This is an especially interesting article since it was published in the NY Times and deals fairly with Eve Tushnet, a writer who is a convert to Catholicism and is an openly gay woman who is celibate and is a conservative who argues against gay marriage.
I wish her well. God Bless her.
Wow, that is an amazing story.
When she listens to gregorian chant before going to Church, than I will take her seriously.
I do have a great enjoyment of certain synth pop music, as well as many other forms, but I think this is someone who is going in the right direction but has not yet matured to the full flower.
You gotta start somewhere.
I might also add the she is still opposed to the full teaching of the church because:
“2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.”
the condition of homosexuality itself is taught as disordered, and before 1973, this was also the concensus of the psychiatrict community.
Frankly I would excommunicate people who are opposed to the full teaching, but in that case I might excommunicate myself as well
It is taught as disordered but not infallibly so-whether it is a physiological condition or an emotional one the end is the same.The Church doers not presume to define causality but all are called to chastity depending their station in life.Kudos to this brave young woman and I hope you were being facecious about Gregorian chant.I,ve got 5 cds and believe me they’re better in Church as they add to the solemnity of ther mass but easy lisdtening they ain’t.
“Openly gay, openly Catholic, and openly celibate . . .”
Okay. I can applaud Ms. Tushnet on being celibate instead of living the “gay lifestyle”. That’s a good thing.
However, I must say, is it even morally right (at least in the Catholic Church) to have “gay pride” (which usually implies not viewing it as a disorder), even when you aren’t living the “gay lifestyle”?
That is what confuses me here.
P.S.: IMHO, I think she’s getting there, but I don’t think she’s exactly there yet, if you know what I mean.
The article says “she does not see herself as disordered”.
But unless I’m missing something, she never says that. And I don’t see how she could. It sounds to me like she certainly does recognize the intrinsically disordered aspect… especially if she’s out there defending the teachings of the Church on this matter. She might not say it very explicitly, but I think she must grant it. Unless I’m missing something else she said?
As I said above, I’m not convinced that she doesn’t view it as a disorder. It seems to me like she must… and she’s just choosing to accept it as her cross, and let the world know that she can carry it proudly. It’s an equivocation on “gay pride”.
That certainly might also be true, to some extent. But it sounds to me like she’s very close.
Disordered in the psychological sense and disordered in the theological sense are two different things.
In the theological sense disordered means that a particular action or inclination is not ordered to its proper end. Due to orignal sin we all have disordered inclinations and desires. When we sin we participate in disordered actions.
To say that something is a psychological disorder means that individuals have problems functioning due to the particular issue.
Artificial birth control is a disordered act, but someone who does it is not psychologically disordered.
Lust is a disordered inclination but lusting after one’s neighbor does not mean you have a mental disorder.
In a similiar way, people who have the homosexual orientation have a disordered sexual inclination, but it doesn’t prevent them from functioning morally or in a way that would be detrimental to normal living.