyone reading this article should check out Pope John Paul II's "Theology of the Body" for an explanation for why homosexuality cannot be part of a holy life. I recommend that anyone struggling againist the Church's teachings on homosexuality read this work, and spend time in some serious comtemplation and prayer on the subject.
Our sympathy for those who struggle with same sex attraction should not be a justification to sanction a soul jepordizing lifestyle.
Peace be with you all!
Yes, you, JP 11 and others
Yes, you, JP 11 and others can focus on the body while I and others will focus on the spirit. I believe from my readings of the Jesus's sayings that this is how he would have wanted it. Peace and payers
If the mystery of the
If the mystery of the Incarnation teaches us anything, it is that the spirit and the body are one unity. We cannot separate one from the other. Even after death, the Church teaches that our souls, either in the Presence of God in Heaven, awaiting that beatitude in Purgatory, or eternally separated from God in Hell, will be reunited with our bodies, in the same way that Christ's soul, at His resurrection, was united with His perfected Body.
Catholic theology and understanding of the mystery of the Incarnation tells us that the this world is every bit as real and important as the next. Eucharistic theology tells us the same. Christ did not choose to fulfill His promise ("I will be with you until the end of the world") by spiritual means, but by sacramental means: He left us the sacrament of His Body and Blood, physical AND spiritual realities, food that we eat and drink physically in order to receive the supernatural spiritual graces. Thus, the Church is concerned with the body, just as Christ was. When Christ was confronted by the woman caught in adultery, He called her to conversion: "go and sin no more". He knew that the actions of the body can damage the spirit, just as the motivations of the spirit can harm the body.
Protestant thought leads us to the conclusion that all that truly matters is the soul, what we do in this life really means nothing as long as we believe and attend to the spiritual, and that the sooner this world ends, the better it will be for everyone. But that is not Catholic theology and it is not Incarnational theology.
Sally, you might want to
Sally, you might want to include those who suffer from heterosexual attraction in your prayers. It seems to me a lot more damage has been done to far more people because of heterosexuals failing in the struggle with their attraction than from gays failing in their struggle.
While I appreciate both of
While I appreciate both of your thoughts, they are simply not in line with Catholic teaching and not founded in any factual basis. That's the funny thing about following Christ, you can't bend his teachings to fit how you "feel" about an issue. I understand that while it can be difficult to accept Catholic teachings (especially on homosexuality), it doesn't give carte blanche to excuse oneself from trying to follow them to the best of one's ability. A greater focus should be put on meeting Christ's commands to live a holy life, as opposed to trying to redefine Christ's teachings to fit our own shortcomings.
Also, homosexual attraction IS intrinsically disordered, while heterosexual attraction is NOT instrically disordered, at least that has been the precedent for 2000 years of Catholic teaching. Heterosexual attraction and sexual activity within the bounds of marriage can be completely healthy, while homosexual attraction is disordered and homosexual activity is always sinful, even in a committed relationship.
That being said, I will take your advice and pray for unmarried heterosexuals to lead sexually pure lives.
Actually, I was thinking
Actually, I was thinking about the problems of heterosexuals in things like rape, incest, rape with in marriage, even masturbation. These are all intrinsically evil as well, as the Church has defined sexual morality.
I know it's easy to think of all heterosexuality as confined to marriage by psycho-sexually mature adults, but the facts are quite different. Calling a particular sexual inclination intrinsically evil as opposed to the sanctity of it's opposite is sophistry. The real issue is the actions based from any orientation, and in that case, it's about maturity, an issue which is not intrinsic to any orientation.
Maybe Jesus died so we could all be forgiven for not being sexually mature at all times.
Sadly, the concept of
Sadly, the concept of morality has been replaced with tolerance and permissiveness. This is obvious when people presume to say that "Jesus suffered and died so that I can do whatever I want to". When the Passion and crucifixion of Our Lord is used to justify actions and lifestyles that are patently in opposition to Scripture and Tradition, I think we can justly say that morality is, for some folks, dead.
Reading the responses, I see
Reading the responses, I see that this article is a like a flame to which homophobes flock.
1. "Church teaching" amounts to rules made by cloistered men who frankly are ignorant on a lot of issues, whether they be social, scientific, etc. The PEOPLE are the Church, not just the hierarchy.
2. To say that you can be gay but can't engage in same-sex love is like saying, "You can be left-handed, but must only write with your right hand."
Being gay is simply part of the diversity of humanity. To condemn people for their sexual orientation is cruel & un-Christ-like.
However: 1. The hierarchy are
However:
1. The hierarchy are also people. As people they are also part of the People of God, the ecclesia, the Church. And they have a particular role to play in the community, however small that role is.
2. There is a wide diversity of humanity engaged in a wide variety of sexual behavior. That behavior is not limited to labels like gay or straight. Explain those other forms of love aren't also named, tolerated, encouraged and blessed. By your logic polyamory can and should celebrated. After all, to condemn those people is "cruel & un-Christ-like."
you say: "Church teaching"
you say: "Church teaching" amounts to rules made by cloistered men who frankly are ignorant on a lot of issues, whether they be social, scientific, etc. The PEOPLE are the Church, not just the hierarchy.
this line is regurgiated almost verbatim everywhere it seems. it is the universal cry from those who don't want to follow any teaching of christ or his church that they find difficult. leaving aside the obvious fallacies, suffice it to say that Martin Luther, Arius, Pelagius, et al used this statement as well, albeit in a slightly modified manner, to support their errors.
you say: To say that you can be gay but can't engage in same-sex love is like saying, "You can be left-handed, but must only write with your right hand."
this is a false analogy coupled with a fallacious assumption. writing with your left or right hand is not an immoral act, is nowhere condemend in sacred scripture, and is not sinful.
a better analogy would be this: i have sexual desire for a woman outside the bounds of marriage with my wife, why is it immoral for me to indulge in it whenever i feel like it? i have the urge, right? if i have the inclination, how could it possibly be sinful for me to indulge my passions whenever i see fit? god made me like that, so why is it wrong?
having the desire to do something does NOT automatically give us the moral justification to DO it.
st. paul and other apostles and all the doctors of the church (some of whom are women, btw) are un-christlike because they comdemned homosexual acts as disordered and sinful? wow. it takes a very special person to admonish st. paul for being un-christlike. good luck with that.
No one is condemning anybody.
No one is condemning anybody. Being gay is not a choice and one cannot be condemned for being who one is.
Having said that, and here is the heart of the matter, homosexuals who engage in sexual activity are behaving outside the natural order of sexuality. The purpose of human sexuality is to foster intimacy between a husband and a wife that leads beyond one flesh, to one heart and soul and thus demands that the husband and wife intend to be faithful to one another till death. This is why the Church condemns sex outside of marriage, since it demeans the sexual act and lowers it to the status of recreation. In addition, the sexual act is intended to produce children, the fruit of conjugal love. The sexual act between a husband and wife is the manner in which human beings partake in the creative act of God.
Sex between homosexual couples is not open to fertility -- indeed, fertility is an impossibility, and they do not proceed from a genuine and affective complentarity. Further, throughout the history of the Church, for 2000 years, homosexual activity has been condemned, and that is based, not on cloistered old men, but on Scripture, which is very clear in its presentation of homosexual acts as grave depravity.
Homosexual persons have been given a cross to bear. It is no doubt a very heavy one. However, it is their cross to carry, just as being born blind is a cross to carry, or being chronically sick or being injured in a car accident are crosses we must carry. Homosexual persons are called to chastity, just as all unmarried people are called to chastity. This chastity proceeds from a self-discipline and a deep reliance on Christ, and can lead one to great holiness of life.
There are many who see the Church's consistant teaching on this matter as "homophobic". It is not. The teaching proceeds from the Lord's deep and abiding love for all His children. The Lord calls us to heroic virtue, even and especially in the face of great temptation and the permissiveness of our society (which corrupts even some in the Church, sadly). I pray for all those who have crosses to bear, just as I hope that they pray for me. Life is not easy, sometimes it is very hard. Christ did not promise that His calling would be easy and He did not promise that we would get to do everything that we want to do in this life. What He did promise was that, if we remain faithful and if we keep His commands, we will inherit everlasting joy and peace. The reward is worth all the struggle.
Kate, You need to give God
Kate,
You need to give God and His Church a fighting chance if you ever want to be happy here. Here's what I would recommend:
For one month- 30 days - make a resolution to live according to the fullness of the Church's teaching. On Day 1 take stock of your life, recognize and stop all those sinful lifestyle choices (illicit relationships, sexual acts outside Catholic marriage, profanity, arrogance, thinking ill of others, etc). Cut out all the people who lead you to sin. Day 2 - find a priest and make a heart-felt confession. Even if you dont fully understand the Church's position on an issue, confess it for Jesus. Then live the rest of the month according to the Church's teachings, continuing to deny the evil habits and sinful acts you committed before. Take advantage of daily mass as much as you can and make the most of your Sunday obligation. Make every effort to keep yourself in a state of grace the whole month, going back for confession if you need it. Importantly, pray a few times a day for help from God to avoid sin, asking also the intercession of the saints and especially the Blessed Virgin. Make your prayers count - avoid rote recitations.
If you give God and His Church a chance you can leave your sinful life behind and be much happier.
If you give God a serious chance, He won't abandon you.
It works every time, if you really mean it.
HM - Presumption is also a
HM - Presumption is also a sin in our tradition. You seem to know little of the author's personal, day-to-day life, her spirituality, or her sacramental life, yet feel free to act as judge and make rather large and unfounded assumptions about it. I find this post offensive in its presumptive and judgmental nature, choosing to attack the author's spirituality instead of engaging the content of the article. I'm surprised NCR allowed this comment to be published.
¨If you really mean it¨is a
¨If you really mean it¨is a way of discounting all of the times that your argument fails. It is a way of doing great damage to those who have done exactly as you suggest, but find that the result were not as you insist they would be. It also is a way of keeping those who are unwilling to do an honest evaluation smug in their position. It not only is cowardly, it is unchristian
NCR should give up any
NCR should give up any pretense of being a catholic publication. Gee whiz. This column takes the cake.
Typical gay lobby logic:
Typical gay lobby logic: Tolerance for all, except anyone who disagrees.
How can someoene who tries to
How can someoene who tries to be accepting of all accept those that exclude others? Its not rhetoric.
"Jesus died so that no one
"Jesus died so that no one would have to deny their true selves."
Since all men including myself have a naturally polygamous nature, Jesus died so I can have sex with as many women as I can.
What evidence do you have
What evidence do you have that "all men are polygamous in nature"? This seems like a bit of projection to me.
The evidence are all the
The evidence are all the media dedicated to men ogling women from porn to the sexy weather babes proliferating on the local news. Marketers spend billions of dollars playing men's nature because they expect a return. As for women, Playgirl magazine fizzled and stayed around for as long as it did because gay men purchased it.
King David was a typical man. Even when he was blessed with dozens of wives he was still not satisfied when he saw Bathsheba (spelling?). Gay men do not have the guardrail of a woman wanting fidelity and are more likely as a couple to swing than a heterosexual couple.
Men can aspire and live the ideal of monogamy. However I dare say that while good men in loving 30 year marriages will reject the notion of scoring with the new flirty office babe, in general it will still hold some appeal to them. The same is not generally true of a women.
I might also add, so what is
I might also add, so what is your point other than attempting a cute comment?
Let's say that only 2% of men are polygamous in nature. If KCG is correct "that Jesus died so that no one would have to deny their true selves... gay... straight.. bisexual and transgender," then Jesus died for those who have natural urges to be with more than one woman fulfill those urges.
Of course Jesus Christ died
Of course Jesus Christ died for our sins and the sins of all mankind but I can see the beautiful poetic, powerful message that Kate is finding beside the obvious exteriors of Christ's Death. The death of Jesus, even though it was horribly sorrowful, was the glimmer of a new beginning, He had defeated forever the dark forces of tyranny, sin, and death and with His Resurrection (that we celebrate during this glorious Easter season) he opened the gates of new, eternal, everlasting life to all mankind! There, Christ's Death was indeed a new beginning, a turning of the page from all that the Jews had henceforth known. The ritualistic moral codes, the hypocrisy that had creeped into the Temple hierarchy, the Paschal Mystery signals a new birth for us all. Why can we not see this new birth and new understanding of Truth in light of the modern struggle and stigma to understand homosexuality? Dying He destroyed our death and rising He restored our life, let's take the same, all encompassing appraoch, when it comes to dealing with our fellow human beings who have been made in the image of God.
I appreciate the author's
I appreciate the author's comments and insight regarding the difficult dynamics of outing and secrecy. Certainly it would be difficult to see an elected official voting for something that affects his/her own community. Yet, I agree that due to internal and external shaming (not to mention playing the chess game of politics) plays a major factor in how and when/if a person decides to self-identify as a member of the LGBTQ community. To force someone into this further divides us as a community and, in my view, is a waste of our energy and time. Clearly, from the comments above, there is more need for sharing our stories and experiences, educating our friends, family and communities while having respectful, genuine dialogue surrounding these issues. Where are all of the LGBTQ and ally voices in this discussion? If you are ready, we'd love to hear you. Peace.
I ask Ms. Childs Graham's
I ask Ms. Childs Graham's critics to try this thought experiment: imagine that you are gay and that you are in a long-term, commited and loving relationship. Now, imagine coming out to your Catholic family, and your mom tells you that she doesn't want to meet your partner, and that she'd rather not talk about this. You want so badly to live a whole life, one in which your loving partner and your loving family can celebrate Christmas together, but it can't happen because of long-ingrained homophobia. At the very least, wouldn't you like to be welcomed with open arms by your Church?
Okay, you can be straight again. Wouldn't you like your Church to be a place that welcomes the downtrodden and fills them with the new life that faith and Eucharistic community can provide?
Jesus was a rule breaker, and he hung with the "wrong" types of people. So I'm fairly sure that the "wrong" types of people of today - LGBT folks - are welcome at His table. How sad, then, that the Pharisees of today appear to be more wrapped up in the letter of the law than the spirit.
I hope this response was respectful of the views of Ms. Childs Graham's critics, and would love to hear a response.
you say: "Jesus was a rule
you say: "Jesus was a rule breaker"
show me where in scripture he violated ANY of the 10 commandments or the natural law. you can't. because he never did. nor did he EVER advocate or give approval of doing so. he brought greater understanding of them and fulfilled them. remember what he said in matthew:
'You have heard that it was said to them of old: Thou shalt not kill. And whosoever shall kill, shall be in danger of the judgment. But I say to you, that whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the judgment. And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council. And whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.'
does that sound like advocacy of 'breaking the rules' to you?
jesus came to call the sick, not the healthy, as he himself said. but he recognized them, and indeed all of us, as SICK. he didn't say to the woman caught in the act of adultry 'its ok, everybody fornicates. have at at!' no, he said 'go and sin no more.' when asked he said 'if you love me, keep my commandments'. when asked by the ruler in luke:
'And a certain ruler asked him, saying: Good master, what shall I do to possess everlasting life? And Jesus said to him: Why dost thou call me good? None is good but God alone. Thou knowest the commandments: Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not commit adultery: Thou shalt not steal: Thou shalt not bear false witness: Honour thy father and mother.'
you are correct. EVERYONE is welcome at his table. but first, we must ALL, every one of us, reject our sinfulness. we must conform ourselves to gods will, not try to mold gods will into a way of excusing and indulging in sin, no matter if that sin is sexual in nature, if it is theft, greed, anger, etc.
your statement about the pharisees misses the point. what they TAUGHT, jesus told those around him to ALWAYS OBEY. but, since they themselves were hypocrits and did NOT follow the law, the people were not to DO what they DID. Read that part of the scripture and that will be clear.
and although you don't say it directly, i think your statement is filled with the spirit of the statement 'we must tolerate homosexuals'. NO! we must not tolerate them... we must LOVE them. but many seem to confuse 'love' with acceptace of behavior in this case. they are not the same thing.
Actually, I think 'rule
Actually, I think 'rule breaker' is a pretty accurate term for Jesus; he associated with those who were considered 'unclean' and those that in traditional Jewish law he was forbidden to have any contact with. The Samaritan woman, Lazarus's corpse(Num. 19:11-13), the Leper (Mark 1:40-45)etc.etc.
And as for violating the 10 Commandments, wasn't it Jesus who replied when confronted by a supposed religious 'expert' on which of the commandments was the greatest, replied;
'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments' (Matthew 22:36-40).
And as for your view that 'we must conform ourselves to gods will' - what about the free will He has bestowed on us, in order to make our own decisions? Including the descision to live a homosexual or hetrosexual life with equal love for God and each other.
Considering this is meant to be a Catholic site, it's amusing to see so many decidedly Old Testament 'eye for an eye' views. Christian love hey?
your implication in quoting
your implication in quoting matthew is that jesus released us from following the moral law. that is obviously false.
if you had read my above post, you would see that the law was NOT abolished by christ, it was perfected. all of the commandments are in force, and jesus told us why they are: because they are all part of the two greatest commandments. see what i'm saying here?
MY view that we must conform outsleves to god's will? no, that is the teaching of the church from the beginning. it was also the teaching of jesus. to miss that shows you have miss a huge portion of what christianity actually IS. remember what jesus said in the garden? "not my will, but thine (god the father) be done."
"free will He has bestowed on us, in order to make our own decisions?"
if you mean that god does not control us like robots, than yes.
however, we can abuse our free will to commit sin, just like you pointed out. i think that you perhaps have a confusion with the terms 'freedom' and what you actually seem to be advocating: 'license'.
"Considering this is meant to be a Catholic site, it's amusing to see so many decidedly Old Testament 'eye for an eye' views."
not sure who you mean is advocating 'eye for an eye', but i have not done so.
however, the old testament is not to be treated with dismissal like so many people do. paul told timmothy that it was useful for instruction and correction. to attempt to cast it away is to return to the old marcionite (sp?) heresy.
Peter the Greek gave a good
Peter the Greek gave a good answer in regards to your Pharisee challenge and the need for all of us to repent.
It is not written in your comment, but I assume you believe as other have here that God designed some people with a fixed same-sex orientation. So what is the difference between gay and straight just as long as you have a loving relationship? Anyone who disagrees is ignorant, homophobic or hateful.
Being gay isn't as fixed as what gay rights advocates claim. About 90% of gay men have had intercourse with women: they prefer men but still appreciate women and reach ecstasy with women so there is choice in the matter. They do not suffer from vaginaphobia. Asking gays to obey God's law is analagous to asking straight men, of which some will have to settle for less attractive women, to obey God's law even though they prefer a super model. (Don't covet your neighbor's wife.)
Just as gay men sin by giving into their natures, straight men give into their natures waiting for their turn with the less available attractive women filling in their urges with porn and masturbation rather than settling for marriage with an unattractive woman. Sometimes unattractive women are used as a "fix" but then are dumped when men tire of them or more attractive women become available. More desirable straight men often give into man's polygamous nature and use porn and / or lead promiscuous lifestyles even though a very beautiful woman is easily attainable for marriage.
We must recognize that society has a huge impact upon sexual orientation. The Church historically has looked at societies outside the Judaeo-Christian world where the norm was men having sex with men and women, and preferred other men to their wifes. Our sexual natures are not so fixed: our society can change where the norm is men who would like to have sex with attractive men and women than the less attractive of either sex.
Once you start, in the name of tolerance, teaching from pre-school forward that Susie can grow up to marry a boy or a girl and either choice is of equal dignity, homosexual activity will increase tremendously. There is already an increase in college women who see themselves as "fluid": it doesn't matter if they date a man or a woman.
Many on the left hold there is no difference between men and women with exception of their sex organs. The reality is their is a difference,
and it is desirable for society to encourage the bonding of men and women specifically in the nuclear family which provides the most stability for children and society. This is the reason why we must hold standards even as we have compassion for gays with a same-sex orientation that is no fault of their own.
It is sad that those who are molested as children are much more likely to prefer people of the same sex, and we should work for treatment for those who were molested. There are many other gays for which we do not know why they are disordered. Before psychology was politicized, homosexual orientation was recognized as a disoder for which research into treatment was deemed appropriate. Today, the left denies treatment or research for victims of molestation that would like help in coping with or treating their disorder.
Why the emphasis on
Why the emphasis on sexuality? Why not something else, like...
Jesus died so that thieves could feel decent about their need to take property from others.
Post new comment