IS being gay a gift now?

[LaramieHirsch]

This thread post is about a new article by Austin Ruse, The New Homophiles: A Closer Look
http://www.crisismagazine.com/2014/the-new-homophiles-a-closer-look#.UsaU22nsSsI.facebook





We had a formal thread titled:

Being gay is a gift now, per Crisis Magazine/Forward Boldly

In the article, it was agreed between a few of us that the author of that article, Austin Ruse, was not too particularly against the "new homophiles," who look at their homosexuality as a gift. 

Was he for it?  Against it?

Here's our previous comments about Ruse's tone:

I don't know why the writer chose this group as a subject, without making it very clear where he stands.  How did he go from 'annoyed' to 'fascinated'?  Too much familiarity?

If you read the article Ruse isn't saying this. He's presenting the homophile argument. I didn't get that he was for it at all.

I don't know that Austin Ruse supports the ideas of the so-called "New Homophiles." The tone of his article seems fairly neutral and possibly approving at times, but there are indications that he is actually critical of these ideas.

And I do think it is written somewhat sympathetically...

A lack of condemnation of the "new homophiles" was confusing.  How can one call a disorder a gift?  It is not.  It is of the devil.  Yet, Ruse was not condemning this. 

This lack of a solid opinion lead me to conclude that Crisis Magazine and Forward Boldly's Christine Niles (who could be heard "giggling" with Vox of Fisheaters about last year's transgender issue)--that these two supported "new homophiles."  There was no solid condemnation of the idea that "gay is a gift."  And therefore, "gay as a gift" seemed to be an emerging new craze from these two sources.  After all, Niles said it was a "good article," when she posted it on her Forward Boldly Facebook page. 

What else are we to conclude, when priests come out referring to "transgendered men" as "she?"  http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=5129.msg99743#msg99743

Christine Niles, who runs Forward Boldly, posted a Facebook link to the article on December 20th.  Two days later, on December 22nd, she posted to this blog post:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theanchoress/2013/12/20/i-am-the-momma-bear-of-new-homophiles/

The post is by Elizabeth Scalia, and it is claimed that she is the progenitor of the "new homophiles."  In the post, Scalia--who writes for First Things--prides herself in the concept of "new homophiles," and she quips later in the blog entry:

I may write a follow-up piece to this another time, but for today there are rainbow cookies to bake, and lots of them...

Christine Niles of Forward Boldly quotes the "Momma Bear" of the "new homophiles:"

And so, yes, let us wonder about homosexual persons and transgendered persons; let us ponder the mysteries of intrinsic disorder, and of rights and understandings, of justice and of mercy, and obedience and tolerance and love.

And then, to Christine Niles' credit, she asks: "[W]hat is there to wonder about?"

Later, on December 30th, Christine Niles came here to Suscipe Domine and in her first post here, she responded to the first thread about the "new homophiles:"

...I do indeed think Ruse's article is good--because if you re-read it, you will find that he OBJECTS to the New Homophiles and their philosophy on the so-called "gift" of gayness.

If you re-read the article, you will see that he is not promoting what is being claimed in this thread. I utterly reject the New Homophiles and their philosophy (as anyone can see if you have read my comments on my personal facebook page or at Elizabeth Scalia's blog). Same-sex attraction is objectively disordered, and certainly not a "gift."

It is good that Niles "rejects the New Homophiles and their philosophy." 

I look forward to her Forward Boldly interview with Austin Ruse later this month. 

But it seems that Austin Ruse is uncertain of whether or not he should condemn the idea of the "new homophiles."  He came out with a sequel article, titled The New Homophiles: A Closer Look.

http://www.crisismagazine.com/2014/the-new-homophiles-a-closer-look#.UsaU22nsSsI.facebook

And in it, we can see Ruse is on the fence and unable to make up his mind. 

Is it good for them to hold onto an identity that is disordered? Is it good for the Body of Christ?

I must admit to going back and forth on the topic of the New Homophiles.

It is depressing that Ruse is going back and forth on this topic.  Being gay is not a gift.  It is a curse, and a disorder, and to call it a gift is a terrible deceit for the world to visit upon the unfortunate people who truly do suffer from "same sex attraction."  These people shouldn't be baking cookies because men want to sodomize other men, or women with women.  They should work to change. 

The mind demands discipline.  The "new homophiles," just can't do it, so they throw out all thoughts of disciplining their mind.

As I have said elsewhere in Catholic Forum Land:

Gay sex is a symptom.  Gay sex is the symptom of a larger problem, which is a disordered mind.  Fix the problem, cure the symptoms. 

Of course, gay sex should be avoided.  Just as a person takes a light medicine to alleviate symptoms of a bigger disease. 

But God did not give us minds so that they were disordered in such a way.  People are not born to be gay. 

- - -

Yes, being gay is a long and difficult struggle that isolates a person.  Conquering such a struggle is a massive achievement that receives hardly any praise or encouragement--because such a long drawn out war is solely in a person's mind.  God will know of the hard-fought war, however. 

Effeminate behavior is a vice, by the way.

[Lynne]

I avoid reading anything by Elizabeth Scalia (occasionally she writes in an orthodox fashion but not that often). But I'm curious, who is Austin Ruse?

Because he writes for Crisis, I would have thought that he leaned towards orthodox Catholic beliefs but it appears he does not.

[verbumdomini]

I was reading it when Francis mentioned the famous line "if someone is gay and looks for God who am I to judge him" or something like that.

Perhaps some people took it too lightly what he said or got confused about it.
I don't think Francis meant saying that the Church is now liberating people who are attracted to the same sex.
It still is and always will be a mortal sin if practising it.

But to my understanding the addressed people think exactly that, that same sex marriage will be approved by the Church or do hope so that it will happen in the future.

Let's say it this way, people who are not Christians and happen to be gay, they too need to be accepted as people. What ever happens in such relationships, they have to take responsibility for that sin. Gay people who happen to be already Christianised should know what they do.

On the other hand, thanks to the media again, I fear that becoming Christian will develop into a fashion statement within the gay community.
It wouldn't surprise me seeing gay couples on the streets wearing cassocks.

Francis needs to devote a great amount of time now to this issue and any misunderstandings must be clarified now before we see some bad things.

I don't seek your forgiveness what I say. I fully stand to my statement here and defend also Benedict's opinion on same sex issues.

[LaramieHirsch]

Francis needs to devote a great amount of time now to this issue and any misunderstandings must be clarified now before we see some bad things.

He also needs to clean up the clergy, as he said he would.  But will he? 

Doubtful at this point.