The Denver Catholic Register interviewed Father John Harvey, the founder of Courage, the Catholic Ex-Gay Ministry. Unlike Exodus, Courage places more emphasis on physical acts of sex than on “gay identity”. And while they do repeat the bilge coming from NARTH, their purpose is driven around the notion of chastity rather than a change in orientation.
Nonetheless, Father Harvey makes some statements in his interview that are odd – and in some instances comical – and which demonstrate the Church’s schizophrenic approach to gay issues. Take, for example, Father Harvey’s rationale about the “intrinsic evil” of same-sex sexuality:
If [the] two purposes of communion of bodies in love and children are not accomplished, the act is evil.
OK – on the face of that, it’s ridiculous. Father Harvey is saying that any sexual union that does not result in children is evil. So if you are infertile for any reason, no marriage and sex for you. (UPDATE **)
Now, I’m sure Father Harvey would say that he’s talking about the act itself which never results in children as opposed to the individuals who may not result in children. But I’m not a big fan of arbitrary rules against gay people that are justified by arguments that are not also applied to straight people. And I think it is a HUGE jump from “does not result in children” to evil.
In an amusing (to me) anecdote, Father Harvey also discusses a man that he counseled every week for 30 years:
I know somebody in his 80s now and he’s not bothered by this presence at all.
I’m not sure if Father Harvey knows that time probably was as much a part of this man’s “success” as was the good father’s 30 years of weekly counseling.
Courage shares the Catholic Church’s tremendously arrogant assumption that they hold all knowledge, that their teachings are by definition “natural”, and that truth can be determined by Papal Decree rather than by objective observation*. And they also trumpet the “objectively disordered” (as if the Church were objective about anything) and “intrinsic evil” language of the Church and, indeed, seem to be lodged in the homophobic end of the Church in the United States.
But to its credit, Courage does seem to be more interested in their constituents than in politics. And their site, though strongly endorsing NARTH, does not seem to be deluged in bizarre and hateful bogus “statistics”.
This interview is the first half of a two part article. I look forward to what ‘jems of truth’ Father Harvey will have for us next week.
* I’ll admit this is biased. And I apologize to any Catholics who are offended by this characterization. I am aware that there are a great many Catholics who do not operate from this position and that the Church as a whole has been extremely instrumental in the nurturing and care of Western society. But I do think the current Pope does see the Church as always correct, the dictator of what is “natural”, and the authority on civil as well as religious issues. And that is the direction in which I see the Church moving.
** In commentary below, I’ve been informed that it actually is the policy of the Church to deny marriage to infertile heterosexuals. While this seems cruel to me, at least it is consistent. However, I’ve yet to see a cent spent by the Church to enforce this rule while many millions have been spent to seek to impose in civil law the church doctrines against gay couples.
*Sigh* I trully hope for the formation of something like the Western Rite of the Catholic Church. That is a Church free from Papists, Old World fools, and the heresies of the First Vatican Council with their so-called papal infallibility. A church where independent and ‘Old’ Catholics are united. Ironically, the Old Catholic Churches are already ahead of RCC corp.
John Harvey was the priest who brought out a book some years ago entitled “The Homosexual Person: New Thinking in Pastoral Care”, in which he leant heavily on the work and experience of Colin Cook (of Quest and Homosexuals Anonymous) as an example of what could be achieved in the way of overcoming homosexuality, even though he acknowledged in a note that Cook had been “rumbled”.
Even tho I am technically Catholic myself, I find the Church teaching on homosexuality to be incorrect. They have been wrong about a great many things since Jesus’s ascension into heaven. We’ve had the Great Schism of 1054 (the break between the Eastern and Western rite churches) and the Protestant Reformation all due in part to disagreements about Papal authority and selling of indulgences. They condemned Galileo Galilei for claiming the Earth rotated around the sun and not the reverse as they point to Scripture to support their belief. We had the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades also thanks to the Church. So looking back, the Catholic Church has not had the best history in regards to Christian charity. It has made mistakes.
The Church is now mistaken about gays. I’m quite sure there are those within the Catholic hierarchy that are gay but are afraid to say anothing openly about it. Some gay Catholics remain celibate because they believe that acting on their very nature is a sin. That’s ok. I can accept their decision and respect it. But there are those, like me, that believe in a monogamous and committed relationship with their same sex.
I just wish the church as a whole would understand that our relationships are not all based and defined by a mere sexual act.
Fr Harvey was also interviewd by Zenit for a recent article – he’s one of their darlings. He started off speaking about the recent bishops’ document, “Ministry to Persons with a Homosexual Inclination: Guidelines for Pastoral Care.” There he said:
And later he opined….
Uh… “Always Our Children” was published in 1997 and Moberly’s book in 1983 from what I can determine. And Harvey is saying they didn’t know then – 1997 – what they know now and then – 2006 & 1983? Man is he confused.
Finally Fr Harvey’s absolute need that homosexuality not be shown to be in any way biological and thus what must be natural in his mind, is shown well in his statements of falsehoods concerning the scientific information which has been developed.
Fr Harvey is running scared.
…
OK – on the face of that, it’s ridiculous. Father Harvey is saying that any sexual union that does not result in children is evil. So if you are infertile for any reason, no marriage and sex for you.
Actually, this is the strict Catholic position, and one that my Sophmore year religion class fought viciously with Sister Connie, our teacher, about. We could not believe the church could, and would, deny marriage to people who knew they were infertile (although, interestingly, that does not seem to apply to post-menopausal women). In fact, if I’m not mistaken, there was a recent case in Brazil where the church denied marriage to a couple because one of them (the husband?) was in a wheel chair and unable to have children. It got a bit of press at the time.
CPT_Doom is correct about the infertility thing. This is also one of the few situations where the church will grant a divorce and allow the fertile member of the former couple to remarry with the church’s blessings.
Thanks CPT_Doom and Phil. I didn’t know that.
Well at least they are being consistent… in Brazil.
Now if only they spent billions to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot in 50 states to disallow civil marriage for infertile people I guess I wouldn’t have to point of that the heirarchy is more interested in fighting against gay people than it is in pushing Catholic doctrine.
As far as I am concerned the RCC is a criminal enterprise. A white-washed sepulchre. They are morally bankrupt and have no standing for making moral pronouncements.
Now, if they come clean about their conspiracy regarding the pedophile priests that they shuttled from parish to parish, the abuse cases they covered up, paid off, and hid from the civil authorities, then I will be prepared to give their teachings audience.
But until then, their teachings on marriage, divorce, and homosexuality are suspect.
I am not attempting to insult all Catholics, many who hold to a honest faith. But the magisterium and hierarchy have a lot to repent of. They are straining at gnats while swallowing camels.
In actuality, Timothy, the church assumes that all people are fertile. When couples undergo Pre Cana counseling, scant mention is made of the infertility thing.
Given that a large majority of practicing Catholics do use some form of birth control other than the officially sanctioned “rhythm method” (you know what they call people who use the rhythm method – parents!), my assumption is that the next logical step in this “sex is for procreation within marriage” philosophy would be to have a priest or some other person follow up with a couple after say five years, if no children have resulted from the marriage.
I can just picture it now: Father O’Malley (who looks suspiciously like Bing Crosby) goes to visit the couple, searches the medicine cabinet, nightstand, etc., and comes into the living room. “AHA,” he says, “Now I see what’s been going on!” He angrily reminds them of church doctrine and confiscates the offending, pills, IUD’s, condom’s, etc.!
Just a technical issue here. Many non-Catholics often refer to the “infaillability” or “always right” issue on proclamations of the Pope. I forget what the exact term is for when the Pope is making an “infaillable” statement, but it doesn’t apply to everything that he says, and it only applies to occasions when he wants to invoke his “infaillability” on a particular issue.
I do consider myself a Catholic with mixed feelings about the Church. I don’t think any human can ever be completely infaillable, but I did want to point this issue out, because there seems to be a lot of confusion on the infaillability of the Pope among Catholics and non-Catholics alike.
I had a conversation with a priest some time after I had surgery for cancer that left me functionally sterile; and he told me then that someone such as myself may not be allowed to marry. Ok… might as well go with the fella’s then.
Then I came back to Indiana and met one of my numerous second cousins who had the exact same cancer and surgeries. Three years later his wife conceived a son (yes, she was faithful).
I then had a conversation with another priest, who happened to be a third cousin, and his basic premise was that you can never quite tell what couple is going to be fertile (miracles happen!) – so as far as his bishop was concerned no marriages were to be turned down on the basis of a perceived infertility. Still glad I went with the guys, though. So in some diocese you may find a difference of opinion on this issue.
…
I’m afraid some people on this board are misinformed. The Church does teach that impotence which is permanent and antecedent to marriage (exists before marriage) is an absolute obstacle to marriage. (This was the case with the man from Brazil.) But, impotence and infertility are not the same thing. Simple sterility or infertility do not pose an obstacle to marriage.
Whew… thank God I’m not Catholic, I’d never keep it all straight.
Let me see if I can recap:
Impotence (inability to have sex) is an impediment to marriage.
Sterility (inability to conceive) is NOT an impediment to marriae.
If that’s the case, we’re back to a totally bogus reason for denying gay relationships – that they cannot lead to children. Now it simply returns to “because Leviticus says so”.
Impotence (inability to have sex) is an impediment to marriage.
Sterility (inability to conceive) is NOT an impediment to marriae.
If this is correct, I would have to come to the same conclusion as Timothy. Perhaps Jim can comment as another Catholic authority?