“Living the Truth in Love: Pastoral Approaches to Same-Sex Attraction” is a collection of essays published by Ignatius Press and edited by Janet Smith and Courage Executive Director Fr. Paul Check. Except for one, all of the “theoretical” and “pastoral” essays were written by either Catholic religious or by various Ph.Ds. Therefore, since I fit into neither one of those categories, my reading focused upon the “testimonial” chapter. Here, the work ranged from the excellent to the heavily disconnected and deluded.

The essay that I had the most trouble with was the one from Joseph Prever; he is the same man who once said this about a new sort of “pastoral” approach to homosexuality: “Many of us emphasize the need to move towards self-acceptance and away from shame. For this reason we often stay away from the language of ‘disorder’ and ‘brokenness’ that often surrounds the issue…” Part and parcel with that rather benign and benevolent view of the homosexual condition is a fatal misreading of Fr. John Harvey’s 1987 book “The Homosexual Person;” in his essay for “Living the Truth in Love,” Prever wrote:

“I had already heard, any number of times, that it was homosexual actions that were sinful, not homosexual desires. But this book [“The Homosexual Person”], as I remember it, went further. Instead of just making a distinction between desire and activity, it made a distinction within the desire itself. It pointed out that even the desire was good; it was only the manner of the desire that was bad. The desire was a desire for love. More specifically, it was the desire for the love of a man, for intimacy with men. And this desire was good.”

First of all, the theory which impressed Prever so much was not one that originated with Fr. Harvey: it’s actually from Elizabeth Moberly and it merely appeared in a chapter in which Harvey compared and contrasted the two somewhat opposing therapeutic programs of Moberly and Gerald van den Aardweg. What Prever perhaps latched onto was a description of the Moberly theory as described by Fr. Harvey: “Same-sex love is the solution to unmet developmental needs. It is not the problem.” Yet, not once, does Fr. Harvey ever approve of or advocate this theory. The mere presence and explanation of her theory in the book in no way signifies any kind of recommendation on the part of Fr. Harvey; in fact, Fr. Harvey, in another chapter, also describes the theories pushed forward by rabidly pro-gay dissident priest John McNeill. In reality, Fr. Harvey was very astute to follow the Moberly section with his description of Aardweg’s somewhat contradictory theory of same-sex love: “Aardweg regards homosexual ‘love’ as infantile romanticism.” Fr. Harvey continues: “Since very often one’s pattern of self-pity is addictive, one may relapse into a steady-lover relationship…Same-sex intimate relationships become a kind of crutch…” Lastly, Fr. Harvey warns against a general acceptance and application of the Moberly theory: “If one follows Moberly’s theory, one should bear in mind the dangers that Aardweg points out…”

The problem here is that Prever is a devotee of the “Spiritual Friendship” faction; a movement within an insular group of neo-gay Catholics who often spew out strange pronouncements such as this: “I found myself delighting in certain men in a way that was distinctly gay but also chaste…”; this bizarre concept of the pliable goodness in “gay” is immensely appreciated by Eve Tushnet in her equally mixed up essay, she wrote: “I’ve always acknowledged my attractions to women and sought to find the good fruit that they could bear.” While the acknowledgement is good, the searching for “good fruit” is a dead end; despite her intelligence, she surprisingly doesn’t see the cursed and barren fig tree at the middle of lesbianism. Tushnet, also an associate of the “Spiritual Friendship” group, like Prever sees a route to salvation within the “gay” context: in other words, a self-identifying “gay” Catholic should remain chaste, but otherwise pursue a peculiarly intense relationship with someone of the same sex; hence, the desire for another man, or woman, is good. But, again, by misreading another work, this time – those of St. Alread, they attempt to force a viable fusion of the “gay” orientation with Catholicism – because, they do not see homosexual desires as problematic let alone an occasion of sin. Prever continued in his essay, regarding what he mis-gleaned from Fr. Harvey’s “The Homosexual Person:” “…it meant that feeling the desire [homosexual] didn’t make me a monster, but just meant that I was a normal human being who wanted normal human things, albeit wanted them in a nonstandard way…it meant that the desire that I had always assumed was unfulfillable might be fulfillable after all.”

First of all, the way in which Prever frames the homosexual mind-set is taken directly from the pro-gay playbook, i.e. that homosexuality is a perfectly “normal” and natural variation of the human sexual experience; it is not! The godfather of “gay” liberation Larry Kramer once said: “Being gay is a natural normal beautiful variation on being human. Period. End of subject.” By contrast, in the first few pages of “The Homosexual Person,” Fr. Harvey included this quotation: “…although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it 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, unlike the way Prever reimagines it, homosexual desires are not just benevolently “nonstandard,” but a “strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil.” In addition, although the inclination itself is not a sin: there is vast difference between inclination and desire; in “Homosexuality and the Catholic Church,” Fr. Harvey explicitly stated: “that the inclination to homosexual acts is not sinful in itself, unless one freely consents to these desires.” To consciously mark them as “good” is a huge form of consent. But, back in “The Homosexual Person,” Fr. Harvey continued: “Whether the orientation [inclination] is recognized or not, it is not sinful in itself. It is however, an objective disorder because it inclines one to perform an evil act.” Therefore, the impetus for the act is the desire.

According to “The Catechism of the Catholic Church:” “Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as ‘an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law.’” And, the desire for same-sex “love” within a “gay” context – is, by definition, a disordered inclination “contrary to the eternal law.” In addition, especially with those suffering from same-sex attraction there is always a fine line, or a completely blurred one, between what is desire and what is lust: those suffering from same-sex attraction should pay special attention to Christ when He said: “But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart.” (Matt 5:28) And, since, all of the opinions in the Prever and Tushnet essays are completely based on their own anecdotal experiences, I will include my own: when I entered the “gay” lifestyle as an 18 year old boy, at the height of the AIDS crisis, I was honestly too scared to even image a sexual relationship with another man; although, when I walked into the Castro District of San Francisco, I honestly understood that it was a distinct possibility. But, in order to silence my worries about catching an incurable, and, then, a rather instantaneously deadly disease, I convinced myself that I would only seek out friendship and comradery with other likeminded males; that same night, after about an hour in my first “gay” bar, I walked home with someone; for, in a psychologically wounded boy, who never quite knew male love or experienced an inner-sense of masculinity, the desire for friendship turns to sex in a matter of milliseconds. This happens simply because the homosexual desire for a same-sex friend, no matter how chaste, emerges from a “disordered” inclination; therefore, to say that it is “good” is at best a misunderstanding, and, at worst, a pathetic attempt at self-deception.

The rest of the “testimony” essays, in particular by Daniel Mattson and Robin Beck, are very good, but they assemble a sort of collective poker “push,” because they are entirely preoccupied with refuting, quite convincingly though, the lack of understanding and downright misinterpretation that is expressed by Prever and Tushent. The best in this section, that can stand alone, were written by David Prosen and Douglas Mainwaring. Yet, as I finished reading the “testimonial” section, I found myself incredibly grateful that the Lord rescued me from homosexuality in 1999 and not in 2015, because, then, the first book I read on the subject was “The Homosexual Person” by Fr. John Harvey; and it was blessedly not “Living the Truth in Love.” While there are some very good essays in the later book, again, by including other material which is plainly confusing and confused, this will only tragically result in further disorientating those that are desperately seeking answers – and clarity; they are especially damaging when the contradictions come from same-sex attracted men and women who have supposedly transcended their “disorder;” or at least recognized it for what it is: one big deception.

Earlier blogs on related topics:
https://josephsciambra.com/2015/09/i-found-myself-delighting-in-certain.html
https://josephsciambra.com/2015/08/catholicism-clarity-and-gay-problem.html
https://josephsciambra.com/2015/08/the-pastoral-road-to-hell-current.html