I think there’s a basic methodological error in the following approach:
1) I have a certain experience that inclines me to certain kinds of behavior. 2) But since official church teaching condemns said behavior, I have a conflict to resolve. 3) Rather than accept that my will and experience is not the final arbiter of what is true and good, and undertake the difficult work of purification of the will and metanoia, I will concentrate my attention on demonstrating that my inclinations are justified and the church is wrong… so that it’s the church that should change, rather than me.
It’s very easy to reason poorly out of one’s concupiscence, and the result can be a kind of warmed-over rationalization, deeply informed by a hermeneutic of suspicion, which causes one to look at the world through a specific lens of brokenness and to re-read all of the tradition in the light of what one desires to be true.
A surer path is to accept the wisdom of a mystic like Saint John of the Cross, who wrote: “Since a double measure of bitterness must follow the doing of your own will, do not do it even though you remain in single bitterness.”
Everything surrendered to God with generosity and trust is, in the end, transformed and made resplendent when it is then received back from God transfigured and illuminated by a wisdom and joy that can only be received from the Creator, not produced by the creature.
Hi Clayton! Thanks for your comment! I am a bit confused, as I’m not sure how it ties in with this particular piece. But I appreciate your sharing here.
St. Augustine is my patron saint. While he was technically incorrect in postulating that every sexual act was at least venially sinful, I hate the psychologizing that goes on in modern discussions about him. If you understand his work on this, he actually makes what seem like good philosophical arguments. It's not a broken man wrestling with a broken past and projecting that onto Christianity. In fact, I think it's backbiting a saint to say such things (though certainly people repeat it without thinking about it and are just trusting those they perceive as smarter than themselves).
I agree with your assessment that some ToB promotors are flirting with an unorthodox understanding of the sexual act. I don't think that JP2 himself did. I think lots of pop Catholic writers and speakers have a tendency to view the Faith through the lens of modern psychology, which distorts some aspects of it.
I also do think God heals people with SSA, but I don't think this looks the same for everyone. For some, it may look like being able to marry someone of the opposite sex. For others, it may be a simple call to celibacy and the grace to do it. God heals us all from our sin and disorder, but not often in the manner we expect Him to. And sometimes in ways that are invisible to others, and even to ourselves if we aren't paying close attention. The propensity to sin also often remains. The healing is usually a grace to resist.
What if you reverenced the act of YOUR creation? You have dignity, you are made in God’s image. The act that created each of us should be treated as sacred, holy. The act that creates each of us deserves respect.
As a woman it is hard to forget that act brings new life no matter how much I may want to use it to express love and devotion. A young woman’s formation with menstruation, bodily changes and the monthly reminders creates a very different reality regarding the act.
Civilization depends on the act to create the next generation, another reason to treat it with reverence and respect.
Acts that imitate the act of life shouldn’t cause people to disrespect or disregard the sacredness of the act of life that happens between a man and a woman, but we don’t regard the act as we should. We are casual about it, make a joke of it, make it a vulgarity (I.e. your f-bomb), make it a selfish act. What if you treated the imitation acts with respect out of reverence for the real act, the act that produces life and conveys love.
All imitation acts (contracepted acts , homosexual acts) can distort the fullness of the act of life. Who does this hurt? Ultimately, it makes the act of your and my creation less precious and beautiful.
Wow this challenged my thinking. I've been wading through Christopher West's work (a couple books and a bunch of his podcasts) so while I think I'm familiar with a lot of his most popular content and ideas in 2024 there is still a ton of stuff especially older works I can't speak on. It appears to me that he's getting away from the conversion therapy rhetoric mentioned in the article although not explicitly most of his most recent work just avoids it. It pains my heart to know he promoted those terrible ideas. As much as I wholeheartedly reject the idea that we can somehow control or influence our orientation, I'm not sure I can align with the perspective expressed here either. I feel that to say God didn't change the man in the example's orientation, he just discovered he was bisexual...well didn't God make him bisexual? And how can anyone know they won't one day also discover they are bisexual? I feel like we're trying to pinpoint whether this man always had the potential to be bisexual within him vs God changing his orientation, but we're missing the point of the joy and good gift this man received from God's hand. I don't think it's wrong for me to believe that work could be repeated in my own life or even for me to pray for it, but I must utterly reject the notion that my prayers will in any way determine the outcome I receive. It may not be in God's plan to change my orientation this side of eternity, and I must also pray for grace to carry the cross of my orientation all the way to the end.
Anyway here's my biggest takeaway: West promotes his TOB teaching like they are this rich source or healing and joy, yet he's over here sharing stories about how 30 years later he's still sometimes in the pits of despair unpacking old sexual sins and trauma. He preaches a message of hope, but delivers a struggle that smacks us in the face with the depths of our depravity. Which I would argue isn't so bad a thing to the extent that it drives us to prayer and the cross and God's rich mercy and grace. But it feels disingenuousness to me right now to paint marital union like it's this enjoyable, blessed joyful thing that brings healing. Like maybe it was that before the fall, but aside from procreation, it seems like it does more harm than good? Or at least there is so much bad tied up with it. My faith obligates me to believe God can heal sexual brokeness, but it seems like very few Christians even those who have TOB ever reach the level of healing West proclaims is possible.
I do think West has a lot of good ideas though that anyone - dare I even say affirming Christians - can get behind. That our bodies are good. They're good because grace comes not despite our bodies but through them in the sacraments. That our bodies were created to incarnate self donating love. Jesus' tenderness with our broken humanity. Etc
"If straight Christians get to paint over the views of those early “negative” theologians when it came to sexuality and desire, then don’t LGBTQ+ Christians get to do this as well?"
Presumably the reason we do not get to do this, is that, for the CC, straight sexuality is - evils such as concupiscence apart - morally & teleologically good. Whereas homosexually is "intrinsically disordered" and "can by no means be approved". So that it is not morally & teleologically good. So that, in the nature of the case, a gay relationship, however real the affection, care for each other, generosity, faithfulness etc., shown in the course of it, would be impossible to regard as a good thing.
I think the quotation is comparing things that - if one holds to the Church's teaching on homosexuality - are not in reality analogous, but are instead crucially different.
From the POV of the Magisterium of the CC, I think a same-sex union is wrong, not incidentally or indirectly, but entirely, intrinsically and directly - unlike a canonically valid marriage, which will be wounded by human sin, but not, in itself, be a sinful undertaking. That seems to be the thinking anyway.
The CC has always allowed for the possibility of holiness within marriage; that there could be such a thing, was not thought up in the last few years, but goes right back to the NT. Whereas the Church has never allowed for the possibility of holiness in even a committed and faithful gay relationship.
This is a dangerous post that misleads the reader on the strength and consistency of the church's position on sex. You present Augustine in opposition to the TOB, implying that the church's position was in line with Augustines until John Paul II "freed" heterosexuals to do what? Take a more positive stance on sex? Augustines views were the theological opinion of one saint, great saint yes, but not the magisterium of the church. The catholic church's view for >1000 years (read Aquinas to take just one example) is that sex is both unitive and procreative. The church is very pro-sex just within the right context (marriage, open to life). If you live a "gay" lifestyle, you cannot get married and your acts are not open to life. This is not even to mention scriptures and the church's clear condemnation of sodomy. Giving your readers the "permission" to reject the church's teaching on this subject in lieu of a same sex attracted "theology of the body" is encouraging mortal sin and is rejection of Christ's and the church's authority under the vail of a very weak argument and seeking justification for acting on your sinful inclinations.
Hi Chris! Not sure why this article showed up on my feed recently since it was posted a few years ago but I couldn't help but to read it. I have a lot of thoughts on it, but the most pressing is to comment on the section of your article when you reference "queer Catholic narrative." According to your analysis, my story and experiences would fit under this narrative. But I think you gravely misunderstand and minimize this group of people (or, at least me and the countless people I have talked to who have similar experiences). I adamantly disagree that I am someone who is blinded by my own experiences, nor do I feel disillusioned by my own conversion and encounter with the Lord so much so that I need a future thinker to liberate my sexuality. In reality the truth is that I have had a radical encounter with the living God who has satisfied all the desires of my heart such that sexual fulfillment has been overshadowed by the unconditional love of the Father. I don't think you account for this kind of experience in your article, which is a disservice not only to the folks who have similar experiences as me but also to those who are reading this article to try and understand this issue more. Anyways, I truly hope only the best for you. God bless.
I'm glad you talk about Augustine and I've always kind of been fascinated regarding the changes in sexual teaching in the Church and I'm often reminded that for most of Church history it basically taught what you can have sex and enjoy it, but only if you intend to have a child ... and marriage is a compromise with the fallen nature of human kind (of course today it is a sacrament). Part of what bothers me is that ToB kind of opened up at least straight sexuality and admitted that sexual relations were a good in and unto itself (and Humane Vitae flirted with this) It's almost schizophrenic in that on one hand the Church wants desperately to hold on to connecting sexuality to procreation yet also open it up to thinking about it as an genuine expression of love. I think, if anything, work on the Church's teaching regarding sexuality is very unfinished and these two seemingly diametrically opposed ideas need some creative and Spirit inspired inquiry. Thanks for your writing on this.
I think it's a remarkably challenging topic to address in a comprehensive way. One of my worries is the way in which some ToB advocates try to separate it off from the broader Christian tradition
Challenging to to address in a comprehensive way on its own and even more challenging considering the culture war environment we live in today. Keep up the good work bro. I've long enjoyed your blog (I think I need to subscribe hehe)
Sts Augustine and JPII lived Jesus Christ’s command ”neither do I condemn, go and sin no more”. I’ll pray for you brother, this feed is junk food: pride in pseudo intellectual gymnastics. I will block.
The Magisterium’s opposition to homosexual intercourse has had a much longer history, breadth, and degree of authoritative pronouncements than one opinion by one Church Father. They are not comparable in the way this article compares them.
I’m not speaking as a Catholic per se, but as someone who understands the Church’s teachings and has also walked a contemplative path that leads me to interpret these things a bit differently—through the lens of mystical theology.
To me, the heart of sanctified sexuality is not found in the gender of one’s beloved, but in the desire that animates the union. Desire that seeks to possess, pierce, or consume—even in heterosexual contexts—can become subtly adulterous. It directs the soul away from its true Beloved.
Mystical tradition often speaks of being ‘pierced by God.’ This isn’t just poetic—it’s the essence of sanctification: that our spirits are opened by Divine Love, and that this piercing leaves a seal, a consecration. But when we seek to be pierced or to pierce others through disordered desire—whether emotionally, sexually, or even spiritually—we invite distortions that can blemish the soul.
True sanctified union—whether expressed in celibate devotion or in covenantal love—is not about physical acts alone, but about entering a sanctuary together. It is about becoming a space where God can dwell, where the seal of Divine Love protects and purifies both hearts.
So to me, sexuality is healed not by rigidly denying what it feels, but by discerning the spirit in which it moves. When desire becomes reverent, mutual, and ordered toward wholeness—then even our longing becomes a kind of worship.
In the Church, sexual relationships are understood as having two fundamental purposes: the unitive (the deepening of love between a husband and wife) and the procreative (openness to the possibility of life). No future theological insight can change that. And no secular marriage law or surrogacy culture can change that. Ever. A same sex couple cannot experience the husband and wife bond or the procreative act. What CAN be developed is a common cultural interest in figuring out and acknowledging just why men and women are attracted to their own sexes. And there remains an enormous cultural aversion to doing that. God bless and great piece.
Chris, this is an insightful and inspired piece. I very much enjoyed the clarity and depth of your analysis. I can tell you have struggled with this issue and are motivated by a genuine desire to bring some measure of relief to LGBTQ+ Catholics striving to reconcile their sexuality and faith. As I am all too well aware, the Church is often less than helpful on this front.
I strongly agree with you: The Church must work toward "a more dynamic integration of Augustine and John Paul II and a general rejection of the theories peddled by West and Evert." As you note, the true impact of JPII's ToB on the Church's approach to human sexuality is still unfolding. While I welcome what this has meant in terms of love and sexual erotic expression for heterosexual Catholics, there is still much serious work to be done for LGBTQ+ Catholics who, quite frankly, have been either ignored (at best) or harmed, as you effectively point out above.
I think there’s a basic methodological error in the following approach:
1) I have a certain experience that inclines me to certain kinds of behavior. 2) But since official church teaching condemns said behavior, I have a conflict to resolve. 3) Rather than accept that my will and experience is not the final arbiter of what is true and good, and undertake the difficult work of purification of the will and metanoia, I will concentrate my attention on demonstrating that my inclinations are justified and the church is wrong… so that it’s the church that should change, rather than me.
It’s very easy to reason poorly out of one’s concupiscence, and the result can be a kind of warmed-over rationalization, deeply informed by a hermeneutic of suspicion, which causes one to look at the world through a specific lens of brokenness and to re-read all of the tradition in the light of what one desires to be true.
A surer path is to accept the wisdom of a mystic like Saint John of the Cross, who wrote: “Since a double measure of bitterness must follow the doing of your own will, do not do it even though you remain in single bitterness.”
Everything surrendered to God with generosity and trust is, in the end, transformed and made resplendent when it is then received back from God transfigured and illuminated by a wisdom and joy that can only be received from the Creator, not produced by the creature.
Hi Clayton! Thanks for your comment! I am a bit confused, as I’m not sure how it ties in with this particular piece. But I appreciate your sharing here.
St. Augustine is my patron saint. While he was technically incorrect in postulating that every sexual act was at least venially sinful, I hate the psychologizing that goes on in modern discussions about him. If you understand his work on this, he actually makes what seem like good philosophical arguments. It's not a broken man wrestling with a broken past and projecting that onto Christianity. In fact, I think it's backbiting a saint to say such things (though certainly people repeat it without thinking about it and are just trusting those they perceive as smarter than themselves).
I agree with your assessment that some ToB promotors are flirting with an unorthodox understanding of the sexual act. I don't think that JP2 himself did. I think lots of pop Catholic writers and speakers have a tendency to view the Faith through the lens of modern psychology, which distorts some aspects of it.
I also do think God heals people with SSA, but I don't think this looks the same for everyone. For some, it may look like being able to marry someone of the opposite sex. For others, it may be a simple call to celibacy and the grace to do it. God heals us all from our sin and disorder, but not often in the manner we expect Him to. And sometimes in ways that are invisible to others, and even to ourselves if we aren't paying close attention. The propensity to sin also often remains. The healing is usually a grace to resist.
What if you reverenced the act of YOUR creation? You have dignity, you are made in God’s image. The act that created each of us should be treated as sacred, holy. The act that creates each of us deserves respect.
As a woman it is hard to forget that act brings new life no matter how much I may want to use it to express love and devotion. A young woman’s formation with menstruation, bodily changes and the monthly reminders creates a very different reality regarding the act.
Civilization depends on the act to create the next generation, another reason to treat it with reverence and respect.
Acts that imitate the act of life shouldn’t cause people to disrespect or disregard the sacredness of the act of life that happens between a man and a woman, but we don’t regard the act as we should. We are casual about it, make a joke of it, make it a vulgarity (I.e. your f-bomb), make it a selfish act. What if you treated the imitation acts with respect out of reverence for the real act, the act that produces life and conveys love.
All imitation acts (contracepted acts , homosexual acts) can distort the fullness of the act of life. Who does this hurt? Ultimately, it makes the act of your and my creation less precious and beautiful.
Wow this challenged my thinking. I've been wading through Christopher West's work (a couple books and a bunch of his podcasts) so while I think I'm familiar with a lot of his most popular content and ideas in 2024 there is still a ton of stuff especially older works I can't speak on. It appears to me that he's getting away from the conversion therapy rhetoric mentioned in the article although not explicitly most of his most recent work just avoids it. It pains my heart to know he promoted those terrible ideas. As much as I wholeheartedly reject the idea that we can somehow control or influence our orientation, I'm not sure I can align with the perspective expressed here either. I feel that to say God didn't change the man in the example's orientation, he just discovered he was bisexual...well didn't God make him bisexual? And how can anyone know they won't one day also discover they are bisexual? I feel like we're trying to pinpoint whether this man always had the potential to be bisexual within him vs God changing his orientation, but we're missing the point of the joy and good gift this man received from God's hand. I don't think it's wrong for me to believe that work could be repeated in my own life or even for me to pray for it, but I must utterly reject the notion that my prayers will in any way determine the outcome I receive. It may not be in God's plan to change my orientation this side of eternity, and I must also pray for grace to carry the cross of my orientation all the way to the end.
Anyway here's my biggest takeaway: West promotes his TOB teaching like they are this rich source or healing and joy, yet he's over here sharing stories about how 30 years later he's still sometimes in the pits of despair unpacking old sexual sins and trauma. He preaches a message of hope, but delivers a struggle that smacks us in the face with the depths of our depravity. Which I would argue isn't so bad a thing to the extent that it drives us to prayer and the cross and God's rich mercy and grace. But it feels disingenuousness to me right now to paint marital union like it's this enjoyable, blessed joyful thing that brings healing. Like maybe it was that before the fall, but aside from procreation, it seems like it does more harm than good? Or at least there is so much bad tied up with it. My faith obligates me to believe God can heal sexual brokeness, but it seems like very few Christians even those who have TOB ever reach the level of healing West proclaims is possible.
I do think West has a lot of good ideas though that anyone - dare I even say affirming Christians - can get behind. That our bodies are good. They're good because grace comes not despite our bodies but through them in the sacraments. That our bodies were created to incarnate self donating love. Jesus' tenderness with our broken humanity. Etc
"If straight Christians get to paint over the views of those early “negative” theologians when it came to sexuality and desire, then don’t LGBTQ+ Christians get to do this as well?"
Presumably the reason we do not get to do this, is that, for the CC, straight sexuality is - evils such as concupiscence apart - morally & teleologically good. Whereas homosexually is "intrinsically disordered" and "can by no means be approved". So that it is not morally & teleologically good. So that, in the nature of the case, a gay relationship, however real the affection, care for each other, generosity, faithfulness etc., shown in the course of it, would be impossible to regard as a good thing.
I think the quotation is comparing things that - if one holds to the Church's teaching on homosexuality - are not in reality analogous, but are instead crucially different.
From the POV of the Magisterium of the CC, I think a same-sex union is wrong, not incidentally or indirectly, but entirely, intrinsically and directly - unlike a canonically valid marriage, which will be wounded by human sin, but not, in itself, be a sinful undertaking. That seems to be the thinking anyway.
The CC has always allowed for the possibility of holiness within marriage; that there could be such a thing, was not thought up in the last few years, but goes right back to the NT. Whereas the Church has never allowed for the possibility of holiness in even a committed and faithful gay relationship.
This is a dangerous post that misleads the reader on the strength and consistency of the church's position on sex. You present Augustine in opposition to the TOB, implying that the church's position was in line with Augustines until John Paul II "freed" heterosexuals to do what? Take a more positive stance on sex? Augustines views were the theological opinion of one saint, great saint yes, but not the magisterium of the church. The catholic church's view for >1000 years (read Aquinas to take just one example) is that sex is both unitive and procreative. The church is very pro-sex just within the right context (marriage, open to life). If you live a "gay" lifestyle, you cannot get married and your acts are not open to life. This is not even to mention scriptures and the church's clear condemnation of sodomy. Giving your readers the "permission" to reject the church's teaching on this subject in lieu of a same sex attracted "theology of the body" is encouraging mortal sin and is rejection of Christ's and the church's authority under the vail of a very weak argument and seeking justification for acting on your sinful inclinations.
Hi Chris! Not sure why this article showed up on my feed recently since it was posted a few years ago but I couldn't help but to read it. I have a lot of thoughts on it, but the most pressing is to comment on the section of your article when you reference "queer Catholic narrative." According to your analysis, my story and experiences would fit under this narrative. But I think you gravely misunderstand and minimize this group of people (or, at least me and the countless people I have talked to who have similar experiences). I adamantly disagree that I am someone who is blinded by my own experiences, nor do I feel disillusioned by my own conversion and encounter with the Lord so much so that I need a future thinker to liberate my sexuality. In reality the truth is that I have had a radical encounter with the living God who has satisfied all the desires of my heart such that sexual fulfillment has been overshadowed by the unconditional love of the Father. I don't think you account for this kind of experience in your article, which is a disservice not only to the folks who have similar experiences as me but also to those who are reading this article to try and understand this issue more. Anyways, I truly hope only the best for you. God bless.
I'm glad you talk about Augustine and I've always kind of been fascinated regarding the changes in sexual teaching in the Church and I'm often reminded that for most of Church history it basically taught what you can have sex and enjoy it, but only if you intend to have a child ... and marriage is a compromise with the fallen nature of human kind (of course today it is a sacrament). Part of what bothers me is that ToB kind of opened up at least straight sexuality and admitted that sexual relations were a good in and unto itself (and Humane Vitae flirted with this) It's almost schizophrenic in that on one hand the Church wants desperately to hold on to connecting sexuality to procreation yet also open it up to thinking about it as an genuine expression of love. I think, if anything, work on the Church's teaching regarding sexuality is very unfinished and these two seemingly diametrically opposed ideas need some creative and Spirit inspired inquiry. Thanks for your writing on this.
I think it's a remarkably challenging topic to address in a comprehensive way. One of my worries is the way in which some ToB advocates try to separate it off from the broader Christian tradition
Challenging to to address in a comprehensive way on its own and even more challenging considering the culture war environment we live in today. Keep up the good work bro. I've long enjoyed your blog (I think I need to subscribe hehe)
"As a gay Catholic"....I stopped reading after that. What next, "as an IBS Catholic?", or "a limping Catholic" or "a freckled Catholic"?
Sts Augustine and JPII lived Jesus Christ’s command ”neither do I condemn, go and sin no more”. I’ll pray for you brother, this feed is junk food: pride in pseudo intellectual gymnastics. I will block.
The Magisterium’s opposition to homosexual intercourse has had a much longer history, breadth, and degree of authoritative pronouncements than one opinion by one Church Father. They are not comparable in the way this article compares them.
I’m not speaking as a Catholic per se, but as someone who understands the Church’s teachings and has also walked a contemplative path that leads me to interpret these things a bit differently—through the lens of mystical theology.
To me, the heart of sanctified sexuality is not found in the gender of one’s beloved, but in the desire that animates the union. Desire that seeks to possess, pierce, or consume—even in heterosexual contexts—can become subtly adulterous. It directs the soul away from its true Beloved.
Mystical tradition often speaks of being ‘pierced by God.’ This isn’t just poetic—it’s the essence of sanctification: that our spirits are opened by Divine Love, and that this piercing leaves a seal, a consecration. But when we seek to be pierced or to pierce others through disordered desire—whether emotionally, sexually, or even spiritually—we invite distortions that can blemish the soul.
True sanctified union—whether expressed in celibate devotion or in covenantal love—is not about physical acts alone, but about entering a sanctuary together. It is about becoming a space where God can dwell, where the seal of Divine Love protects and purifies both hearts.
So to me, sexuality is healed not by rigidly denying what it feels, but by discerning the spirit in which it moves. When desire becomes reverent, mutual, and ordered toward wholeness—then even our longing becomes a kind of worship.
In the Church, sexual relationships are understood as having two fundamental purposes: the unitive (the deepening of love between a husband and wife) and the procreative (openness to the possibility of life). No future theological insight can change that. And no secular marriage law or surrogacy culture can change that. Ever. A same sex couple cannot experience the husband and wife bond or the procreative act. What CAN be developed is a common cultural interest in figuring out and acknowledging just why men and women are attracted to their own sexes. And there remains an enormous cultural aversion to doing that. God bless and great piece.
@Substack Why is a post from 2021 showing up in my feed?
Chris, this is an insightful and inspired piece. I very much enjoyed the clarity and depth of your analysis. I can tell you have struggled with this issue and are motivated by a genuine desire to bring some measure of relief to LGBTQ+ Catholics striving to reconcile their sexuality and faith. As I am all too well aware, the Church is often less than helpful on this front.
I strongly agree with you: The Church must work toward "a more dynamic integration of Augustine and John Paul II and a general rejection of the theories peddled by West and Evert." As you note, the true impact of JPII's ToB on the Church's approach to human sexuality is still unfolding. While I welcome what this has meant in terms of love and sexual erotic expression for heterosexual Catholics, there is still much serious work to be done for LGBTQ+ Catholics who, quite frankly, have been either ignored (at best) or harmed, as you effectively point out above.
Keep up the excellent work.