I haven’t really followed the whole “new homophile” thing very carefully

but somehow I seem to have been drafted along with Lizzie Scalia into some kind of role in it.  Don’t know what that means, but since it’s Terry Nelson, I’ll take it as a compliment since I think the world of that guy.

I think it’s… weird to be seen as “homophilic” for thinking that homosexuals should be treated as we treat anybody else with a disordered appetite (which is to say, everybody else).  The vast majority of the human race struggle with disordered heterosexual appetites.  Such a disordered appetite is not  “gift” but neither is it the end of the world either.  A healthy Catholic says, “Yep I struggle with lust or porn or whatever” says he’s sorry when he caves to temptation, asks for grace, and moves on.  If a gay person does the same, they should be commended for repenting and trying to live in accord with the teaching of Christ.  If they live in accord with Christ’s teaching in an exemplary way (as I think Perry Lorenzo did) they should be encouraged.  And if they live their faith to the end and die in the grace and love of God they should no more be condemned for the temptation they resisted than St. Peter should be condemned for his failures.  I think it insane and unjust that homosexuals alone should be singled out for condemnation on the basis of what tempts them while everybody else gets cheers and accolades for overcoming their temptations.

That’s why I don’t get the “homophile” thing.  If I said that same sex attraction was a “gift” it might make sense.  But I think SSA, like gluttony, or a hot temper, or a tendency to envy, or a greedy personality, or various other manifestations of concupiscence are not “gifts” but relics of original sin.  Why?  Because that’s what the Church says.  Concupiscence is the weakened will, darkened intellect, and disordered appetites resulting from original sin.  You might as well call fetal alcohol syndrome, cystic fibrosis, or sickle cell anemia “gifts”.  They are not.  They are various manifestations of damage done to our psychophysical nature as the fall of man echoes down the corridors of history.  God can certainly *use* such afflictions to soul and body to join us to the sufferings of Jesus Christ and he does that everyday.  But they are no more “gifts” to our human nature than the hole is part of the donut.

That said, the other side of the coin is that concupiscence is not, in itself, sin but only the “tinder for sin” according to the Church.  And concupiscence resisted is, in fact, proof of virtue and the battlefield upon which the Christian life is fought.  So a person who resists temptation is right to be honored and encouraged, not told “So what if you did the right thing?  You were tempted and so you should burn with shame!”  This is why I think it’s a mistake to call me “homophilic”. I am virtuephilic.  I think any Catholic struggling with a temptation, who does the right thing, should be honored and encouraged, not torn down for having the temptation–homosexuals amongst all the rest.  And I’m not shy about saying so when a gay person lives chastely in a way that obviously honored Christ and his teaching–even when people (tellingly) think that this is somehow a peculiarly damning notion.

The Glory of Kings and the Killing of Cats
"Connecting the Dots" is on the Air Today at 5 PM Eastern!
#lovewince: Our Chattering Class and Incest Apologias
A good piece on the Inklings in the Chronicle of Higher Education

CLOSE | X

HIDE | X