Dr. Mirus argues homosexuality is an example of the “deficiencies, defects and disorders” that humans encounter

Dr. Jeff Mirus, President of Catholic Culture

It is of course to no surprise that Catholic Culture features an article that attempts to paint homosexuality as a deficiency, defect, and disorder. Wait! Deficiency? Defect? Disorder? Are you serious Dr. Mirus? Lets look at each of these “descriptive” words in some depth:

A deficiency refers to a lack of something. What are gay and lesbian people lacking? Ah, that’s right equality. Okay, so far I agree with your observation.

A defect refers to a shortcoming, a lack, or imperfection. Yes, on this descriptive word regarding homosexuality, I must agree. I am sure that you apply this word as it applies to the anti-gay laws that exist in particular states and areas regarding the ability of GLBT people to adopt children or perhaps you are drawing attention to the lack of benefits that GLBT people have regarding visiting their spouse in the hospital.

Lastly, you claim that homosexuality is an example of a disorder. This word refers to a state of confusion. I hope you are not referring to my living room! On this application of a descriptive word, I must disagree. The only disorder I see, is your own confusion in somehow thinking that gay marriage will affect your own marriage (if you are indeed married) or society at large.

These explanations are far from what Dr. Mirus actually presents in his article on Catholic Culture. Mirus’s article is instead an attack on gay and lesbians that relentlessly argues that homosexuality is a deficiency, disorder, and a defect. It is a very sad day when a man that purports to be a Catholic, spends his time criticizing and condemning other human beings. It’s intriguing how Dr. Mirus thinks he is worthy to condemn those who were created as homosexuals by God in His image and likeness.

So what does Dr. Mirus present in his article? Here is a very telling excerpt:

He or she must not merely integrate, control and channel sexual inclinations, but must largely deny them altogether, not only in their physical expression, but also in a far broader range of affectivity which is conditioned even in small ways by sexual interplay: Heightened interest, a sense of romance, a special tenderness. It is true that a celibate priest must be very careful of what we might call sexually-tinged affectivity, on the altogether sound theory that one thing leads to another. But the person with persistent homosexual inclinations must suppress or redirect such inclinations to an even greater extent. This is an enormous challenge.

And here is an excerpt from the section where he tries to explain why homosexuality is disordered:

In a cultural vacuum, it ought to be relatively easy to understand intellectually that homosexual inclinations are disordered. It ought to be fairly clear that the sexual faculties are both naturally ordered to the propagation and preservation of the species and supernaturally ordered toward a kind of union among man, woman and child which mirrors the essential fecundity of Divine love. When one notices that one’s own sexual inclinations do not tend toward this sort of union and fecundity—or even this ability to reproduce—then one can perceive a very definite disorder in those inclinations. There may be something one can do to alter them; they may be a very confused set of inclinations which are bound up with past experiences or habits, and so amenable to change as one comes to terms with these experiences or habits. Or there may be no way to eliminate the inclinations at all. Nonetheless, that they are disordered can be intellectually grasped.

Read the entire “analysis” by Dr. Mirus online at Catholic Culture’s website.

Feel free to contact Dr. Mirus with your thoughts at http://www.catholicculture.org/contact/.