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/.

Britain’s only gay Mass prepares for Pope’s arrival; GLBT Mass was coordinated with help from Vatican

Gay Catholics

Can you imagine the day when the Pope arrives at Mass in drag in support of an HIV/AIDS fundraiser? Okay, so perhaps not in the near future, but one London-based church is exercising their prophetic wisdom by recognizing the beauty found in GLBT people, who just like straight people have been created in the image and likeness of God.

London’s Our Lady of the Assumption and St. Gregory’s in the West End, welcome gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Londoners from throughout the city. So, what’s happening in London? According to the BBC:

“People had been used to meeting at the nearby Anglican Church of St Anne’s and there was a feeling that it was time to find a way of finding Catholic premises,” says Monsignor Seamus O’Boyle, the parish priest.

A series of draft documents were passed between top-level Cardinals in Westminster and the Vatican, to agree some basic ground rules.

The Church hierarchy wanted assurances that the services would not become a platform for challenging Catholic teaching. So one of the “underlying principles” of staging the service is: “Information about the Mass will be sensitive to the reality that the celebration of Mass is not to be used for campaigning for any change to, or ambiguity about, the Church’s teaching.”

Speaking about the impact of the GLBT-friendly Mass, parishioners told the BBC:

“The emphasis is on pastoral care. Sometimes people come here and have tears in their eyes, because for the first time, two really important parts of their lives have come together: their Catholicism and their sexual identity.”

Renate Rothwell is another stalwart. “My life without the Soho Mass would be bleaker, lonelier and less joyful,” she says.

One can only hope that this is the first steps towards a truly inclusive Roman Catholic Church in the United Kingdom. In the United States, similar GLBT-friendly Masses occur weekly at St. Francis Xavier Church in New York City (Chelsea) and around the country (see New Ways Ministry’s website).

It will be interesting to see what right-wing Catholic bloggers have to say about this (e.g. AmericanPapist)

Read the entire article on the BBC’s website.

Today’s Church Bulletin, September 5, 2010: Thousands rally against gay marriage in CA, Pope prepares for trip to UK — converts ready?

Pope Benedict XVI

Today’s headlines feature two interesting articles:

First is an article exploring a rally that took place yesterday in California against gay marriage and abortion. The rally was called “The Call to Conscience” and was organized by Lou Engle. Here is an interesting excerpt that includes a statement by Engle:

“If marriage is going to be upheld between a man and a woman, which we believe is the best for families and children and society, then right now, it seems we need divine intervention,” Engle said in an interview between appearances on stage. “That’s part of the reason we’re coming here, to pray, but also to take a stand and be a prophetic voice to stand for truth.”

Read the entire article online at The San Francisco Chronicle.

A second article is not directly on GLBT issues, but still interesting and relevant. As you may know (I sure hope you know), the Pope is to visit the United Kingdom next week. In preparing for the Supreme Pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church’s arrival, The Daily Telegraph has an interesting article about the critics that Benedict XVI faces upon his arrival in the UK. This paragraph helps to understand those criticizing the Pope:

Threats of a citizen’s arrest; protests from survivors of priestly abuse and the gay rights lobby; some spectacular organisational bungling on the part of the Catholic hierarchy in this country: nothing can dent the sheer joy felt by many of Britain’s four million Catholics at the prospect of seeing the Pope in their midst. In what must count as the annus horribilis of the Church, when every day seemed to bring fresh revelations of abuse by priests of their young charges, the Catholic faithful are hungry for reassurance. Apart from a miracle – Richard Dawkins’s Damascene conversion? Cardinal Newman, resurrected, fulminating at the next gathering of the British Humanist Association? – the papal visit, with its pomp and picnics, is the best means to restore hope and rekindle faith.

The article continues by reminding readers that this papal visit will be very different than that made by his predecessor, John Paul II:

This will be a very different papal visit. When Benedict XVI lands at Edinburgh airport on September 16, he will not drop to his knees and kiss the ground, as his predecessor did. This is not only because the octogenarian pontiff is physically frail and less of a showman, but because the grand romance of that gesture would strike a false note today.

Read the entire article on The Daily Telegraph.

And the winning article is “Gay and lesbian Christians criticize plans to disrupt pope’s visit” in The Guardian from September 1, 2010. “Disagree with respect” is the mantra of UK’s GLBT Christians as they prepare for the arrival of the Pope. The article explains that GLBT Christians are encouraging their non-Christian brothers and sisters to voice their criticisms, but not to do so in a way which would be disrespectful to the Pope. We agree with the call to “disagree with respect” — we catch more with honey than vinegar 🙂

Gotta love it! Texas says don’t mess with marriage

It is quite intriguing how judicial activism is “okay” when it involves fulfilling the agenda of the conservative right! In referring to a court decision that came down in Texas this week regarding granting divorces for same-sex marriages performed in other states. The decision concluded that Texas does not have the power to adjudicate divorces for same sex couples and in a de facto manner ruled that same sex marriages were not valid. National Review and the American Principles Project featured strong statements in support of this Texas decision.

In the National Review article, the author writes:

Where Judge Walker said gays and lesbians constituted a specially protected class, the Texas decision said there really are differences in the classes affected by the marriage laws: “The persons singled out and favored by Texas’s marriage laws, namely opposite-sex couples, have such a distinguishing and relevant characteristic: the natural ability to procreate.”

Where Judge Walker said that the right to same-sex marriage is fundamental, the Texas decision noted that the key right-to-marry case, Loving v. Virginia (invalidating an interracial-marriage ban), “involved a marriage between a man and woman.”

To bad for the “experts” at National Review, the decision in Loving v. Virginia (388 U.S. 1, 1967) does not include the quote “involved a marriage between a man and woman.” In fact, the entire decision does not include a definition of marriage, but rather comments on the right to marriage for all Americans. Although National Review and the American Principles Project might like to portray the decision as a defense of traditional marriage, Loving was in fact a statement in support of marriage being blind to color.

A further U.S. Supreme Court decision that gets far less attention than Loving is Zablocki v. Redhail, which further affirms the right to marriage for all Americans. Interestingly, Thomas Peters at the American Principles Project failed to cross-check the facts presented in Duncan’s article on the National Review.

Is gay marriage in early Christianity really a “myth” OR is marriage being portrayed as a Christian institution the “myth?”

On August 24, 2010, Thomas Peter (www.americanpapist.com) posted a blog entry titled “Sergius, Bacchus, and the growing myth of ‘early Christian gay marriage’.” Though I disagree with Peter’s entry, I found this “comment” on his posting particularly interesting…

Click here to read Peter’s entry.

Here is the comment that was posted to Thomas Peter’s entry on early Christian gay marriage…

Joseph  / August 24, 2010

Your blog is always an interesting source for intriguing stories regarding the Roman Catholic Church, however, this particular posting overlooks an important point regarding the “sacrament” of marriage. First, it is a fact that marriage is an institution that predates Christianity. We need only reference the early jurists of Rome or the fragments of Germanic law to understand that marriage has itself evolved since its inception in the Ancient world. In fact, in Ancient Rome, it would have been enough to co-habitate for a marriage to be considered valid. In addition, early marriage would have required consummation (depending on the period in Roman Law and Germanic Law). This may draw into question a consideration of whether Mary and Joseph were really “married” or if Joseph was merely Mary’s guardian — still a position of honor. Yet, I do not seek to answer the question of whether there was a nuptial agreement between Mary and Joseph for I respect the work of theologians in this regard. It would be nice though to hear your thoughts as a theologian on this question.

Further, I believe that your posting regarding Maguire’s piece (and Maguire himself) fail to consider early Christian scholars who they themselves spoke of love between gay men. This is especially evident in the writings of Aelred of Riveaulx, a twelfth-century English Cistercian abbot. Many theologians and philosophers have commented on the erotic nature of Aelred’s writings and have in turn contributed to our spectrum of understanding regarding the early Church’s varied perspectives on same-sex relations.

We might also consider the two knights that died in 1391 in Constantinople. On their tomb, it states that they were companions for thirteen years. This word “companion” may appear inconclusive to a contemporary reader, but in Medieval society (as in Biblical society), companion would have implied something far more intimate than friendship. This is the same conclusion that I believe can most accurately be drawn from Boswell’s 1994 work on the same-sex ceremony (adelphopoiia) which he describes.

It is of further importance to note that it was not until Medieval France that we see the Christianization of marriage that we acknowledge today. In fact, in Ancient Rome and even early Christianity, nuptial ceremonies were neither required nor common. The Christianization of marriage is likely linked to the early mistranslation of mysterion (Greek) to sacramentum (Latin) — words that have very different meanings in both theology and for society in general.

I only offer these comments in charity and pray that you will offer the same degree of charity with a response that seeks to provide a theological basis for your degradation of relations between men of the same sex. I do believe that the history of Christianity paints a very different story then you seek to display, because the early Church lacks the assertive language that you use to express the contemporary Church’s position on homosexual relations. As a scholar, I believe that the early Church did not hold a universal opinion regarding same-sex relations as it lacked the authority that today the Church’s has vested in the Holy See and the Supreme Pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church. To presume that the Church’s teachings on homosexual relationships has been without change and is the same today as it was in Medieval society, is to deny the validity of history, the contributions of early theologians, and the development of the institution of marriage itself — an institution which history shows pre-dates the sacrament of the Church.