Wednesday, November 19, 2014

Gay Catholic Good Great Gay Hooray!



It's taken me a while, but I think I'm beginning to understand how people think (or don't think) on the internet.

Yesterday I posted a very powerful movie that tells the true story of how an ex-gay porn star escaped the hell that the world of gay porn is.  And I knew, I simply knew, what one of the comments would be, if I got any.

The comment would be, "Of course, this story is shocking and disturbing, but it's not typical!  There are plenty of good things going on among gay people!"  I really should have written the comment and posted it myself, saving Annonymous the trouble, who wrote ...


Sorry Kevin, but I think your approach to homosexuality is a perfect example of unreality in action. 
I think there's a temptation for us loyal Catholics to take Sciambra's experience as definitive for all gay people because it tells us exactly we want to hear.
It would be difficult to deal with the gay issue if we had to acknowledge anything of value in the relationship of gay couples. Much easier to dismiss it all as lies, lust and demonic temptation.
The trouble with this is that it pretty obviously isn't true. Happy gay couples are not logical contradictions, and insisting that this is the case only makes us look like fools.
I think the Church's teaching with regard to gay people is perfectly clear - they must remain celibate. That may not be what many of them want to hear, true, but that's the deal if you want to be a faithful Catholic.
I don't see why, in addition to that, we also have to insist that homosexual people aren't REALLY gay, they must never use that word and they also need to subject themselves to crank psychologists in order to heal themselves of their sinful desires.
Read gay Catholics like Gabriel Blanchard, Melinda Selmys and Eve Tushnet - what makes their stories inauthentic? Did they not experience the REAL gay subculture, in the same way that because you or I have never attended a strip club, dabbled in swinging or picked up a prostitute we have never REALLY experienced straight culture?

The only thing Anonymous didn't do while insisting on the Good of Gay was to point out all the good things about pornography, and how we won't get anywhere as Catholics until we admit that porn has some good elements, the way Christopher West and his followers do. I wonder why Anonymous didn't do that.  Is it because we're still ashamed of pornography and what it does to us?  Is it because any normal person knows that there's a good in pornography that draws us to it - but that seeking that good in that particular shady and shameful way is nothing to brag about?

Of course there's good in both gay sex and porn.  That's why people seek them.  Catholic theology (and common sense) is clear on that.  We seek the good in things, even things that are not, ultimately, ordered toward a greater good.

But I'll let the Ex Gay Porn Star himself answer the "gay Catholic good great gay hooray!" that Anonymous seems to be pushing - even while Anonymous is admitting that celibacy somehow trumps it. Anonymous brings up Eve Tushnet.  Joseph Sciambria says of Eve Tushnet ...

I have serious reservations about how she has chosen to deal with her own homosexuality - and more importantly, what she is recommending to others. 
First of all, the problem starts right off in the title of the book itself: “Accepting My Sexuality..;” this is not “my sexuality,” and it is not your sexuality, it’s a wounded condition. In fact, it’s not a sexuality at all, as the Catechism rightly states - it’s a “disorder.” And, as the Sacred Congregation wrote, in its “Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons:” the inclination itself “…is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.” Therefore to “accept” homosexuality is to accept a moral evil. 
Secondly, Tushnet disturbingly writes: “I’m in no sense ex-gay. In fact, I seem to become more lesbian with time—college was my big fling with bisexuality, my passing phase…” While I completely understand her ambivalence towards embracing the Catholic ex-gay therapy movement, by the way - which I highly recommend (in particular: Dr. Joseph Nicolosi,) I am gravely worried by her admonition that she has become “more lesbian.”

He continues ...

I am proud to state that I found absolutely nothing “beautiful” in gay life. Now, there were moments when it seemed real and took on an illusion of beauty, such as when I held the hand of my dear friend dying at age 26 of AIDS, and his face became so peaceful and angelic after death, but later the certainty of it all hit me: the waste, the pointlessness of his death, and the continuing tally of other boys contracting HIV. In fact, I think Tushnet is fooled by the phantasms in gay culture because she has surrounded herself within a tiny enclave of intellectual gay elites who have all lost touch with the actuality of what it is to be gay in the modern world.

This is a man who paid the price, who followed the "gay culture" to where it actually and eventually leads.

For someone to have watched his video (which Anonymous may or may not have done) and to reply with, "Yes, BUT there's good there too!" is astonishing.

It would be like reading Uncle Tom's Cabin and saying, "But not all slaves were unhappy, you know!"

And yet ... this is the way the internet works.  Because the internet merely reflects how Sin Makes You Stupid.

***

My friends, we are to love gays and to recognize that we are all sinners like they are.  But we are all more than our sins.  Our sins do not define us.  Our "sexual orientations", our sinful inclinations, are not who we are.  I am more than an "adulterer in my heart", more than a coward, more than an egomaniac, more than a man who has been at times very well acquainted with pornography.  I am proud of none of those "orientations".  They will all lead to misery on this earth and perhaps to a kind of hell both now and later.  They are all sins or inclinations to sin, and they are all leading me to slavery.  Yes, not all slaves are unhappy all the time, and good can be found anywhere.

But if we don't call a spade a spade, or a sin a sin, we're doomed.  I have not lived through the hell that Joseph Sciambra has, but I have lived through other hells - and they were hells I built for myself through sin, and they led me to the kind of suicidal despair that Sciambra felt.  I too know whereof I speak.  And I can say with the authority of a dead man (for that stuff killed me), that to see sins for anything other than what they are  is to invite disaster.

Let us have the courage to be men.  And women.  Let us stare the devil in the face and call that liar out for who he is.  If we can't do that, we can never begin to love God or to love our neighbors.  We can never begin to get real.

***

ADDENDUM - When Anonymous argues that gay sex no more leads to the hell that Sciambra describes than "straight sex" leads to strip clubs and swinging, he's being an Inconsequentialist.  He's simply refusing to see the inherent consequences of an act that's ordered toward a greater good and compare them with the inherent consequences of an act that's not.  One of the reasons the Church teaches that certain things are intrinsically evil or disordered by their nature is that they have built in hellish consequences, while acts that are not intrinsically evil or disordered do not have built in hellish consequences, unless these good acts are indulged in to a point that changes their nature (as when mere sexual desire, which leads to love, marriage and the family becomes lust, which leads to objectification, abuse, and hell on earth - such as the strip club culture) or are sought in circumstances that are forbidden or perverse (i.e., per-verse, turned-away from proper order - such as swinging).  But can one even make a distinction like this with someone who is not arguing in good faith?  Honestly, if Anonymous watched Sciambra's movie and can only reply, "It's not that bad", and proceed to lecture me for being "Unreal" in the face of the reality that Sciambra endured (as well as in the face of the reality of God's grace that rescued Sciambra), then Anonymous is not interested in clear thinking on the nature of actions and their built-in consequences.  It's like listening to a beautiful symphony and complaining about the scuff marks on the trombonist's shoes.  You can't understand basic moral theology if you've lost all perspective.

But, as I say, sin makes you stupid.  And rationalizing sin makes you really stupid.

***

ADDENDUM 2 - In addition to the comments below (which are worth reading - for a change!), I try to articulate my argument more clearly here.


21 comments:

Kevin Tierney said...

The problem pointed out with Tushnet I would actually expand to not just all the active bloggers at Patheos, but probably to the commentariat as a whole. They live in their own little enclaves that really are divorced from reality, and how things function.

I'm reminded of an old discussion that still serves fruit between one of Patheos' biggest attractions and someone who, while not a traditionalist, understood their plight. The columnist kept saying "you can attend a reverent Novus Ordo like I do!" to which the individual responded "if the average parish experience was like yours at X parish, there would be no liturgical war. What about those who don't have that option?" It never occured to this blogger that many didn't have that option, and many couldn't get to that option conveniently because of family size.

Yes, there is a small group of those with homosexual inclinations who live out lives chastely, and we should hope their numbers increase. but we also shouldn't ignore the glaring reality about the situation today: that such inclinations are not morally neutral.

IMHO said...

First I want to say your last two paragraphs are great.
Thank you for your courage..truly.
My thoughts: Misunderstanding.Using same words..different connotation.
Porn does not contain good elements...
but after it exists as a symptom of the rot already happening within..we can bring good out of it.
It is not in itself at all good..
rather there is good to be derived by contrast in the porn situation only bc it reveals to us a truth-not The Truth..but its a shadow that defines the Light.
In a homosexual relationship there is the same goods you would find in any other couple's relationship-but this good is irrelevant of the context of their being the same sex.
The *act* of sex in same sex liasons is disordered. The charity found in their relationship that is same as heterosexual relationship is a good.
So technically, I would say that there is good in their relationship indeed-but it is irrelevant to their disordered acts.

The expression of porn shows us visually and concretely how depraved the human heart has become-collectively and individually.
There is no good in porn itself.Or in homosexual act itself.
There is good in the porn star and in the homosexual.
There is good to be found in homosexual *relationships.*
There is zero good in using or making pornography.The desire to marital act is good however.

Just as the happy fault earned us so great a Redeemer, in this fallen world,because evil certainly exists, I am glad when someone calls out the evil in a song..book..etc.because the untruth illustrated can only further define the real truth for us.God can *bring* good out of anything.However that doesnt mean we "put Him to the test."
Remember Pope Benedict said about condoms that, while it is not an objective good, it would be an act of virtue for one to use condom to protect from any potential harm one's sexual partner (because on the subjective level it would be virtuous and less evil than not protecting the partner from, say,HIV.)

Your words about Tushnet:
"Therefore to “accept” homosexuality is to accept a moral evil. "
-She doesnt accept that it is good...
she accepts that it is real.That it simply...IS.
To not "accept" this of herself would be to deny that she is inclined to same sex attraction.What good is it to deny it? Thats counterproductive.
You can accept that something IS without "accepting" that it is good.
Obviously she doesnt believe her SSA is an ideal thing or she wouldnt be writing a book about it.

It seems there is just a misinterpretation of the connotation of the word "accept."

Anonymous said...

See this is exactly what I'm talking about. At no point did I even attempt to justify gay sex. At no point did I even suggest the "good of gay sex". All I did was to point out that there is value in certain gay relationships.
For example, just the other day I was reading about a gay couple who converted to Catholicism - both became traditionalists and both continued to live together, only as celibate.
And there can be found many other examples - for instance, Damian Thompson of the Telegraph is a gay man who is faithful to the Church, and has been in a relationship. Same with Perry Lorenzo, who Mark Shea considered a saint (http://tinyurl.com/7hjxsv8) - faithful Catholic in a celibate relationship with another man.
Now according to you because I see something good in these relationships and others like them this is exactly the same as if I try to see something good in pornography.
If your reaction to this type of observation is to throw a hissy fit, accuse me of both arguing something I never implied and insist the only reason I say these things is because I'm a spectacularly stupid man mired in sin then, yeah, I'm going to accuse you of living in unreality.
See, I can affirm the harmfulness of gay sex. I can affirm it's sinfulness. I can affirm the Church's teaching on the subject with no qualms whatsover.
I can also affirm the blatantly obvious fact of the good in these relationships - but you can't. You have to turn your eyes away, insist it's all lies and accuse me of being blinded by sin.
And you know I agree with 90% of what you write here. I'm not a Westian, not a "lying is fine" Catholic, not a leftie or a rightie. I just think on this subject you are wrong.

- Harry (remember before you thanked me pointing out you reacted too harshly to something from Brandon Vogt? Same guy.)

Kevin O'Brien said...

Harry and IMHO, we are in complete agreement that there can be good in homosexual relationships.

I have never denied that there is good in homosexual relationships. If I have, Harry, copy and paste that denial in the combox and I'll admit to saying it, repent and don sackcloth. But you won't find such an example, as I have never said such a foolish thing, nor would I even imply it.

Please address the points I'm actually making, namely ...

1. This inclination leads to what Sciambra experienced. This orientation (i.e. temptation) does not lead to good, or lead to good in a way that helps anybody. Good can come from anything and be found in anything, but please address the point even Sciambria makes - the world this disorder leads to is a kind of hell, and any good you find there is found in spite of this inclination and not because of it.

2. Watch the movie. If you still think that the movie and my posting of it is a scandal to the Catholic world, and if you push "gays can be good to one another!" (which obviously they can) even after watching this movie, then you are like the man who reads "Uncle Tom's Cabin" and says, "But some slaves were happy!" I stick by that analogy.

3. Why aren't you defending the good in pornography? There is a good in homosexual relationships and there is a good in pornography in as much as it provides an apparently safe kind of joy and release for those who use it. Why do you insist on the good in gays but you don't insist on the good in porn? Honestly. If we're going to admit the one, why would we shy away from admitting the other?

4. Your argument that gay sex no more leads to Sciambra's experience than straight sex leads to strip clubs and swinging I address in my addendum. Please respond to it, hissy fit aside.

5. Even if same sex attraction "just is" as you and IHMO assert, then in what way does it differ from any other temptation, which "just is"? Why is it an "orientation"? Why must one "accept" it? Why do we have to insist that gays are people too, when it's obvious they are?

Quit slinging mud at me, Harry old chap, and reply to the argument itself.

Thanks for reading the blog, both of you, and for caring so much. This discussion very much needs to be had, and perhaps we can all keep our heads and have it.

Chris said...

A flaw with the argument of anonymous and others can be seen in resorting to singular examples versus arguing on principal, i.e., because some given person labels themselves or is labeled by another as a model/faithful Catholic while in a celibate same sex "relationship" then that amounts to proof of something. When one cannot argue by principal then the argument is non-existent or very weak at the least. On principle we know that homosexual attractions are not aimed at their proper object, the opposite sex. Something which is contrary to its object cannot have intrinsic value.

It cannot be repeated enough that same sex attractions are not neutral and are not on equal footing with normal attractions- as long as the people are continent- as though one set of attractions are simply replaceable with another. Applying that faulty logic to something like pedophilic or bestial attractions easily exposes that argument. And let us also note that even if celibate someone is still acting on their attractions if they are in some form of a “relationship”, for this entails at least an implicit approval that these attractions are okay and are being fostered to some extent. How can someone say they are in a relationship but are not fostering their attractions, simply because they don’t engage in physical acts?

If there is value in such "relationships" it will really be that of friendship, but not some form of romantic relation. Persons with same sex attractions are simply not called to give of themselves in a romantic fashion, even if celibate, and arguably cannot do so, for such self-giving is by definition found through the complementarity of male-female self-donation. And this is really the oxymoron of speaking of a same-sex “relationship,” “partnership”or whatever you want to call it, even if non-physical.

Anonymous said...

Richard says...

If some can point out personal, anecdotal evidence that supports their case, I can point to the overwhelming data that doesn't. Public policy decisions, for example, can never be made on the singularity of one's personal experience, but on what the experience is for the whole. From a moral standpoint, homosexual relationships are disordered, and therefore, untenable. From a scientific one, they are medically dangerous. From a legal standpoint, the domestic violence, drug abuse, and suicide rates are through the roof (by the way, those suicide rates have not declined in the Netherlands, the most gay-friendly EU state).

Keep in mind, Kevin, that you are mostly arguing with straights who have some sort of guilt complex and have qualified themselves as "defenders of all things homosexual." They want you to focus on the fact that exteriorly, homosexuals keep their front lawns trimmed so they can keep smearing lipstick on a pig.


Kevin O'Brien said...

Harry, I completely agree with Chris and Richard above. Note that neither one is claiming that there is no good in homosexual relationships or that homosexuals cannot love the people they're with.

But there seems to be a movement afoot that's analogous to the Westian movement. I would call it a kind of "grooming" or "slippery slope" - but "grooming" is really what it is. If your homosexual neighbors keep their lawn nice, how bad can they be? And if they are good people (and of course most of them are), then how bad can same sex attraction be? And if same sex attraction is not bad in itself, then how bad can acting on it be?

Harry, I know you're rejecting the conclusion that homosexual acts are good. I know you explicitly deny that they are. But what's implied in everything you say leads to the inevitable logical conclusion that they are, or at least leads to the inevitable practical conclusion that they can be indulged in. You may not ever accept the licitness of sodomy, for example, but the argument you're making grooms the next generation to accept it - and the next generation already has.

This is why the mid-term "Relatio" was so abhorrent. The gifts that "gays" bring to the Church are not gifts that come from their disorder - except in so far as their disorder is a cross that they struggle to bear.

As Chris points out, if I were a pedophile and said to you, "I am strongly attracted to five-year-old girls. I don't act on that attraction, but I value that attraction and I want you to affirm it, as it brings me many gifts, and it's my orientation and I expect you and others to be as proud of it as I am," you'd punch me in the nose. Or at least you should.

But we're all being groomed - by ad agencies, politicians, perverts and scam artists. We're all being groomed and we don't seem to have the backbone to resist.

Anonymous said...

Part 1
Alright, here we go. Point by point.

1) This inclination leads to what Sciambra experienced...

Do you mean EXACTLY what he experience? Sciambra was into the occult and acting in porn (in his book he goes so far as to say that he had intercourse with demons and gave birth to a demon) - his experience was very, very atypical to say the least.
The average gay person will not have had this experience, and I doubt most ever will.
How does it help my witness if I assume that gay culture, to any gay person I happen to meet, will mean Sciambra's experience? Even without the occult stuff - he was in San Francisco - that's pretty much the capitol of gay culture. I live in South Wales - that type of environment doesn't really exist here apart from one day a year in certain pubs in Cardiff.
And when his book came out (haven't read it) I read some gay Catholics response to his story, which was as above - "this is foreign to me. I never experienced this." And that was before they became Catholic - what do I say to them? 'You're lying/you weren't really gay?' What?

2. Watch the movie...

I just watched the movie. It was very shocking and moving. I mean that.
I am also very aware of the thousand and one biographical films, books and blogs out there telling the stories of gay individuals who, despite embracing the gay subculuture, did not end up like Sciambra, have no interest in the sort of life he led and never came close to that kind of life. What do we say to them?

3. Why aren't you defending the good in pornography?

Do you think that the type of relationship that Perry Lorenzo enjoyed was indistinguishable from the use of pornography?

4. Your argument that gay sex no more leads to Sciambra's experience than straight sex leads to strip clubs and swinging...

Are you saying that if your average gay person decides to embrace his orientation and enter into gay life, he or she will inevitably enter into a life of occult-tinged, pornographic awfulness? What about gay couples who get married? What about those couples who stick together? What about those who just sort of quietly get on with their lives?
I don't have any illusions about every gay couple being completely happy, monogomous and respectable. I think it's laughable how the pro-gay marriage lobby tries to make it appear that gay marriage has overwhelming interest among the gay culture.
But fairly content, well-adjusted gay couples and gay people exist in abundance. I can't ignore them, and I don't think it's realistic to talk to them with the assumption that one day they will definitely end up in Sciambra's position.
To be a Catholic means they will have to make some very difficult sacrifices. Asking them to do this will be made more difficult if we assume that they are all secretly yearning for escape. They aren't.

- Harry

Anonymous said...

Part 2

5. Even if same sex attraction "just is"...

I'm not really decided on this myself. I'm not really bothered if people like Gabriel Blanchard, Eve Tushnet or Melinda Selmys refer to themselves as queer or gay. They argue this helps with evangelisation and with their walk in Christ. I see no reason to doubt them. They're celibate, they're faithful - in the case of Blanchard and Tushnet they have made pretty enormous sacrifices (lifelong celibacy without the possibility of entering religious life is not an easy burden to bear)and so I'm just going to let them get on with it.

Quit slinging mud at me, Harry old chap, and reply to the argument itself.

And I'm sorry, but this really won't do. Perhaps I'm being too thin-skinned here, but I made very sure not to insult you in my reply. I have not insulted you here ('hissy-fit' aside).
You, on the other hand accused me of arguing in bad faith and being so blinded by my own sin ('Sin makes you really stupid') I can't see the obvious rightness of your position.
THAT is slinging mud and worse and quite frankly I think you should apologize.

This discussion very much needs to be had, and perhaps we can all keep our heads and have it.

Let's hope so. I'm really not looking to get into a rancorous debate over this. I love your blog, I agree with most of what you say on most subjects and I would like it very much if we don't finish this exchange as enemies.

And to give you an idea of where I'm coming from, here's Melinda Selmys' reaction to Sciambra -
http://tinyurl.com/nfx8zce

Here's Ron Belgau's -
http://tinyurl.com/oude96q

- Harry

Kevin O'Brien said...

Thanks, Harry, for your kind and attentive response, which was thoughtful and well stated.

I have not read the links you posted to other reactions to Sciambra.

I think you may have a point that using an extreme example is not the best way to evangelize. However, as extreme as Sciambra's case is, it's my contention that the seeds are sown for this in the very nature of the act. The disorder has the potential to lead to this. Gay men are much more promiscuous than straight me, for example. I have written before on this blog of a high school friend I had who confessed to me that he was gay and admitted to having dozens of encounters every weekend in the men's room of the truck stop where he worked, from the age of 16 or so on. Most high school guys I knew then had maybe one or two sexual encounters by the time we graduated; my gay friend had had hundreds.

In addition, I've got plenty of anecdotal life experience to draw on, especially as I've been in show business all of my life. Every gay actor I ever hired or worked with was extremely promiscuous, prone to depression and sometimes quite willing to act selfishly and leave his other actors in a lurch if the mood struck him.

Of course the crux here is my contention that the disorder itself (the temptation - the sexual attraction to your same sex) has the seeds to lead to what Sciambra experienced. In fact, his life is the natural conclusion to where that's headed. In the same way that all unrepented sin leads to slavery and to death and ultimately to hell, so this temptation to sin is a temptation to exactly that.

Harry, I've mentioned before that my sin of choice would be adultery, if I ever decided to give in to the temptation. I've known a lot of adulterers. Are some able to cheat and be happy? Are some able to leave their wives and find contentment with the other woman? Are they all troubled by their consciences? Of course, you can find happy, well adjusted adulterers, but at least here in the States adultery goes hand in hand with a wake of misery - both for the children, the spouse, and even for the adulterer. There's a pattern you see in guys who cheat. You can spot what the decision to cheat will ultimately do to them and their families, even if a few specific cases don't fall quite as far.

My biggest point here is while we must love gays and not harass them, while they must have equal rights and have our respect for being fellow humans made in the image and likeness of God, while we must always acknowledge that this particular cross to bear is something those of us not bearing it have no business judging or being smug about - that while all of these things are true, the attraction itself will lead to pain and suffering. That's why it's a sin.

Look at the attraction to porn. It's a temptation every man alive experiences. But Sciambra is quite right - the use of porn leads to addiction, and to tolerance, to the need for more and more degraded images, and often to acting out with others on the lust that pornography stokes.

Does this mean that every man who uses porn becomes a perverted porn addict, whose ability to relate to women becomes compromised? Of course not. In fact, most don't experience anything that extreme.

But we know that this is where porn leads. We know that playing with it is like playing with a loaded gun. That's why neither you nor any sane person would emphasize the good that's in pornography - though the Christopher West crew tends to do just that. We know that, even though the use of porn won't necessarily destroy your life (or send you to hell), it has the potential to, and in fact that's where it's made to lead you to.

Anyway, I'm at intermission for a show I'm doing. So I'm going to go.

Thank you for your input, which was intelligent and charitable. We are hardly enemies. In fact, I will arrive on your doorstep in Wales unannounced the next time I'm in the UK and mooch off you until you throw me out.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for your very polite reply Kevin. I think for now we must agree to disagree.
But I admit that, as polite and as gentle as we might wish to be about it, we still at some point have to point out to gay people that the sexual act itself is inherently wrong, and that wholeheartedly embracing it as the core of one's identity will lead to evil consequences.
I would still encourage you to read those blog posts I put up - just to make clear that there are 'gay' Catholics who, although taking a very different approach than Sciambra's, are just as faithful and devout.
Please do come to Wales. Tell your friends! We desperately need some of that sweet, sweet tourism money.

- Harry


Rosemary Woodhouse said...

I know it is scary that people will see their gay neighbors keeping a nice house, doing good things in the community, perhaps having a family, being good friends, etc. as they will make the link to "so what is so disordered with them?" Its not "grooming," its called seeing reality.

I have no problem if someone wants to say, "Look homosexuality is a sin as it is an unatural sexual act that does not lead to procreation," which is the long and the short of it. But when the far religious right looks long and hard to find someone that fits their narrative, it is always someone like this "porn star," (okay, an old man paid you 20 bucks to film you doing something to him does not a porn star make) escort former demon concubine, father of baby demon (and just who is taking care of said baby demon, will anyone think of the children...wait, there is Jerry Springer "Who my baby daddy," special..."Yes, Pazuzu, the lie detector says "You are the baby daddy!" ) you loose just about everybody but the people who are already ready believe this campy, illogical story the guy comes up with.

Leave it at Church teaching and let people make up their own minds.

Scott W. said...

Did people watch the movie? He doesn't start talking about his involvement in the porn industry later, and the stuff preceding it is horrifying enough as predatory middle-aged men slithered up to this kid and destroyed what little innocence he had left. The whole, "Well gee, not every homosexual goes into gay porn" is as sensible as, "Well, not everyone who walks through a lion's den wearing a necklace of raw pork chops is completely devoured. Sometimes it's just a brutal mauling."

Rosemary Woodhouse..sipping tea with my odd neighbors said...

Well, that is also the same as saying "straight," is bad..because so many perve men ruin young girls lives by luring them into the industry..etc. I realize that "not all," straight people do this but....That sword cuts both ways.

So you can't use that argument when its convenient. Yes it happens to people gay and straight, it is the sin of the people who do that, not due to their sexuality. And the guys a nut so of course no one listens to what he has to say.

Scott W. said...

Well, the advice was "Leave it at Church teaching"

Fair enough: --Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."

Kevin O'Brien said...

What Rosemary and Henry don't want to see is what anything is designed for and what it's perfection is. No matter how many times we point this out (as I do in my latest post - http://www.thwordinc.blogspot.com/2014/11/potential-perfection-and-heresy-of.html - we'll be the far right and crazy. (By the way, half the people who complain about me complain that I'm too right wing, the other half complain that I'm too left wing).

There is a philosophical insight here that the Good Gay Great Catholic Hooray crowd refuses to see - what is the perfection of any act? That's all over Scripture, especially St. Paul, but they will always throw up anecedotal evidence that leads to the approval of the act in question.

Again, if homosexual acts do not lead to an overall depravity, then what the hell is wrong with them? That they are against Church teaching and that they don't lead to procreation? Who cares about either of those things?

In other words, if heroin's only flaw was that it made you tired after getting high, then who cares that it's illegal or that the Church condemns its us? On the other hand, if heroin leads to the hell of addiction - as it does (though NOT IN EVERY SINGLE CASE, AH HA!), then that's what people should understand about it. The perfection of using heroin is being homeless on the street - there's where the act trends.

The perfection of sodomy is not a nice house and a manicured lawn. That's not where it ends.

Rosemary Woodhouse, angry that someone else is taking her schtick said...

Kevin,

While I don't agree with Church teaching and feel that there are many reasons that the Church has not evolved on that issue, it would be ridiculous to come here to argue that. In the scheme of what the Church teaches it does make a certain sense...(if you want to ignore everything else like the evolution of the study of sexuality, etc..) that sex is restricted to marriage and should be open for procreation. But that is not slam bang or cartoony, so people need to hear stories from nuts like this who fir their narrative,(and also give them a vicarious thrill) no matter how crazy that story or person is. They are doing more damage to your message then a cadre of "homosexual activist," will ever do. That was my point.

Kevin O'Brien said...

Sciambra tells the story of his life and Rosemary says he's a nut who is pandering to what we right wing wackos want to hear. How dare he speak the truth!

Anonymous said...

Richard says...

Rosemary, it astounds me, as someone who is not "right wing" to hear progressives dismiss whistleblowers as "nuts" simply because they are not "our kind" of whistleblowers.

Why is that one can narrate the excesses of greed to include over-the-top stories of double shift brokers spending their lavish earnings on hooker and cocaine binges or even resort to making money by manipulating California's energy grid and we don't call those "stories from nuts like this who fit their narrative"? Why, even if these are excessive examples, do we understand that mammon corrupts, and does so in a variety of ways?

Open your eyes. The social construct isn't male-female, it's MSM and FSF, a social construct for the 21st century. Tell me, what is crazier, the idea that men and women complement one another, or the so-called sexual evolution you speak of which attempts to recast reality to include relationships which themselves are modeled after the male-female patterns of relationships?

It seems obvious. Or so it should. But we don't like the kind of whistleblowers that shoot down our narrative. We pigeon-hole them as supporting one position or the other. All of us love whistleblowers, so long as they do not destroy the narrative of whatever political ideology we seem to hold. So let's ignore the commodifying wrought by surrogacy, let's label children of divorce or same-sex households as well-adjusted or bratty if they are not.

At the end of the day, the popes were right. The Church is right. And both left and right are stuck with elephants in the room they avoid looking at all costs.

Cart Anggle said...

Great article!! I really did know these things about gay actors which you have described. No doubt I have heard a lot about them but this information is very interesting. Really enjoyed reading your article.

Blogger said...

I have just installed iStripper, and now I can watch the sexiest virtual strippers on my taskbar.