“However, in our present atmosphere, one cannot make this mundane observation without being attacked by the militant persecuting fascists of the homosexualist movement, who are absolutely intolerant of the Church’s teaching concerning the sin of homosexual acts and the disorder of homosexual orientation. So the teaching of the Church that homosexual orientation is disordered and that homosexual acts are sinful is shouted down.”

One of the best sentences I have ever seen written. Thank you for daring to write it.  If people would pray to the Holy Spirit, their Guardian Angel, St. Michael the Archangel, and perhaps St. Thomas Aquinas, begging for their intercession, wisdom, and relief from this torment, perhaps light and help would be given them.  I pray for their relief and release.

God bless you.

Amen to all of that. That Chesterton saying was a bumper sticker on my car before it just eventually wore off. Need to order another one from chesterton.org.

I commented on this situation on my blog as well (http://philotheaonphire.blogspot.com). I think Daniel Avila made a valid point, and was shot down along the lines of Fr. Michael Rodriguez. The homosexual agenda is powerful, and it seems some of our bishops fall prey to it.

Thank God for you, Mark, for being one of the voices defending our Church and her teachings.  And thank you Heather, for the wonderful prayer reminders…I’m on it!

Whatever the devil is allowed to do, is permitted by God.  Each of the devil’s human interactions are allowed because these can be the basis for spiritual achievement.  So it was that Job was tempted, and overcoming his misfortune, achieved much for God’s glory.  This applies to all of the negatives we face during life; some are born blind, some die in pain, some are sexually attracted to persons, or things, which are off limits. Why does God permit this?  Opportunities for spiritual growth.  For God so loved OJ that he granted him a new venue for repentence and salvation (did not appear the old one was working).

Mercy Sister Mary Ann Walsh, director of media relations for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said in a statement: “While the general population has debated whether it’s nurture or nature that leads to a homosexual inclination, the church has not posed any theory in that regard.”

So…the Sister who was not asked to resign allows the possibility that God (the Author of nature, no?) may be responsible for same-sex attraction.

More evidence that the USCCB has zero moral authority.

Not incidentally, I hope Prof. Avila lands on his feet.

I did write a post about this a few days ago.

http://ephesians4-15.blogspot.com/2011/11/where-does-gayness-come-from-why-do-we.html

I don’t absolve Daniel Avila completely like you do. He is not wrong theologically but does make some points less clear than he needs to. He needs to anticipate what false conclusions the gay culture will jump to and address them more clearly. You do exactly that in your article. Perhaps the USCCB should hire you to make it’s gay marriage case.

Will:

What Sr. Walsh said is perfectly true: the Church offers no theory about the origins of homosexual attraction.  Construing her remark as allowing the possibility that God is the author or disordered appetite is uncharitable.  Leaping from that unfounded assumption to making a hit on the entire USCCB is an excellent example of how Talk Radio mobthink has infected Catholic discourse, but not an impressive example of either Catholic clarity nor Catholic charity.  You may wish that the Church would pretend to competence in genetics, psychology or both.  But in fact she leaves those disciplines to those who have the competence.  Her job is not to make scientific pronouncements but to conserve and preach the Tradition handed down to her from the apostles.

Mark:
Of course the Church doesn’t posit a theory about homosexuality’s origins, but its clear teaching is that, whatever else it may be, it is unnatural.  I make no “unfounded assumption” in my remarks.  Neither do I wish the Church to have competence beyond what God has given it (that is your unfounded assumption regarding my own wishes.)  The question of homosexuality’s origins is not knowable by any discipline that restricts itself to examining material causes.  Moreover, moral authority is the only sort a national conference of bishops can have, lacking as it does any canonical authority. When it has become so pusillanimous that it cannot uphold what the Church in fact knows, then I’m not sure why anyone should pay attention. I never, by the way, listen to talk radio.

I make no “unfounded assumption” in my remarks.

Yes.  You do.  You take a perfectly true statement and turn it into the basis of a rant against the whole USCCB.  One can hold, as the Church does, that homosexual desire is disordered without having to commit oneself to a theory of its origins.  Sr. Walsh said nothing contrary to the Church’s teaching about the disorder of homosexual attraction.  She merely noted that the Church does not claim to know how the disorder arises, which is true.

You do me credit to suppose I can “rant” in a single sentence.  Be that as it may, your argument is typical:  prescind from the actually relevant facts to say, “well, she didn’t say anything technically false.” That’s cold comfort to those who might still look for something like moral clarity from the USCCB. The fact is the one person who said anything theologically true is no longer in the employ of the bishops who act as though he had proposed some sort of dangerous novelty in moral doctrine.  Their spokesperson then says outright that nature might lead to a homosexual inclination. Such a use of “nature” is not merely inexact, it has no precedent anywhere in Catholic thought.  Again, I am well aware that the Church proffers no theory about where homosexuality comes from, but it has declared quite clearly where it doesn’t.  Frankly, I regard you too highly to believe that you think the bishops have sewn anything here but confusion.

Will:

“Nature” can mean a lot of things.  Some people are “naturally” susceptible to alcoholism or Tourette’s syndrome (meaning there is something about their psycho-physical makeup that contributes to these disorders, not “These disorders are a gift of God and should be celebrated and affirmed”).  I would assume the Sister means something along those lines when she says the Church does not pick a side in the nature/nurture debate.  You seem bent on obtaining a guilty verdict rather than regarding Sr. Walsh’s remark with charity.

Really, I would very much like to think the bishops’ conference did something just here, but the facts suggest anything but.  By your own admission, the spokeswoman issues a true, but ambiguous statement that is supposed to settle things.  The man who spoke both truly and clearly is out of work and the bishops appear to wish that he and his article had never seen the light of day.  Where in all of this is evidence for a verdict of innocence, or even not guilty?  You seem to hold that charity demands what Thomas called “affected ignorance.”

You give no context for the statement.  Simply that she, in fact, related the fact that the Church does not offer any views on the origins of homosexual attraction.  All I have from you is a single sentence, isolated from context given at an unknown date and location to parties unknown.  And from this, I am expected to immediate condemn all the bishops in the US?

Not only might I rant in one sentence but I sometimes rave in even less.

Ad Iesu per Mariam.

Mark - it is all very well and good (I suppose) to rant against the “gay brownshirts” but it is really so lazy. 

It would be far more fruitful and useful for you to go head-to-head in a dispassionate fashion with the likes of the Commonweal folks and Fr. James Martin - the later of whom is really being more and more forward in the presentation of his views. His mantra is that “God makes gays and loves them just as they are.”  He is *very influential* and more so with every popular book he writes. I would love to see a discussion between you and Fr. Martin on this issue - it would be so much more interesting than one more rant into the ether - as enjoyable as they are.

The Sister’s comment is from the article linked on this page. You misunderstand me if you suppose I condemn any individual bishop. It is the Conference itself, which is run less by the bishops than by bureaucrats, though with the bishops’ more or less tacit approval.  I daresay that there are not a few bishops who hold that the adage about meetings—“none of us is as stupid as all of us”—applies to the USCCB.  I wish you’d exert yourself less in assessing my charity level (about which I feel crummy enough without your help) and admit the probability that there is a cooperation with evil in the very fact that the bishops or their underlings “accepted the resignation” of a man who spoke the truth plainly and, it seems to me, temperately. They then issue a statement about the Church’s incompetence to pronounce upon the material origins of homosexuality, when that wasn’t the point of the article to begin with.  It amounts to saying, “we don’t wish to speak on matters about which we do have authority; we’d rather highlight our inability to speak on things beyond that authority.” Is your defense of this debacle your idea of “speaking truth to power”?
Let me say, with some trepidation, that I know a little about the workings of the USCCB as I was on a national ecumenical dialogue committee.  But that is, strictly speaking, irrelevant.

If homosexuality is a “gift”, we have to ask, from whom? Let me see: it includes anal intercourse, fisting, rimming, sexual slavery, sex with strangers, group orgies, misuse of small furry animals… Not very hard to guess the donor.

Seriously now, homosexuality is an archetypal example of diabolical inversion. It may even be the “abomination of desolation” mentioned in the Book of Revelation. People who suffer from it require our charity, our compassion and our patient care - but never our acceptance of their disordered behavior.

Mark, well said. Thanks for providing the text of the article. The USCCB did not handle this well on any level. I was troubled by Sister Mary Ann Walsh’s statement as well. Perhaps the biggest problem with it is that it was a weak justification for Avila’s resignation. The USCCB lost an opportunity to stand strong. If Avila’s statements were not clear to the uncatechised then take the opportunity to teach. Another lost opportunity to teach, save souls. A sin of ommission-what we have failed to do. God have mercy on us.

If the same sex attraction is scientific, attraction to animals or even anything not live but attracting togetherness is scietific.  There is nothing scientific, it is all pursuit of pleasure one way or other without let or hindrance

It is always a source of great consolation when a Catholic blogger speaks the truth. Mark Shea did it today. Kudos.

The question I always ask myself is this - WHY is it that so many dioceses in America are very “understanding” and “pastoral” on this issue (homosexuality)?  Even in New York (and elsewhere) where there is a clear battle line on the issue of marriage, there seems to be another, less clear line on homosexuality.  Almost as if there’s a bit of “Hey, being gay is okay, but let’s not argue about the marriage issue”.

WHY is it that so many of these dioceses have - ahem - “outreach” to homosexuals and offer masses for them, yet to this day, I have never heard of masses being held for those who are cohabitating, divorced & remarried outside of the Church, or for users of birth control.  WHY is it that those who speak against homosexuality are routinely chastised and dumped upon by the Bishops?

Well, Paul, IMO, you are asking some very ‘difficult’ and ‘delicate’ questions to answer.

My guess is that there are probably *many* different reasons for these things to be happening at this time—some good, some not so good.

But, IMO, if you take the time to read this:

http://www.catholiccitizens.org/press/contentview.asp?c=2049

I’m sure you will understand at least *one* reason why some of this may be happening today.

Paul, please know that the Church is full of good priests and bishops… but, unfortunately, there are a few problem areas within.

It’s really nothing new… the Church has always had it’s share of dissenters, traitors, enemies, etc…etc.

My advice:

“Pray, hope, and don’t worry!”  (St. Pio)

There are several biological errors in Avila’s essay.  The most relevant here is that, from a scientific perspective, there is as yet zero evidence that “the personally unchosen beginnings of same-sex attraction” are due to “natural causes disturb[ing] otherwise typical biological development.”  Scientific research into homosexuality has found, much to the surprise of the researchers, that it is not in any strictly biological or psychological sense an impairment or pathology.  The Church’s teaching about the immorality of same-sex genital activity is, however, not based on the findings of biologists and psychologists.

It is by his reliance on badly understood biology that Avila appears to have been lead into the more important theological mistake.  The Church has the right of it in withholding judgment for now about the etiology of homosexuality.  Avila’s error, repeated here by Mark Shea with a hefty dose of his special brand of vituperative and paranoid slurs against SSA people, was extremely offensive because a large number of people do have a better grasp of the relevant scientific facts.  For them there is no nuanced reading of Avila’s statement as applying to a counterfactual world where homosexuality is linked to pathology.  To say “the devil is responsible” in the real world where, to reiterate for clarity, homosexuality is not linked with pathology (in the scientific sense), is dangerously near to

1) attributing to the devil the power to create
2) by suggesting SSA people are creations of the devil
3) which would further suggest that they ought to serve the devil rather than God.

Now can you see the depth and offense of the theological error involved?  Or does your lack of charity for SSA people run so deep that you’ll call this comment militant persecuting fascism?

Noah, not that “the devil made me do it” or the devil created SSA is truth but the reality is that all persons who are refusing obedience to the Gospel of Jesus Christ are in danger of being influenced by demons or evil spirits in ways varying from the ordinary temptations to various obsessions and oppressions, and much more rarely but sometimes God may permit actual possession, usually in cases where persons are engaging in patterns of grave unrepentant sins or in cases of occult activity. That demons can insinuate themselves into our own thoughts and imaginations, so as to distort what God has in mind for us who are created in God’s image in certainly true. That is why we Christians should be careful to surrender ourselves to God and to His church by granting obedience and we would do well to relearn what St Ignatius and other saints have taught us about the need to discern the spirits even in our own thoughts and imaginations.

The question is not so much what causes homosexuality, but how easy or difficult it is to abstain?  I recall when left handed children were routinely slapped when they reached out the left hand to grab something.  It did not cure them of left handedness but it damage their relationship with their families well past childhood.  It is easy to say “abstain” not so easy to understand the struggle it might mean, nor the collateral damage it may inflict to other areas of life.

There are programs, for example that promise to cure homosexuality, and that deliver either a cult setting for the patient, or brutal abuse (as was denounced in clinics in Ecuador where lesbians were beaten and pelted with feces to make them renounce their ways).  A remedy that is worse than the sickness is no remedy.

Homosexuality is a disorder, in a world filled with disorder and imperfection.  When I see that prayer and willpower can make the paraplegic walk, the epileptic whole, or the mentally retarded able to undestand higher mathematics I will endorse it. 

Understanding the causes might or might not excuse, but will give a more realistic idea of what can be done and what cannot.

In the meantime, the homosexuals will have to join the halt, the lame, the defective, in making a life the best way they can within their limitations, and without the irritation of being advice of people without the knowledge of what is involved.

And I work with addicts, alcoholics and drug addicts and I struggled with my own addictive sins for years. So a few things I have learned is that to try to overcome our sins by our own willpower will lead to either an unhealthy repression or a pattern of giving into the sins, or more likely periods of repression alternating with periods of compulsive acting out. Only by surrendering to God’s grace, as a person, sinking in quicksand would grab onto a rope, could I experience a measure of peaceful freedom from my sins. As John reminds us in John Ch 8 vs 34 that everyone who sins can become a slave to sin and in John ch 8 vs 36 “So if the Son frees you, then you will truly be free.” So first, we must trust in His grace to free us from acting out our sins and then, to be transformed from desiring out sins over time.

And more on the demonic element of the disorders which lead use to sin. As I work with addicts some will be doing well and suddenly, often at a point of their weakness or a period of emotional stress they will say that ‘the urge, imagination or craving to use again “just fell out of a tree”, and they end up relapsing. I think that some of these temptations are demonic in origin and I have found it sometimes helpful to invoke the Cross of Jesus and to meditate on His Passion, and if the temptation remains I have sometimes prayed a prayer of self deliverance by commanding the sin,as in spirit of lust, etc. to go to Jesus and to get out and that has sometimes helped me. Just an idea of how the demonic may be able to affect some of us. Of course, it is hard to tell if the temptation is my own flesh or the Evil One but both can be involved.