DREADNOUGHT will address a group of 18-30 year olds in Sydney on April 7, 2008:

http://johnheard.blogspot.com/2008/01/dreadtalk-eunuchs-for-kingdom.html

What would you say to young people about sex, human sexuality, SSA and the Church? As a young person, what do you want to ask/hear? As priests, religious, etc. what are some common concerns? As a non-Christian, what gets you mad?

If the audience proves shy, I'll use your questions to fire up discussion.

- JH

Hello, I hope you are well. I suppose if pressed to give a capsule response to what Vatican II accomplished, or if I had to boil it down to a single issue, I might say that one of the things the church made clear (at least till recently) is that it no longer desires to be the harbinger of our morals or the executor of our ethics.

It isn't really about latin masses, or flipped around alters or music people find annoying or passionless. It became an issue of responsibility, of each of us facing our own dark nights, coming out the other side and becoming members of the Body and hearing the Word.


What I ask young people, SSA and otherwise, is what are you willing to do avoid unhappiness, loniliness, despair, addiction, suicide, desease. What do you think lust is?

Lets start with lust. Years ago a priest told me that lust is like a great lumbering beast that knocks over the furniture and breaks the good china. It doesn't really mean to, it just can't help itself. Nothing to be ashamed of. If you are 18-30 years old, nature is going to have it's way with you, so relax and work on your sense of humor.

The other unpleasant states I mention above can be avoided by understanding that your sexual nature is mysterious,special, God given and most of all, A Gift.

If you are SSA, perhaps chastity is it's own reward. I don't know. I do know that I live in this world and in this world most of you young folks are going to have sex, so play safe, try to make it special. Relationships are difficult. Long term ones even more difficult, but worth it. From that special relationship a community will grow. You will not be alone. Dream. Have fun. Be kind. Play.

When I was a lad to be SSA could very easily get you dead. There's some freedom now. I wish there was a handbook, a guide, some great spiritual tome that will guide you. There isn't. You must become the example you don't have.

I'm not sure Mr. Heard if this is going to you direct or put on the blog so I'm being a bit general. Thanks for your prayers. It was a rough weekend dealing with the loss of my friend and ministering to his son. We went to mass today. A lot a of love happened today.

I'm back home now and need to start prparing materiels for the Religious Eduction Congress coming up it Feb. Any literature you can recommed will be greatly appreciated. More later

Michael

This is a public discussion group, whatever you write here is viewed by members of the whole group...

It is fair to say that your position represents, fairly neatly, the 1960's/liberal, secular view of human sexuality. It is quite at odds with the Catholic position.

Sexuality is a gift, I agree, but it is given by someone. We do good at it, I'd be at pains to say, when we abide by His law of love.

- JH

[FROM DREADNOUGHTER CLAYTON WHOSE FACEBOOK ISN'T WORKING]...

Michael,

The Church has always had an interest in lighting a beacon of hope for those of us on pilgrimage through life -- the beacon of a moral life truly capable of leading us to flourish in spirit and in truth. The Church as teacher doesn't attempt the impossible (to use our freedom for us), but proposes a life that will set our freedom free to cooperate with grace, allowing us to navigate our way into the full embrace of the Father.

It's an incredible grace to be encouraged and supported in becoming fully alive, fully oneself... to discover in one's lived experience what Saint Paul meant when he said, "For freedom Christ set us free; therefore, do not submit again to the yoke of slavery." (Galatians 5:1)

We all have particular challenges as we make our pilgrimage. The Church as mother doesn't stand by the wayside passively, but, like any good parent, holds in tension two realities... our freedom, and our need for grace.

The Church doesn't give into the despair that would say "nature is going to have its way with you," nor does she pretend that the road will not include setbacks and failings.

Fully in love with our freedom, she makes observations such as:
"One of the basic objectives of... renewed and intensified pastoral action [for and with the sick and the suffering]... is an attitude which looks upon the sick person, the bearer of a handicap, or the suffering individual, not simply as an object of the Church's love and service, but as an active and responsible participant in the work of evangelization and salvation." (John Paul II, <a href="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_30121988_christifideles-laici_en.html">Christifidelis Laici</a>, par. 54)

Fully aware of our need for grace, she offers the sacramental life -- bringing us into communion with the merciful Christ -- and also the support of our communion with one another... deeply aware that "God entrusts us to one another." (John Paul II, <a href="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html">Evangelium Vitae</a>, par. 19)

While it's true that no one can walk though our dark nights for us, it's also true that the paschal mystery assures us that there is One who has walked it and accompanies us still, often embracing us so closely that we cannot see Him. (see <a href="http://www.doxaweb.com/advent/3.html">Spe Salvi, par. 6</a>)

The Church never advises us to "play safe", because she knows there is nothing safe about sex... nothing safe about love. Prudence, to be sure, is a virtue in the Christian life... but safety is never the objective. The goal instead is to give oneself away, to immolate one's ego in the love of another, and there to discover a freedom and joy beyond telling. Nothing at all safe about that.

Some resources I would recommend for meditation:

<a href="http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_cons_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html>Gaudium et Spes</a> (Vatican II), esp. paragraph 24
"Man, who is the only creature on earth which God willed for itself, cannot fully find himself except through a sincere gift of himself."

<a href="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html">Evangelium Vitae</a>, esp. chapter 1

<a href="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20071130_spe-salvi_en.html>Spe Salvi</a>

<a href="http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2TBIND.HTM">The Theology of the Body</a>

- Clayton

Hi Michael,

You mentioned some ‘natural’ things like lust and equated them as almost involuntary actions in that you just can’t help yourself with. I don’t know whether this is completely true. For starters, there is a difference between a temptation and consent of the will to that temptation (i.e. lust). Temptations may come to us passively from the outside, but lust only takes effect when that temptation is acted on. So to say lust is involuntary may be an exageration and distortion.

Besides, some people might use your argument for alcoholics. “Hey, alcohol is just so good, it makes me cool and funny and feel good and I can’t really help myself and it feels so natural so it must be ok”. We don’t tell alcoholics that they should just go with the flow because they have a strong addiction to alcohol.

Our sexuality is a gift, but just as gifts can be used as they should and work to their purpose and end they can also be abused, distorted and used for other reasons. Our sexuality is mysterious, but it is not foggy and unclear in that “anything goes” because everything is so mysterious. A mystery isn’t something incomprehensible, it is something with infinite depth to it, which means we can always go deeper and deeper into it without ever exhausting it.

“Dream. Have fun. Be kind. Play.” Well that sounds all nice and everything but what about being good? I could have as much fun playing in mud and eating out of trash bins but would that be exercising my gifts properly and appropriately to a meaning and purpose of life? Happiness is important, but searching for it in the little things without trying to lead a good life is almost bound to end up unhappy. Hapiness is more of a by-product of living a good life. I guess we have to look to the Ancients for this type of wisdom, today the word usually just means subjective contentment and pleasure – “as long as your happy” mentality.

You mentioned that young folks are going to have sex, play safe and try to make it special. What’s so special about casual sex? Why did you mention special? Is it because we know that sex is really more than just two people ‘going at it’ to achieve their own desires. I think it’s because we all deep down realise that there is something intrinsically important and noble about sex. Far from being “dirty” or “bad” it’s something great and beautiful. But like anything good, the corruption of the best is the worst – and the transition of sex as the one flesh union of a husband and wife in life long commitment for the sake of children, to casual sex with anyone who “feels right” is testiment to this type of corruption.

Relationships are difficult, you’re right. Long term ones are even more difficult, you’re right again. But let’s not say that to cope with this difficulty we have to engage in more promiscous sex. It’s a bad leap of logic and common sense. I think at the very root of the “diffulty” of relationships today is due to the fact that most of us just aren’t willing to sacrifice anything for the one we love. Love by it’s very nature wants to give all it has for the good and betterment of the beloved. Love is generous, patient. We live in a world where we look to our own wants and desires, which is why so many of us find relationships difficult – because we’re so locked up in “feeling good” and “pleasure” that we rarely look to the other and be willing to offer up our own selves to sustain a healthy and chaste relationship.

We live in a culture, both here in the US and as far as I can tell in Australia, that idolizes rebellion and acting against authority. This bodes ill for the standard "way into" Catholicism and her King. That problem is coupled with the fact that everyone everyday perceives all human law as exclusively positive and therefore largely arbitrary.

I think then that the very best thing that can be done vis a vis sex and sexual behavior is to help young people understand that the "Law" about sex comes from within. The Father doesn't impose the law about sex from without: He wrote it within. Therefore, we should be chaste just because or only because we're "told to be". Better is to understand that the law about chastity is writ within: it represents our own best good, our own particular way to happiness (not just or even especially, for young people, the law for all men, but MY own best good). I act in view of my own good when I choose chastity.

Of course, the problematic issue is that you will be speaking largely to continent or incontinent men. What rhetoric appeals in such cases where the passions have not been educated?

Barry -

Even when the passions have not been educated, the person still remembers the condition of original man, which John Paul II refers to in his Theology of the Body.

As a result of this, Jesus can make an appeal to "the beginning" in Matthew 19:8 -
"Because Moses by reason of the hardness of your heart permitted you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so."

In the course of his reflections on the Theology of the Body, JPII explores the experience of shame -- which is certainly a universal one. Shame causes us to want to cover our nakedness when we fear that another will not respect us as subjects but will instead look upon us as objects to be used -- i.e. will look on us with lust. The reaction of shame testifies to another way... to the fact that we know that lust / use is not the only response we can receive from another person... in short, that "in the beginning, it was not so." The experience of shame also reveals that we feel uneasy about our own lustful response to others.

So if nothing else, we can appeal to the experience of shame -- not to induce guilt, but to remind those in the throes of their passions that there is a better way, and that they, in their own bodies and hearts, know that there is a better way... because they are not satisfied with lust.

"Shame has a double meaning. It indicates the threat to the value and at the same time preserves this value interiorly. The human heart, from the moment when the lust of the body was born in it, also keeps shame within itself. This fact indicates that it is possible and necessary to appeal to the heart when it is a question of guaranteeing those values from which lust takes away their original and full dimension. If we keep that in mind, we can understand better why Christ, speaking of lust, appeals to the human "heart"."

from the 28 May 1980 audience of JPII:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/jp2tb27.htm

First a correction: my sentence should read, "Therefore, we should NOT be chaste just because or only because we're 'told to be'."

Clayton: your points are good. They represent a rhetoric for addressing the young, namely by way of appealing to the shame that we think they feel. I myself don't believe that that route will be useful, but you are right, it is a rhetoric that respects at least the continent man. In essence, you are saying, "appeal to those very uneducated passions". Good idea.

And there is still another rhetoric: "Our hearts are restless until they rest in Thee ...."

No one should downplay the importance of an appeal to shame, certainly many DREADNOUGHTERS describe it as something intensely felt, but your paraphrase from St Augustine is apposite.

'O Lord, You made us for Yourself and our hearts find no rest until they rest in You':

http://johnheard.blogspot.com/2005/01/ubi-caritas-et-amor.html

This is the path taken by Pope Benedict XVI...and it complements JPII's more academic/theological insights from the Theology of the Body.

People are not likely to couch their complaints/concerns about Catholic teaching in terms of such elevated language, however. They're going to ask me why brother Pete or cousin Nancy can have a girlfriend and a boyfriend (respectively) but SSA people seem 'doomed' to a life alone...without the consolation of physical/sexual/affective love/complementarity.

How would you respond to that?

- JH

A brief answer considering the backdrop while I ponder the question some ...

First off, they are there because they want to be there. Second, most men today are consequentialists: if you hit us head on, we are likely to believe you only if you can demonstrate bad consequences in the short run. Third, depending on their age they are romantics: no matter the statistical evidence to the contrary, they will believe that their relationships WILL be different. Fourth, most men are not speculative; we are most of us in the cave to a large extent, we are doxaphiles and moved primarily by images.

I can think of two routes: tragedy (Aeschylus) and comedy(Aristophanes).

Tragedy is the Cross: the bald-faced truth of the matter that cannot be rendered less painful for all our inability to hear it. Pain is inescapable in this life. One thing that has helped me with the "unfairness of it all" is to spend time with people in wheelchairs, the very poor, those who are alcoholics or in prison. Mine is not really "THE GREAT TRAGEDY" after all.... Hmmm: the blessing of the corporal and spiritual works of mercy! Of course, this has to be said the right way....

Comedy is more complex: On this tack, they must be given images to distract their passions so that the deeper truth, which does involve pain, can sink in. Those with ears to hear can hear the deeper message; those who cannot go away unharmed. More on this after some thought.

"They're going to ask me why brother Pete or cousin Nancy can have a girlfriend and a boyfriend (respectively) but SSA people seem 'doomed' to a life alone...without the consolation of physical/sexual/affective love/complementarity. "

Well put.

#1:
Feeling doomed? Then work to discover or uncover your internal locus of control.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locus_of_control

#2 - Everyone has a cross to bear... Not everyone knows the secret that the cross can bring joy, when #1 is in place. The cross, borne in the right way, is a expressway to heaven, not a prison.

#3 - There are several possible responses to SSA. One could be despair/self-loathing (not recommended). Another could be "pride" (also not recommended, as it may just be a matter of putting a confident face on despair). Both of these responses remain trapped in the ego. A third response -- probably the best choice -- would be thanksgiving. It puts one in the right relation to one's situation. It both recognizes SSA as something outside one's core identity, and teaches one to accept its presence as an invitation to the cross and the joy contained therein. You know, we don't have to limit ourselves to being thankful for things we find naturally appealing or pleasant. The very act of saying thanks puts you in relation to another, draws you out of yourself, which is the only true place to discover yourself.

Just a few thoughts. Not really sure they are unique to SSA as a cross. But it seems to me that those who experience SSA have a mistaken sense that they are categorically different from other human beings. Big mistake, and leads easily to the responses of self-loathing or pride. It's important to recognize the fundamental identity we all share as brothers and sisters in the human family, even more so in the family of the Church, and most especially as children of the Father.

So the bottom line: welcome to the Cross, welcome to joy, welcome into the heavenly wedding feast.

"SSA people seem 'doomed' to a life alone...without the consolation of physical/sexual/affective love/complementarity."

Actually, the good news is that men and women with SSA are not doomed to a life alone. Again, they are not a different sort of creature. They are fully men and fully women... card-carrying members of the human family. Still called to love, communion, affection, complementarity, expressions of paternity and maternity, and the whole transformation of eros into agape.

God has entrusted us to one another, so be sure that people with SSA have a contribution to make... as persons, and also within the particular cross they bear.

It's true that that SSA people are not called to genital expression of their same-sex attractions. It is not unlike the life a consecrated person, committed celibate priest, etc, has been called to. The difference, of course, is that that they have not chosen this way of living. There's the rub. I like what Fr. Raniero Cantalamessa has to say about this in his book on Virginity:

"I would like to say a word about... people who, for a whole variety of reasons, have been unable to marry, though they would have liked to do so. They did not choose their situation. In fact, it may cause them great suffering. To them I would like to say this: Jesus tells us that some are eunuchs because they are like that from birth, others are made so by human agency, others again have made themselves so "for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven." Apparently, you belong to the first or second category. But, in the sight of God, no one is irredeemably condemned, or a prisoner of situations. In other words, it is possible to pass from one category to another: from the category of those who have not married because of the circumstances of life, to the category of those who do not marry "for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven." You need only accept the situation as something allowed by God, reconcile yourselves to that way of life and use your greater freedom to devote yourselves to prayer and the Gospel cause. In this way you too can share in the 'hundredfold' promised by Christ to those who leave everything to follow Him. The greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven are not those who belong to the 'more perfect state,' but those who love and suffer most. This is why they can move ahead of so many others whose lives, apparently, were more successful."

http://www.cantalamessa.org/en/libriView.php?id=226

I'll close up here... but I would first note that the witness or contribution of the single SSA person could be very much like that of those consecrated or otherwise celibate by choice. It's an Advent witness, a "not there yet" witness for those who have married, a jolt out of complacency and a reminder that the deepest longings in each human heart will not and cannot be sated here, but ought to keep pulling us along, pulling us forward, attracting us to the Beloved who is awaiting us, eagerly, arms stretched wide.

After more thought:

The truth always helps:

1. SSA will of necessity cause suffering: it’s a disorder after all. One inescapable reality is that God did intend us to procreate: it’s writ in our cells. The drive to do so is not sexual-attraction specific: SSA folks have it just like heteros. And it’s especially strong when we are young. It drives people, normally, into relationships with those who can complete the drive: men-women. So part of what intensifies the experience of the SSA “plight” in view of Peter and Julie has nothing to do with their getting to be in relationships and has everything to do with biology driving us to “generate”. Regrettably, SSA does not lessen our drive to generate even though the acts we may choose have no proper end and can never generate.
2. What looks so good that Peter and Julie get to have and that I don’t is largely illusory, specifically the part that is really drawing me when I am struck with angst or envy. The good feelings that we equate with relationships when we are 18-20 and are the first things that capture our imagination are a siren song. They are not the foundation of love and relationships, are not the essence of love and relationships, and they do not last. That siren song is sung everywhere in the media and elsewhere: it downgrades the senses.
3. The real, though implied because we don’t usually see them when we are 18-20 years old, goods that also cause our attraction to what Peter and Julie “get” and I don’t are two-fold: (a) the good of not being alone and (b) generation.
a. With respect to (a), it is appropriate that Christ led the same life and offers us the chance to enter into that life in the same way as SSA. This particular aloneness cannot be escaped at least in the sense that God referred to when He said of Adam that it was not good that he be alone and so he created Eve. Our disorder prevents us from experiencing that special surcease in this life. It does not mean, however, that we are condemned to being alone. True philia can go a long way to helping assuage that aloneness. And true philia is like marriage in its generative quality (tho' not of children)
b. With respect to (b), though the genital sexuality to which we are attracted is closed to SSA folks, generation is not. And generation has ALWAYS been taught as the fundamental good of relationships (marital and others). That good is available to SSA, just not expressed in the same way. Good, erotic, energy can drive creation on many levels….

The upshot is twofold: suffering is inescapable; and the fundamental good of relationships is not unavailable to SSA men and women. Just the special good of hetero relationships of a certain sort – being able to have a genital expression of creative drive – is unavailable.

Because we live in the cave, the illusory parts of "what Peter and Julie get" make our hearts twinge and evoke feelings of unfairness. If we turned around from the illusion and looked closely at the reality of the genital expression of love (and of marriage, and friendship, and the relationship of Christ and the Church etc), we’d be facing the fundamental good and would see that it is not unavailable in its essence.

Here's a horribly sinning person speaking.

I know the Catechism, I know the Theology of the Body, I know the orthodox point of view and it does not fit with me. I don't believe it.

The sexual complimentarity is obvious for procreative purposes. Penis fits vagina, it can result in offspring. Is that the purpose of sex?

No, no, there's also the affective complimentarity. Men and women have different traits that make them fit, or so we're told. That's why gay men are so often labelled fag of sissy and lesbians as butch or dyke, because many of us have traits of the other gender that straights find confusing. Even if a gay guy is hyper-masculine, there's something about him that sets him apart. People sense it and the bad acting ones will use it to humiliate us.

No, no, that's the sixties and 19th century psychology that taught us that we're a 'distinct sort of people'. Translation: deny our feelings and reduce us to some 'dirty' genital acts thing.

No, no, you're so valuable as a person. Just don't partner with someone of your own gender. I love you, I love you, I love you, but suffer my child. Suffer for who you are and what you feel.

No, no, I can 'feel' like murdering someone. Sixties liberals tell you all is good as long as it fits 'how you feel'. Yeah, that's the same huh?

Now back to me:

I can live without sex, it's not like eating or oxygen. I've tasted promiscuity, it's horrible, empty, and it leaves you barren spiritually.

But I cannot live with the prospect that no matter how much I love a guy, I should never express my love for him sexually. If Christ asked me to, I would do it, but He doesn't.

Sorry, I'm obviously a heretic here, but this is how it is.

Vincent,

Take it easy on yourself. You're not a heretic for struggling to understand what Christ asks of you. What exactly does Christ ask of us, in the particulars... in the nitty gritty of life? That is not a simple question for any human being, much less someone struggling with this difficult condition.

"No, no, you're so valuable as a person. Just don't partner with someone of your own gender. I love you, I love you, I love you, but suffer my child. Suffer for who you are and what you feel."

A celibate life does involve suffering and sacrifice, because it is supremely human to desire and seek union and communion with others... and in particular, to desire an exclusive and intimate communion and a personal exchange. But does the exchange, to be complete and total, require genital relations? I would say no -- every person is called to union and communion of some kind, and it always includes a bodily, affective, and sexual dimension. But a genital dimension? Not always...

I think the problem is that our society has set up sexual intercourse as an idol... a constitutive element of what it means to be alive on this earth. Sexual intercourse between a man and a woman is a sacramental reality -- that makes present in a mysterious way the Trinitarian communion it signifies... and so we are right to hold it in the highest esteem... and right to seek to respect its structure.

Sacraments are demanding, particular things... that require particular matter and form in order to be what they are. The Eucharist requires bread and the words of institution; baptism requires water and the invocation of the Trinity; holy orders requires a man and chrism, etc. This isn't legalism, just the flip side of the beautiful particularity that is found in creation. In all of creation, and most especially in the creation of man and woman, the Creator had something in mind when He fashioned it... a meaning, a telos. Marriage is no different from the other sacraments in this respect.

Celibacy, while not a sacrament, is also a sign, which has meaning and value for the world. Our society has disdain for it, of course, but all the more reason to embrace it and show forth its radiant beauty. Marriage and celibacy are signs and witnesses for each other... marriage as an icon of the love-communion of beatitude, already breaking into this life, and celibacy as a sign of the expectant virgin, awaiting that not-yet-fully-realized beatitude.

"SSA will of necessity cause suffering: it’s a disorder after all".

Not quite. The inclination toward *homogenital acts* (which are intrinsically disordered) is the thing that is objectively disordered:

http://johnheard.blogspot.com/2005/11/dreadtruth-what-does-catechism.html

- JH

This is a horribly sinning person responding...

I'm interested in the shift from:

"I can live without sex, it's not like eating or oxygen. I've tasted promiscuity, it's horrible, empty, and it leaves you barren spiritually."

to

"But I cannot live with the prospect that no matter how much I love a guy, I should never express my love for him sexually."

mainly because it sounds like DREADNOUGHT two years ago:

http://johnheard.blogspot.com/2005/01/like-prayer-or-body-of-christ-save-me.html

In the end, contemplating His suffering gave any suffering I might be called on to endure a remarkable, serenity-gifting meaning:

http://johnheard.blogspot.com/2005/05/dreadapologia-suffering-homosexuality_01.html

http://johnheard.blogspot.com/2007/08/dreadpublishing-being-heard-john-heard.html

This didn't mean that sex / sexuality was no longer a problem, Catholicism very rarely calls fire down from the sky to cleanse us of all sexual desire - as my ongoing, rather silly posts will attest - and I'm not sure that is always desirable (pace Clayton, SSA men and women are called to 'disinterested friendship' and chastity like any other other unmarried person, not to celibacy alone) but it did help to put things into a more tranquil order.

Ultimately, we must submit Vincent. Our problem is not about sex, and it is not ultimately about suffering, rather it is about pride / authority.

Submit, love will take care of the rest.

- JH

The room between the aforementioned shift: there is a lot going on there.

I think you're right, John, that ultimately it is about pride. But there's also anger, rage even, hurt, grief and a perceived failure that I cannot do it anyway. And perhaps the most important thing: I don't know what it means to submit to Christ. How I should do that.

Two remarks:

1) When I think of my longing for a partner, I examine it sometimes: what is the core of my loneliness, what is it I look for, what do I really want with a man. And to be honest, sex is quite low on the list. As far as the physical aspects are concerned, I actually mostly think of cuddling and carressing and a kiss. And for the rest: it's about meaning something truly special for each other. To care, to give, to love. The sex fades overtime anyway, and many times it spoils things.

2) about six years ago, I was in a bar in a truly cynical mood. I said to the guy next to me something like: "I give up looking for the one, an occasional f**k will do. Isn't that what most people come here for anyway" (you could go downstairs if you get my meaning). Then he said something I never forgot: "When you're old, and you look back upon your life, what is it that you'll remember?" I didn't have to think for a second and said: love. Not in a romantic sense, but love in the complete and total meaning of the word.

I guess these two remarks are quite personal, but I think it's more helpful than arguing in circles about the Church's teaching.

Well gentlemen after reading your comments and responses, I do believe I could quite easily fall in love with all of you sight unseen and perhaps I will. Don't have the slightest desire to bed any of you, but by inches and moments your taking up space in my head and heart.<br /><br />The vast majority of young people are not really going to give a wit regarding our carefully chosen words...they are going to respond to the fire in the belly. How do you avoid sin if you don't know what it is? Just one more item. More then half of the gay men I know have had children. One guy I knew ( dead now) considered himself extremely Roman Catholic, had 15 children to prove it. He spent every spare minute cruising parks and trolling mens rooms. Everyone was fine with it till he finally could no longer stand it and came out. Mistake. No one wanted a thing to do with him. He died desolate and alone, all 15 kids despising him for not staying in the lie. <br /><br />I'm learning from you fellas that perhaps theres another way. I'm more then grateful I still have the desire and capacity to learn.

"The vast majority of young people are not really going to give a wit regarding our carefully chosen words..."

The vast majority of responses here are written by young people.

- JH

"Not quite. The inclination toward *homogenital acts* (which are intrinsically disordered) is the thing that is objectively disordered"

This then is something eminently worth conveying to the 18year olds, for you imply by your statement that you have a sense of how SSA can be something quite other than the inclination to homogenital acts. We use the term SSA in a fashion to distinguish ourselves from heteros so we don't mean by it something like "friendship" attractions. And if SSA doesn't really just devolve to an inclination to homogenital acts then there is more to it than that which distinguishes us from heteros. That would be a wonderful thing to point out to them John, I would think: "this is how we are homosexual and it isn't about sex".

Barry -

You wrote:
"you imply by your statement that you have a sense of how SSA can be something quite other than the inclination to homogenital acts."

I don't know if this is what John is implying, but I think it is worth exploring/fleshing out.


"We use the term SSA in a fashion to distinguish ourselves from heteros so we don't mean by it something like "friendship" attractions."

I would make a distinction here. SSA describes an affective or emotional disposition that is, at least in many cases, pre-moral... It is a given, not something chosen. In contrast, the attraction of friendship involves our will and the capacity to make decisions...

I don't think a discussion about what is distinctively homosexual is germane, as I don't agree that "homosexual" is a category of person.

I think it's more helpful to examine the phenomenon of erotic love, the attraction for another, as a sort of rocket fuel, to borrow an analogy from Christopher West. You can fill a rocket with fuel, but that doesn't determine where the rocket will go when you launch it. That depends on something other than the fuel itself... namely, the trajectory.

I think a meditation on paragraphs 3-8 of Deus Caritas Est would be very helpful to the discussion.

http://www.doxaweb.com/assets/deus_caritas_est.pdf

Some highlights:


"The Old Testament... in no way rejected eros as such; rather, it declared war on a warped and destructive form of it, because this counterfeit divinization of eros actually strips it of its dignity and
dehumanizes it."

"An intoxicated and undisciplined eros, then, is not an ascent in 'ecstasy' towards the Divine, but a fall, a degradation of man.
Evidently, eros needs to be disciplined and purified if it is to provide not just fleeting pleasure, but a certain foretaste of the pinnacle of our existence, of that beatitude for which our whole being yearns."

"First, there is a certain relationship between love and the Divine:
love promises infinity, eternity—a reality far greater and totally other than our everyday existence. Yet we have also seen that the way to attain this goal is not simply by submitting to instinct. Purification and growth in maturity are called for; and these also pass through
the path of renunciation. Far from rejecting or 'poisoning' eros, they heal it and restore its true grandeur."

Then Benedict XVI really hits his stride in taking issue with a dichotomy commonly accepted - that eros and agape have nothing to do with each other. In the following passage, Benedict implies that they meet and inform one another. It's like eros gets baptized. I have the impression that disinterested friendship in a strict sense is not really what we are striving for -- in the sense of a love that gives and never experiences the desire to receive... since the giving/receiving thing is essential to our human flourishing.

"Yet eros and agape—ascending love and descending love—can never be completely separated. The more the two, in their different aspects, find a proper unity in the one reality of love, the more
the true nature of love in general is realized. Even if eros is at first mainly covetous and ascending, a fascination for the great promise of happiness, in drawing near to the other, it is less and less concerned with itself, increasingly seeks the happiness of the other, is concerned more and more with the beloved, bestows itself and wants to “be there for” the other. The element of agape thus enters into this love, for otherwise eros is impoverished and even loses its own nature. On the other hand, man cannot live by oblative, descending love alone. He cannot always give, he must also receive. Anyone who wishes to give love must also receive love as a gift.
Certainly, as the Lord tells us, one can become a source from which rivers of living water flow (cf. Jn 7:37-38). Yet to become such a source, one must constantly drink anew from the original source, which is Jesus Christ, from whose pierced heart flows the love of
God (cf. Jn 19:34)."

I'd be interested to know what others make of this passage.

Johnny -

You wrote:
"Catholicism very rarely calls fire down from the sky to cleanse us of all sexual desire... and I'm not sure that is always desirable."

Exactly.

That's what I'm getting at with the rocket fuel analogy. The goal is not to drain the fuel tank. The goal is to fill the tank and aim the rocket in the direction of eternity. I think this is good news indeed.

Michael,<br /><br />I think you really hit it with the example of the man you mentioned. Ultimately it is not what you DO, but who you ARE that's supposed to be closeted for many faithful, because they don't want to think about it, because it confuses things in their heads. As long as you keep 'discrete' no one gives a damn, as long as you formally confess what you're supposed to. It doesn't matter what you do from the moment you announce you're gay, oh sorry same sex attracted. You're damaged goods. That is not my idea of submission to Christ. It is a very different kind of submission anyway. <br /><br />Vincent

Thank you Vincent, it's a journey. These good young men and women who are searching need to read and hear the words in this blog and blogs like them.

We have no choice but to become the example we don't have.

I'm not sure the Catholic path is necessarily one of shame, deceit, etc. I've written before on why being 'closeted', in a certain sense (read: habitually dishonest) is almost certainly spiritually dangerous:

http://johnheard.blogspot.com/2005/07/dreadposition-coming-out-of-shadows.html

not to mention probably psychologically and emotionally damaging.

Certainly, my experience as a man who is open and publicly honest about my same sex attractions, has never been marred by the sort of bigotry and 'damaged goods' nonsense you point up.

From what I've been shown, Catholics (especially priests) are generally too welcoming, too willing at the pastoral level to overlook certain acts and attitudes that they should really be calling out.

I'll never forget how shocked I was to encounter a stern priest at the Vatican who finally told me that some things I'd been doing were 'filthy' and 'wrong'. He followed up by saying that Christians are called to a more diligent pursuit of virtue and asked me how I was going to make myself more holy/pure.

He changed my life.

- JH

They might be a bit older than that, but I appreciate your support. I agree, it is a very important point to make.

I often wonder why the Christian teaching on friendship isn't promoted more widely. Perhaps, in our increasingly secular/Pagan age, it's because too many people are shy of the hyper-sexualized cultural marketplace, where more complicated, no less ardent affections are either saturated in sexual innuendo or else dismissed as nonsense/frippery.

Happily, in Australia at least, there is a strong tradition around the concept of (homosocial) 'mateship'. Although, even there it is guarded around by key tropes and anxiety-saving code-words.

Friends from Italy always tell me that being 'gay' in the Anglo-Saxon sense doesn't make as much of an impact there, where beloved uncles walk arm in arm with favourite nephews and old friends kiss hello and talk more often than they talk to their wives. Maybe we in the Anglo sphere really are too Puritan (as one Italian mate in particular always tells me)?

- JH

"Maybe we in the Anglo sphere really are too Puritan."

I think this is a real possibility. The Puritan mindset is pretty deeply engrained in the American experience, at least... arguably, it has led to a suspicion of all things relational, re-reading experience through the mind and heart given over to lust. The hermeneutic of suspicion can manifest itself in any number of ways...

Here's an article on a related topic by Dr Donald MeMarco... on "Reversing the Deculturation of Fatherhood":
http://catholicanada.com/web/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=20&Itemid=210

"The heart of man, as described by Freud, Marx, and Nietzsche, implodes upon itself and in so doing becomes an object of deep suspicion. The heart is at odds with itself and therefore cannot be trusted."

That neatly describes the sort of second-guessing I was getting at.

"The fatherhood of God conjoins authority with love."

Perhaps there are more than three 'Masters of Suspicion', certainly c.f. the liberal critique of 'paternalism'.

- JH

The reason that JPII mentions the threefold ideologies -- Freud, Marx and Nietzsche -- is that they correspond to the Johannine formula of the three forms of lust -- lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, and the pride of life (respectively).

http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/jp2tb45.htm