As we begin the month of June, I feel led to share some of my own thoughts regarding the phenomenon of Pride Month. My views are admittedly not formed in a vaccuum, but I don’t offer these reflections as any sort of preemptory or retalitory lob in the culture wars; rather, I hope it will be a starting point for dialogue.


Before I begin, I want to say bluntly that if you like to bully or demean those who identify as LGBTQIA+, if you like to use slurs against them or go on diatribes against homosexual sins, to the exclusion of other kinds of sexual sins (even though the latter are much more prevalent)–I am not on your side, and I repudiate what you do.


A few quick admin notes:

  • I use the term “LGBTQIA+ people” not because I would identify people in that way, but I’m merely describing how other people identify themselves.
  • I occasionally use the term “same-sex attracted” or “persons with same-sex attraction,” so I want to explain at the outset why I do this, because I know it’s a quaint usage. According to Freedom for all Americans, the word “homosexual” is to be avoided as potentially hurtful to people in the LGBTQIA community because it overemphasizes the sexual aspect of a person’s life. I’ve quoted church documents that use the word “homosexual” and “homosexuality,” and one should note that these documents were (I believe) written before concerns about use of the word homosexual had entered the public consciousness. I don’t want to use derogatory terms and hurt people. There are some people (particularly in the Catholic community) who have attractions towards members of the same-sex, but they don’t feel that these attractions define who they. These persons typically identify themselves as same-sex attracted.

LGBTQIA issues are a broad topic, one that would have be dealt with in a large book or in a semester college course, because there are so many issues at play. I’m mostly dealing with the first three letters in the LGBTQIA (Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual). I’m not dealing with transsexual, intersex, or asexual. I have some opinions on those things but I don’t think I’ve studied enough or thought it out enough that my opinions are worth sharing with the world. As for the Q of LGBTQIA, the word “Queer” (as reclaimed by the LGBTQIA community, not in its older sense as a slur) is a broad term and thus I don’t feel like this post is addressing it specifically either.

If you identify yourself as LGBTQIA+ or an ally, and if you disagree with something I say, you are free to make a comment or a rebuttal as long as it’s respectful (no name calling, etc.). I want this to be not just a monologue, but a starting point for dialogue.


I would like to begin by quoting from a document written by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (who later became Pope Benedict XVI) in 1986. Please pardon the dated language, but note the tone:

“It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church’s pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law.
But the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered. When such a claim is made and when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one has any conceivable right, neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase.


“It has been argued that the homosexual orientation in certain cases is not the result of deliberate choice; and so the homosexual person would then have no choice but to behave in a homosexual fashion. Lacking freedom, such a person, even if engaged in homosexual activity, would not be culpable.

“Here, the Church’s wise moral tradition is necessary since it warns against generalizations in judging individual cases. In fact, circumstances may exist, or may have existed in the past, which would reduce or remove the culpability of the individual in a given instance; or other circumstances may increase it. What is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behaviour of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable. What is essential is that the fundamental liberty which characterizes the human person and gives him his dignity be recognized as belonging to the homosexual person as well. As in every conversion from evil, the abandonment of homosexual activity will require a profound collaboration of the individual with God’s liberating grace.

“What, then, are homosexual persons to do who seek to follow the Lord? Fundamentally, they are called to enact the will of God in their life by joining whatever sufferings and difficulties they experience in virtue of their condition to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross. That Cross, for the believer, is a fruitful sacrifice since from that death come life and redemption. While any call to carry the cross or to understand a Christian’s suffering in this way will predictably be met with bitter ridicule by some, it should be remembered that this is the way to eternal life for all who follow Christ.

“It is, in effect, none other than the teaching of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians when he says that the Spirit produces in the lives of the faithful “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, trustfulness, gentleness and self-control” (5:22) and further (v. 24), “You cannot belong to Christ unless you crucify all self-indulgent passions and desires.”

“It is easily misunderstood, however, if it is merely seen as a pointless effort at self- denial. The Cross is a denial of self, but in service to the will of God himself who makes life come from death and empowers those who trust in him to practise virtue in place of vice.

“To celebrate the Paschal Mystery, it is necessary to let that Mystery become imprinted in the fabric of daily life. To refuse to sacrifice one’s own will in obedience to the will of the Lord is effectively to prevent salvation. Just as the Cross was central to the expression of God’s redemptive love for us in Jesus, so the conformity of the self-denial of homosexual men and women with the sacrifice of the Lord will constitute for them a source of self-giving which will save them from a way of life which constantly threatens to destroy them.

“Christians who are homosexual are called, as all of us are, to a chaste life. As they dedicate their lives to understanding the nature of God’s personal call to them, they will be able to celebrate the Sacrament of Penance more faithfully and receive the Lord’s grace so freely offered there in order to convert their lives more fully to his Way.”

Source: https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html

Obviously this quote contains some things that the LGBTQIA+ community would find objectionable, but what is clear is his tone is hardly adversarial. It doesn’t give off “moral panic” vibes, and he’s very conciliatory to the struggles of people who are same-sex attracted. Thus it’s simply inaccurate to say that the Church hated gays until Pope Francis came along and tried to change some things. In fact, Pope Francis was still a mere priest when the above document was written, and wouldn’t become a Bishop until over 5 years later.

Before I begin, here are the brute facts that inform Catholic views on the subject. Here is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says:


“2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”141 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

“2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

“2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.”


(Source: https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P85.HTM)


Obviously, parroting the factual teaching is not enough, though. As our Holy Father Pope Francis has reminded us, we must go out to the margins and walk alongside those who struggle through life. This includes our brothers and sisters for whom Christ died who self-identify as LGBTQIA+ or same-sex attracted.


First I want to look at some approaches that seem to be in vogue in Catholic/Christian circles–I’ll cover two approaches that are more conservative, two approaches that are more progressive, and then explain my own view. I’m focusing mostly on Catholic views, since I’m a Catholic myself, though there are also Protestants who hold to all of these positions.


Two Conservative Approaches
The first conservative approach (hereafter C1) would be to condemn homosexuality wholesale, without much nuance, such that a person with same-sex attractions is (either explicitly or by implication) said to be living “in sin” as long as that person is feeling such attractions, no matter how chastely that person is living. Many of these folks would consider same-sex attractions as a choice one makes, and not as something that one is born with. They would also include, in the prohibition against homosexuality, a whole plethora of nebulous behaviors such as “effeminacy” in males. I don’t want to spend a lot of time on this approach as I think it’s antiquated (does not reflect what science and psychological studies have revealed, viz. that people with same-sex attractions do not choose to have them) and many of its partisans are outright bigots. Also, by defining “homosexuality” so broadly, it makes it virtually impossible to determine who is sinning and who is not.


A second conservative approach (hereafter C2) would be to condemn homosexual behavior–that is, certain explicit sexual acts that are said to be prohibited by Scripture/Church tradition. Persons who experience same-sex attractions are not, ipso facto, living in sin, so long as they are not engaging in actions that indulge those sexual desires. In this second approach, the experience of same-sex attractions is not given a lot of existential importance–it’s often regarded as an unfortunate “accident” of one’s existence, and not part of who one essentially is. This sort of approach is one taken by Catholic figures such as Trent Horn in his YouTube videos about LGBT issues, or by Fr. John Hollowell in his documentary “The Third Way.” It’s generally the approach taken by the Roman Catholic Church in official church documents (including the catechism).


Two Progressive Approaches
The first progressive approach (hereafter P1) is what would be considered to be a “fully affirming/accepting” approach, in which same-sex marriages should be considered on-par with heterosexual marriages, and same-sex sexual relationships are not regarded as sinful. For Protestant Christians who hold this, they would interpret various passages of scripture (e.g. Leviticus 21 and Romans 1) as being products of their time, and inapplicable to modern, loving, and long-term same-sex relationships. For Catholics who hold this, they would point to various instances in which Church teaching has developed in the past (e.g. regarding slavery or the use of torture in various inquisitions) and they would hold out hope that future Church teaching could develop such that same-sex sexual relationships would be considered holy. If they are Protestants, these groups/denominations typically change the teaching of their denomination so that same-sex marriages are allowed and celebrated. This view seems to be the one espoused by New Ways Ministries on the Catholic side, and on the Protestant side by progressive denominations such as ELCA and the Episcopal Church.


The second progressive approach (P2) is sort of a hybrid between the first progressive approach and the second conservative approach. This approach would acknowledge that people on the LGBTQIA spectrum have unique gifts as a result of their unique LGBTQIA identities. They would see having same-sex attraction (or being attracted to both sexes) as being a good thing, or offering one a unique set of strengths that can be utilized within the Church. These folks typically emphasize the non-sexual (or, at least, not overtly sexual) aspects of LGBTQIA identities. For example, they might point out how same-sex attractions give them a unique ability to see beauty in persons of the same sex.
P2 proponents will typically acknowledge that same-sex sexual behaviors are forbidden, but often they do not emphasize this fact as they claim that it that the “verboten” nature of homosexual acts has been so over-emphasized that there is no use in beating a dead horse. These persons would also be supportive of, a same-sex couple cohabitating in a chaste relationship, for example.
P2 proponents also typically align more with LGBTQIA rights as a human rights issue, and would be less likely to support, say, a Church firing a person for being in a same-sex marriage. They would argue that people in 2nd marriages (after divorce) or in pre-marital heterosexual relationships are not so treated by the Church, and they would emphasize that LGBTQIA persons have a long history of being persecuted by society, and thus would allign themselves with the LGBT pride movement, despite the P2 proponent’s belief that same-sex sexual activity is wrong, because they see LGBTQIA+ issues as being fundamentally about human rights and not being primarily about who one sleeps with. They see their allignment as mostly a social justice movement, and would point to the long history of violence and harrassment that the heterosexual, cisgendered majority has used to oppress those who are different through no fault of their own.


I’ve also noticed that in Twitter circles, proponents of P1 and P2 tend to follow and sometimes even retweet one another, since P2 proponents are pretty infrequent in voicing their opposition to same sex sexual behaviors, sometimes admitting that these behaviors are forbidden when pressed to do so. Sometimes it can take a lot of digging to figure out if someone is in the P1 or the P2 camp.
(In fairness I think there’s some overlap between C1 and C2 as well; there are some proponents of C2 who might be very gentle and kind most of the time but then let some bigotry slip, or who might rub shoulders with C1 proponents. I’m not going to talk a lot about the C1 folks, as I think they’re bigots whom I don’t even want to give the time of day.)


Those who seem to fall into the P2 group would be Catholic lay authors Mary Pezzulo and Eve Tushnet, and Fr. James Martin. (Fr. Martin is accused by some conservatives of secretly being fully affirming, though I will charitably take his word for it when he says he upholds Church teaching regarding same-sex relationships). Some would also argue that Pope Francis belongs in this camp.


Where do I fall on this continuum? To summarize, my own view is closest to C2, with openness to some aspects of P2. It’s obvious that a lot of what passes as conservative sexual ethics is thinly cloaked (and sometimes not cloaked at all) bigotry. I can remember going to a certain high school not far from my hometown (I went there for one semester) in which there were two young men who were clearly gay. I can remember a certain burly young man who thought it funny to hurl slurs at them behind their backs. Those kinds of slurs and that kind of bigotry have nothing to do with authentic Christianity. Indeed, anyone who has read the Gospels knows that Jesus had a heart for those who were trapped in various sexual sins (prostitutes, the woman caught in adultery)–he even said once that they would get into Heaven ahead of the hypocritical religious leaders of His time. Jesus also said to “Go and sin no more,” but that is a command that applies to everyone, not just to those trapped in certain kinds of sexual sins.

When it comes down to issues of “rights,” things can become muddled. There are basic human rights that all people agree on (the right to housing, food, clean water, education, etc.) Then there are rights that can be more controversial because they get into how we define basic societal and familial structures–for example, the issue of same-sex marriage (which was decided in my country by the Supreme Court Case Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015). With the issue of same-sex marriage, emotions can run rampant, and sometimes the controversy will be reframed by pointing back to interracial marriages, which were forbidden in many parts of the US in the late 1960s by a particularly deplorable array of miscegenation laws; obviously those who are against interracial marriage were on the wrong side of history, and some of these folks used religious verbiage to defend their arguments. I would simply respond that race is not a salient concept in the Bible, and those pointing to certain Bible passages to stump against interracial marriage are simply reading back concepts into the text that did not exist when the texts were written.

I’m also skeptical that certain secular ideological frameworks can be made compatible with the Gospel of Christ. I would say this not only with regard to the LGBTQIA+ movement, but also with regard to MAGA, laissez faire capitalism, communism, and scientism. But since I’m not writing a blog post specifically about those last four ideologies, I would like to briefly touch on what I think is problematic about the worldview assumed by the LGBTQIA+ movement as it is typically expressed within out society, and why I don’t think it can be made to square with a Christian worldview. I’ll begin by summarizing the Catholic worldview, and then offering my critique. I’ll also state some differences I have with Catholic conservatives on the topic. Stay tuned for Part 2.

In the meantime, here is a picture of St. Therese (patron saint of France) dressed as St. Joan of Arc (patron saint of France). The picture has very little to do with the subject matter at hand, except for that I like it, and that St. Therese tried to treat people with great kindness and that’s what I aspire to do as well (though I fail often).