Pat, I was with you up until about halfway through.  I also like to assume the best of people (and especially to respect the memory of the deceased, keeping in mind they aren’t around to defend themselves to us mortals anymore), but to be confronted with significant, credible evidence to the contrary might give me pause.  “Saint” isn’t a term for a writer like Mark to use carelessly.  While I have no illusion that saints are perfect all the time, one of the first things I imagine they figure out about sin is that you’re much less likely to do it if you don’t knowingly place yourself in the near occasion. 
Also, drinking alcohol is not *inherently* sinful, so that comparison bothers me; with homosexuality it is not just a question of moderation versus excess.

Thank yo for this.
We are not to vilify people for the crosses they bear.

I have a friend who, being such an intense Catholic - seems to really hate homosexuality.  (I’m Catholic too - but I don’t end friendships when I learn a friend is gay)  When, in conversation, she learns that my hairdresser or my trainer is gay… she gets mighty self-righteous and says I shouldn’t do business with them because they are gay!
Really?  You don’t want them to be openly gay, you don’t want them to engage in gay behavior and now you don’t even want them to make a living?!  Give me a break sweetheart!

“Would Mark had gotten the same reaction if he had written the same words about a man who did amazing things for and because of his faith but who also struggled with alcoholism?”

No, but he would get the same reaction if the fellow was regularly bedding single women, openly, and not being married.  Sexual sins are particularly scandalous in a way that alcoholism is not.  Sin is not sin, and it is incorrect to equate them all. 

Please think, in comparison, of the holy people who have same sex attraction but choose not to have gay sex by not setting up a permanent residence with another gay man.  These are the people we should be raising up as examples of holiness and heroism.

If this man truly loved the Church and its way of life, he would live accordingly.  People do.  I know them and admire them, and they are the ones worthy of unreserved admiration and praise.

enness
People say it all the time about recently deceased people who are probably not without blemish.  I think inflating it to be more than that seems unfair.

Pat, In general I agree with you here.  Just one or two minor nitpicks. 

1. I think the dismissal of a gay man for vocally opposing Obama care is not exactly the same thing as dismissing a gay man for speaking out for gay marriage.  That being said, I imagine what you said would also be true if the Obama administration fired a Catholic for vocally opposing the HHS mandate on contraceptives.

2. In general I am right with you and Mark regarding Mr. Lorenzo.  I would however say that if it was widely known that he was gay, then choosing to live with another man (chastely or not) would have made him guilty of causing scandal.  This would also have been true if a heterosexual man and woman who were not related or married choose to live together chastely.  As the many comments have shown, most people would assume they were not being chaste.

Still all in all, I am glad to see you, and Mark and others providing a true view of what the dialog should be about regarding gay rights (i.e., trying to make sure they have the same rights everyone else has) and what it should not be (creating special “rights” for them).

Pat:

Spot on.  What much of the curious conclusion-leaping and accusation from Combox Inquisitors seems to me to come down to this: a) it is safe to assume that somebody with same-sex attraction is up to no good, particularly if they do not commit themselves to a life without any contact whatsoever between themselves and any person of the same sex they love, no matter how chastely; b) if the SSA person lives a manifestly holy life but is same-sex attracted, we can know he is living a life of public scandal, even when the blogger telling his story makes clear that he had no idea if the SSA person was ever sexually active and assumes he was not (because, so far from being a public scandal, I didn’t know he had a companion till after his death); c) if such a person fell off the wagon at any time in his struggle with sin (and I hasten to emphasize that I have zero evidence Perry ever did and a number of reasons to think he did not) that is *totally* different from when a straight person falls off the wagon and it means it is open season to judge and condemn him as a flagrant sinner deserving hell; d) it is our *duty* to investigate gays and find out if they are staying on the wagon and failure to snoop into their private life is “condoning” the sin we are pretty sure they must be guilty of; and e) even if he never commits homosexual sin, any love (no matter how chaste) he expresses toward a member of the same sex is a scandal and must be judged by anonymous strangers who Know a Thing or Two. 

Relatedly, any failure by a Catholic to agree to these absurd propositions is prima facie evidence that said Catholic is a moral idiot, a subversive fifth columnist bent on corrupting the Church, and that his entire history of clear adherence to the Church’s moral teaching about the sinfulness of homosexual acts is a sham and a fraud.

There’s a scandal here all right (Scandal meaning “stumbling stone that makes it hard to find the gospel credible and keeps people from following Jesus”).  But it’s not Perry Lorenzo, who is guilty of no sin that I know of.  It’s this arrogant, loveless Phariseeism that accuses without evidence and make it hard for SSA people to believe there is any love, mercy, or even sympathy for human weakness in the Church.  Jesus has stern words for this sort of scandalous behavior: “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither enter yourselves, nor allow those who would enter to go in.” (Matthew 23:13)

Thanks for being a voice of reason here.

I would like to suggest that a true scandal is the relative silence these past 40 years by those in Church authority (bishops, priests, educators) on ALL forms of sexual sin. 

I am a 52 year old cradle Catholic and have heard perhaps two homilies on sexual sin in my life.  Catholics aren’t told that contraception, fornication, adultery, sodomy, masturbation and pornography are gravely sinful, regardless of one’s sexual orientation.  The bishops - and through them our priests - have a sacred duty to TEACH.  Ultimately, they will be judged on their failure to do so.

If we Catholics knew as much about God’s plan for sex (Humanae Vitae/Theology of the Body) as we do about using our cell phones, we wouldn’t have the levels of illegitimacy, contraception, abortion and divorce that are presently crippling us. 

Catholics score high points on social justice AKA the corporal works of mercy:  clothe the naked, feed the hungry.  We have seemingly forgotten the spiritual works of mercy which are ultimately more important, as they have ETERNAL consequences (admonish the sinner, instruct the ignorant).

Let us pray for our bishops and priests that they will stop using the excuse of being “pastoral” and will bravely speak the hard truth to those souls over which they have charge - even if WE don’t want to hear it!

St. Michael, the Archangel, defend us in battle (and this IS a battle).

Mark, I hope you feel better after firing off that bit of hyperventilation.

Seriously, dude.

You invented the over-the-top rhetorical flourish which you so fervently admonish above.

It is, in fact, in the very headline of your (self-admittedly) *intentionally* raise-a-ruckus bit of blogosphere agitprop.

“Saint”?

Perry sounds like a really good guy, and none of this would have become a source of scandal for anyone unless….well.

Unless Mark Shea decided to calculatedly employ a headline guaranteed to stir up the ruckus he freely admits he expected all along.

Well, Mark, if you can’t take it, don’t dish it out.

Your whole schtick boils down to dishing it out, so….....

Mark, Pat:
Well done to you both to bringing a bit of sense & Christian charity to discussion that often lacks even a modicum of either ...

Thank you, thank you, so much, Theresa Ferguson for the truth and eloquence in your comments.

The 4 Sins that Cry Out to Heaven:
Willful murder
The sin of Sodom
Oppression of the poor
Defrauding laborers of their wages

We really should take care not throwing words like “saint” around lightly

I guess King David is in hell. Meanwhile, my friend never, so far as I know, committed any of these sins.  Funny how easily people assume he did.  Project much?

Regarding the second example you gave from Mark Shea’s post:  I absolutely agree.  While I am absolutely in agreement with the Church teaching on homosexuality, I have puzzled lately over the cases where priests refuse to give communion to people who are openly gay.  While the priests know the people better than I do, I’ve been wondering if this is necessarily the right approach.  After all, I’m sure priests every day give communion to people who are living with their significant others out of wedlock, who cheat on their taxes, etc.  Unless if you’re blessed with keen insight into hearts, you probably can’t make definitive judgment calls on whether someone is in a state of mortal sin or not.  The person could very well have gone to confession before going to mass and received absolution.  The person could be striving to separate themselves from their significant other.  In most cases, we can’t know.  The other problem is, an unfortunately large number of Catholics have not been educated in what it means to receive communion, in the importance of the sacrament of reconciliation, and in what behaviors are sins and why.  Perhaps a better tact would be to post a big sign at the entrance of the Church, saying “We welcome all to the celebration of the mass!  Out of respect for the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, we must ask that you refrain from receiving communion if you are in a state of mortal sin.  Please either remain in your seat or come up for a blessing by crossing your arms over your chest.  Our confession times are ___.”  Then the priest could engage in a series of homilies that recatechize and encourage the parishioners to engage in the great sacrament of confession before receiving communion.  That way more of the burden is on the individual, and not as much on the priest, to identify whether they are in a state of grace that makes them worthy of receiving.  I think we also need to find a better way of reaching out to people with same sex attraction, so that they do feel welcomed, but also making everyone aware of why the Church teaches what she does about homosexual acts (and all sex outside of sacramental marriage, for that matter… this is why Theology of the Body is such a useful educational tool).  I’m no theology scholar, so I may be way off on this, but that seems like a better way of handling the whole situation.

What about the spiritual act of mercy known as “admonishing sinners” or warning each other when we put our souls in mortal danger? Or are those things just antiquated relics from a Dark and barbaric Age that has nothing to do with the modern Church?

I can’t recall any of St. Paul’s many, many admonitions in his epistles saying anything close to “none. of. my. business”. He knew what the ultimate end of an unrepentant life is.

We have no right to judge the sinner. To that I say Amen! Firstly because we are all sinners, and secondly because the true Victim of our offences is Christ. But where there is indication of sin, for the sake of both the offender and the body of Christ, that sin ought to be acknowledge as sin and as a danger to the soul of the sinner and his/her neighbours.

And really, “monks in love” doesn’t suggest a romantic/physical interaction? Why does the church warn even heterosexual unmarried couples against cohabitation?

Finally, I agree with the post above that none of what Mark had written would’ve been an issue if he had not used the word “saint” in a context that is generally understood to mean canonised saint.

I believe Pat and Mark only mean to expose an area where Catholics are extremely negligent: the pastoral care of homosexuals. But I can appreciate why people disagree so strongly with the presentation of this “exposition”.

What about the spiritual act of mercy known as “admonishing sinners”

Generally, there needs to be a sin to admonish somebody about first.  I am aware of no sin Perry committed.  I’m simply aware of a lot of combox inquisitors assuming he sinned.

And really, “monks in love” doesn’t suggest a romantic/physical interaction?

No.  It suggests two men who were same-sex attracted.  Who loved each other, and who lived chastely and offered their love to God.  About this, the Church has not one word of condemnation. Only Combox Inquisitors supply that.

Why does the church warn even heterosexual unmarried couples against cohabitation?

What evidence do you have that they cohabited? Why do you rashly assume they did?  The Church also warns against rash judgement.

Finally, I agree with the post above that none of what Mark had written would’ve been an issue if he had not used the word “saint” in a context that is generally understood to mean canonised saint.

Rubbish.  “A gay man *I consider* a saint” means I am offering a subjective opinion about a person I believe lived an exemplary Catholic life.

I believe Pat and Mark only mean to expose an area where Catholics are extremely negligent: the pastoral care of homosexuals. But I can appreciate why people disagree so strongly with the presentation of this “exposition”.

You are right about my purpose.  And I made clear on my blog that part of the problem was lack of clarity in some of my wording. But another significant part is the fact that readers are leaping to lots of unwarranted conclusion. That’s part of the reason pastoral care of homosexuals is bad.

Marie:

Depends on what you mean by “openly gay”.  Are they frank about their sexual orientation but trying to live chastely?  I can’t imagine a priest in the world refusing them communion.  Are they defiantly engaged in homosex, noising it abroad, and urging everybody to join them in their defiance.  I’d refuse them communion too.

Thanks for elaborating, Mark. It really is a tragedy that we, the Church, are shunning men and women with SSA, almost guaranteeing that they will seek help and comfort in harmful ways. I’m just wary, as with all other sins, that we compromise truth for the sake of charity. But I now understand your sentiments. God bless.

Very well said.  I would see no issue with a gay person serving on Romney’s campaign, as long as he supports the candidate’s positions on major issues…I think that this is a requirement for anyone who works for a campaign.  And I think you’re right on the larger issue of truth in charity on the issue of SSA, too.

Georg:

Thanks!  You refresh my spirit with your reasonableness and charity!

By going around labeling people as ‘gay’ in these contexts is to say such is a lifestyle that’s valid so long as it’s kept private. No! By IDENTIFYING as gay that ipso facto entails the gay person is promoting that agenda in some way. We don’t have people identify as Adulterers or Masturbators, even though those are more wide spread, because to do so would validate the lifestyle so long as it’s kept private.

And it’s funny how often this or that politician is called to resign for having an affair, yet by your logic as long as this doesn’t “interfere” with his job then it’s no big deal. Yet, clearly it does interfere in some way, and this is principally on the level of trust and virtue. If someone cannot remain faithful to their wife, then why trust them running a nation? Why is that person a role model? Your proposition is saying you should trust a guy who runs a strip club to marry your daughter since what really matters is that he’s shown he will be a dedicated husband.

We should never say that as Catholics we don’t care if someone is gay, for that’s like saying we don’t care if someone commits adultery. That someone like Elton John is gay is a heartbreaking tragedy, because he is a talented musician. As Catholics, it should pain us to think someone is not living for God, not whether or not they’re good at their job.

Thank you, Pat, Mark. I think the story about Mr. Lorenzo is great.  I’ll speak with uncharacteristic boldness because I am anonymous here, and say that I think there is a bit more “hating the sin” than “loving the sinner” when it comes to SSA and Catholics, and sometimes the distinction between the two becomes perilously blurred.  Never is it more obvious than when we hold up as an example a person whose sanctity was achieved (in part) by a struggle with SSA and Catholics demur.  Even if it is the case that Mr. Lorenzo struggled to live chastely (if my own late-twenties heterosexual struggles are any indication, I imagine he did), so what? Most of us do.  Many of the saints did too. The incredible virtue it takes for a SSA person to face the heavy cross of a lifetime of celibacy (not chosen, but as a result of a deficiency of nature or rearing, whichever you like)should inspire admiration, not uneasiness.

@ Theresa Ferguson - well said!
I actually had an argument with a bishop about the hypocrisy of damning homosexuals while allowing all the fornicating straight couples to marry after a subtle wag of the finger and a God Bless you! 
.
It’s the SAME sin!  Sex outside of marriage is the SAME sin whether you’re straight or gay… and quite frankly, I’m a bit weary of so many priests looking the other way at couples who are living together before marriage - as it it makes it harder for a chaste single Catholic woman (or man) to uphold her principles in a world that already thinks we’re repressed and nutty!
.
A little support here padres.
Meanwhile, I had to listen to a guy I once dated brag about how his friends priest was ‘so cool’ and ‘with the modern times’ because he asked them about their sex life, assuming they were already consummating.
My own priest, when I went for counseling about my long time boyfriend who couldn’t seem to commit, asked, with shock in his voice, “You’re NOT having sex?”
ugh!
so frustrating to be more Catholic than one’s priest!

What I find very difficult to deal with is that people who are actively engaged in homosexual behavior want me to say it’s not a sin. They want me to endorse and approve and applaud their sinfullness. I have met some alcoholics who are in denial about their sinful behavior, but I never met one who wanted me to condone their disordered behavior.

“It’s the SAME sin!  Sex outside of marriage is the SAME sin whether you’re straight or gay”

Is it? Man and woman are made by God to fit together according to the natural law. Man and man are not, nor women and women.

So is it just a sin against chastity, or is it more problematic then that? 

There is no way that any kind of homosexual activity is sinful. The Church abolished sin at Vatican II. Just ask any Jesuit priest.

I think what Mr Shea has said in the comments here is unnecessarily provocative. If a person that one knows has from time to time been sexually attracted to someone of the same sex, it is unlikely that one would know anything about this, unless one was very close to that person. If a person who occasionally is attracted to a person of the same sex does not want to engage in homosexual sin, or promote homosexual sin, he or she will not appear any different than anyone else, and will not be identifiable as a person who has been attracted to a person of the same sex. If a person is generally behaving in a chaste manner, at least outwardly, noone else will know anything about his attractions, whether they have been to persons of the opposite sex or otherwise.

Lynda,

That is exactly right. By the mere fact of openly identifying as “gay” automatically entails normalizing it as a personal preference and promoting it. Otherwise, nobody should know.

My biggest problem with Mark’s reference to his gay friend about being a saint is that he must have been very holy, since he was inspiring to other people. Being inspiring isn’t an indication of holiness at all. Hitler was inspiring in his speeches. So was Castro. I’m not saying his friend was like either of those people, but anyone can be inspiring without being close to the Lord.

Can a homosexual be a saint? Absolutely! We are all drawn to sin in one way or another because of concupiscence. Homosexuals are drawn to a specific sin, but if they live their lives in chastity and follow the teachings of the Church, they have just as much of a chance as the rest of us. I’m a pretty hard-core Catholic and wouldn’t stop being friends with someone just because they had homosexual tendencies. If I did, I wouldn’t be a true Catholic. We’re the universal Church, our doors are open to all, and Christ didn’t say “Go preach to all the nations, but leave out the homosexuals.”

It looks like Bob Sungenis has weighed in and disagrees: http://www.catholicintl.com/index.php/latest-news/871-mark-shea-coming-out-of-the-theological-closet

It’s been years since I paid any attention to anything Mark Shea says or writes.

Looks like there’s no reasons to start now.

I applaud you Mark and Pat for being the voice of reason.  I’m surprised by your response. I admit I would have expected something different from both of you.  (I apologize for making false assumptions…)

“It’s this arrogant, loveless Phariseeism that accuses without evidence and make it hard for SSA people to believe there is any love, mercy, or even sympathy for human weakness in the Church.”

AMEN!!!  I don’t see this in the Catholic Church in regards to gay people. I hear about the sin of contrapcetion on a regular basis never anything touching on this topic.

If its okay for openly homosexual men to live together, as long as we don’t have any tapes showing them engaging in homosexual activity, then its okay for heterosexual couples to cohabitate, if we don’t have tapes of their activity.

So Mark Shea approves of cohabitation. And so do you.

Catholic, you ain’t.

Wow.  The Combox Inquisition is out in force.

To repeat, there is no evidence they had anything other than a chaste relationship (of which I knew nothing till after Perry’s death). There is also no evidence they cohabited. You are suggesting that failure to go house to house, checking on and rebuking each household in the city for cohabiting couples is tantamount to “approving of cohabitation”, you are one of the sillier Pharisees I’ve encountered in cyberspace, Nick.

I wish we would stop using euphemisms when describing sexual sins, and simply return to the straightforward terms that Scripture uses.  And I wish we would not concede to the Pelvic Left the identification of sexual desire and personhood.  An “adulterer” is not a kind of person; it is a person who commits adultery.  A “fornicator” is not a kind of person; it is a person who commits fornication.  A “sodomite” is a person who commits sodomy.  Yes, certainly, there are people who feel a compulsion to do that.  Yes, it is useful at times to describe them as “same-sex attracted,” but even that is not quite adequate.  It isn’t a clear cut thing, because some men are attracted to some men only some of the time, and as for women, my sense of the matter is that some of them seek other women as a haven from men, whom they fear or reject.  But in the end there really are only two kinds of human beings: there are men, and there are women.  And these two kinds of human beings do invent all manner of ways to make their lives, and the lives of others, miserable.  One notable way, right now, is to assert that sexual and quasi-sexual activity is to be limited only by consent.  I call it quasi-sexual, because that is what sodomy (whether between two men or two women or a man and a woman) is not genuinely sexual, because it does not involve the coming-together of the two sexes as such; it is not—note the precise meaning of the words—sexual intercourse.  The very word “homosexual” is a contradiction in terms.

“I guess King David is in hell. Meanwhile, my friend never, so far as I know, committed any of these sins.  Funny how easily people assume he did.  Project much?”

Who said or assumed anything about being in hell? So it’s either hell or saint for you?
Pick any of those 4 sins mentioned above, lets say oppresing the poor. Than try saying how your friend was open about his need to oppress the poor (why would he be “open” about that or any of those sins?), after his death you found out that he was actualy owning a business where he had all the opportunities to get away with his “inclination”. However as far as you know he never did oppres the poor. Knowing that you are a learned catholic blogger whose word carries a lot more weight than a simple combox inquisitor you than go and say “you consider him a saint” and wonder at the ruckus that ensues.

And yes, I do project although I’m trying not to.

One last thing: when saying you consider him a saint it makes it hard for the readers to pray that he gets to heaven since your already put him there.
I will say a prayer for your departed friend hoping he is in heaven and if not trying to get him there.

Pat, this time your really blew it. For one thing, these people are NOT GAY, but, in fact, homosexuals and to call them ‘gay’, is in itself, a sin, as it attacks those with Gay as their name or part of their name. I am not a fan of Mr. Shea, and his remarks that you mentioned are one of the reasons. The sin of homosexuality is far worse than the sin of alcoholism, as the Bible clearly shows. How many cities did God destroy because the people were drunks? Romney’s man is a homosexual activists, and is proud of his death-style (it is not a life-style), while there are very many that are confused and can’t tell the difference between having a very strong, normal relationship with another and lust (this goes also for the 98% of the normal people). We should not attack anyone for what they think, but, when it comes to their salvation, we do need to help them in a loving manner as the late Fr. John Harvey has done and is still doing with his group: “Courage”, which is completely just the opposite of that so-called: ‘dignity’ outfit.  +JMJ+

Pat, why don’t you see this for what it is? Partisan politics. Romney’s appointing this man is throwing crumbs to birds to get the gay conservative vote(without losing the Protestant vote.) It’s morally correct that this man resigned. His position would have allowed him to advance the gay agenda around the world. That’s the last thing the world needs, export of sin from America. Obama’s administration is doing this right now—attaching strings to foreign aid, telling countries like Nigeria it will give them money if they legalize gay marriage. This has got to stop.

“Mark went on to say that he didn’t know and didn’t much care whether Mr. Lorenzo was chaste…”

That is the key statement in this piece. If this Lorenzo was not chaste, and did not renounce and repent of the sin of homosexual behavior, he was not a saint or a role model of any sort—despite his other presumed virtues and good works. Mark Shea is making an serious error: sure, you can be a good person while “struggling” against sinful temptations. But if you are merely paying lip service to the struggle your struggle means nothing. If this wonderful guy was continuing to live with another man he may not have been living in mortal sin but he sure wasn’t providing an example of virtue.

And using defensive “Combox Inquisitors” labels on critics doesn’t help his case. He threw down the gauntlet, remember? Mark Shea is getting a bit too cocky these days. Caveat, frater.

It makes me sad that so many people seem to think that SSA in and of itself is a sin.  Chastity is a very hard virtue, gay or not.  We all need prayer and support in being chaste.

JMJ, you have stated the truth. I am so grateful that you don’t bow down to political correctness and that you are firm in the faith. I agree with everything you said here. And I will add my own information as I am a member of the EnCourage membership of Father Harvey’s Courage apostolate:

If this man truly loved the Church and its way of life, he would STRIVE to live accordingly. The key idea is that those who practice homosexual behavior, and have no desire to repent, should not be teaching our loved ones about God because they are usually out of favor with God for being in grave, unrepentant and repetitive sin. God gave their minds over to shameful lusts for their sins and therefore they are corrupted until and unless God’s remedial work on them is accepted (they must cooperate with God’s grace) to gain back God’s favor and have God remove the curse.

That being said, we do not know if a person is in the full-blown state of iniquitous sin or being led into it or being led out of it. They must not be treated with unjust discrimination. However, we are not to use false compassion as acceptance because that further embeds them in their sin.

Mark and Pat, I admire your work but I do find that we have differences of opinion as well as differences in how we understand the Catholic faith, now and then. Much of the time I learn applications of the faith from you. Please consider my response as instructive, too. Blessings.

Since—despite my copious writings making clear that I regard homosex as a sin, the bullying agitprop on behalf of gay sex dishonest, and the Church’s teaching on human sexuality to be the truth—some readers here have taken it upon themselves to organize a dimestore Inquisition and drum me and Pat out of the Church, it might behoove the members of the Star Chamber to take some deep cleansing breaths and familiarize themselves with the whole discussion before spraining their souls leaping to conclusions. A little charity, folks.

After reading all these comments, I think we need to remember what Jesus said, and not only about judging Gay people.  Put is plain English, “Don’t judge others, for the way you judge others is the way I will judge you!”  It is all too easy to judge others negatively who are “different!”

Gays need not apply?  It depends on where they are applying.  Out in the business world it is all fair in love and war. But in the public domain it is quite a different issue. Should they be teachers among children? NO. Can a Homosexual work in a bureaucratic position over finances?” Why not. Should he be in a position that dictates public policy over education. Hell no. We have such an individual from the Obama Admin who publicly profaned the Holy Bible in front of High School students while he is on his jihad to promote Homosexuality.

Mark: For the record, there are TWO people posting here as “Nick”. I originally posted two comments earlier, but I am not the last one who posted who said you approves of cohabitation.

Seems like Mark Shea, and even a Fr Levi, put more weight on compassion, rather welfare of souls. Scandal is the problem these days. When homosexuals kept quiet about their unnatural preferences nobody questioned their job ability. It was based on ‘performance’. Let homosexuals go back to the closet, get help and encouragement and repent, repent, repent.

Nick:  No worries.  Your email address is visible to us bloggers.  I can tell you apart.

Julie:

Given that the person under discussion at my blog was a committed Catholic who lived chastely and bore beautiful witness to the fulness of the Church’s teaching—including its teaching on sex—it would appear that Fr. Levi has a point, and that you are committing rash judgment and bearing false witness.

Two people of the same sex with same-sex attraction who are committed to living a chaste, continent lifestyle actually do really well when they live together and have the same spiritual goals.  Read the book BEYOND GAY by David Morrison.  Also, talk to some folks who have been in the COURAGE program for a number of years, and they will confirm this.  I know it sounds counter-intuitive, but it’s true.  Why is this so difficult with most heterosexual people who try to live together chastely?  I don’t know, but my hypothesis is that since the two sexes compliment each other so well, on so many natural and supernatural levels, it would be like two powerful magnets that are constantly exerting strong mutual forces on each other.  Therefore, it is almost always sinful for two members of the same sex to live together, as it puts both of them in such a near occasion of sin.  Those are my thoughts, anyway.

“So it’s either hell or saint for you?”

Umm, strictly speaking, isn’t this in fact the only choice?  We’re either headed to heaven or we’re headed to hell (purgatory is only a reststop on the way to heaven), and all those in heaven are saints.

During my poorly-catechized adolescence and young adulthood, I beieved it was okay if a couple “lived together” as long as they “weren’t doing doing anything”. 
Since then, I’ve learned that the two are separate sins. Living together outside of the sacrament of marriage is a sin involving scandal. Fornication, on the other hand , can be engaged in whether or not one is shacked up with someone else. They are two different things.
If two gay guys are living together as “partners”, it is still considered scandalous even if they don’t engage in other sinful behavior.

Oh, boy. I might be opening up a new can of worms, but I have a comment on the scandal of living together. My daughter and her fiancé shared an apartment for financial reasons for several months. I felt (and still do) that they put themselves in spiritual danger by doing so. However, they were both strongly committed to abstinence before marriage, and they remained chaste. They both admit that, despite their strong beliefs (and separate bedrooms), it was a MIGHTY struggle. Knowing their strength and faith and how difficult it was for them, I believe the assumption that two people with an attraction who are living together are having sex is going to be valid in most cases, although in rare cases, it is not.
We don’t know if Mark’s friend was attracted to his housemate or not, nor do we know if they were having sex (nor would I want to those details) However, we also don’t know if he is in heaven. Mark, while I wouldn’t presume to know whether your friend is in heaven, hell, or purgatory (although I doubt hell if he lived the life you describe), I do think you’re being a bit harsh in your own judgment and condemnation of people who are pointing out that IF he was in living in sin, (and his living arrangements and attraction suggest the possibility) he would not have gone straight to heaven, but rather have had a stop in the cleansing of purgatory. (and I believe purgatory to be a theology of mercy, not judgment). Several people have simply stated that we seldom know if someone went straight to heaven (and I am assuming that most Catholic’s definition of a saint is someone who is already in heaven, not in purgatory) and it was a bit loose of you to declare that he is, especially given the uncertainty of the circumstances.
A side note: my daughter caused much scandal—to her secular, sexually active friends. The fact that they were presumed to have been cohabitating, including sex, has opened conversations with several of them, and they are outraged when she tells them that due to her beliefs, she did not, in fact, have sex before marriage. It shatters their rock solid assumption that it can’t be done!

“We don’t know if Mark’s friend was attracted to his housemate or not”

We don’t even know they were housemates.  What we know is that the evidence points entirely to the presumption they were chaste.  So the mountain of rash judgement being heaped on them pretty much bears out what Pat is saying, that an awful lot of Catholics treat even faithful Catholics with same sex attraction abominably.  Not pretty.

Mark: Judgments are not being made about your friend now; they are being made about you, because you are going out of your way to provoke them. You think this guy was a great Catholic? Great. That belief is open to critical comment, since its validity depends on whether he accepted Church teaching on homosexual behavior or not (something that has not been established based on what has been written so far). Don’t get on your high horse and start talking about “mountains of rash judgment” and “not pretty” scenes in this combox. Nobody is rushing to judgment here; people are simply pointing out the obvious fact that your characterization of this person as a saint seems doubtful or premature, to say the least, and snapping at those who point this out is unbecoming.

Too many Catholics have a hyper focus on homosexuality and contraception so much so that they can not see the plank in their own eyes. 

As Catholics we believe in unity but I see so much dis-unity with so many issues.  Good dialogue and disagreement is ok but I don’t hear good dialogue too often.

I am thankful for the opportunity to post here as Mr.Shea refused to post all but one of my comments on this topic on his own blog. That comment of mine he half responded to, then used prominently in a new article of his( The Crackerbarrel Inquisition), without posting my civil and courteous response.  I am curious as to whether this is a common practice of his, and if so why other good websites would bother with him.
As to the matter at hand it was none other than Mr Shea himself who associated sanctity with not just same sex attraction, but being “gay”; indicative clearly of a lifestyle preference and not just disordered attachments. One needn’t’ take my word for it. The excellent organization Courage, faithful to magisterial teaching, and supported by the Pontifical Council on the Family recommends against self identifying as “gay” or “lesbian”. Check out their webstie.They do so because such self identification has nothing whatsoever to do with pursuing a life of holiness, but instead operates as a distraction from the pursuit of that life. Yet Mr Shea, in the very title of his first article, and throughout every other article on the subject, proclaims to all the world that the late Mr Lorenzo( may he rest in peace) is what? A good and holy man? That would be sufficient , if true,for all to know and remember him. No, rather he must be declared to be GAY. We are discussing Mr Lorenzo as a GAY only Mr Shea chose, some 3 years after his death to so identify him. That is something Mr Lorenzo did not even choose to do on his own blogsite which was linked to in the Shea article.
As to that blogsite of Mr Lorenzo, which is cited as proof of how deeply numerous individuals, gay and straight, were moved to holiness, you will find little in the way of response via reader commentary suggesting that anyone was so moved. You will learn in the commentary discussion on one of his many articles on a great Jesuit poet,  that he, the poet in question was in the opinion of Mr Lorenzo, a homosexual. I found little else that touched in any way on any matter of faith.If that moves you to deeper holiness, OK. It did nothing for me. I found little else among the comments, by those who should have been deeply moved to holiness, indicative of any serious consideration of The Faith.  I point this out only because this blog was the only example given of anything specific which would support a claim of holiness on Mr Lorenzo’s part. He may well have been a good and decent man. But a saint among us?  Show us a bit more please. 
Finally since Mr Shea is inclined to cite links to the Cathecism on calumny, detraction, and the like, to those who disagree with him, I suggest that perhaps he should show better evidence of having read them himself.

chris c asks:

“That comment of mine he half responded to, then used prominently in a new article of his( The Crackerbarrel Inquisition), without posting my civil and courteous response.  I am curious as to whether this is a common practice of his,”

>> Oh yes. Standard Operating Procedure, I can attest personally :-)

“and if so why other good websites would bother with him.”

>> That is perhaps the most excellent question beginning to emerge from this entire episode.

“Finally since Mr Shea is inclined to cite links to the Cathecism on calumny, detraction, and the like, to those who disagree with him, I suggest that perhaps he should show better evidence of having read them himself.”

>> That sums the matter up succinctly.  Bravo.

Obviously I am coming to this discussion late.  To say “I don’t care at all that Mr. Grenell is gay.” or “Mark went on to say that he didn’t know and didn’t much care whether Mr. Lorenzo was chaste (Although Mark presumes that he is.)” are statements incompatible with our faith.  Charity demands at a minimum to pray for the person because the Church teaches that same sex attraction is not a sin but it is clearly disordered; it opposes natural law.  Pat, as any well catechized Catholic knows, “Sin is sin” does not really convey the fullness of Truth.  Venial sin is not Mortal sin.  I believe the reason some Christians over react to homosexuals is the constant message from the media and the secular “culture of death” that we “must” agree with them that homosexual behavior is not just acceptable, but a good thing.  These Christians feel “threatened” and perhaps they are being threatened.  As I read the news, including this paper, the outspoken homosexual is less likely to be attacked than a Christian speaking against homosexual behavior.  Regardless, ever person should be treated as someone made in the “image and likeness of God”!  What I see in the blogs here are some who appear to be trying to speak truth however imperfect and others who seem to want to play the game of “one-upmanship”.  The latter I do not think builds the Kingdom of God. 

Dear Mark Shea, it is sad to me that most often what you say is true, but you say it in an “uncharitable way”.  In your response to several of the blogs it appears to me that you do the very thing you accuse them of.  Is “The Combox Inquisition” and “to organize a dimestore Inquisition and drum me and Pat out of the Church,” this language necessary?  Are you really trying to build the Kingdom or to pontificate?  One can speak the Truth without name calling and attaching labels that may or may not be true.  Jesus can say such things as “brood of vipers” because he knows their hearts.  We do not know people’s hearts.  Yes, the words one uses may be an indicator of the where the heart is, but we cannot be sure.  So, I ask you as a brother in Christ to stop the name calling and labeling.  Speak the Truth in Love because you can’t have one without the other! (read I Cor. 13) We must be willing to tell anyone that sexual activity outside a marriage between a man and woman is sin and bad for them.  Of course to be effective this must be led by the Holy Spirit.  Only the Holy Spirit can convert one to Christ and the Truth, but with humility we can be willing instruments of the Holy Spirit. 

Deacon Pat
You have taken my quote completely out of its context.  My comment about Mr. Grenell is clearly with respect to his employment.  To remove it from that context and to tell me my writing is “incompatible” with the faith is a bad thing to do.  A bad thing.

I am unequivocal in my support for what the Church teaches in this and all matters despite your disingenuous efforts to prove otherwise.

As others have commented it is untrue that all sins are the same.  Some sins are more egregious. Not even all sexual sins are the same.  So Pat and Mark you are being to glib trying to minimize this.  The consequences to youth, society, marriage, faith are devastating.  As for Mr. Grenell, his reasons for leaving sound like he is saying no one should care about his personal life.  We scrutinize the life and beliefs of all high level government officials.  Why would we not scrutinize his choices and actions as well?  Was he fired for his sexual orientation or by how he lived as a man of that sexual orientation?  It sounds like it was because of his strident advocacy against the things conservatives value.  As to the sainthood of Mark’s friend, if he still identified as “gay” or “homosexual” or same sex attracted, it sounds like he was still in the flesh.  He had not recieved the grace to be just a follower of Christ.  Its like Mary Magdalene saying she is still a prostitute.  But she’s not.  That part of her died with Christ when He converted her. I am interested to hear how you can reconcile a grave temptation to sin (homosexuality)that is apparently embraced and made part of ones identity, and true conversion.  Please explain.

Since predatory homosexuals have done a pretty bang up job of using the Church as their personal hunting preserves (approx. 70% of the preistly “pedophelia” has been found to be homosexual predation of adolescent and teen age males)nearly destroying the Church, I can see where a lot of folks might be a little sensitive on this topic. I wonder what Perrys take on that issue was?

I don’t think its up to us to judge, but on the other hand if he was living with a gay man, the usual response would be that it was in a sinful matter, just as unmarried couples.  In fact I think that Dorothy Day split from her lover because he would not consider marriage.  Just a thought.

Also, don’t know if anyone remembers Dr. Tom Dooley who administered to the South Vietnamese before the war.  He was supposed to be a holy man too, he had a great devotion to the Virgin Mary.  But when it came to the attention of the Vatican that he engaged in homosexual activities, although he later said he had given these up, his cause for sainthood was squelched.

So we really don’t know what happened in the last hours before death with either one of these men.  Jesus is all merciful, and if this man did ask for forgiveness I’m sure that he got it.  But to ignore either unmarried couples living together (and maybe chastely too) or same sex couples is saying that either of these lifestyles are okay. 

It is sad that we have these sinful tendencies, everyone has something.  But sometimes its really hard to accept these things and overcome them.

I have never heard that Dr. Tom Dooley, who did so much good in his life, was Gay! The question is, was he chaste?  To me, he IS a saint!  He gave his life to help others!

I don’t believe he was at first, but later told people he was changing his ways and wouldn’t be doing that anymore.  Anyway, thats the info I got when I googled his name.  They also believe he was a CIA spy, but if he was more power to him.  He helped a lot of people and showed the evil of Communism in his books.

This labelling someone as gay when they are deceased and can not speak for themselves is really nasty stuff.

Pat, your response to me misses something crucial.  I’m well aware that “people” use the term colloquially.  Mark Shea isn’t “people.”  He’s a prominent Catholic blogger and apologist.  He should know better than to use the term carelessly.
I reject being labeled an “Inquisitor,” combox or otherwise.  Let me tell you a little story.  I had a roommate who often had a female friend over.  I was appalled when someone had the temerity to ask me if they were lesbians.  It was not obvious to me, even living in the same house (it’s very difficult even to assume that comments are straightforward when there are so many jokey “relationships,” facilitated in a large part by Facebook), and I certainly wasn’t going to ask.
As far as Grenell goes, I think his choice is interesting.  If I believed that something in my personal life was compromising my ability to speak clearly and honestly in public, I think at some point I’d have to consider putting an end to the personal thing.  Maybe that’s just me.  I wouldn’t cohabit either, partly because a good reputation is currency, not just any currency but pure gold.  If you store up integrity, it really can come in handy in a pinch.

Clever. No, it is not ok to be a gay couple as long as you do so chastely. That is heresy and it’s easy enough to see Mark’s game here: If being a gay couple is ok and we can and should not know whether a couple is chaste, but should presume they are chaste unless proven otherwise, then we could theoretically approve of and condone gay relationships. So we can’t fully support gay lifestyles to the extent “the world” would want us too, but we can come clos. So very typical of liberal-leaning “Catholics”. The truth is that God made Adam a woman companion when He said it is not good for man to be alone. The feelings of romantic love, as well as the emotional intimacy of a couple are intended for fruition in a marriage bond where the two become one flesh and are a sacramental symbol of Christ and His Bride, the Church. A gay relationship, even if chaste, legitimizes a disorder whise only fruition if you will is grave sin. Further, homosexual attraction is disordered and falls under the classification of perversion (as does any sexual act that is not between a man and a woman). Any emotional relationship that arises out of such a disorder is disfigured by it as is the case, really, with any illicit relationship but especially so when the very basis for it is disordered. This is tragic, and I don’t think anyone should downplay the trauma that one can experience in relinquishing sinful relationships for the love of God, but it must be done. Christ said He who loves father or mother or brother more than me is not worthy of me. This means not that we must hate anyone - that is wrong. It means we must order our relationships according to God’s will. I did want to mention that I’m wary of these views of sin that are so legalistic - removing all malice or ugliness or evil of any kind from human behavior but still thinking God condemns it as mortal sin just because. No, if God said that it’s evil and cries out to heaven then there is something seriously wrong with the behavior and someone seeking union with God must put their trust in Christ and be willing to make whatever sacrifice is necessary to remove sin from their lives. That is true for all grave sins for all of us, and I do not think that is given enough attention these days. Last point - no all sin is not the same. Catholicism distinguishes between mortal and venial sin, then within those categories some sins are worse than others with sacrilege being the worst. Sins that involve others or which create inveterate habits, or sins repeated to the point of being habitual are very dangerous to a soul. Traditional Catholic morality refers to this as habitual sin or hardness of heart and as being a sin against the Holy Spirit, that while not absolutely impossible to repent of, is done so with difficulty. If you find yourself in this state, visit Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament often (don’t receive Communion till after you go to Confession though) and ask Hom for the grace of repentance, and say the Rosary often. The number of “abandoned” souls saved through the intercession if the Blessed Virgin is countless.

Catholic 2:

Translation: It’s not enough for gays to obey the Church.  They have to live up to your private standards of rigorousness and not even be friends, or y—, I mean, God will judge them.  Golly, why would so many gays get the impression that no matter how hard they try to obey the gospel, nothing will ever satisfy some Christians.

Wanted to clarify: sins repeated habitually without repentance result in the condition I described of hardness of heart. The situation where someone keeps falling into a grave sin, repents but falls again and the cycle is repeated, does not fall in to that category. Any sin repented of and confessed by making a good confession is forgiven by Christ - we have His word for it. Wanted to clarify that. Also if someone is in such a situation where they keep falling - same remedy - Blessed Sacrament and the Rosary!

It’s not a private standard. Yours is the novelty and sophistry of an Arius or a Nestorius. You don’t need the Church to dumb it down for you. If homosexual acts are gravely sinful then a romantic relationship is such as well. Romantic feelings are orientated towards physical intimacy - this is basic “Theology of the Body” stuff.

It is you who are assuming that a friendship between two people of the same sex has to be romantic.  I have friendships with people of the opposite sex as a heterosexual, and yet strangely we are not afflicted with a yearning to commit adultery or fornication.  If two homosexuals say they have a chaste relationship, I lack the crystal ball you seem to have which tells you that their inmost disposition is concupiscent.  But do keep up the cyber-bishop act.  Very cute.

You are falsely conflating platonic friendship with an emotionally intimate relationship that is sustained at least in part sustained by romantic attraction. Just ask your wife the difference. She’s ok with the one, my guess is she won’t allow you the other. I’m also guessing you don’t call your friends “my partner”. Dating, seeing, going with, going steady with, someone of the same gender is wrong no matter if there is any physical contact. Common sense tells you if consummating the relationship is intrinsically evil then a romantic relationship is sinful as well. FWIW I do want to say that we can point out those like your deceased friend for the good they did show. Christ works to call all to Himself. We don’t have to label people saints to say we were edified and grateful for whatever faithfulness they displayed. Someone like Perry, from what I have heard, shouldn’t have his legacy dismissed because of his struggle, perhaps even if obstinate. Not because he’s nevertheless a saint but because he’s someone we love, someone who responded more than most these days at leadt, to Christ, and a benefactor helping us on our journey. Calling him a saint is scandalous on the same way calling an adulterer would be. Not because of judgmentalism but due to the fact that a saint is someone whose character (and thus life) were above reproach- they lived in complete conformity to the will of God and did so to a heroic degree.

Last comment: I did not mean to sound like I’m preaching - I only sought to clarify my comments on sin because one of my worst fears is that something I said would be misunderstood by anyone to think they are beyond salvation. If there is one thing everyone without exception should know it’s that Christ does love you, He died for you, and He promised not to cast you out if you come to Him.

That last part is what I was waiting to hear.  Thank you.