Does anyone else have a problem reconciling their sexual orientation with their religion? Obviously we cannot act on our tendencies, but because the tendencies are still there, they are part of us; and healthy psychology requires that we should accept these tendencies in order to come to a better, truer understanding of ourselves. But I feel that on this issue, we are alone. There are no gay saints, for example. There is no one to relate to. And because our knowledge of homosexuality as a naturally occurring phenomenon that inclines us to do unnatural things, we cannot look to any of the great theologians, because none of them had the knowledge that we had, since they were writing at an earlier time. See the problem?

No. You assume that there is something fundamentally different about modern experience up against all previous knowledge, teaching, etc. This is, in fact, an error:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10415a.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernism_(Roman_Catholicism)

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_x/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis_en.html

"...they are part of us."

Just because one experiences something, that doesn't mean that one must (necessarily) act on it:

http://johnheard.blogspot.com/2008/04/dreadpublishing-being-heard-john-heard.html

And it doesn't make it a 'part of' someone, in the way my hand is a part of me, or my masculinity is a part of me. G-d does not design men for sin; rather, free will opens a space for error (and, virtue).

"There are no gay saints, for example."

We need to be careful. There are no sodomite saints, for sure, but who knows what saint X was inclined towards, or what saint Y felt? A number of saints told of extreme homosexual temptations. You should not feel cut off from them.

"...our knowledge of homosexuality as a naturally occurring phenomenon".

This is not the language of the Church:

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

So perhaps that helps to know. Put in proper terms, most of these problems slip away. It is secular society that tries to force young SSA men and women to think there is some fundamental split between their faith and their 'true selves':

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

It is a lie:

http://johnheard.blogspot.com/2005/09/dreadheart-seachange-not-shortchange.html

- JH

Johnny to say that someones sexuality isn't a fundumental part of their identity is just nonesense. Sure i never really got the "gay activists" types who seemed to define every aspect of their life around their sexuality, but i don't deny that my SSA is part of who I am. Your blog is you articulating the way in which you personally have made peace with two (seemingly conflicting) aspects of your sexuality homo and catholic. If your homosexuality wasn't so fundumental to how you viewed yourself you wouldn't run such a thing, nor would you be such a large commentator of gay issues.

"...to say that someones sexuality isn't a fundumental part of their identity is just nonesense".

I agree. Never said that.

- JH

Um, I don't think I got my point across. Perhaps it was a poor choice of words. When I referred to modern knowledge, I meant modern ideas about how homosexual acts can differ from passive tendencies. Ancient and Medieval ideas about homosexuality were that it was just a form of pagan decadence, indulged in by people who were looking for a good time. They did not know that homosexuality is something deeply rooted in one's psychology. Whatever it is, it goes deeper than just sensual indulgence; and the Church would certainly concur with that statement, I think.

When I said that the tendencies are "naturally occurring," I did not mean that homosexuality is natural or morally acceptable. I meant that the tendencies do occur in nature, as a biological phenomenon; for example, how homosexuality is found among the animal kingdom. This is different from saying that they are acceptable as natural, because a thing can occur in nature as a corruption of the natural order. In this sense, it is naturally occuring, but still not natural. As far as homosexuality is concerned, I would say it is a mental disorder; and this makes sense, because mental disorders can also occur in lower animals.

Further, there is obviously a difference between having tendencies and acting upon them. But having the tendencies still means that they are, in a sense, a part of you. I have other mental disorders, and I consider them a part of me. I would say that it is necessary to acknowledge the presence of these things, so that one does not get a false idea about oneself. That is what I meant when I said that sexuality is a "part" of us. I did not mean that it was something intended by God in our makeup; rather I would say it is a corruption of the intention wrought as a consequence of sin, like all other imperfections, pain, and suffering.

And which saints mentioned feeling homosexual attractions? I'm not saying they're not there, but I've never heard of them. Mental illnesses have a patron, but I checked for homosexuality, and there is none.

And how come you keep writing "G-d"?

Matt,

You opened this thread by titling it "Identity," so I'm guessing that you're asking the question about what is essential to human identity.

To reference John Paul II's Theology of the Body: The Church doesn't locate our identity simply in our current situation (historical man), but in our original situation (original man) as well as our final situation (eschatalogical man). In other words, we can experience all kinds of inclinations and tendencies in the current situation that are due to sin and the disorder (lack of harmony) that it brought to our human faculties. But these disorders -- whatever they may be -- don't define us. They were not with us in the beginning, and so, in this sense, are not fundamental to our identity. Our deepest identity is located in who God made us to be (made in His image: male and female, body and soul), and what He calls us to (beatitude).

As one of the documents of Vatican II put it:

Believers and unbelievers agree almost unanimously that all things on earth should be ordained to humanity as to their center and summit.

...What is humanity? People have put forward, and continue to put forward, many views about humanity, views that are divergent and even contradictory. Sometimes they either set it up as the absolute measure of all things, or debase it to the point of despair. Hence humanity's doubt and anguish. The church is keenly sensitive to these difficulties. Enlightened by divine revelation it can offer a solution to them by which the true state of humanity may be described, its weakness explained in such a way that at the same time its dignity and vocation may be perceived in their true light. (Gaudium et Spes,12)

Here are some resources for further reading:

Gaudium et Spes
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_cons_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html

The Theology of the Body (particularly the first 25 audiences)
http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/jp2tb18.htm

"They did not know that homosexuality is something deeply rooted in one's psychology. Whatever it is, it goes deeper than just sensual indulgence; and the Church would certainly concur with that statement, I think."

It's important to mind the distinction between homogenital acts, and SSA individuals.

"As far as homosexuality is concerned, I would say it is a mental disorder; and this makes sense, because mental disorders can also occur in lower animals."

I wouldn't, and the Church doesn't need to:

http://johnheard.blogspot.com/2007/05/dreadletters-curing-homosexuality-narth.html

"...but I checked for homosexuality, and there is none".

There would not be a patron saint 'for homosexuality'. But the saints are like us, and their concerns and trials are ours. The poetry of St John of the Cross, the sexual temptation(s) of St Anthony (Desert Father), John Henry Newman's friendship with Ambrose St John, not to mention St. Aelred of Rievaulx, St. Sebastian, St. Longinus (Centurion), St. Augustine (see 'Confessions'), and Ss Sergius and Bacchus - all have particular resonance for SSA young men.

"And how come you keep writing "G-d"?"

Something I picked up from Jewish friends. It is done out of respect for the Most Holy Name.

- JH

Many, many people do have a problem reconciling their sexual orientation with their religion, even if they have turned away from God. One cannot put aside our identity as son of God, just as one cannot wipe away one's sexuality and same sex attraction.

Speaking as a non-Catholic, the Church teaches against 'homogenital acts', but she also acknowledges that the 'psychological genesis' of homosexuality is 'largely unexplained', thereby implying there is much more to the phenomenon than an urge to sex or a fleeting crush. The fact that the Church doesn't say so much, in fact hardly says anything at all, about the psychological genesis implies that it's not such a big deal what this genesis is and being gay is not such a big deal either (message to NARTH and Exodus and the likes).
In other words, as John said many times on his blog, being gay does not exclude one from being God's creation or somehow makes you a special kind of human being other than anyone else, or to the universal call to holiness of the Church.

These days, I 'prefer' to turn the 'dilemma' all upside down: I cannot be a gay/homosexual/SSA man, or in fact any kind of man, without being a child of God and being spun in His arms [instead of the old-fashioned one: 'I can't be a Christian if I'm gay'].
Being with Him or being without Him, that's the question.

"There are no gay saints, for example."

John Henry Newman will be beatified:

http://johnheard.blogspot.com/2008/05/dreadpublishing-being-heard-john-heard.html

- JH

I read the article you posted on him, did he have SSA? and if he did isnt this reason enough to allow SSA men into the priesthood? All the reasons I heard do not make sense

As I understand it, JHN made a commitment to purity / celibacy when he was fifteen, and never participated in the 'gay culture'. In light of these facts, he would not have been barred from candidacy because of the latest curial instruction...

- JH

The criteria provided by the Church is specifically concerned with "affective maturity" and commitment to chastity, not one's orientation per se.

I hate to continue this in this topic, but I was denied as soon as I answered yes to having SSA, it is soley based on orientation.

Hi David,

I can't speak to what happened in your situation. I'm only familiar with what the document from the Vatican says.

"...but I was denied as soon as I answered yes to having SSA, it is soley based on orientation."

I cannot comment on what happened in your case either, but the Instruction is not written like that, simply because the idea of having a 'sexual orientation' (rather than inclinations towards certain acts) is outside Christianity:

http://johnheard.blogspot.com/2007/11/dreadclarity-on-being-faithful-rather.html

- JH