Article in NCR (the good one)

National Catholic Register has an excellent series of articles by Melinda Selmys, a former feminist and lesbian, called "Homosexuality: A Catholic's Journal" (HT: Frank). NCR said she "writes from Etibicoke, Ontario," so the poor Canuck woman is probably now on the lam, hiding in some remote part of the Yukon from arrest by The Tolerance Mounties for these vile acts of hate.

Here is Part 1 (subtitled: Psychology or Genetics)
Here is Part 2 (subtitled: Evangelizing The Homosexual)
Here is Part 3 (subtitled: She Helped Me Hear the Truth)

Now my particular experience of homosexuality differs quite radically from [now-Mrs.] Selmys's in a bunch of ways, besides the male-female stuff, the obvious ones being:

• I have never really had a gay relationship. Unconsummated love-crushes on male friends, yes; sex with strangers, yes; but a boyfriend, no;
• I never even attempted to date women or had a girlfriend "for show." This was considered unremarkable both by myself and others during my school and college years because I was a bookworm;
  
• I have neither found nor ever sought "belonging" in the "gay community," which I have pretty much disdained since the Queer Nation/ACTUP activism of the 80s, i.e., my formative years as an adult;
• I drifted away from the Church during adolescence for reasons unrelated to SSA and had already reverted and received the Sacramant of Confirmation by the time "That" had become an undeniable problem;
• I have never denied the theological arguments against same-sex behavior nor have I found them "tremendously cold and theoretical." Or rather, maybe I have found them that but consider this a point in their favor.

In other words, homosexuality, the gay lifestyle, even the emotional attachments they may bring have always been nonissues for me. My reversion was to a very great extent intellectual. And while I've struggled with chastity in many ways, it's always been from within and while fully accepting the Church's teachings in principle, if not always acting in accord with them. This is consistent with my personality in other ways -- people who know me have always said I was "all head" and my nickname as a boy was "the little professor"; my favorite music, movies and literature tend to be emotional chilly and/or artificial and contrived.

The personal reservation aside, that her story is not mine, I still thoroughly recommend that everyone in St. Blogs read this three-part series, because there is a lot in them for some "conservative" Catholics to learn about homosexual persons, and in a publication that they cannot simply dismiss as liberal pabulum. (FWIW, this piece would never appear in Commonweal, the National Catholic Reporter, et al.) Here are some highlights:

many (not all) men with same-sex attractions ... try to find other male figures (usually lovers) who will accept and affirm them. ... (This is also why so many gay activists become insulted when their sexuality is treated merely as a sexual perversion — their experience of homosexuality is one of personal acceptance, not merely one of sexual pleasure.)

at last, they find that there are other people who are of their sex and who will accept them: namely the gay community. ... Again, you have a massive, and very real, psychological need being fulfilled by the gay community, and so, again, you have the perception of homosexuality as being something that goes beyond the confines of mere sex.

Thus, if you tell someone suffering from same-sex attractions that their sexuality is objectively disordered and their behaviors are immoral, but that you love them in spite of their sexuality, they are going to call you a hypocrite. This sentiment is baffling to many Catholics because we tend to see same-sex attractions primarily in terms of homosexual intercourse. We need to bear in mind that many people in the homosexual community feel that they have only ever really been personally accepted by that community — not just because the outside world condemns homosexuality, but because some significant part of the outside world failed to accept their personality even before they had any sort of homosexual feelings.

In a nutshell, this is why so many practicing homosexuals simply shut out the Church and refuse to listen. They are being irrational and anti-intellectual, sure. But there is a reason for it besides childishness (though the Combox-Activist type shows otherways that they simply ARE being immature). The gay community and/or a gay relationship offers many of these people their primary experience of love, and human beings cannot live without love. They hear "gay sex is not loving" and it's the equivalent of saying "the sky is green" -- prima-facie proof the speaker is nuts and don't know shit from Shinola. My confessor once told me that I try too hard to treat love as a luxury good -- something worth having certainly, but something you can live without if you must or if you'd rather. But with most people, no appeal to Natural Law or St. Thomas can persuade him (or even should) to live without love. And as Selmys points out, this means that one must first establish a relationship with a homosexual person before anything else can come. As generalizations go, that is accurate enough.

This is one of the reasons why fear, hatred or disgust directed towards those who are attracted to their own sex is so crippling when it is found within the Christian community. It repels those who have embraced the “gay” lifestyle, and alienates those who are struggling to remain faithful in spite of their same-sex attractions. When Christians use degrading language or demonstrate uncharitable attitudes, it interferes with our ability to reach out to souls who are suffering with these temptations.

I cannot tell you how disappointed I was last year at some of the St. Blogs reaction to The Vatican (well actually, I did). As the non-homo Mark Shea has noted (he scrubbed the occasioning remark from his combox), there are "combox writers who think insulting homosexuals as 'fags' constitutes a display of manly orthodoxy." Or insistence on using terms like "sodomite." It can feel good emotionally for the speaker to deliberately defy silly PC-ness, I well understand. But at some point, it becomes the equivalent on insisting on using "colored" or "Negro" ... i.e., objective counterwitness in this day and age. Even if it is right, as Selmys points out ...

It is advisable to avoid using terms like “unnatural” or “objectively disordered.” They are perfectly accurate, and if they are understood properly they are not at all offensive. The problem is that they sound offensive even though they aren’t, and they’re easily misunderstood. ... It is much simpler to paraphrase — rather than saying that homosexual acts are unnatural, say that they contradict the purpose for which God ordained sex. Both phrases mean the same thing, but ... the second ... is subject to less ambiguity and won’t evoke erroneous associations.

Nor is it necessary. This is not the Church of "Heaven Help Us" or "Awful Disclosures of Maria Monk" fantasyland. There are 30 years of Church documents on sexuality and homosexuality that e.g., avoid comparisons to sewers. Selmys says the right documents are out there for when the time comes to engage the intellect, as one must eventually.

The Church’s recent writings on sexuality, and particularly on homosexuality, are extremely rational and extremely charitable — and they’re not what most people expect. (emphasis mine) ... [I read] a copy of a little book printed by the Pontifical Institute for the Family called The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality. By the time I finished reading it, I was firmly convinced that Catholic sexual teaching was coherent and reasonable, and that it was not motivated by fear or hatred. I still didn’t believe in it, but I no longer resented the Church’s position on homosexuality, and I wrote my column defending the right of Catholic school boards to teach Catholic sexuality in Catholic schools.

I praised the USCCB's document "Ministry to Persons with a Homosexual Inclination: Guidelines for Pastoral Care" on these very terms a few months ago here and here. That it said everything that needed saying in a careful, precise, non-inflammatory and charitable way, neither overstating nor understating the sinfulness of homosexual acts. The Selmys article is obviously a bit more of a personal memoir than a Bishops Conference document could ever be, but it makes a nice compliment. Her humane practice and example to their humane theory and teaching.

On the other hand

John Amaechi is just being dumb when he tells ESPN (publishers of his book) that Tim Hardaway's remarks threaten people.

One man has made hundreds of thousands of people now feel uncomfortable, unsafe, feel they should hide and run. What he has done has made life more difficult, perhaps more dangerous, for people in society, not just in sports. His views embolden those who hold the same views. When he depersonalizes it, it's not just a foolish comment. It's a foolish comment that echoes around the country. People will feel under pressure, like they are under attack. They will feel anxious. They will know there's a face and a voice for all those people out there who hate them.

Please. That a retired basketball player has that much power, to make "hundreds of thousands of people now feel uncomfortable, unsafe, feel they should hide and run" -- isn't even worthy of a response. And who, exactly, is "feel[ing] anxious"? I would say "this is only the reaction of Nervous Nellies," but there may be homophobia in that metaphor.

I'll tell you what, I'm gonna drive out to Dupont Circle tonight and see if I can find some of these hundreds of thousands running away from the threat of Tim Hardaway. Or maybe I can drive out to rural Virginia or some other suitably "Deliverance-ready" place and look for these secret homophobes, now feeling emboldened by the fact an ex-basketball player has given them a voice by saying he hates homos too (and is being punished by the league for it, rightly or wrongly).

Look ... as I said below, of course, the Hardaway remarks are stupid and vile. Sins. But have some perspective about actual consequences. If the gay groups and Amaechis of the world would just denounce Hardaway and move on, it would be easier to see that this is a pebble in the ocean. A vile pebble. But a pebble. Gene Wojciechowski said it best on the ESPN site:

This is all playing out so predictably. Former NBA center declares he's gay. Past and present NBA players declare indifference. One former NBA player, in this case, Hardaway, declares his outrage and hatred. Hey, just like real life. ... Hardaway's comments will be reviled and praised. Gay rights advocates will issue angry, impassioned statements condemning the remarks. Gay bashers will rejoice. And then all the noise will dissolve and we'll watch the NBA All-Star Game this Sunday. This isn't meant to dismiss what Hardaway said. It was a vile, reprehensible display of ignorance, but it isn't anything new. Hardaway simply gave his prejudice a name and a face for a news cycle or two. His bigotry, as well as his apology, will be forgotten, as it should be.

And, to my surprise, given what I've seen on ESPN itself (more on that below), there was another good comment on the sports network's Web site, from Chris Broussard:

Since Amaechi came out, I've read lots of columns [with] ... the implication -- or outright assertion -- is that anyone who believes homosexuality is wrong is not progressive or enlightened.
That's where this thing becomes problematic, because those who hold to that view are saying I must change my entire belief system/religion because of your belief system.
Where's the diversity in that?
Those folks don't want diversity. They want everyone to agree with their "enlightened" opinion.

Exactly. We're now at the point where you cannot express any reservation whatsoever about homosexuality or any expression of it, without being denounced as stupid, ignorant and worse. Everyone must step in line with the gay agenda and like everything about homosexuality. Even liking the chance of getting your ass grabbed. Not like that? Well, you're ignorant. Think I'm exaggerating? Before the Hardaway comment happened, but after the Amaechi book was being reported on, I saw Michael Wilbon on ESPN's Pardon the Interruption denounce 76ers player Shavlik Randolph in the harshest terms (and the bug-eyed look on his face and contempt dripping off his voice were positively frightening) for saying:

As long as you don't bring your gayness on me, I'm fine.

His teammate Steven Hunter said something similar:

As long as he don't make any advances toward me, I'm fine with it. As long as he came to play basketball like a man and conducted himself as a good person, I'd be fine with it.

Wilbon continued his frothing about these quotes as insufficiently pro-gay in the Washington Post. Even expressing doubts about cross-sexuality seduction and being exposed to unwanted sexual advances is, according to Wilbon, "dumb, stupid and homophobic." So far into gay totalitarianism was Wilbon fallen that he denounced the LeBron James comment I cited below that he'd more distrust someone in the closet than out (the exact quote is in this footnote¹) as "not particularly enlightened." Yes, you read that right. Someone who wants and demands a gay teammate to come out to him is "not particularly enlightened." It's a sad day (and a sad comment on the culture of newspaper sportswriters and the gap between them and their fans) when I find more to like in a column by LZ Granderson, an openly gay writer for ESPN Magazine, than in the Washington Post.

Isaiah Washington of "Grey's Anatomy" had to go into rehab to keep his job after directing an anti-gay slur at a co-worker. Twenty years ago, it would have been the co-worker worried about his job. This isn't "Gaytopia," but the movie studios aren't forcing you to marry a woman like they did in the old days.

I stood up and cheered when I read that column, based on Broussard's recommendation. Yes, Granderson is saying (not me, though I agree), being openly gay will earn you some raspberries, but have some perspective. Living an openly-gay life is not Hell-on-Earth (though it'll lead to Hell-elsewhere). I know this sounds hypocritical coming from me, who is closeted. But amen, amen, I say unto you: if it were purely about the bigoted reactions of religious and social conservatives, I'd have no reason to stay in the closet. But I know that, as long as I continue to hold to the Catholic faith and try to live under God's grace in as chaste a life as I can, I and those like me will be hated and hounded to the ends of the Earth by active gays.
-----------------------------------------------
¹ James said: "With teammates you have to be trustworthy, and if you're gay and you're not admitting that you are, then you are not trustworthy. So that's like the number one thing as teammates . . . we all trust each other. You've heard of the in-room locker room code. What happens in the locker room stays there. It's a trust factor."

"Heat" is an anagram for "Hate" (and Miami for "I maim")

Maybe Tim Hardaway thinks the ref is a homo: "No wonder he blows every call."

Apparently (it's WAY down in this ESPN story) Hardaway apologized later for saying the following on a Miami talk show (HT: Dale):

"You know, I hate gay people, so I let it be known. I don't like gay people and I don't like to be around gay people. I am homophobic. I don't like it. It shouldn't be in the world or in the United States."
"First of all, I wouldn't want [a gay player] on my team.
"And second of all, if he was on my team, I would, you know, really distance myself from him because, uh, I don't think that's right. And you know I don't think he should be in the locker room while we're in the locker room. I wouldn't even be a part of that."

Apology aside ... what a maroon. Actually, let's wallow a bit in this statement.

That was not a slipped word like the St. Louis radio host who used "coon" in reference to Condoleezza Rice. Nor was it a disputable construction that gay groups are trying to get classified as a Thought Crime like "I hate the gay lifestyle." Nor does he have the Mel Gibson "the-Jews-made-me-get-drunk" excuse. That was a considered thought, articulately stated, using complete sentences and numbered points, and even includes a defiant flourish.

I don't expect athletes to be moral philosophers, but the distinction between the person and the act is pretty basic and hardly requires the ability to read Heidegger in German. (It's Jesus 101, for one thing.) But along with Dale Price, I predict Hardaway will be joining Isaiah Washington, Gavin Newsom, Mark Foley, and others using "rehab" as an excuse for a public moment of foot-in-mouth disease or sexual sin. The gay groups want their pound of flesh, and in this case, it'd be justified.

I saw last week on ESPN, the reaction from LeBron James to John Amaechi, the NBA ex-player who "came out." And I think he said the right thing, at least from the perspective of one co-worker to another: something to the effect of "That's his business. I'd have more problem with a guy who felt he had to hide it from me. As if we're not really teammates. You have to have trust."

All that said -- I do think ex-athletes like Amaechi publicly "coming out" is foolish (the reaction proves that today he'd have little to fear), and all the thanks and praise heaped upon Amaechi, as though he'd performed the Seven Labors of Hercules was silly. And ESPN should rename itself ESPCN for its coverage of the Amaechi non-event.

God's short leash

Some of my 13 readers have expressed concern for me, either publicly or to my address. I really do appreciate it, more than I can say or show. But I am a very reserved person and not emotionally forthright. And even apart from that, I've never really understood why some people blog constantly about their own feelings or mood, as if tossing one's guts out for the world to see could be all that productive. I've written or started to write several such posts, only to trash them -- the writing having already given me whatever cathartic value "putting it all down and getting it all out" might have had.

Anyhoo ... this by way of leading into one such post in that unproductive genre.

I don't know if what I'm about to describe constitutes a "miracle" (actually I'm pretty confident it doesn't -- "the hand of Providence" is probably better lingo). But it was certainly uncanny. And a reminder that God always leaves signs around for us.

As some of you know, to quote a couple of text messages I sent a priest last week, "it's been shit for months ... Actually don't pray for me — it would just go to waste." I started (again) to feel as if I was at the end of the rope. A few facts suffice -- I hadn't gone to Mass since before Thanksgiving, I hadn't gone to my weekly hour at the Perpetual Adoration chapel since Christmas week, and I had been scheduled to go on a retreat in early December and couldn't bring myself to go.

But the old joke about women (as if I'd know .. haha) applies to God as well -- can't live with'm, can't live without'm. I was getting increasingly desperate and despairing the farther and more-determinedly I pushed God away. At one point, I actually pulled out a legal pad and drew up the pros and cons of whether I wanted to go on living. But then several things happened:

• Over the weekend, I had five sexual encounters "set" -- i.e., specific time and place, agreed acts. Every last one of them fell through, for one reason or another, on one or another's part. I may describe some of the details at a more opportune time. Suffice for now to say that I was risking more things than impurity. And that one of the liaisons didn't happen for reasons beyond humiliating;
• For unrelated reasons, Monday was time to clear out all the junk from my car and as I was sifting through a pile of old newspapers, junk mail, bills, etc., I came upon a solicit of a different kind, from the group Food for the Poor. It stood out among the envelopes, because it was actually a thin flat box, with a Miraculous Medal key chain and ring, one much sturdier than the one I was using but one tied to THE image of personal chastity in our culture (I'm holding the Medal in my hand as I type);
  
• On Tuesday, about an hour before our Courage chapter's meeting, I was still of two minds about going or not going. I walked to my patio window to see what the snow was like. And right in the middle of the floor, in plain sight with lots of clear surrounding carpet (i.e., it was not shoved against a wall and thus easy to miss) was my Brown Scapular. Which I had neither worn nor seen since early January. So there was Our Lady again, suddenly in plain sight, forcing Her presence on me. Maybe it's a commentary on my housekeeping, but I honestly don't remember doing anything near that spot that day except move away from it a duffel bag that had no reason for the scapular to be inside it. I'm not going to claim disappearing-and-rematerializing or anysuch, but never have I been so floored by the uncanniness, the synchronicity, the (yes) Providence behind what I have to believe is, in natural terms, a "chance" event. The way God writes straight with crooked lines.
  

As I say, this last occurred about an hour before the chapter meeting and dissolved all doubts that God wasn't gonna do what I wanted -- i.e., leave me alone forever. Instead, He was telling me, "you know you cannot live without Me. In the words of the Brown Bomber: 'you can run, [John], but you can't hide'." I put the scapular on, put my keys on that new ring-and-chain, and headed for the first Sacrament in three months.

After hearing all this, my confessor said that God "has you on a short leash." A leash I often strain against, no question. But a leash whose tug I need and is finally undeniable. Father heard my confession (through my tears). When I got home, I split the money I would have paid for one of the liaisons from which I had been saved, between Food for the Poor and two priest-related Catholic charities that had appeals in my "In" stack -- North American College and the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter. In my replies, I asked for Courage-related intentions. I threw away the "Pros and Cons of Suicide" list. Hopefully, my ship is righted and things are back to what-can-pass-for normal.

Brokeback Garage

Remember when the word "gay" meant "happy and light-hearted"? Remember when homosexuals had a reputation for wit, humor and a keen sense of irony. Remember the time of Oscar Wilde, Truman Capote and Liberace?

What happened? When did gays become obsessive, humorless scolds?

Both GLAAD and the Human Rights Campaign got their panties in a twist over the Snickers ad that played during the Super Bowl — the former denouncing a version of the ad (more on that anon) as "promoting anti-gay prejudice and violence" and the latter screeching about a "VIOLENT AND HOMOPHOBIC MARKETING CAMPAIGN." And, knuckling under predictably (paging Karl Marx .... aren't businesses supposed to be conservative and reactionary forces?), Mars grabs its ankles and pulls the ad. Sniffs Joe Solmonese of HRC:

The makers of Snickers and its parent company at Mars should know better. If they have any questions about why the ad isn’t funny, we can help put them in touch with any number of GLBT Americans who have suffered hate crimes.

I know explaining a joke always kills the frog of humor, but gay groups have got such a case of cranio-rectal inversion that they need to have it spelled out for them. If these groups would actually pay attention to the ad, they'd see it's the ultimate joke about what these selfsame activists and complaint groups call "gay panic." It showed two men accidentally kissing while pursuing the far greater good of eating a candy bar. Absorbed in the heavenly deliciousness of a Snickers, their lips touched. And then they realized what they were doing and began acting as butch as possible. Which is why it is funny. They were not gay; they kissed; they acted as hyper-stereotypically manly as possible to reassure themselves. Even to the point of hurting themselves by ripping off their chest hair (and not coincidentally, showing off how much they had). That's funny.

But not to Judy Calhoun, executive director of the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Community Center of Colorado, who insists she is

... disappointed that the ending of the commercial is in a sense, normalizing a negative reaction.

Normalizing? What the colorful? It's making fun of the reaction, unless you think ripping one's chest hair off is a "normal" reaction. This is why the ad is what is called a "joke." And the reaction of the two men is what those in the biz call "the punch line."

The other versions of the commercial, available until recently on the Mars Web site, also got the gay groups' goat. One had the two mechanics fighting with each other. That's funny for the same reason -- hypermasculine brutishness as a defensive reaction to gay panic. How can the people who invented "gay panic" not see it when it hits them right in the face? Another had a bunch of Bears and Colts players watch the ad and they had a variety of reactions, including some negative -- "that ain't right." That reaction is simply totalitarian, and from people who endlessly cheer "diversity," no less. If the point is to display a range of reactions, it is hardly "endorsing" something to show it. In fact, if Mars hadn't included at least one player reacting negatively, the gay-complaint groups could have just as persuasively had a hissy over that too. Gay Group Playbook 34-Trap-Right claims that dealing with homosexual content without showing homophobia is to deny that said homophobia exists, which further perpetuates it.

I saw the ad myself in a roomful of other men with homosexual attractions — our Courage chapter's Super Bowl party. According to my memory (correction invited), the general reaction was that the Snickers ad was really funny, though there was some "ugh" and a more broadly shared "why do they think that will make you want to eat a Snickers?" bafflement. The instant I saw the candy bar hanging out of the mouth of the mechanic on the left, I called "Lady & The Tramp" for reasons obvious at the left. And then what we knew would happen happened and everybody laughed.

Another of the most famous scenes in the movies, from "Planes, Trains and Automobiles," has more or less the same premise as the Snickers ad. Steve Martin wakes up with his arm around the "soft fluffy pillow," realizes it's John Candy and the two jump to the other side of the bed and make macho talk about what they thought of (ironically) the Bears game and how they were gonna win the Super Bowl. Roger Ebert put it this way:

This is not homophobia but the natural reaction of two men raised to be shy and distant around other men — to fear misunderstood intimacy.

Ironically, one of the many ways I think that pro-gay groups are damaging society is precisely by misunderstanding intimacy by reducing all forms of love to varyingly sublimated forms of sex. Go to any Gay Studies Department, and every male friendship in the Western Canon from the Book of Samuel (David and Jonathan) to the Lethal Weapon movies (Mel Gibson and Danny Glover) has been quite thoroughly "queered."

One other thing. Let's assume the same ad. Now imagine the protests had come, not from GLAAD, HRC, et al, but from the Family Research Council, the Catholic League, the American Family Association and Concerned Women for America (as I write this, FRC has said nothing; CWFA gets some hits but not related to this; CL and AFA come up dry also). That they noted that this put a gay kiss into people's homes. It would have been Jerry Falwell and "Tinky-Winky" all over again -- the Mainstream Media would have reported from the template "nutty religious right groups complain about gays." The complaints would have been laughed at. And Mars would have ignored them and emphasized its commitment to diversity, etc. But the gay groups? No ... they and their complaints are taken seriously, by both Big Media and Big Corporations. That's media bias in a self-reinforcing nutshell. Some people's narratives are taken seriously; others not.

"Completely heterosexual"

Well this IS a miracle of Biblical proportions, isn't it? According to one of the ministers overseeing Ted Haggard, the former NAE chief who resigned from New Life Ministries over charges involving a male prostitute and some crystal meth now is "completely heterosexual." (HT: Rod, who links to "The Nile").

Color me cynical about this too. I offered my intentions for Haggard before the Blessed Sacrament in one of my weekly hours, so it's obviously my duty to hope that this could be so, for his sake and his family's. But while the heart can hope, the head can only doubt. Obviously, everybody's experience of homosexuality is different, but all the known public particulars about what happened to Haggard point in the direction that homosexuality is something deep-seated in him, and that he is now kidding himself. Given these particulars, a one-month turnaround would be in the Lazarus category.

(1) The counselor used the word "completely heterosexual." In one month. Not "able to function as a husband in the marital bed" -- which would be believable. (Though he has five children; so that probably was never an issue anyway.) Not "completely repentant" -- which would be believable (personal experience talking here). No ... he said, functionally speaking, "not attracted to men at all." Apart from anything else, how would you know that objectively, short of hooking him up to something and getting out the dirty pictures ... which I doubt happened.

(2) The initial action wasn't a one-time thing, like two mechanics bonding over a Snickers bar. Nor was it a long-ago thing (puts on "American Pie" voice) "like one time, in band camp ..." But, assuming the prostitute Mike Jones was telling the truth (and there is no reason to disbelieve him; everything he's said that IS checkable has been verified), Haggard was a regular customer, who repeatedly hired him within the past couple of years, and their commercial relationship was, as they say, "fully consummated."

(3) In his initial resignation letter, he told his New Life congregants (PDF file) that "there is a part of my life that is so repulsive and dark that I've been warring against it all my adult life."

What I'm saying is the following: there is such a thing as transitory homosexual attraction (maybe "fascination" or "curiosity" might be better terminology). And transitory fantasies of any other kind. And such a thing as a phase from adolescence that one might leave behind as one matures, particularly if one has a loving and successful marriage. But these cases don't fit what is publicly known of Haggard, who seems to fit perfectly into the category of what the Vatican calls "a man with deep-seated homosexual tendencies."

I am only approx. 40 to Haggard's 50, but I have had some knowledge of "that" since childhood, so I think I know whereof I speak. If a 50-year-old man has had homosexual attractions all his adult life; if they are sufficiently strong that he can fully-consummate a homosexual liaison; and if this is done repeatedly and within the past year -- if all that's true, they ain't going away to nothing in a month. Noway, nohow, given these circumstances, that this went away completely in a matter of weeks.

Absent water-into-wine or parting-the-Red-Sea territory.

The value of priestly celibacy

Well, one value of it anyway. Domenico Bettinelli has a post about Father Donald Cozzens recycling the same old anti-celibacy arguments. It seems a good time as any to tell of an appointment I made with a prostitute a bit more than two years ago (as God is my witness, that did not happen recently ... so nobody worry). And as I recount it, it will be quite clean, despite the subject matter. It is not an argument for priestly celibacy exactly ... more of an account of one way that a celibate priesthood contributes to the culture at large, even in places where one wouldn't expect it to.

In a period of weakness and depression, I had made an appointment with a male prostitute for the next day. But as usual, my conscience began to get queasy the closer to the appointed hour. On my drive out to his hotel, the Lord kept tugging at me, and I told myself "you can't do this, [John]. This is not what you want." Rather than stand the guy up outright, morally defensible though that would have been, I resolved to face him, tell him man-to-man that I couldn't go through with our transaction, and reach an accommodation that won't make an enemy out of him (keep in mind that he has my phone number, so it'd also be prudent not to treat him badly). When I get inside his room, I say something like "I'm sorry to do this to you, but I can't go through with this. Here's half the amount we agreed on, as a cancellation fee.* But my conscience won't let me do this." The guy said that was a fair deal and thanked me for not just flaking out on him. As I started to leave, he said "hold on, I'm curious about something."

It is for God alone to know how much of his end of the rest of the conversation, which I'm reconstructing from memory, was purely disinterested interest in me and how much an attempt to get me to go through with the appointment, so he can get the other half of his fee. In order to dampen the possibility of lust getting the better of me once I was there, I deliberately had taken only the half fee I intended to give him, leaving the other half in my car.

HIM: You say your conscience wouldn't let you.
ME: Correct.
HIM: We weren't gonna be doing anything that harms anyone ... just [description].
ME: Yeah, but we both know we'd be doing something wrong anyway: prostitution.
HIM: Well, we're just gonna spend time ...

I give him a "please don't kid me" look.

HIM: Are you religious?
ME: Yeah, by most people's standards. Though you of all people know I'm obviously not the most.
HIM: Are you gay? [John stammers a bit] ... Look, I'm just interested.
ME: Well, yeah. Most people would call me that.
HIM: Do you have a partner or are you dating someone?
ME: No.
HIM: Well, how do you express your sexuality?
ME: I don't. Or try not to.
HIM: How can you do nothing?
ME: Well, I have a problem with wanking, as my confessor will tell you if he could.
HIM: You're a Catholic?
ME: Yes. Most people's idea of a traditional one.
HIM: I've never met anybody like you. You're gay and Catholic? How do you reconcile the two?
ME: [Words to the effect of "I try, not always successfully, offer up my sufferings, principally loneliness, depression and moral scrupulosity." I no doubt didn't say the really right thing because I was starting to get weirded out.]
HIM: Don't you have any sexual outlets?
ME: God has called me to celibacy. I'm like a priest in that respect.

And the instant I mentioned the priesthood to him, a light went on in his eyes, as if to say "now, I get it." Not that he necessarily *got* the virtue of chaste celibacy in the fullest sense. But rather that his mind now had something it could latch onto. He wasn't intellectually at sea. I had given him an image that he could associate with. That's what being an icon *IS* -- an image of something else, something earthly pointing to something divine.

HIM: Are you gonna be a priest?
ME: No, I'm just making the analogy that a priest's celibacy is something for me to follow. And it's not compatible with my having sex with men.
HIM: You sure about that? You leaving?

This was moment that made me doubt his motives. He never made a move on me or did anything that I consider an explicit sexual gesture. But the whole time, as he obviously had been expecting me, he was wearing only socks and cargo shorts. And I was struggling.

ME: Yeah. I'm sorry I did this to you. I think what you're doing is wrong, but it takes two to tango.
HIM: When I called you (about 10 minutes before the meeting time, to confirm the appointment), did you know you were going to do this.
ME: Yeah. I didn't know exactly what I'd say. But God wasn't gonna let me go through with it. Or let me off the hook moneywise.
HIM: Well, good luck. I've never met anyone like you. And thanks for being upfront in dealing with me.
ME: God bless.
We shake hands. I leave. And start to cry, when I'm finally in my car alone.

I'm not gonna overstate matters. I would probably have had the same pangs if there were a married priesthood. And I have no way of knowing whether the man just laughed himself silly once I was out of the room, and went on to his next client without a second thought. (I would have to bet he at least went through with his existing clients for that trip.) What I know for certain is that this very attractive and not-stupid man** sold his body for money, degrading himself and taking all manner of risks and dangers. But even this man still knew of the practice of celibacy from the Catholic priesthood. And thus celibacy "fit" into a prostitute's world, in whatever place he may have assigned it, because the Catholic Church insists on this "sign of contradiction" from its priests. A sign never more needed than now in this degraded era, where chastity and celibacy have virtually no other cultural cachet. For the Church to now end mandatory celibacy, even though it'd obviously be in-principle legitimate, could only be taken one way in the current environment. As tapping-out to the Sexual Revolution. As raising the white flag to those who say "living without sex is impossible or stupid." And as undercutting those of us who have borne this cross, however imperfectly, for decades.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
* I'm told that Father Benedict Groeschel will impose penances of twice or three times the fee for the sin of prostitution. So I got off easy in that regard. But partly in order that I might gain nothing financially from my pang of conscience, I gave the other half of the fee voluntarily to my confessor and told him to put it in the parish's poor box or petty cash fund or wherever it might do some good.
** Knowing nothing else about him but his physical attributes, he could make a decent [in both senses] living as a legitimate model, as a workout/gym instructor or owner, or (maybe) coaching some sport.

Never think it can't get worse ...

It can. This furor over Isaiah Washington and "Grey's Anatomy" has reached what I'm tempted to call the all-time low in the field of Stupid Public Obeisances to Political Correctness. In an episode of "The Jeffersons," Helen Willis once said to George "I might say that was the stupidest thing you'll ever say. But I know that you'll come up with something stupider tomorrow." It's like that.

Washington apparently has been denounced by ABC (where is that corporate conservatism when you need it) and forced into an abject apology ... for SAYING the word "faggot" in the context of denying that he had used it. I. Am. Not. Kidding.

the network rebuked co-star Isaiah Washington for an anti-gay comment and Washington issued a lengthy apology.
"We are greatly dismayed that Mr. Washington chose to use such inappropriate language at the Golden Globes, language that he himself deemed 'unfortunate' in his previous public apology," the network said in a statement.
...
During a backstage interview Monday at the Globes gala, Washington denied involvement in a heated on-set incident in October during which an anti-gay remark was reportedly uttered.
"No, I did not call (co-star) T.R. (Knight) a faggot," Washington told reporters. "Never happened, never happened."
In his apology Thursday, Washington acknowledged "repeating the word Monday night."
"I apologize to T.R., my colleagues, the fans of the show and especially the lesbian and gay community for using a word that is unacceptable in any context or circumstance. I marred what should have been a perfect night for everyone who works on 'Grey's Anatomy.' I can neither defend nor explain my behavior. I can also no longer deny to myself that there are issues I obviously need to examine within my own soul, and I've asked for help."

Now of course, calling somebody, particularly a co-worker, a "faggot" (or "nigger" or "heeb" or any such slur) is unacceptable, and if Washington said it in the first place (which he denies), some sort of amends are necessary.

But since when has using a word in quotation marks meant anything whatsoever. This is to give to words or sounds a magic quality they simply do not have. Do not have. Period. To quote a word is not necessarily to "use" it. If any and every use of the word "faggot" (and this principle is generalizable) is unacceptable regardless of context, then what does that make of this, from later in the AP story?:

"He referred to me as a faggot," Knight said [on the Ellen DeGeneres show] of the October incident. "Everyone heard it."

And what does it make of Neil Giuliano of GLAAD doing exactly the same?:

Isaiah Washington [is] apologizing for his use of the word "faggot" on the set of Grey's Anatomy in October 2006 and at the 64th Annual Golden Globe® Awards on Jan. 15, 2007: (love that ® ... and I hesitate to point out that Mr. Giuliano is being disingenuous ... Washington's attached statement never says he used it on the set in October)

Knight and Giuliano are using the word in exactly the same sense that Washington was -- as a quotation/citation, in a context and construction that did not grant approval to the term. So are TR Knight and Neil Giuliano homophobes as well as homosexuals? I know the gay-activist crowd thinks of me as a self-hating homo, so I'm glad for the company.

What does this absurd standard do to discourse? How can there be serious study of the history of homosexuality? Do we now have to dance around language, even in pro-gay or neutral contexts, daintily saying "the f-word" as if this was the OJ Simpson trial, or we're dowagers in the 1950s whispering the word "cancer" so as not to give anyone the vapors? BTW, I think the fucking term "the f-word" is taken already.

I generally have no patience for comparisons of US institutions and totalitarian regimes, but there is something in Washington's statement -- the abject, self-abasing quality -- that reminds one of nothing more than the victims of Maoist re-education or of 1984's Big Brother and badthought. Note the use throughout of "the word" instead of ... well, this was how this latest round started. It reads also like the text of a public confession, the blasphemer begging forgiveness, promising to do penance, amend his life and sin no more. That is, for GLAAD and similar groups, the gay lifestyle truly is a religion. Now, in that context (and in private) such a tone would be fine -- except that the homosexualists pride themselves as having freed themselves of oppressive religion (so they can oppress others with their religion, I guess) and the religious and being oh-so-tolerant of difference (some differences, I guess).

But stay tuned. There's always tomorrow for this totalitarianism to get worse.

Holidays are over

Hooray. And bah, humbug.

If I may say it bluntly, I truly hate the holiday season. And not because I'm one of these "keep the Christ in Christmas"- or "Jesus is the reason for the season"-types who gets disgusted with all the consumerism, etc.

No ... it's simply that the holiday season is depressing. It's the time of the year when the loneliness truly HITS me. I'm not close to my birth family (though I haven't been disowned or anything like that). I do not have a family of my own and have no prospect of that changing ever. Other people generally have both, nearly everybody has one.

Now, you might say that "it's a time of happiness" and how everybody's in high spirits and whatnot. That's exactly the problem. It's a happiness surrounding things from which I'm fundamentally alienated. It's like being a lactose-intolerant person at a cheese feast. A blind man at a film festival. A deaf man at a symphony. Looking at the world through jail bars.

So it's fundamentally a depressing time of year, and (I acknowledge) compounded by my personality. I am not gregarious by nature, do not like to impose myself on people and despise mandatory displays of unfelt comity toward strangers (hate the Sign of Peace ... check; avoid parishes where they do the opening handshake ... double check). So if I'm blue, my attitude is usually "don't try to cheer me up; I don't want your pity." I'll just curl up in a ball at home instead.

And that's my good reaction. One recent December, I twice bought male prostitutes (one of them on New Year's Eve, no less). In the middle of the next January, I spent several hours in the hospital emergency room with what turned out to be anal gonorrhea. To be honest, if I weren't handcuffed by porn filters, I'd probably be doing that right now.

Orientation change?

One part of the Bishops' doc sure to cause controversy is this one about the possibility of "changing" sexual "orientation." Its cautious wording is important:

A considerable number of people who experience same-sex attraction experience it as an inclination that they did not choose. Many of these speak of their homosexual attractions as an unwanted burden. This raises the question of whether or not a homosexual inclination can be changed with the help of some kind of therapeutic intervention.
There is currently no scientific consensus on the cause of the homosexual inclination. There is no consensus on therapy. Some have found therapy helpful. Catholics who experience homosexual tendencies and who wish to explore therapy should seek out the counsel and assistance of a qualified professional who has preparation and competence in psychological counseling and who understands and supports the Church’s teaching on homosexuality. They should also seek out the guidance of a confessor and spiritual director who will support their quest to live a chaste life.

This strikes every note. There is no scientific consensus on the question of change, properly understood, because there is no scientific consensus on the cause of homosexuality beyond the obvious -- that the cause is complex and the result of the interaction of a bunch of factors, which is only a little better than "we have no frickin idea." (This lack of consensus should not be conflated with a 1984-like conformity among professional groups on bad questions informed by false ideology.)¹

The church leaves open the possibility of "changing," and makes the noncommitally bland statement "some have found [it] helpful." That "change" is *possible* is something all but rigidly blinded ideologues know upon reflection (though it does require getting beyond the whole "gay-straight" discourse). But the USCCB doesn't hold out too much hope (as it shouldn't in fact, and would be beyond its competence in any event).

But as a general indication of priorities, understand that this section, called "Therapy for Homosexual Inclinations?" (note the question mark) constitutes 142 words -- my quote above is its entirety. In contrast, "Homosexual Inclination Is Not Itself a Sin" (note the lack of a question mark) has 618 words; "The Necessity for Training in Virtue" (ditto, plus the term "Necessity") has 733 words; "The Necessity of Friendship and Community" (double ditto) has 396 words. Word-counts are an imperfect measure, sure, but given those noted differences in tone, this is clearly just an aside for the US bishops.

Which inevitably leads to the endorsement of Courage in Note 44. And as someone at Beliefnet asked me earlier tonight (My response in the subsequent paragraphs is adapted from two different notes, with a couple of minor edits for clarity and missed nuance):

Can you explain why the focus is allegedly on being chaste, yet there are links throughout the Courage website to NARTH, Exodus, PFOX and other reversion therapy advocates?

Because some of our members pursue this path. But it is not a requirement or an official goal of the organization. Here are the five goals of Courage, said at every meeting, and orientation change is not one of them (#1 pretty strongly implies otherwise). Here are the description of the apostolate and the article on the Website linked to what is chastity. Neither contain any reference to orientation change. So anyone whose primary description of Courage is "an attempt to change orientation" simply doesn't know what he's talking about.

Now that isn't to say that some members don't pursue this and as the FAQs say, they are at liberty to do so but it is not any kind of requirement. Nor does it mean that Courage discourages their doing so. Or that the central office, or individual chapters and pastors, or Web sites must not provide information on where and how. The group is officially agnostic on the subject (which isn't to say that some of its members aren't). But the goal is Christ not getting hard or damp from the opposite sex.

It is true that at the Courage Web site you will find links to the mentioned groups (plus about 5 others to ex-gay or conversion ministries) among the 50 or so links on the Related Websites page. The "Books, Tapes and Videos" section also has some material that comes from that perspective -- again, among much else. But after spending about a half-hour skimming around the Web site (not exhaustive, sure, but it's not a very elaborate site), that was pretty much all I could find.

Both the amount and the segregated presentation seem about right to me. Their availability is made known for those interested. But it is not in the same place as our own material -- the mission statement, the FAQs, the conference and event listings, the solicits, the Web sites, etc. It's a well-established Internet convention by now that the mere offering of a link doesn't entail endorsement of everything at that site -- merely a general nod that "this is a site of potential common interest, but not our voice per se." This is also true of Beliefnet, the Democratic National Committee site and Instapundit.

So if the question is "does Courage have any link or relationships to these groups whatsoever?" The answer to that is clearly "yes, by a very broad definition of 'relationship' that also would prove that Courage has a relationship to Islam (StraightWay is on the links page)." And there is sufficient common ground that people who advocate reparative therapy have spoken at our conferences, and we don't treat them as ritually unclean pariahs. But that's pretty small potatoes, and linking from the site doesn't prove otherwise.² The USCCB document, which I think could have been written by a well-formed Courage member, pretty clearly indicates from space and rhetoric that "orientation change" is a small part of the Church teaching and not a big priority compared with a much broader orientation change that all need. In fact, here is how it transitions into the next segment after its "Therapy for Homosexual Inclinations?" segment.

There is another kind of “therapy” or healing of which we all stand in need, regardless of whether one is attracted to the same or the opposite sex: Every person needs training in the virtues.

Which is the "The Necessity for Training in Virtue" segment. In fact, I wish I could say I influenced the following segment ...

To acquire a virtue—to become temperate, brave, just, or prudent—we must repeatedly perform acts that embody that virtue, acts that we accomplish with the help of the Holy Spirit and with the guidance and encouragement of our teachers in virtue. ... The acquisition of virtues requires a sustained effort and repeated actions. As the ancient philosophers recognized, the more one repeats good actions, the more one’s passions (such as love, anger, and fear) become shaped in accord with good action.

Which sound suspiciously like this post (OK, fairly unremarkable, but I'll take my synchronicity or Providence where I can)

To wax personal: I'm pretty much a "Kinsey 6" (or maybe a 7), have been for as long as it's meaningful to call me a sexual being, and don't expect this to change any time soon. Being attracted to women is something that I hope for only in the sense that one hopes to win the lottery. My confessor knows all this and has never told me I have to "become straight" or marry. He did strongly encourage me to see a therapist, but about issues relating to my homosexuality and how I act out on it, not for the thing-in-itself. But to get all Matrix-y, if I were offered (1) a blue pill that would prevent me from ever having a sexual thought about a man or acting therein, but didn't change my complete lack of interest in women, or (2) a red pill that would give me normal response to women, but make me a compulsive womanizer, I'd take the blue pill without a second's hesitation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
¹ Aside: I've never really understood why pro-gay groups think that they should push the genetic-inborn theory. Well ... I do understand its short-term appeal (publicly, it seems to clinch the analogy of "sexuality" to race and sex; privately, it salves/deadens the conscience). But does anybody imagine that if we find a "gay gene" or a definitive cause based in hormones or amniotic-fluid or the like, that a pre-natal test for these factors disposing to homosexuality will be far behind? And like with girls in China and India, that the abortion rates will ... adjust.
² I will caveat the following: Some members do in fact pursue the "orientation-change" attempt. So, human group dynamics being what they are, it wouldn't surprise me if in some chapters, there might be more (or less) de-facto "peer pressure" or "groupthink" to do this.

The USCCB releases its document

Available here as a PDF file (thanks Amy).

I must say I haven't been this encouraged by a Church document in a while. Frankly, it brought tears to me eyes in a couple of places (and I am not really referring to the approving mention of Courage and Encourage in Footnote 44. Yeah, it might have been better to have been in the text, but I can't quarrel with such a relatively-empty formalism).

No, what brought tears to my eyes was this on page 6:

It is crucially important to understand that saying a person has a particular inclination that is disordered is not to say that the person as a whole is disordered. Nor does it mean that one has been rejected by God or the Church. Sometimes the Church is misinterpreted or misrepresented as teaching that persons with homosexual inclinations are objectively disordered, as if everything about them were disordered or rendered morally defective by this inclination. Rather, the disorder is in that particular inclination, which is not ordered toward the fulfillment of the natural ends of human sexuality. Because of this, acting in accord with such an inclination simply cannot contribute to the true good of the human person. Nevertheless, while the particular inclination to homosexual acts is disordered, the person retains his or her intrinsic human dignity and value.

I can't tell you how annoying it is to listen to pro-gay folks ignorantly (on this subject, that's an objective fact) saying "the church says I am intrinsically evil" or "I'm not objectively disordered," etc. No. It. Doesn't. The distinction is right there. Reject it if you like, but don't lie about what the Church teaches in order to boost up your Right-to-a-Hissy-Fit quotient.

And there was this on pp 6-7:

Many in our culture have difficulty understanding Catholic moral teaching because they do not understand that morality has an objective basis. Some hold that moral norms are nothing more than guidelines for behavior that happen to be widely accepted by people of a particular culture at a particular time. Catholic tradition, however, holds that the basis of morality is found in the natural order established by the Creator, an order that is not destroyed but rather elevated by the transforming power of the grace that comes to us through Jesus Christ.

And finally, this on pp 10-11:

One way in which the Church can aid persons with a homosexual inclination is by nurturing the bonds of friendship among people. In their analysis of human nature, the ancient philosophers recognized that friendship is absolutely essential for the good life, for true happiness. Friendships of various kinds are necessary for a full human life, and they are likewise necessary for those attempting to live chastely in the world. There can be little hope of living a healthy, chaste life without nurturing human bonds. Living in isolation can ultimately exacerbate one’s disordered tendencies and undermine the practice of chastity. It would not be wise for persons with a homosexual inclination to seek friendship exclusively among persons with the same inclination. They should seek to form stable friendships among both homosexuals and heterosexuals. . . . A homosexual person can have an abiding relationship with another homosexual without genital sexual expression. Indeed the deeper need of any human is for friendship rather than genital expression.

If you love someone of the same sex, nobody is saying that you cannot or should cease to love them. In fact, you can love them without sex (more authentically the Church teaches, but set that aside for now). If the gay-rights folks refuse to give up sex, it's an indication that sex is what they truly love. Functionally-speaking, it is their god. But they'll define it as the sine qua non of their loving relationships and saying "you can't criticize our sex without criticizing our love." It's the equivalent of Hezbollah, Al-Qaida or Hamas terrorists hiding behind Arab civilian populations, leaving Israel or the US the choice of not striking or putting civilians at risk. But it's based on a false understanding of Church teaching. The Church simply does not object if Adam and Steve live together in friendship, even if they might have same-sex attractions. What She objects to is Adam and Steve having sex; nothing more.

Would that every Church document be this concise, clear, on-point and comprehensive.

"The Bitch is Back"

In the latest display of gay tolerance, Sir Elton suggests, stone cold sober as a matter of fact, that all religion should be banned. According to the BBC:

his solution would be to "ban religion completely, even though there are some wonderful things about it."

Not "religion should change its teachings." Not "Religion X should be banned." Not "religion is foolish and stupid." But "ban religion completely." That's not ambiguous. And sure enough, like music's answer to Andrew Sullivan, it is all about The Great Glory That Is The Gay Lifestyle:

"I think religion has always tried to turn hatred towards gay people," he said. "Religion promotes the hatred and spite against gays."

It's sad, so sad. It's a sad, sad situation. Homosexuals are becoming increasingly totalitarian, and this interview drips with. He thinks religion turns people into "hateful lemmings," not realizing that to call human beings "lemmings" is itself "hateful." Or that plenty of non-religious societies have persecuted homosexuals quite vigorously. No ... it's the same childish rant. Y'know I never would have thought that Sir Elton really did think he was justified when he was five, to judge by the approximate maturity of some of the theological thoughts. I mean, how does one respond to:

[Sir Elton] also said that the problems experienced by many gays in former nations of the Soviet bloc, such as Poland, Latvia and Russia were caused by the church supporting anti-gay movements.

Well, that's so awful for those countries. For governments, maybe they'll get a replacement and go back to their previous regimes, which were a bit closer to Sir Elton's notion that all religion should be banned (however imperfectly realized, they were at one with Sir Elton in principle). And for the record, those regimes and every other actual Socialist regime would never have met the standards of the City of San Francisco Human Rights Commission -- homosexuality is a selfish, decadent product of capitalism, doncha know. And homosexuals in the Soviet Union could only dream of him, never see the letters that he writes, and had to look up through the wire to count the stars at night.

That latter might seem like a small point, but it indicates the ahistoricity of gay-rights floggers -- oh they can bitch, they can bitch because (they think) they're better than you, but to listen to them describe the status quo, whether in the Church or the broader society, you would never get the sense that homosexuality has never been freer or less-disapproved (whether this is a good thing or a bad thing). Butterflies are definitely free to fly, here.

Then there's this sheer, utter idiocy:

[Sir Elton] called on the leaders of major religions to hold a "conclave" to discuss the fate of the world - which he said was "near escalating to World War Three".
"I said this after 9/11 and people thought I was nuts," he said. "It's all got to be dialogue - that's the only way. Get everybody from each religion together and say 'Listen, this can't go on. Why do we have all this hatred?'
"We are all God's people; we have to get along and the [religious leaders] have to lead the way. If they don't do it, who else is going to do it? They're not going to do it and it's left to musicians or to someone else to deal with it."

I haven't seen that face for a while, but it's definitely still the same spoiled child. What makes it sheer and utter idiocy (as opposed to simply Kumbaya dreaming, which'd obviously be bad enough) is that this is coming from someone who says religion should be banned. Well, how are these "absolutely banned" religions supposed to even exist, much less meet, much less wield influence. Even if you think there's some distinction between "organized religion" and something else "disorganized religion[?]," without the "organized" part, there's no way for any religion to have a "leader" for this meeting Sir Elton pins such great hopes on.

I could go on forever in this vein, but metaphors involving fish, barrels and the use of Second-Amendment-protected devices would come to mind. And there's plenty like him to be found. I first saw this at the site of Dale Price, who asked in shocking language to which I would never stoop: "who gives a crap what entertainers think?"

I disagree with Dale ... entertainers do matter. In and of themselves, Sir Elton's remarks don't matter, either in the sense that George Bush's or Condi Rice's or Vladimir Putin's do (holding formal power), or in the sense that Alasdair MacIntyre's or Irving Kristol's or Michael Lerner's (intellectuals). They ARE just the dumb bloviations of a pop star.

But in a perverse way, that's what makes them important. There's the obvious Shelley aphorism about "the unacknowledged legislators of the world." (CM shudders). But even beyond that, the specific example breaks a bit of kulturkampf ground. They're important not as a furnace (the cause of a thing -- heat), but as a thermometer (the measure of that thing). Sir Elton HASN'T thought these topics through (which isn't particularly damnable in itself), and this is what comes out of a him. Most people, and all non-intellectuals, DON'T think things through -- they absorb what the world around them thinks or tells them they should think, thoughtlessly or with minimal thought. The thoughtless man is a better barometer of his society than the thoughtful man for that very reason. I think a serious persecution of Christians is coming, because sentiments like these are becoming much more commonly expressed as natural and normal than before. While there has always been The Village Atheist around, he has been an exception. Sir Elton indicates TVA might be becoming the norm.

On a somewhat lighter note, Kathy Shaidle, discussing the same topic, came up with a list of reasons the Pope is better than Elton John:

• He's got his own hair and has never filed for bankruptcy
• Valerie Bertinelli never dressed up as Cardinal Ratzinger on One Day at a Time
• Had nothing to do with Tommy²
• Doesn't call photographers "rude, vile pigs"
• Not a dwarf

To which I add:

• About the role of Husserl and phenomenology in Karol Wojtyla's personalist philosophy -- Elton John don't know shit
• The Pope never wrote a song to the World Team Tennis league
• The Pope has the stronger fashion sense, with more modest hats and better Prada shoes
  
• Everyone knows the pope's born name
• "Deus Caritas Est" is in a real dead language, unlike "Solar Prestige a Gammon"³ And a bit meatier than "Believe"⁴
  
• Pope doesn't depend on Bernie Taupin to write words for him
• Pope hasn't had a career trajectory that started with Kiki Dee as a duet partner and went on to RuPaul and (on another song) George Michael
  

--------------------------------------------------------------
¹And Dale ... that other fellow would probably say "Don't drink? Don't smoke? What DO you do?" Which actually pretty much sums up modern morality on matters sexual -- "there's always something inside."
² C'mon, Kathy. That's a bit unfair. "Tommy" may not be to everyone's taste (it's garishly over-the-top) and Sir Dwight is obviously wrong to sing "Pinball Wizard." But how can a movie with Ann-Margaret in a roomful of baked beans, Roger Daltrey singing "See Me, Feel Me" or a vamping Tina Turner as the Acid Queen be something shameful.
³ An obscure album cut from "Caribou." Lyrics here.
⁴ Which rivals "Imagine" as the Dreamy-Dumbest Pop Hit of all-time. Lyrics here.

One more election post-mortem

Only this one will be narrowly focused -- gay "marriage." Backers of marriage lost for the first time yesterday before a state's voters. And it wasn't in Massachusetts or Rhode Island — it was Arizona whose voters became the first to reject a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

Homosexual-rights campaigners took heart from another factor beyond their first victory after 27 straight defeats:

“Two years ago we had 11 of these on the ballot, and in only two of them did we do better than 40 percent. This year there were eight and in at least five of them we did better than 40 percent.”

Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force

Obviously, he's not making stuff up, but I think there's less of a general shift here than meets the eye. Foreman isn't just spinning, but there is spin involved, which you can see when you unpack the numbers.

Here are the percentages of voters who voted against the measures in 2006:
Arizona: 51.4%
Colorado: 44.3%
Idaho: 36.7%
South Carolina: 22.0%
South Dakota: 48.2%
Tennessee: 18.7%
Virginia: 42.9%
Wisconsin: 40.6%
An average of 38.1%

Here were the same figures from 2004:
Arkansas: 25%
Georgia: 24%
Kentucky: 25%
Michigan: 41%
Mississippi: 14%
Montana: 33%
North Dakota: 27%
Ohio: 38%
Oklahoma: 24%
Oregon: 43%
Utah: 34%
An average of 29.8%

Now that's a "gain" of more than 8 percentage points. And obviously, a victory is a victory.

But much of the "average" gain has a great deal to do with the mix of states represented. But comparing like-with-like, there wasn't much change in most of the country. In the 2004 votes, the pro-gay vote in the Bible-belt South hovered around 20 percent -- just as in 2006 (Virginia being the solitary exception). The votes that took place in the "Big 10" Midwest were virtually the same in 2004 — 38 and 41 — as in 2006 — 40.6.

Only in the more libertarian regions of the Plains Midwest and West did pro-gay advocates make much headway, and these states were where most of yesterday's votes were. But they were already averaging the 30-something neighborhood in 2004, while they broke into the 40+ region in 2006. Getting 37 percent in Idaho isn't that much better than 34 percent in Utah.

I cherry-picked two those last states of course, but to prove that the tectonic plates haven't shifted dramatically on the issue. The pro-gay forces made some headway certainly (boooo). But I suspect local factors, like other things on the ballot, had more to do with the results in South Dakota, Virginia and Arizona, which are outliers.

Going back even more, in 2000, when Proposition 22 was on the California ballot, this very-blue state voted to protect marriage by 61.4 percent to 38.6 percent (the same year, California voters rejected a school-voucher amendment by 71-29 and backed Al Gore by 12 points, so we are definitely dealing with a time when the Religious Right had become anathema there). Point being: "gay-marriage" pushers always have been able to get around 40 percent in the right states and circumstances.

I think the reason opponents of homosexual "marriage" may have lost a little momentum was that liberals also backed off a bit. Remember, those 2004 votes came in the immediate wake of both the 2003 Massachusetts court decision and an open campaign of civil disobedience by government officials, led by the mayor of San Francisco, to issue marriage licenses on their own will, trying to impose gay "marriage" on the country as a fait accompli.

But that changed a bit in the past year. The Massachusetts court didn't allow homosexuals from outside to come in simply for "marriage's" sake, turning their state into Reno East. Courts in California, New York and Washington state -- all of whom liberals hoped would either mimic Massachusetts or go one step further by imposing out-of-state "marriages," declined even to do the first, instead deferring to their legislatures. Just a week before the election, the New Jersey high court, which earlier has unanimously tried to impose homosexual leaders on the Boy Scouts, took up the issue. Its id clearly wanted to create gay "marriage" but backed off, instead ordering the Legislature to pass either gay "marriage" or a system of civil-unions (three of the seven members of the panel went ahead and did what felt good). If these Jersey Girls had pulled a Massachusetts a week before the election ... who knows?

Obviously, none of that affects the rights and wrongs of the matter, but most voters aren't philosophers. A sense of immediacy and threat does matter. It's not everything, but certainly urgency is worth a few points (if it weren't, campaign ads wouldn't be as they are). The NGLTF's Foreman pretty much says as much:

What we're seeing is that fear-mongering around same-sex marriage is fizzling out.

He says to-MAY-to ("fear-mongering," "fizzling out"); I say to-MAH-to ("urgency ... worth a few points"). But it's the same thing -- the notion that we'll wake up one day to find liberal judges imposing gay marriage looks less-credible and imminent in 2006 than it did in 2003-4. The night after Bush won, I raised a toast "to the MVPs of Bush's victory -- the Massachusetts Supreme Court and the mayor of San Francisco." Nobody to toast this time around.

For now.

Since I'm in Aristotle mood

Here's the man, a pagan, whom St. Thomas called The Philosopher:

Men acquire a particular quality by constantly acting a particular way. We become just by performing just actions, temperate by performing temperate actions, brave by performing brave actions.

And gay by performing gay actions. Because, as The Philosopher says:

Or, in one word, the habits are produced from the acts of working like to them ... whether we are accustomed this way or that straight from childhood ... I would say it makes all the difference.

Against personal interest

Over at Rod Dreher's blog, some people are crassly assuming that Ted Haggard is gay (thanks for the link, Dale). But Rod links to the most important reaction, that of Gayle Haggard. Here's the best quote:

What I want you to know is that I love my husband, Ted Haggard, with all my heart. I am committed to him until death "do us part." We started this journey together and with the grace of God, we will finish together.

Now, I'm sure the right-thinking will dismiss this as some big-heared bimbo (start Hillary imitation) "standing by her man like Tammy Wynette." Because by staying beside her husband and not making this out to be a worse betrayal than an affair with the secretary, and saying that a marriage vow is for life and "for better or worse," she's powerfully denying the cental claims of the gay-rights pushers. She's showing that homosexuality doesn't define the world, doesn't define a person, doesn't define the right thing to do. The Haggards have five children, who need two parents, preferably those who begat them, and that's the most important thing. I'll be praying for the Haggards tonight at Adoration. Dunno what they'd think of such Papist idol-worship of a bowing before a cracker ... but there it is.

Another good link I found at Rod's was to a National Review piece by David Frum (ironically linked by a hostile combox-er). Here's the money quote:

Consider the hypothetical case of two men. Both are inclined toward homosexuality. Both from time to time hire the services of male prostitutes. Both have occasionally succumbed to drug abuse.
One of them marries, raises a family, preaches Christian principles, and tries generally to encourage people to lead stable lives.
The other publicly reveals his homosexuality, vilifies traditional moral principles, and urges the legalization of drugs and prostitution.
Which man is leading the more moral life?

Exactly. In fact, the contrary answer is the direct result of considering hypocrisy to be the sin of sins (which is the direct consequence of considering "authenticity" to be a virtue). In my exaggerated moments, I've said "liberals are immune to charges of hypocrisy because they champion immorality." Obviously that's exaggerated in some details, but I think it still essentially true. Only if hypocrisy is acceptable is public morality possible in a fallen world. In fact I would write a book called "In Defense of Hypocrisy," except that it has already been written (Master Jeremy was a PK as a boy, and I reread his chapter on religious figures over the weekend).

And the great walk-off is from Aristotle:

I count him braver who overcomes his desires than him who conquers his enemies; for the hardest victory is over self.

Back to Frum: He also makes the sensible point that:

In every other avenue of life, we praise people who rise above selfish personal wishes to champion higher principles and the public good. We admire the white southerners who in the days of segregation spoke out for racial equality. We admire the leader of a distressed industry who refuses to ask for trade protections and government handouts. We admire the Arthur Vandenbergs and (someday) the Joe Liebermans who can reach past party feeling to support a president of the opposing party for the sake of the national interest.

And he rhetorically asks why not the same for homosexuality. In other words, if a person has homosexual attractions but decides (for whatever reason) that these attractions are temptations to be resisted and/or averted, why should he favor every loosening of the public sphere on homosexuality? Why isn't favoring restrictions on "himself" an example of "intellectual firmness and moral integrity" rather than, as the homosex-pushers assert, an act of self-loathing? Or is every claim in the public sphere just a rationalization for biography and self-interest?

In fact, this very matter came up between myself and my confessor a few months ago -- the relation between opposing homosexual "marriage" and men with same-sex attraction like myself. I reprint our exchange below, with Father's permission, which he gave with the following elaboration:

I don't know if I made the analogy, but I think it can be compared to an alcoholic forbidding alcohol in the house. He knows his weakness and he doesn't want the temptation. Or again, similar to almost any man opposing easier access to pornography: he knows it's a temptation and he doesn't it want it near him.

I have bracketed over a few specific details with generalities for the sake of discretion, both my own and that of others.
-------------------------------------------------------

Father:

Here's the lead on a story I just read (the whole story is after I sign off):

SPOKANE, Wash. (AP) - Mayor James E. West, a Republican foe of gay rights, was accused in a newspaper story Thursday of molesting two boys decades ago and was caught by the paper using the trappings of his office to try to court a young man on a gay Web site.
West on Thursday denied the molestation allegations, but acknowledged he "had relations with adult men."

Stories like this one paralyze me with fear. Who knows where I might be at 54. And even if I live like The Blessed Virgin Mary Herself for the next 15 years, some reporter already has his lead written -- "[My Name], a Republican foe of gay rights, was accused in a newspaper story Thursday of [short list of my past misdeeds] decades ago..."

In all honesty, Padre (though I'm not blaming this for [recent event] ), the drumbeat of stories in this genre (and the apparent fact they'll never end) is one reason I think I'm so prone to fits of depression and despair. I see that headline in my future and it's hard to keep my eyes disciplined and dry. The world is completely unforgiving, and there's a significant movement afoot that would positively revel in my public humiliation, as a good in itself (not simply a regrettable but necessary side-effect, breaking a few eggs to make an omelette and all of that).

I know I shouldn't care about the world (if God is with us, who can be against us). But I do. I'm afraid of martyrdom.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To which Father responded:

I understand your fear, and I wish there were a way of removing it entirely. A simple "Oh, don't worry about it" wouldn't really suffice.

What strikes me is the reasonableness of a man with SSA opposing the gay rights agenda. [Name of famous right-wing intellectual] once commented that the reason he opposes pornography is because of his own weaknesses! Not because he looks down his nose at others. He opposes it for his own sake. I must say, that is a lot of what lurks behind my opposition to TV. I know that it is the worst thing for me, that I will settle on the most mindless show or movie (usually featuring Adam Sandler) and fritter away hours that I will have to make up in after school detention (purgatory). It is not my strength or superior virtue that makes me bash TV - it's my weakness. Mutatis mutandis, I think you can say the same.

But let me point out the obvious. You are taking a possibility and making it a certainty, adding water so that it grows, fertilizing it, giving it steroids, and then collapsing under the weight of it.

You know, increasingly I turn back to basics. Dedicate yourself more to cultivating a PERSONAL relationship with Christ. You seem to be living according to fears about a possible future instead of according to the certainty of the present Lord.

It's a hackneyed prayer at this point, but one I pray every day and from which I derive great peace:

God, grant me
the serenity to accept the things I cannot change;
the courage to change the things I can
and the wisdom to know the difference.

Against sexual orientation

Despite the appearances in my earlier post, I do have a lot of sympathy for Ted Haggard. I really do. I hope he stays with his family, if for no other reason than to give a thumb in the eye of the gay-activist/prostitute crowd who'd like nothing better than to humiliate and hound him to the ends of the earth for the sin of opposing gay "marriage." And they are such immature brats to deal with.

There is no reason this should end the Haggards' marriage, or be worse than a series of dalliances with a female prostitute. After all, love between persons presumably involves more than sex (as the gay-"marriage" pushers constantly tell us when they protest "reducing our love to anal sex").

But the greater problem is the whole language of "sexual orientation," which Haggard's behavior powerfully gives the lie to. I think the term should be junked, as it presupposes something false -- that human beings are definitively (or at least teleologically) "typed" on the basis of the sex of their beloveds. That some behavior is "authentic" and other "inauthentic." Once gay always gay. And therefore, once straight always straight (or so you would think, but it doesn't turn out that way at all, because we aren't talking about the serious study of sexuality, but a political agenda to rope people in).

This rigid "gay-straight" typology keeps being disproven over and over and over, while the typology itself keeps us from seeing this. It's a pitch-perfect example of the wish substituting for the thought. From Cyndi Lauper in one direction to Anne Heche in the other; from the Athenians in one circumstance to prison inmates in another; from Balzac for one reason to Thomas Mann for another -- there can be no reasonably dispute that people are *capable* (prescinding for the moment from the question of whether they should) of either changing their sexual behavior or of not succumbing to a temptation to do something sexual they don't want to.

What's so aggravating about gay activists' writing about cases like Haggard is that there's a gross double standard. They crow that Haggard is really gay (and self-loathing and all the rest of the carnival of smears). As commenter "thomas tucker" put it at Amy Welborn's Open Book:

Andrew Sullivan is saying that his guy is gay and has been in the closet. Yet, Sullivan and others in the gay lobby always say that reparative therapy doesn't work and "gay" men who decide to become heterosexually involved are fooling themselves and others. In other words, if you dabble in gay sex, you're gay and if you dabble in straight sex, you're gay. They want it both ways.

Exactly. What is the "B" in "LGBT" supposed to stand for? It's obvious, if we must use contemporary typology, that Haggard is bi -- he has five children; that doesn't happen from picking blackberries. And why is it assumed that a "bi" person is making a despicable or self-loathing or self-deceiving choice by marrying the opposite sex and living the breeder lifestyle. Or is gay sex is the psychological equivalent of "negro blood," which was such powerful stuff that one drop made you black (ask Homer Plessy)? Anyone who has ever had a sexual thought toward the same sex (or acts on it) is really gay and cannot be anything other than that? If stating this doesn't suffice to refute it, I am at a loss.

Loathesomeness (i.e., sin) all around

Quelle coïncidence! All around.

Just a few days before Colorado votes on a gay "marriage" amendment, a homosexual prostitute says one of his clients was Ted Haggard, head of the National Association of Evangelicals and founder of one of the nation's largest mega-churches. The prostitute said:

It made me angry that here's someone preaching about gay marriage and going behind the scenes having gay sex.

Heaven forfend that prostitutes should deal with people "going behind the scenes," as if a prostitute ever deals with someone not seeking to fulfill some sexual or other need on the QT. Nor was Haggard all that anti-gay for a Christian pastor, as Get Religion documents. Sorry, but I refuse to listen to lectures about sexual morality from someone who fucks for money.

The timing of this latest "Out A Politically Incorrect Homo" is so patent that I can't imagine that it'll have any effect on the referendum. Christians won't be turned off (if anything the opposite) and the crass timing of the whole spectacle (like the Bush DUI "October Surprise" in 2000) will be seen through by anyone else.

That said, Haggard's actions have been pathetic -- a Clinton-worthy drip-drip-dripping, trimming his story to minimally conform to what he knows can be proven. The backtracking detailed in a nutshell by Denver TV station KUSA.

The first clip says he doesn't know the prostitute's name (and yes, some prostitutes go by other names). Which we now know is a lie, from tapes and his own admissions. We also got this:

I did not have a homosexual relationship with a man in Denver. I am steady with my wife. I’m faithful to my wife.

And the minute I read that denial, I knew there was something rotten in Denmark. The wording was so technically precise -- "I did not have a homosexual relationship with a man in Denver" -- as to invite Clintonian parsing to see if it can be telling the truth while making-believe a lie. Obviously, on multiple counts. To mention only the one being borne out (I can think of about three others without breaking any brain sweat): Purchasing a prostitute for an hour once a month is not by any stretch of the imagination a "relationship."

Then there was the fact that he immediately resigned. Which, give the devil his due, a gay activist and champion "outer" noted -- "I don’t know a lot of people who step down from those positions if there’s not something behind that smoking gun."

Then we got this admission from the church to unspecified indiscretions (at the bottom of the article):

There has been some admission of indiscretion, not an admission to all of the material that has been discussed, but there is an admission of some guilt.

Then Haggard said he bought drugs from the guy but never used them:

I was buying it for me, but I never used it. I never kept it very long because it was wrong. I was tempted. I bought it. But I never used it.

Coincidentally, this admission came after the prostitute played tapes for a Denver TV station of the man he says was Haggard. And the TV station had a voice authenticator analyse it, saying it was authentic. Here's a sample ... the very vaguenesses and unclear referents make it clear that there's a familiarity here (the listener would know how to fill in the gaps):

Hi Mike, this is Art, I am here in Denver and sorry that I missed you. But as I said, if you want to go ahead and get the stuff, then that would be great. And I'll get it sometime next week or the week after or whenever.

Coincidence that *now* he admits this? And when real evidence beyond "he said, he said" comes out that you bought crystal meth (the gay party-drug of choice), it's just all-too-convenient to believe when you change your story to "buying, but not using."

This is Classic Clinton -- "I smoked but didn't inhale." Admitting to one sexual encounter with Gennifer Flowers (not realizing that to have sex with someone merely once is in fact the rudest, ugliest thing of all to do). Or admitting an "inappropriate relationship" with Monica Lewinsky only once the DNA tests on the blue dress came back. I mean ... buy meth out of curiosity and then not use it? Please. More sail-trimming. Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining. Just don't.

The same interview had this claim, from KUSA:

According to Haggard, he met with Jones in a Denver hotel room after receiving a referral from the hotel in which he was staying.
When asked how he knew Jones would sell him meth, Haggard said he had told him about it.
"I went there for a massage," Haggard said.
When asked which hotel gave him the referral, Haggard said: "I've stayed at a lot of hotels in Denver because I write in Denver."

Oh yeah. I go to masseurs all the time, as referred to me by a hotel. And every masseur I go to, I happen to ask him how to score some crystal meth. And that onetime purchase of crystal-meth I made was such a specifically memorable event that I remember throwing it away, but also such a banally forgettable event that I don't remember what hotel it was for a reporter to confirm whether they give referrals to masseurs with ads like this one (warning: kinda explicit).

Puh-frickin-leeze. I can't even drive by some of the places where I've committed sins of this sort without being reminded of them. This guy's a smoothie trying to weasel his way out. Nothing more.

It's the massage thing that tore it for me. If you want or need a legitimate massage, there are professional and legitimate masseurs and masseuses. And there's reputable gyms and saunas and spas, where you can do business openly and freely. A hotel might refer you to them. But you don't hire a prostitute from whom you also get the gay party-drug of choice. Indeed, many gay prostitutes (like this one) advertise themselves as offering "massages," with the term either standing alone or sometimes with winking terms like "massage and other services."

New Life Church finally decided it had had enough after two days of this and fired him outright.

Still, this won't change (and shouldn't change) anybody's mind about homosexual "marriage," as the prostitute acknowledged he hoped to do. People are smarter than that. And Christians too. As one New Life member put it:

The farther up you are, the more you are a target for Satan.

And the gay activist crowd.

USCCB statement

... on ministry to homosexual persons is on the Web site. It's available here (Thanks, Amy).

More comment to come, but my immediate reaction is: this hits all the right notes. The devil will obviously be in the details ... how it will be implemented on the ground, etc. But it's what you'd want from a general Bishops' Conference. Plus it hacks off Dignity, which is just about infallible as an indicator of virtue.

UPDATE: Having had more time to read the USCCB release and think about it, my initial reaction largely stands. At the level of reiterating the Church's whole teaching on homosexuality and how it plays out in particular matters.

Still, I can't help but thinking that more specifics would have been even better. Maybe they'll be in the Document itself when it's released at next month's meeting. For example, I do think the church needs to say that Group X is an example of a good ministry to homosexual persons (hint, hint) and/or Group Y is an example of a bad one, while giving reasons A, B, C for these judgments, so that Group Y could reform.