Gay In Christ Conference Sounds Promising

Gay In Christ Conference Sounds Promising October 28, 2014

A reader writes:

I’m writing from the University of Notre Dame with what I believe to be welcome news in the current confusion surrounding the Church and homosexuals. Our Institute for Church Life will be hosting a conference “to explore appropriate pastoral strategies for Catholic parishioners who regard themselves as non-heterosexual, but who accept Catholic Church teaching on marriage and sexuality.” The conference is this weekend.

Among the speakers will be Eve Tushnet and Melinda Selmys, whose blogs I found through yours and whom I greatly respect, and Sr. Anne Astell, a beautiful and faith-filled nun who is frequently seen wearing her habit at Sunday Mass here at the University. Not to mention John Cavadini, who was knighted by the Vatican not long ago, making him one of the few people in the world allowed to ride a horse in St. Peter’s Square! All of which is to say that, based on my knowledge of the folks involved, this conference appears to be shaping up to be in line with Church teaching and not some form of covert dissent.

If you think it sounds worthwhile, could you put a plug on your blog for this event?

Consider it plugged. I’m not gay, but I’d go just to hear Eve and Melinda, who are both smart and faithful Catholics I respect a great deal.

"It is great website, thanks for pointing it out."

Ignatius: A Brief Introduction to the ..."
"Ok, I misunderstood you. I apologise. You said that Catholics did not worship a God ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."
"The references may be clear to you. My point, obvious, is that English-speaking readers are ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."
"You said: “Perhaps the references to “Gehenna” in the Gospels refer to annihilation...”I responded that ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • I’m sad to say I’ve lost respect for the entire community. I had it at one time. But the utter “we’re here , we’re queer, get used to it” vibe of constantly pushing other people has turned me off so much that I hold little hope at all for the acceptance of heterosexual pro-life families in the next 20 years.

    • Joseph

      It sounds good but I find it hard not to question their motives. A day ago they were chanting ‘we’re here, we’re queer, get used to it’ and now it’s ‘we’re non-heterosexual and we want to live according to Church teachings. Radical conversions are possible, but it’s hard to believe such a politically active group can experience one genuinely and so quickly. The cynic in me is thinking that they are looking to mount an offensive by degrees now that they perceive a potential *change* in Church teaching after all of the media reporting of the Synod on the Family. The gay political action groups have carried out their movements spectacularly well, so I wouldn’t put it past them to try and manipulate people even further.
      ON THE OTHER HAND, there appears to be nothing wrong with this at all and it actually sounds quite hopeful. As long as this is not some trick, I’m all for it. I hope it is what they say it is.

      • If it was what they say it is, it would have been more Catholic, perhaps “Living out Vocations in Christ” instead of “Gay in Christ”.

        The fact that Notre Dame is where they choose to host this does not surprise me, that school is as anti-Catholic as the democratic party.

        • Joseph

          I’m willing to wait and see how it pans out before I make a judgment. Yes, it’s Notre Dame, but there are many faithful Catholics as well as *librul* Catholics there. Yes, they chose to use the term “Gay” in their name. This could be good or bad as the term “gay” is actually the name given to the subculture. The last thing the “gay” subculture (and I’m speaking of the anti-everything without “gay” tendencies and/or anti-everything that doesn’t celebrate anal sex between men and oral sex between women) wants is to be “in Christ”, they want to destroy Christ. So, there is a possibility that they are using the term to

          *change* it… flip it on it’s head… which would be a pretty cool tactic.

          • Struble

            “For it is shameful even to mention what is done by them in secret.” Ephesians 5:12

            • chezami


              Sheesh! What is the matter with some people?

              • Chad

                It’s amazing there are people faithful to the church’s teaching in this area at all, given how apparently eager some of its members are to scrutinize their every word and action.

                • Joseph

                  Well, for me personally, I’m not scrutinizing anyone’s word/action who is faithful to Church teaching. I’m wary that this could be hijacked by a very militant political action group which is quite forceful about validating exercises that are in opposition to Church teaching. I’ve stated many times that, if this is indeed not a Trojan horse, this is a great thing and that using the term *gay* may actually be a creative way to flip the title of that subculture on its head. You probably weren’t responding to what I said, but I’m so shocked that people could not glean that from my previous comments.

              • Struble

                My reply to Joseph was specific to HIS description of sex acts associated with the gay lifestyle. It’s commensurate with our dignity as Christians to use veiled references, rather than graphic descriptions of sodomy.

            • Joseph

              For the political action groups, those acts are not exactly kept secret. Have you ever been to a *pride* parade? I have.

          • Sus_1

            Do you look at heterosexuals and automatically think about the sex they might or might not be having? If so, then you aren’t hypocritical but might be obsessed with sex. If not, why do you do that with gay people?

            • Joseph

              When people are described as heterosexual or homosexual, the way in which they have sex or who or what they are sexually attracted to does come to mind, yes… That doesn’t mean I’m obsessed with it, that’s the nature of the words. You’re picking a fight with the wrong guy. I don’t have anything *against* gay people. Perhaps you should read what I’ve written before making such silly comments and asking such elementary rhetorical questions.

        • Mariana Baca

          Why must every ministry be inclusive of everyone? We can’t have conferences just for women religious? just for priests? just for married people or engaged people? Single people? Women? Men? Why not gay people? they have limited options for vocations available for them, and might want a talk tailored for them that would not be the same as one generically for single people.

          It is the well established catechetical principle of *inculturation* — tailoring Christ’s message for individual cultures and peoples without changing the gospel message.

          • Joseph

            It’s the term “gay” which signifies a subculture that is aggressive towards Church teaching that I think may be rubbing Ted the wrong way (not that I’m defending his other hysterics). If this is a legitimate ministry, then it just may work to use the “gay” moniker against the militants who use it to define their subculture. In that way it would be good. If not, then there is cause for concern (more with regard for confusion of the flock as we know the Church teachings aren’t going to change).

      • petey

        “A day ago they were chanting ‘we’re here, we’re queer, get used to it’
        and now it’s ‘we’re non-heterosexual and we want to live according to
        Church teachings. ”

        are you sure these are exactly the same groups of people?

        • Joseph

          No, I’m not… which is why I’ve stated that I’m willing to wait before I judge. If I lumped them all into one basket, waiting wouldn’t be necessary.

      • wlinden

        You are telling us that this is the same “they”? That a Venn diagram would show a single circle?
        When pronouns without antecedents are being tossed around, that is a warning sign.

        • Joseph

          In case you haven’t noticed, there is a large militant political action group that claims allegiance to the “gay” subculture. That’s the “they” I’m referring to… I thought that was rather obvious.

        • Joseph

          It appears I made a mistake responding to Ted cordially, as everyone seems to think I’m in total agreement with him.

    • chezami

      So you would punish even homosexuals who live by the Church’s teaching? Smart.

      • I don’t see how promoting homosexuality is living by the Church’s teaching. If they wanted a conference on celibate vocations, without reference to the promotion of “Gay” over Christ, then they could certainly do so.

        • Andy

          From the link “The conference is not intended to cover all issues related to identifying as gay and Catholic, but is directed, ultimately, at forming a pastoral strategy for parishes to be able to receive the gifts of self-identified gay Catholics who also adhere to the teaching of the Church on marriage and related issues.” I see nothing that says they are pushing what you call “Gay over Christ”. It strikes me that this conference is about how to live with the teaching of the church, be yourself and share your gifts. And the problem with that is?

          • The title itself is a scandal, and is exclusionary to everybody else in the Catholic Church. The whole idea of a self-identified gay Catholic after the damage done by the culture war that THEY started, is abhorrent in the extreme, just as the concept of a “bad Catholic”, a “Democrat Catholic”, or a “Republican Catholic” is.

            Our baptismal rite includes a promise to reject Satan, all of his works, and all of his empty promises. The modernist concept of gender is certainly one of those Satanic empty promises.

            • chezami

              Don’t be ridiculous. If you want to make it clear that no matter how faithful they are to the Church’s teaching, gay people will forever be rejected by Catholic, you are doing a bang-up job. Stop it.

              • Would you accept a “Freemason in Christ” conference? How about a “KKK in Christ” conference? “We follow church teaching, we just like to lynch black people”.

                Because that is precisely what this sounds like to me. A bigoted, exclusionary group (Gay people) trying to prove how “faithful” they are to Church teaching while still being bigoted and exclusionary. The problem isn’t even really the same sex attraction, it isn’t the temptation. It is the bigotry against heterosexuality that goes along with the label of “gay”.

                • Andy

                  self-deleted – I lost my temper and said something that I am truly sorry for.

                  • Sus_1

                    I’m just as sorry. My mind just goes places it shouldn’t go when I read most of Ted’s comments.

                    • Andy

                      Thank you.

                • chezami

                  Stop saying stupid crap. Gay in Christ *obviously* mean “same-sex oriented, but obedient to Christ”. You want to punish people for their temptations, not their actions. God help you if God measures that out to you, pal.

                  • “Gay in Christ *obviously* mean “same-sex oriented, but obedient to Christ”

                    So “KKK in Christ” obviously means what exactly? Have you ever heard the hymn “The Burning Cross”?

                    • Mariana Baca

                      racism is a sin (even if you don’t lynch people), being homosexual is not. Can’t believe this needs to be said in the 21st century.

                    • And I can’t believe it is being said in the 21st century, after all the destruction caused by the sexual revolution of the 20th. NOTHING good came out of the sexual revolution. Acceptance has destroyed the human family, and people like me are now outcasts. Well done.

                    • Mariana Baca

                      Get a sense of perspective. Married heterosexuals with children (or those who desire that) are not outcasts. Straight people are not outcasts.

                      Are there vast new challenges in evangelization due to the negative effects of the sexual revolution? Of course! Both for straight and gay people. We don’t meet those challenges by burying our heads in the sand and insisting it should not have happened, but by facing those challenges head on — whether it is the issue of contraception, divorce, or homosexuality. Here is an initiative started by people *faithful* to the church about how to address the issue of gay culture and instead of saying: “oh here are people offering alternatives to the sexual revolution!” you criticise the only people doing something useful.

                    • chezami

                      People who support the murder of homosexuals do tend to find themselves outcast, true. You say that like it’s a *bad* thing. The solution, of course, is to stop saying idiotic things and listen to the Church.

                    • chezami

                      I have no idea what KKK in Christ means since it’s a bullshit idea you made up in order to justify your hysterical rejection of people who are obeying the Church. Stop making up bullshit idea and then expecting other people to define them for you.

                    • PalaceGuard

                      I take the name “Gay in Christ” to be a way of standing up to the current culture which cannot wrap its collective head around the concept that someone might have a temptation to sexual sin which they choose not to act upon. It’s a brave banner in the wind, not a “No Straights Allowed” sign. “We’re here! We’re sincere! Get used to it!”

                    • Joseph

                      If the ministry is legit, then this would be the hopeful outcome.

                • Cas

                  With all due respect, it seems like you’re conflating the unintended *inclination* (i.e., temptation) towards acting in a sinful manner (homosexual activity) with the active, deliberate *choice* to think and act in a sinful manner (racism). As Mark’s been trying to hammer home, the inclination/temptation towards sin is not itself a sin, and those who would call themselves “gay in Christ” clearly recognize the temptation for what it is and make the conscious choice to reject this type of behavior.

                  • We don’t wait for a person with racist tendencies to act before we denounce their racism and try to convert them.

                    I don’t see anybody who still calls themselves gay, as having recognized the temptation for what it is. If they truly recognized the temptation, why embrace it? Why not reject the label along with the behavior?

                    • chezami

                      So you are saying recognizing one’s form of concupiscence is indulging it? That is pretty good Calvinism, but lousy Catholicism. Who died and made judge of souls?

                    • chezami

                      And yes, we do wait for people with racist tendencies to act on them. Because our tradition says that temptation is not sinful. Learn your Church’s teaching and stop having bigoted hysterics.

                    • wlinden

                      Yes, we do wait for a person with “racist tendencies” to do or say something racist, because we do not have the ability to see into someone’s mind and tell what “tendencies” he harbors.

            • Andy

              How do you know that anyone is faithful or not? When did you gain the ability to judge? How do you they have not rejected Satan? The culture war they started – interesting – wanting to be accepted means it is a culture war. And then you talk about the Church – the catechism is pretty clear – it is acting upon homosexual inclinations that is the sin not being gay or whatever. Please practice what you say you believe.

            • SteveP

              I agree with you Ted: Christ is first and last. I’d chalk up the conference title and blurb to marketing: “gay” and “gifts” seem to be the fad this month. While I’m sure many of the attendees will be disappointed in the good news, I’m also sure there will be some immediate conversions to Christ as well as some gradual conversions. Let’s pray for them all.

              • Well, if it isn’t Christ who has to be first and last in our lives, but the name “Christ” that has to be first and last in our sentences, I’d say you had a point. They’d have to rename it the “Christ Gays in Christ Conference Christ.” But wait a minute, “Christ” appears in your comment after “I agree with you Ted:”- so you put your agreement with Ted ahead of Christ! Blasphemer!

                • SteveP

                  I do so often stumble in keeping the 1rst Commandment I’m ever so grateful for one of the incredible gifts of Christ: the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

                  • Rosemarie


                    I’m reminded of an Evangelical more than two decades ago who castigated me for mentioning Mary’s name before Jesus’ Name in a sentence. I don’t remember exactly what I said, except that it wasn’t inappropriate at all to do so in context.

                    I didn’t think of it at the time, but later I wondered what he thinks about St. Elizabeth’s inspired words to Mary: “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb.” How dare she bless Mary first and Jesus second! She should have mentioned Jesus first! She’s exalting Mary over her Divine Son…

                    …oh, wait; she said that while filled with the Holy Spirit (St Luke 1:41). To quote Emily Litella: Never mind.

          • chezami

            For Catholics like Ted, mere use of the word “gay” is enough to condemn homosexuals, despite the fact that they live according to the Church’s teaching. It’s ridiculous. The reality is, guys like Ted simply want to punish gays for their temptations, not their sins. God help him when the measure he uses is measured to him.

            • It already is, in the promotion of conferences like this.

              • chezami

                Stop having hysterics.

            • Newp Ort

              Theodore is a genuine homophobe. He is afraid of them.

        • chezami

          What promotion of “Gay over Christ”? Stop being ridiculous.

          • Look at the title of the conference.

            • chezami

              So mere use of the word “gay” means they don’t *really* live in fidelity to the Church’s teaching. When did you gain this power to read hearts and minds?

              • I don’t need to read hearts and minds to know what they’re telling me I have to accept.

                • chezami

                  Yes. You have to accept baptized people with same-sex attraction as brothers and sisters in Christ, particularly when, like these people, they are living in conformity with the Church’s teaching. You also have to accept that murdering them is evil.

                  On a side note, you should also accept that you are acting like a bigoted hysteric and repent of that.

                • Newp Ort

                  Gays are not monolithic. This conference is proof of that. All this “they” stuff, it’s allowing you to lump them all together and dismiss them.

                  And stop being such a mopey wimp. It’s not like “they” are going to feed you to a big, gay lion.

                  • ivan_the_mad

                    Is the big, gay lion from Big Gay Al’s Big Gay Animal Sanctuary?

                    • petey

                      he strikes me as too kindly to eat his enemies. he may in fact love his enemies.

                      er …

                    • Newp Ort

                      Oh wow, I had forgotten all about that. A little googlin and…aired sept 3, 1997. When did I get so old?

  • Fr. Denis Lemieux

    Does anyone on this thread (besides our good host, and a few others, I suppose) have ANY IDEA who Melinda Selmys is and what she has written about the subject? Let alone Eve Tushnet? Like seriously, folks – these are not mysterious people living in holes in the ground. They have both written extensively, and their views on the Church’s teachings and how it intersects with homosexual attraction are no great mystery (hint: Melinda is married with six children…). Anyhow, a little less writing and a bit more reading may help some of the deeply concerned Catholics opining here.

    • Stu

      Father, if I may. I don’t think there is any issue with the content. It looks fine and I agree with you on the pedigree of the speakers. I think at issue is the just the name: “Gay in Christ”.

      Now even with our agreement on the content of the program, the name will suggest to many something completely different and they won’t go any farther than that. Is that a good thing? I don’t think so.

      Now if having that opinion makes me tantamount to wanting punish homosexuals, hysterical, a homophobe then I must confess that I’m not sure where that comes from.

      Increasingly, if one critiques even one bit of something related to the Church there is tendency by some to get overly defensive.

      • Mariana Baca

        I understand wanting critical discussion. But there seems little awareness by people arguing for terms like SSA vs. Gay that these are not abstract terms but terms that people take on as identities and statements about them hurt real people. It is not just a taxonomical discussion for many, and thus should be handled more sensitively — and that same discussion does not need to be had each and every time.

        Opinions are not “just opinions” in a vacuum. They affect people. If you are wondering where it comes from, it comes from this: any time anyone mentions doing anything positive to bring and convert gay people, it is always hemmed and hawwed at “but the language might imply things! If we talk too loudly we are bringing too much attention to this!” Seriously? It makes people even making a good faith effort, which might be requiring people to do things that take heroic virtue, to stay hidden and be ashamed *even if they are doing good*.

        Not to mention, they derail the conversation. Is the title of the ministry worth moving the discussion away from the work they do?

        One time having this discussion, ok. But this discussion comes each and every time any issue about gay Christians comes up. Unless people never mention they are gay people won’t stop discussing it. How can work ever be done if we can’t even move past the terminology and allow gay Christians to self-identify?

        • Stu

          Use of the word “gay” to refer to homosexuals is a loaded term. And it is meant to be that way by those who wish to promote homosexuality as something normal. They are very open about this. And we should be aware of this as well. Even the pedophiles in NAMBLA want to call what they do “love”. That is self-identification.

          But even not losing sleep over the use of the term “gay”, the title “Gay in Christ”? Really? We couldn’t come up with something better? Something that wouldn’t take away from what appears to be a solid effort. There are two camps who you want to communication to here. One are those challenged by homosexual tendencies but the other are those who believe that just having those tendencies makes one a pariah. Seems like we should be communicating to both camps.

    • wlinden

      Some of us follow Eve Tushnet on her blog. Also, she is having a book appearance in NY next week.

  • Caroline

    “Not to mention John Cavadini, who was knighted by the Vatican not long ago, making him one of the few people in the world allowed to ride a horse in St. Peter’s Square!”

    Has he ever done it????

    • wlinden

      “Usually Chalico was proud he was a Khevsuri and had the right to take all his men through any gate of Jerusalem with banners flying, only I don’t think he ever done it yet.”

  • Sharon

    If these people are same sex attracted but not giving in to their sexual temptations why should they need special pastoral strategies? Why can’t they just be a parishioner like the rest of us? Just because I am separated, as I am sure many in the parish are, doesn’t mean that we need special pastoral strategies. Of course I don’t go around buttonholing everyone and telling then that I am separated; I don’t identify myself by my sexual orientation. If one is in the state of grace one can present for Holy Communion; if one is not then one can’t present for Holy Communion – it’s that simple. It’s just not necessary to single same sex attracted people out for attention. In my parish two women live together and two men live together – there may be more I only know these people. The women in particular are a wonderful help in the parish. They don’t discuss their sex lives they are just Catholics like the rest of us. There seems to be a cottage industry devising “special pastoral strategies” for same sex attracted people – I don’t think it’s necessary. If these cottage industries are devising ways in which SSA people can give into their sexual temptations and receive Holy Communion then the industries need to be discontinued.

    • silicasandra

      Our parish has a group for people who are separated and divorced. They might not go around telling everyone about it all of the time, but such groups do exist.

      So, for that matter, do groups like AA, NA, or other addiction groups. A group for people who are recovering from some serious sinful inclination, to support each other. They identify themselves *within the group* by the suffering they share, but it’s not like they have a giant sign saying, “This is my suffering, and it’s more important than yours, pay attention to me!” But it definitely can help to know there are people like you who deal with the same problems, especially when they are dealing with them well!

    • sez

      It may be more important to deal with the SSA issues at this time, because the media hypes it so much, and the Church needs to counter the secular view of SSA. Pastors who received their pastoral training more than a few minutes ago may actually thirst for advice on how to handle SSA issues. And the laity, in general, need to understand Church teaching on the subject, because it comes up at the water cooler or over Thanksgiving dinner. The lingo, itself, needs some ‘splainin’, lest we come to erroneous conclusions.

  • Dave G.

    I guess I’m always shocked that Catholics with same sex attraction would feel particularly bad in the Church, or feel the need for special consideration. I mean, I’ve been Catholic for almost 9 years. I’ve visited endless parishes and heard homilies by scores of various individuals. I have yet to hear the subject even mentioned. A couple times marriage was defined as being between man and woman, that’s about it. In RCIA, when the question was asked, the director beat around the bush for a few then ended it with loving and accepting everyone. Whenever I’ve heard people pressed on the topic, that’s usually what they default to. The worst things I hear are usually aimed at those who don’t conform to a fairly wide and undefined set of approaches dealing with the issue. I mean, there are some Catholics I’m sure who are vicious, but no worse than they are to other people. Why would people with SSA feel particularly singled out? Certainly not because of our culture. At this point, the majority of Americans accept homosexual normality and more support gay marriage than don’t. To oppose gay marriage or speak against homosexuals can get you everything from verbally reamed to outright fired and punished.

    That seems to be the question. Are there similar ‘Gluttony in Christ’ conferences for instance? Now there’s a group with a dwindling friendship base in our culture. Why this? And why is it especially needed? I’m just not seeing the gay hate, at least any worse than I see it directed at any one of a list of groups and people.

    • sez

      Everyone knows gluttony is bad. But the culture teaches one thing about SSA, while the Church teaches something quite different. Counter-cultural, as ever. So your gluttony comparison doesn’t really fit.

      The public face of the Church is often forced to speak on this topic, and even ordinary Catholics are sometimes forced to defend the Church’s position. Getting that dialog going in a fruitful way is not easy.

      It seems to me that those with SSA are carrying a heavier cross in this culture than they did even a few years ago. And if ordinary Catholics are clueless, they aren’t helping. And how are pastors to know how best to discuss the topic? The conference is to address pastoral approaches, which sounds to me like “How to discuss this in the confessional” and “How to include this in a homily”, not how to set up a local club.

      • Joseph

        The difference is in the terminology. There is nothing militant or deliberately *offensive* about the term SSA. “Gay” however is been subjugated by a militant pop subculture that demands recognition and acceptance of homosexual acts. You never see “SSA” Pride Parades where men are simulating (or actually performing) oral sex/anal sex on each other in public, exposing themselves and/or tossing out condoms to children, and sexually harassing policemen and firemen present to maintain order… but you do see “Gay” Pride Parades where this is often the case.

        • Mariana Baca

          I have seen similar behavior by straight people at parades for Carnival/Mardi Gras and St. Patrick’s day, two heavily Catholic celebrations. Maybe that says more about how generic people behave in “party atmosphere” parades than it does about the terminology, unless you want to imply that being Catholic means exposing yourself for material gain and getting rip-roaring drunk at parades.

        • sez

          Good point. The word “gay” is not clearly defined. Or, rather, it is defined differently by different people. That’s one reason why I prefer “SSA”. That, and the fact that SSA refers to the attraction, not an action. One problem with that, though: not everyone knows what is meant.

          The challenge with terminology is that some SSA folks call themselves “gay” – even though they are living chastely. And it is this very group of people who are putting on the event. So they are allowed to use “gay”, but it doesn’t bring clarity.

  • Peggy

    Well, I am with Ted in regard to my distaste for the title “Gay in Christ.” This seems to attach the word “gay” to Christ in some way a la “Peace in Christ”…”Hope in Christ”. That is indecent. It really is poorly worded, regardless of the worthy content. “Gay,” the slang term the homosexual movement prefers, should not be associated with Jesus. It especially calls to mind the recent efforts to claim Jesus was homosexual and had such feelings for the apostle John.

    How is one gay in Christ?

    How about “Drugs in Christ”? “Drunk in Christ”? “Abuse in Christ”?

    • Joseph

      We had a few so-called “gay” ministries in a few of the parishes I lived in, but they were careful to use “Same Sex Attraction” versus “gay” to distinguish between those who were struggling to live according to Church teaching versus an affirmation of an otherwise militant subculture. I tend to agree with the concern over the use of “gay”, however, if the ministry is legitimate it could work to co-opt the implied definition of the word “gay” that refers to the pop subculture into a softer form that could somewhat release “gay” people from the subculture trap that demands they be proud of sinning.

    • petey

      “How about “Drugs in Christ”? “Drunk in Christ”? “Abuse in Christ”?”

      those are actions, and choices, therefore in another category from “gay.” unless under “drugs” and “drunk” you are including “addictive behaviors”, and wouldn’t an appeal to Christ help those with alcoholism live chaste from alcohol (or heroin)? the Pioneer Total Abstinence Association of the Sacred Heart thinks so.

      • Hezekiah Garrett

        Actually, drugs are objects and drunk is a state of being. Abuse is the only action or choice in her post. Further, you do notice PTAAofSH isn’t considering a name change to “Drunks and Smackheads in Christ.”

        That said, I pray for blessings and healings to come forth in abundance from this “Gay in Christ” conference!

        • petey

          “Actually, drugs are objects and drunk is a state of being”

          tip of the hat. so the original tricolon contains objects, a temporary willed state, and an action, none of which are in the same category as “gay”.

          “you do notice PTAAofSH isn’t considering a name change to “Drunks and Smackheads in Christ.” ”

          not that i know of. for now, just “drunks”. is there an essential difference in addictive behavior if the object of abuse is different? there are people who enjoy a dash of heroin in their spare time, and do so as weekend drinkers drink. i’ve known some.

          • Hezekiah Garrett

            I’d be shocked to learn the Pioneers changed their name to “Drunk in Christ”. I only added smackhead because you included heroin in your comment. As for your last question, I couldn’t begin to fathom why you even ask. But when the objects being compared are both physically addictive, as well as habit forming, no. This is the case regarding alcohol and heroin and tobacco. But not, for example, marijuana.

            • petey

              “But when the objects being compared are both physically addictive, as well as habit forming, no.”

              well then.

              • Peggy

                Gee, sorry I’ve been missing the fun over my own comment. Nitpicky stuff. “Peace” and “Hope” are nouns. Those are in Christ. There is no “gay” in Christ. Sorry. There just isn’t; doesn’t matter whether it’s a noun, adj, or adverb.

                I have no idea what PTAA….means. No google results.

                We are talking about attaching to the name of Our Savior and King, a disordered behavior, particularly with the use of a slang term associated with a positive view of said disordered behavior.

                Maybe it could have been called “Gay and Faithful” “SSA and the Faith”…..I dunno…Many better possibilities are out there.