The U.S. antigay Catholic group Courage, which contends there is a “homosexual identity” and then coaches same-sex-attracted Catholics to reject that identity in favor of chastity, will hold its national conference July 27 at St. Louis University in St. Louis, Missouri.
The Catholic Action Network for Social Justice plans a vigil outside the conference.
Courage’s understanding of homosexuality directly contradicts statements by major professional mental health and medical associations including the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Medical Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics.
St. Louis University, a Jesuit University that emphasizes social justice and diversity, is hosting the Courage National Conference this year.
Visit the Catholic Action Network for more information about the vigil.
(Hat tip: Charles)
The antigay Catholic group Courage is not affiliated with the British evangelical, formerly exgay organization Courage.)
I have a lot more respect for Courage than most anti-gay religious groups.
While I disagree with the Church’s teaching on homosexuality, I have little cause to find complaint with those who wish to live in harmony with their own faith. I know that some gay people feel threatened by anyone who dares suggest that sexual activity may be sinful, but I’m not one of them. While I don’t believe that God has called all gay people to chastity, I wish those who pursue this goal success.
Also, I have not noticed that Courage is an agitator for anti-gay legislation (though I may be wrong). If, indeed, they focus on the individual rather than the political, and focus on chastity rather than rarely acheivable reorientation, and focus on providing truthful options rather than grand claims that do not come true, then Courage is a fine organization.
I don’t want to join, but then again I also don’t want to be a Budhist monk, a vegan, or a Trekie.
I’m not threatened by people calling gay sexuality sinful, I’m offended. Who are they to judge me? As long as I’m not hurting anyone its pretty arrogant to say I’m sinning.
On second thought I am threatened as well by Catholics calling LGBT sexuality a sin. In Canada the Catholic church strongly opposed equal marriage for same sex couples and Bishop Henry in Calgary said something to the effect that the state should use its coercive powers to repress homosexuals. The group Courage may not directly be responsible for this but they certainly are complicit in that they accept these hateful teachings.
I’ll give Courage a few points for not actively pushing the idea of change. However, while not having sex is always an option for people, Courage promotes some harmful and fallacious views. These include:
1. Homosexual activity is a mortal sin, and some God will punish you for it if you don’t repent.
2. It’s not possible to have a happy gay relationship.
If Courage wishes to provide some good rational reasons for celibacy that don’t involve an invisible friend in the sky, I have no problem with that.
Why don’t all those members of Courage call themselves priests and nuns and call it a day?
At the end of that day, whatever a gay person does is between the gay person and God, and no other human being can make claims on that human being’s life and take control over individual decisions concerning that life.
I hate to break it to them, but unless and until you can make Christian life attractive on it’s own merit, and not by chronically putting down gay folks, they are pretty much on their own.
In a diverse world, it’s hard to make sounding alike and being alike all that attractive for a reason.
Timothy:
“I have a lot more respect for Courage than most anti-gay religious groups.”
Unfortunately I don’t. Even if they put celibacy on the highest pedestal, they espouse antigay views and they have in past nodded approvingly to conversion therapy. There was a much more functional LGBT outreach within’ the RCC until Ratzinger shut it down.
The main problem is that Courage expects that all gays and lesbians should remain celibate, which is downright unrealistic (and probably dangerous as well). Their arguments on ‘natural law’ falls deaf on the evidence of the positive, non-procreative purposes of sex found in nature.
That being said, I respect individuals (gay or straight) that wish to remain celibate for personal reasons, but not organizations that try to impose it due to its flawed and religious views.
“While I don’t believe that God has called all gay people to chastity, I wish those who pursue this goal success.”
Ummm… I think you mean celibacy. Chastity can also mean sex within’ marriage (although for the RCC, it means only sexual intercourse that leads to procreation).
Celibacy relates (or related) primarily to marriage (or lack thereof), though it is often convoluted with chastity.
Chastity calls for no sexual contact outside the bounds of heterosexual marriage (and with certain applications within, as well).
I used chastity for two reasons:
1. It more accurately addresses gay people – Courage does not appear to encourage opposite sex marriage for gay people so celibacy seems beside the point.
2. It is the term Courage uses and thus it’s reasonable to assume that is what they mean.
I have no problem with the use of “celibacy” instead, but I don’t think I was incorrect in the usage.
“Even if they put celibacy on the highest pedestal, they espouse antigay views and they have in past nodded approvingly to conversion therapy.”
OK, you don’t have to respect them. And your reasons are justifiable.
But I think religions are allowed to believe things that I don’t believe. They are allowed to hold anti-gay views, or think that people are predestined to hell, or think that infant baptism is heretical, or think that Mary was immaculately conceived, or think that there is no God but Allah. They can quake in chuch, sit in silent meditation, or dance in the aisles.
My beef with ex-gay ministries is not that they have a different religious belief than I do on the issues of homosexuality. My beef is that they often lie through their teeth to push that belief and put politics before ministry. Courage seems to lie less than the others and I like that. Courage seems to find faith more important than politics (unlike the Pope) and I like that.
Also, I have not noticed that Courage is an agitator for anti-gay legislation (though I may be wrong).
Well, Courage may not have been active, but the Roman Catholic church sure has been – they have fought every gay-positive piece of legislation ever proposed in this country, and that is simply wrong. As a former Catholic, it appalls me that the Catholic church is more than happy to let adulterers (anyone divorced and remarried and/or anyone who is married outside the blessing of the Catholic Church) and heretics (anyone not a member of the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox or Aglican churches) live their lives in piece, but not gays and lesbians. Yet heresy and adultery have the same level of immorality as gay relationships, but Mr. Ratzinger is not in Spain right now declaring all Lutherans to be enemies of civilization.
Chastity calls for no sexual contact outside the bounds of heterosexual marriage (and with certain applications within, as well).
I used chastity for two reasons:
1. It more accurately addresses gay people – Courage does not appear to encourage opposite sex marriage for gay people so celibacy seems beside the point.
Actually, according to strict Catholic doctrine, gays and lesbians can never be allowed into opposite-sex realationships, because according to the church, being homosexual is not only intrinsic to the individual, it is permanent and unfixable. Therefore, any marriage we would enter into would be invalid for all time. I believe Courage uses chastity, rather than celibacy, because the assumption is that gays and lesbians who come to Courage are not virgins, so celibacy (lifelong abstinence from sex) is impossible for them.
Timothy said “Courage seems to lie less than the others and I like that.”.
Timothy, I’m not sure that was what you meant to say but I think your standard of acceptance could be a little higher than that.
It is not clear to me that Courage indeed has renounced reparative therapy, at least by examination of their website. While they do not consider reparative therapy as a function of the organization, they do provide links to NARTH, quote NARTH, and list multiple books by Nicolosi and other proponents of reparative therapy. So, they are disseminating information about quack therapy, which I find objectionable in any religion that purports to value the truth. I’d have less objection to them if they just said, “these are the rules of our religion, there are no efficacious medical/psychological ways to help you adhere to the rules (no “cure”), but we provide a support group to help you avoid breaking the rules.”