4:00 – Why I Don’t Call Myself a Gay Christian
Daniel Mattson is a Roman Catholic, living with a homosexual inclination and committed to chastity. But he does not identify as “gay.” Rather, he says “I live with same-sex attraction.” He refuses to identify as gay because the label “gay” does not accurately describe who (or what) he is. More fundamentally, he refuses to use that label because he desires to be faithful to the theological anthropology of the Church. Dan joins us today.
4:40 – Islam Without Extremes?
From furious reactions to the cartoons of Prophet Muhammad to the suppression of women, news from the Muslim world begs the question: is Islam incompatible with freedom? With an eye sympathetic to Western liberalism and Islamic theology, Mustafa Akyol argues that the answer is “yes.” He joins us today.
5:00 - Origins of Economics: The Scriptures and Early Church Fathers
In this segment we talk about the treatment of material goods, wealth and poverty in the Scriptures and the teachings of early Greek and Latin Fathers such as St John Chrysostom, St. Basil of Caesarea and St Ambrose of Milan, and St. Augustine of Hippo. Dr. Edd Noell is here to provide background and context by consideration of the economic institutions of the Roman Empire.
5:20 – The Bad Catholic's Guide to the Catechism: A Faithful, Fun-Loving Look at Catholic Dogmas, Doctrines, and Schmoctrines
Masquerading behind the guise of the old-fashioned Catechism that generations of Catholic school kids in plaid skirts or clip-on ties had to memorize, John Zmirak provides a witty take on the teachings of the Catholic faith. Objections from relativist, New Atheist, dissenting Catholic, and other points of view are featured, with intellectually sound questions and bracingly funny answers. Zmirak, who worked both in the mainstream, secular media as well as for Catholic outlets, reveals the whole range of contemporary criticisms aimed at the Church—and how to answer them in kind. Using both a rapier wit and the strong left hook of a blue-collar kid from Queens, he defends the faith with good humor and sincere respect at every turn while illustrating the difficulties modern believers face. He joins us.
5:40 – Live the Fast
Since 1969 Andy LaVallee has been working in the bakery industry. He has now founded Fasting Breads, which brings his knowledge of top-end, highly-nutritious artisan breads and applies them to the ancient practice of prayer and fasting. Andy consulted with many people knowledgeable about the practices of a healthy fast and the ingredients of a fasting bread and created breads and rolls for this endeavor made with unbleached and untreated flour, with no additives and preservatives and with a variety of flavorful, nourishing ingredients that will help one maintain and finish a bread and water fast. Andy joins us.
Here's a question for Al or Mr. Mattson. I do not understand why, exactly, the Church calls gays to lives of celibacy. I mean, what purpose does that serve, to deny romantic love to gays? What is the benefit to them or anyone else of asking this? Isn't important to know love and family, including for gays? I don't get it. In all honesty, it just this policy just seems mean to me, without any benefit to the gay person or to others.
ReplyDeleteEvery person is called to live a chaste life, even married couples. Sexual intercourse between two men or two women would always be an act of fornication since it is impossible for people of the same sex to marry. People of the same sex can not consummate a marriage.
ReplyDeleteI want a real answer, not a formula. My question is what is the good that is served by denying the experience of sexual intimacy and love to gay people? I don't see how either the gay person or society is benefited by refusing this most important experience to them.
DeleteIt's good to remember the creative power that is found only in the sexual act. Sexual intimacy is something that is shared only between married couples since there is the possibility of bringing into existence another immortal soul. . Catholics aren't to practice contraception either, in doing so one denies the procreative reality of the act of sexual intercourse. Heterosexual singles aren't to engage in sex outside of marriage either.
DeleteAnother formula answer, with no real engagement of the question (or honesty: "sexual intimacy is something that is shared only between married couples"--everyone knows this isn't true, as plenty of unmarried people experience sexual intimacy). I'm no longer satisfied with the simple answers from the Catechism. I want to know WHY, exactly, gays should be deprived of sexual intimacy and romantic love. Life is hard enough without taking this important experience from them--evidently for no reason at all other than these dry legalistic expressions of disdain.
DeletePlease read Romans Ch. 1 verses 24 to 28. Then web search, "The health risks of gay sex". It is plain to see our bodies were not meant for homosexual sex. A woman and a man literally fit together, their bodies compliment or complete one another. As a matter of fact, the female body and male body do not make much sense until the consummate act of marital love. I hope that helps. p.s. the word matrimony is derived from mater, meaning mother.
DeleteThe issue is sexual intimacy and romantic love between persons of the same sex, and how its prohibition serves the good, either of the individuals involved or of society. This question can't be decided by the alleged health risks of oral or anal sodomy.
DeleteFor love to be honest and true it needs to be faithful, total, freely given and fruitful. To be honest, one knows sexual intimacy between homosexuals can never meet those four requirements. Love, romantic or erotic, is not using another person to satisfy one's own sexual desire.
DeleteGays meet the first three of your requirements. They are not "fruitful" in the sense of naturally producing children, but this is true also of persons over a certain age, say 45, or sterile. No marriages for these people? What a crock.
DeleteYou make it sound as if the Vatican had the ability or desire to monitor our bedrooms and keep us from sleeping with someone of the same sex. When the Church tells us that something is sinful, She's telling us that it's not good for us. If you think that homosexual relationships are good for the people in them and for the rest of us, you're free to disagree. Many people do. People don't need to get married to have physical intimacy or romantic love. That happens all the time between the unmarried. That's never been the purpose of marriage as a civil institution. There's a lot here that could be discussed, so I encourage you to keep engaging the people you disagree with.
DeleteNo one it seems can explain why exactly gay people should be deprived of sexual intimacy and romantic love. I keep asking this question, but have never yet gotten an answer. What is the GOOD that is served by this deprivation? That's my question. But silence is all my question receives.
DeleteYou're not getting an answer because the question makes no sense. No one is being "deprived of sexual intimacy and romantic love". The Church is just telling us that we weren't made to have that kind of relationship with members of the same sex. If you don't agree with the Church on this, then you're free to try it. The Vatican police will not stop you. The Church is just telling you that that relationship, or any other sin, will not ultimately be good for you.
ReplyDeleteTo the contrary, the Church teaches that gays are to live in celibacy and thus are deprived of sexual intimacy and romantic love. What is the personal or social good that this teaching serves? That's my question.
DeleteI understand what the teachings are. Answer this: If I really want to have a same-sex relationship, how is the Church going to stop me? When you use a word like deprive, it sounds as if you think the Church has some coercive power to keep me from doing what I want to do. I am free to disregard the teachings and do what I want. It's just that what I want to do may or may not be good for me.
DeleteIf you want to have a better understanding of those teachings, I'd suggest reading something like an introduction to Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body. There are many other resources. Fr. John Harvey wrote a book called The Truth about Homosexuality. Look at the Catholic Answers website and listen to some of their podcasts about the subject.
I'm talking about obedient Catholics, not wayward ones. Many go off to do their own thing, but they are not my concern.
DeleteFirst, you assume that sexual intimacy is something that God doesn't care about, or where, when and how it happens. Secondly, about deprivation: I have had sexual intimacy with men. I was certainly not "deprived" of that by the Church, even though the Church tells me, wisely, not to engage in those activities. No one deprived me of anything, but by using the gift of sex outside of the way that it is designed to be used, I actually led myself to a place of deprivation.
DeleteBut now, being an obedient Catholic, I realize that the teachings on sexuality are for my good, and if I know what will lead to my fulfillment, I naturally would choose to forgo sexual intimacy with another man. Why is this so hard for you to understand? If you think the teachings of the Church for someone like me are oppressive, then you don't understand the teachings of the Church! The personal good it serves is that it honors my dignity as a man, made in the image and likeness of God. I am made for sexual union with women, not men, even if I don't particularly experience a longing for sexual union with women. To have sex with men is a counterfeit. Sex is only beneficial to the human person when it is used in the way that God intended for it to be used. Any other use will always be detrimental to the individuals involved, regardless of whether or not they perceive it that way or not. We are blinded by sexual pleasure more often than not, and it is difficult for us to see clearly. Which is one reason why the Holy Spirit guides us through the teachings of the Church.
I respect your personal story, but I doubt it applies to most gay Catholic men. I know that gay Catholic men, no less than straight men, long for love and romance, and from what I see gay Catholics aren't hurting anyone (including themselves) when they engage in a serious monogamous relationship. So that got me thinking about what possible good is served by this prohibition. They are not suitable for marriage. How awful to be a young woman married to a gay man! That's terribly unfair. But to tell a young gay Catholic man to remain without romance and physical love of another human being, that's cruel. I can't go along with this part of the teaching. Let's have some sympathy and compassion for these guys. The old Bishops aren't right about everything, I'm beginning to see that.
DeleteThe key issue is whether our sexual organs were "designed" for one particular type of sex. That's seems a bit silly. The think rises and gets wet for a reason, and the reason is YOU ARE GAY BECAUSE GOD MADE YOU THAT WAY. Get over it, be good, love, and all will be well.
DeleteEveryone longs for all kinds of things. Should the Church support everyone and anyone in whatever subjective things they think will make them happy? It sounds like this is the gauge upon which your measure things. Where do we have a sense that "God is fair?" "Fair" is a construct of man. God is just, to all people, but certainly the Psalmists speak about the confusion they see in how God treats people "unfairly."
DeleteWhat is cruel is the path you are recommending, since God is clear that in having sex with a man, I am not loving him. Now, it is not the "old Bishops" who said this, but our Creator. If you have issue with anyone, it's with God the Father, not the Church.
Thomas Merton said it best, in my mind: "To love another is to will what is really good for him. Such love must be based on truth. A love that sees no distinction between good and evil, but loves blindly merely for the sake of loving, is hatred, rather than love."
The path you recommend for me, and for others like me, is hatred, not love, even if you think that it is being loving.
Good luck to you. If you were my son I would in fact encourage you to love another man, be faithful, and not worry about it. That would be my loving advice.
DeleteI have no need of "good luck." I'm on the path that leads to peace and fulfillment, and if I were your son, I'd ignore your advice, regardless of how loving you felt it to be.
DeletePraise God!!! Bless your mom and dad, they have done well in loving you!!!
DeleteThe overwhelming psychological harm of the Church's teaching on homosexuality is on full display here. I know the liberation from moral conventions has also produced it's share of suffering, especially in the wickedness of abortion, but just on this issue it's painful to encounter the immense harm of Church teaching. It makes me gasp, frankly, to consider it. I see the same thing in the realm of divorce, where divorced people can't remarry in the Church, producing tragic and unnecessary levels of emotional and psychological pain. What a lot of unnecessary suffering the Church is creating. Ouch.
DeleteYes, it isn't an easy road to practice the faith founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ. But, I think He mentioned it wouldn't be some where.
Deletewell part of the social good is you wont be putting yourself at risk for all sorts of health issues physical, mental etc. , that can't be good for society.
ReplyDelete