Monthly Archives: June 2014

The Obscuring of Orthodoxy (or, When Half-Truths Reign Supreme)

Posted on by

A reflection by Sarah

One day eleven years ago when I was a university freshman, some Christian friends and I decided to spend a Friday evening listening to a presentation about faith and human sexuality. We pooled our money for gasoline, piled into someone’s mother’s minivan, and began the two-hour drive to the church hosting the event. All my friends had heard fantastic reviews of the speaker. One had heard his presentation before and considered it near perfection, insofar as that’s possible for a human to achieve. She built up his image as nothing short of a living saint, and though I was skeptical of the high praises I found myself intrigued and ready to hear the message with an open mind and heart.

That evening, I sat in a folding chair on the floor of the parish school’s gymnasium, friends at my side, surrounded by two-hundred other young adults and teens. The speaker implored us to listen for the gentle voice of the Holy Spirit as true, theologically orthodox teaching was proclaimed. He was quite charismatic and used simple metaphors. He explained that God’s plan for human sexuality exists because of the great love our Creator has for us, and that using sexuality as God intended brings an exquisite sense of inner freedom and peace. Enamored gazes emerged from nearly all the girls when he posited that women have a special place in God’s plan, and a woman’s womb is like a tabernacle in that it bears new life into the world. His words painted a romantic landscape of what life looks like when one both believes in and practices a traditional sexual ethic, stating that settling for anything else is like voluntarily drinking contaminated water while having access to a fresh natural spring.

Then, the topic turned to homosexuality…and when it did, the speaker’s mannerisms changed entirely. He proclaimed boldly that homosexuals are confused people who accept comfortable lies instead of the truth, are incapable of seeing their true identities in Christ, and should not be admitted to the sacraments under any circumstances short of repentance for their ungodly identities. He rattled off a litany of statistics and claims that homosexual people are more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexual people, everyone experiencing same-sex attraction was molested during childhood, people choose and can change their sexual orientations, and those in same-sex relationships are unfit parents. At that point, I tuned out completely. “If this is what a traditional sexual ethic means,” I told myself, “I want nothing to do with it. This is nothing but hatred and stereotyping.”

Roll the video of my life forward a decade, and things look quite differently than my nineteen-year-old self imagined they would. But I think back on that presentation once every few months when I see conservative religious news headlines like, “Priest Speaks the Truth in Love at School Assembly; Parents Outraged” and “Pastor Persecuted for Upholding Biblical Teaching at Youth Convention.” In each of these articles the story gets pitched as an injustice: an innocent Christian who is doing nothing more than speaking the teachings of his or her faith gets the shaft because of liberal infidels who want to change the Church. Without fail, every internet combox fills with inane rants of, “We’re living in the last days. It’s time to stand up for morals, values, and the TRUTH of Church teaching!” and oppositely, “The homophobic, misogynistic ‘Church’ is a crumbling institution, and I can’t wait to watch it topple.” Then, I research the details of the stories, I read the conversations about them, and I think back to nearly every experience I’ve had with a speaker promoting a traditional sexual ethic. Why? Because in my estimation, the same problem exists among most conservative Christian presentations on human sexuality: questionable claims, flawed statistics, citations of studies employing faulty methodologies, demonizing stereotypes, a wee bit of valuable catechesis thrown in for good measure…and all of it presented under the banner of theological orthodoxy.

Faith and sexuality speakers claiming theological orthodoxy have a tough task ahead of them. They have set out to sell an unpopular product to a market where the majority of consumers are uninterested. There’s nothing easy about explaining the traditional Christian position on human sexuality to a generation of young people who have likely had far more exposure to an “anything goes” sexual ethic. I appreciate the difficulty of this task, and as a celibate LGBT Christian I believe it is important to discuss openly the reasons that some LGBT people choose celibacy, and the Church teachings that might inspire a person to make this decision. Some speakers–perhaps the minority–do this very well. But most of the time, I’m sorely disappointed in the messages I hear at these presentations with young people as their target audiences. Most of the time, at least in my experience, they’re not simply sharing the teachings of their faith. Intentionally or not, many of them offer misleading representations of homosexuality and intertwine the stereotypes with orthodox Christian doctrine such that most attendees will likely have trouble seeing the difference.

At various chastity and sexuality talks I’ve attended since my teen years, I’ve heard it stated as fact that people gay people choose to be gay, no one is born gay, and homosexuality is a psychological disorder. In reality, there are no conclusive scientific answers about the origin of a person’s sexual orientation, but several studies suggest that both genetic and non-genetic biological factors play a role. And according to the American Psychological Association homosexuality is not a psychological disorder, and most people have no (or little) choice regarding their own sexual orientations.

I’ve also heard speakers pronounce as fact that childhood sexual abuse is an automatic ticket to same-sex attraction as a teen or adult, and that gay men pose a danger to children because of their sexually deviant tendencies. In reality, there is little difference between the numbers of gay/lesbian and straight people who have survived sexual trauma, and gay men are no more likely than straight men to abuse children.

Many a Christian sexuality presentation I’ve attended has posited that we know as fact how terribly underdeveloped, unhappy, and abnormal children turn out when raised by same-sex parents. In reality, no study employing proper methodology has ever come to this conclusion. One reputable longitudinal study has indicated that children raised by same-sex parents thrive at even higher levels than children raised by opposite-sex parents.

Frequently I have heard speakers express as fact that gay men and lesbians have significantly shorter lifespans than heterosexual people. In reality, the study that reached this conclusion was conducted using flawed methodology.

And most harmfully, nearly every Christian sexuality speaker I’ve encountered has preached as fact that gay men and lesbians can change their sexual orientations by undergoing therapy, attending support groups, and praying. In reality, every reputable psychology and mental health organization in the United States has rejected and spoken out against reparative therapy. People who have endured abuses because of reparative therapy have experienced depression and anxiety as a result. Some have attempted or successfully completed suicide.

Why are all these half-truths and outright falsehoods being presented alongside a traditional sexual ethic as though they are not only factually verifiable, but also an integral part of Christian teaching? Why are we okay knowing that there are young people who leave human sexuality talks with, “The Church is against being gay, and being gay is bad for you and others” as their main takeaways? As I’ve raised these questions since making my own commitment to celibacy, I’ve been met with three types of responses.

First, there’s what I call the “purity at any price” response. This response usually comes from parents, pastors, and youth ministers who are absolutely committed to ensuring that their children and teens practice a traditional sexual ethic. These folks want what they perceive as best for the young people in their lives, and are willing to do anything to give them the tools for making good decisions aligned with Christian teaching. The “purity at any price” response goes something like, “There’s nothing wrong with the information in these speeches because it keeps my kid from making big mistakes. She won’t try something if she’s terrified of the potential consequences. As far as I’m concerned, tell her anything that will prevent her from having a child out of wedlock or turning out a lesbian.”

Second, there’s the “not unorthodox” response. I’ve heard this one most often from priests, pastors, and other purveyors of “what the Church/a particular denomination really teaches.” It comes from people who are ready to defend the Church against all false teachings, who are especially concerned with conveying correct information so long as it’s about theology. The “not unorthodox” response asserts that the primary responsibility of Christian sexuality speakers is to assure that doctrine is presented accurately, and no claim contradicts any orthodox teaching. Responders of this type have said to me, “The presenter taught correctly that the Church cannot accept homosexual acts. The other claims and statistics they used are from actual studies, and they only added to the main point. What’s the problem?”

The third is the “caricature” response, an ad hominem where the person who hears my question retorts that I’ve not given a fair assessment of the situation. This response typically involves multiple jabs at my credibility and sounds something like, “You’ve imagined a version of what’s going on here that suits your own liberal, lesbian agenda. What you describe is nothing like what young people are being taught about Christian morality. Clearly, you have an axe to grind. I’ll bet you don’t practice a traditional sexual ethic yourself.”

The very existence of these responses makes me angry. Providing questionable claims and flawed statistics about homosexuality in order to keep young people away from the “gay lifestyle” is dishonest and totally inexcusable. Finding and using the fullest, most correct account of facts possible–not just those that align with your thesis–is a basic skill that high school and college students learn when writing research papers. Why aren’t we holding these speakers accountable for the information they are presenting as true? And to the person who offers the “caricature” response, I realize there is nothing I can do or say on my own behalf to change your assumptions about me or my motives. I challenge you to attend a talk on human sexuality from a Christian perspective that’s aimed at teenagers and young college students. Stay afterward and chat with a handful of attendees under the age of 24. See how many of them can tell you what it means to believe in a traditional sexual ethic and what they learned from the speaker about LGBT persons. Ask them why they (or other people they know) embrace a traditional Christian position on same-sex sexual activity.

When some of these kids eventually see through the smoke and mirrors and know they are being told half-truths and outright lies, many will feel betrayed. If my own personal experience is any indication, some will take years to realize that practicing a traditional sexual ethic does not require believing that the LGBT community is a bunch of mentally ill criminals who have chosen to defy the Word of God. Some may be so wounded that they will never be able to consider the possibility that orthodoxy ≠ hatred. Conservative Christianity on the whole has failed to teach a traditional sexual ethic without slandering LGBT people in the process, and has failed to acknowledge us as humans with inherent dignity, created in the image and likeness of God. And that, brothers and sisters, is absolutely shameful. Anyone who orders prime rib at the best restaurant in town would be appalled to see it served on a platter with greasy McDonald’s french fries. If we truly believe that the Church is the best place to receive sound formation, why aren’t we raising hell when we see sacred doctrine being served up with a side of falsehood and fear-mongering? It’s time to hold Christian speakers accountable for peddling half-truths about biology, anthropology, sociology, and psychology. It’s time to bring an end to the obscuring of orthodoxy.

Comment Policy: Please remember that we, and all others commenting on this blog, are people. Practice kindness. Practice generosity. Practice asking questions. Practice showing love. Practice being human. If your comment is rude, it will be deleted. If you are constantly negative, argumentative, or bullish, you will not be able to comment anymore. We are the sole moderators of the combox.

Affirming Kids in a Gendered World

Posted on by

A reflection by Lindsey 

The story of Ryland Whittington has been traveling around the world at viral speed. Ryland’s family created a YouTube video to tell a bit more about Ryland’s story. The video highlights two events in Ryland’s life where the family really had to come together: 1) Ryland was diagnosed as deaf, received a cochlear implant, and learned to talk a bit later than most children, and 2) Ryland took to saying “I’m a boy!” almost immediately. The family sought advice from various folks in preparation for permitting Ryland to live as a boy. The video ends with Ryland making a public remark at the 6th Annual Harvey Milk Diversity Breakfast saying, “I’m a transgender kid. I am six. I’m a cool kid. I am the happiest I have ever been in my whole life. Thank you to my parents.”

From where I sit in the world, it’s not incredibly surprising to see Ryland’s story making waves. Facebook has unveiled myriad gender options. Laverne Cox appeared on the cover of Time magazine. Students at Christian and public schools have been suspended until they wore clothes and accessories associated with more traditional cisgender presentations. I’ve heard plenty of people lamenting the degree of “gender confusion” present in the world while others gleefully shout, “Down with the gender binary!” However, I’m more of the opinion that adults frequently forget that children are people who have intrinsic senses of the mystery of gender.

I’ve been absolutely blessed beyond measure by getting to know many kids from birth. My current Christian tradition has greatly facilitated these introductions by welcoming people of all ages to the same service in order to affirm the oneness of the Body of Christ. As I’ve known more and more infants and toddlers, I catch myself thinking frequently, “Wow, what a marvelous little person!” These kids strike me as being full of a personalities uniquely their own. Some parents have told me that they think of their children first and foremost as “children of God who had been entrusted to [their] care.” That idea has really stuck with me. Oftentimes, I think the world gets caught up as viewing children as emerging adults rather than people.

If we posit that children at all life stages are people, then it makes sense that our call when getting to know children is getting to know them first and foremost as people. I’m at that age where lots of my friends are having children, and I find myself particularly in awe of parents who wait a few days after their child is born before settling on the child’s name. I regard naming a child as a sacred duty. If I’ve remembered my own naming story right, my parents had picked out two names for me before I was born and decided to go with Lindsey, a choice much farther down their list, when they met me. (And of course, if I’m remembering my own naming story wrong, I know my mom will correct me on the details.) I’m proud of my name, and I’m grateful for the time my parents took to discern my name. Many parents have shared with me their angst in naming children. I can appreciate that; a name is a big deal. Names are reflective of so many things. Taking time to discern the personality in a child, even before giving a name, can go a long way in helping affirm a child in a gendered world.

Kids have natural ways of expressing themselves. Freedom to explore different hobbies and personal sense of style can go a long way in helping kids become comfortable in their own skin. Will the world come screeching to a halt if a 4-year-old wants a buzz cut, a 10-year-old wants to learn how to solder electronics, a 7-year-old wants long flowing locks, a 6-year-old wears a suit and tie, a 3-year-old brings a doll everywhere, a 12-year-old begs to take babysitting classes, or an 8-year-old wears a dress? We communicate something about the intrinsic value of any of these things when we assert “No, sorry son, but that’s a girl thing.” or “Well, you know you have to because all boys should.”

I’m personally grateful for all of the ways that my family has allowed me to be Lindsey. I rarely experienced any sort of consequences for how my sense of self developed. I could experience great comfort in my own skin, knowing that my family totally supported me shrugging my shoulders and saying “So?” when others confronted me in an effort to use gender to police my activities. However, I am all too aware of how different people have been pigeonholed by the gender police. It seems that the wake of various feminist movements, women have greater latitude in gender expression than men do. It’s not terribly uncommon for gender non-conforming women to carry on without consequence up to a certain point. Nonetheless, the more a person brushes against various social expectations of gender, the more that person risks all forms of violence. Transwomen of color are frequent targets of violence as evidenced by the recent case in Atlanta were two transwomen were assaulted and stripped of their clothing on a public bus.

I think it’s a gross oversimplification to describe gender as a set of social interactions. Gender, in my best estimation, goes deeper. If pressed, I’d say something like the mystery of gender allows our souls to dance. When we love children, we want to see them come alive as their souls dance. Our bodies are the vessels that present our souls to the world. All of our embodied capabilities exist to showcase the dance of the soul. And in this world, all of us encounter difficulty as we try to present our soul to the world while seeing the beauty in another’s soul. My own opinion is that aggressively policing gender is one way to squash the soul of another.

I wonder what life would look like if we tried to peer more deeply into a person’s soul in order to see the image and likeness of God imprinted therein. What would happen if we accepted all children as, first and foremost, children of God? How would we journey alongside children if we wanted to see their souls dance?

Comment Policy: Please remember that we, and all others commenting on this blog, are people. Practice kindness. Practice generosity. Practice asking questions. Practice showing love. Practice being human. If your comment is rude, it will be deleted. If you are constantly negative, argumentative, or bullish, you will not be able to comment anymore. We are the sole moderators of the combox.

10 Misconceptions about Celibate Partnerships

Posted on by

Even as we thought about naming our blog before we began writing, we knew there would always be people who misunderstand our way of life. There are many misconceptions about celibacy in general, and it’s understandable that there are even more about celibate partnerships like ours. Seeing as we already spent some time clarifying the nature of our relationship last week, we thought that it might be a good time to expound upon some misconceptions we’ve encountered about celibate partnerships since beginning our writing project together.

1. We entered into celibate partnerships because we are lonely. Without a doubt, this is the most common of all misconceptions we hear. Whether it’s the suggestion that we are to be pitied because “it must be so difficult to get through life alone” or oppositely, the assertion that we need to suck it up and realize that being lonely is just our “cross to bear” as LGBT people, we hear some form of this on a regular basis. We can’t speak for others who have decided to pursue celibate partnerships, but our decision to do life together was in no way related to fear of or difficulty coping with loneliness and isolation. To understand more of what we mean, read the post we wrote on that topic.

2. We are trying to imitate marriage. Some of our acquaintances have asserted that the only way to understand words like “couple” and “partnership” is within the context of a pathway to marriage. Because we have shared that we are not interested in a sacramental marriage and would not be eligible for one within our faith tradition even if we did want that, we’ve heard it said that we must be imitating marriage. Frequently, we have noted parallels between the marital vocation and various celibate vocations, stating that certain aspects like intimacy and vulnerability are present within all types of vocations. Seeing parallels between our kind of vocation and another kind does not mean that we are attempting to imitate the other. Within the past week especially, we’ve discussed this further with our friends who are also in celibate partnerships, and no one we’ve ever talked to about this has seen his/her celibate partnership as an imitation of marriage.

3. We endanger our partners’ personal commitments to celibacy. Again, we can’t speak for other people here, but as for the two of us, we find that doing life together strengthens both our personal commitments to celibacy. Though we often hear folks wondering why we don’t see the life we share as a near occasion of sin, the possibility that   we might encourage each other to abandon celibacy seems totally unrealistic to us. We learn a great deal from each other, and we see each other growing in virtue as a result of living together and sharing in various aspects of life.

4. Our relationships are sexually abstinent, but not truly celibate because there must be some element of eroticism. Some folks have the idea that because we consider ourselves “partners,” we must be struggling against lust for one another. From there comes the assumption that celibate partnerships may be sexually abstinent, but not celibate in the most honest sense of the word. Speaking from personal experience, our relationship has never been based upon physical attraction, arousal, or desire. Near the beginning of our relationship, we had many conversations about what does draw us toward each other since neither of us remotely fits the physical type to whom the other is attracted. We saw easily that our common ties were commitment to doing life with another person who also feels called to celibacy, similar intellectual interests and capabilities, and willingness to help each other grow in holiness. Eroticism has never been part of the picture for us.

5. Only women enter into celibate partnerships. Sometimes we hear it posited that only women–and more specifically, only women with low sex drives–would be able to maintain celibate partnerships. We do know several other celibate LGBT couples, and believe it or not, none of them are female. All other celibate LGBT couples whom we have the pleasure of knowing at this time are men, and some have been together far longer than we have.

6. We choose “liberal, unorthodox” spiritual directors who will tell us only what we want to hear about our relationships. This misconception is one of the most frustrating because it implies that 1) no theologically orthodox spiritual father would ever support our manner of living for any reason, and 2) individual spiritual fathers cannot be trusted to guide those who seek their counsel. The two of us see receiving strong, theologically orthodox spiritual direction as absolutely necessary. We would not feel comfortable seeing a priest for confession and spiritual direction if he were advocating that we do whatever we want or see ourselves as exceptions to the expectations of our Christian tradition. Our respective spiritual fathers are fully aware of our relationship to one another, and both have offered us great encouragement. They are also committed firmly to upholding traditional Christian teachings, and we’ve never had any reason to doubt their orthodoxy.

7. Our relationships are defined by exclusivity. An objection to celibate partnerships that we’ve heard more recently is that it’s inappropriate for two unmarried people to have an exclusive relationship with one another. We’re going to say something controversial here: we don’t think any healthy relationship, celibate or otherwise, is entirely exclusive. Certainly, marriages within Christianity would view sex as one specific area of exclusivity, but even our married friends (at least those who see their marriages as thriving) don’t view their spouses as their everything. It’s impossible for one person to meet all emotional and spiritual needs for another. That goes for us just as much as for people living other vocations. We don’t see our relationship as exclusive. In fact, we’re confident that it wouldn’t work if we didn’t also have other important people in our lives whom we consider our family of choice.

8. Doing life together is nothing more than a matter of convenience. This misconception comes in two variants: 1) the idea that we chose to share life because it’s convenient, and 2) the belief that if we don’t view our shared life in this way, we should. To address the first variant, we’ve stated in numerous places that our doing life together was an organic development. But that doesn’t mean there was no intentionality behind it. Though we do know some celibate LGBT couples who have begun sharing life merely for the sake of convenience, we view our own relationship as focused first and foremost on helping each other to grow closer to God. To address the second variant…well…we’re actually confused by this one. Why would it be better to live together for the sake of convenience than to live together because we feel called to helping each other journey toward Christ? Is this intention suitable only for married couples and monastics? Were someone to answer “yes,” we would heartily disagree.

9. We are actively seeking to redefine traditional Christian teachings. We’ve written in other places on the blog about just how hurtful this assumption is. Based on our own experience and those of other celibate LGBT couples we know, nothing could be farther from the truth. Every celibate LGBT couple with whom we are personally acquainted has expressed a strong desire to live fully in accordance with traditional Christian teachings on marriage and sexuality, and this is true even for couples we know whose decision to pursue celibacy is not rooted in a belief about sin.

10. We don’t see each other as friends. We find it troubling how often people attempt to place all relationships within a “marriage” and “friendship” binary. In the near future we hope to do a full post on this topic, but we find it rather insensitive and condescending when people tell us, “There’s already a name for what your relationship is, and that’s ‘friendship.'” That said, there seem to be just as many people who want to tell us that we see our relationship as a marriage (or imitation) because we clearly don’t view ourselves as friends. This isn’t true. As we’ve said over and over again, finding the most fitting terms for describing our relationship is a struggle for us, and probably will be for a long while if not for the rest of our earthly lives. But other terms we may use–partners, couple, family, team–do not negate the fact that we are also friends.

Are there other misconceptions about celibate partnership that we did not discuss in this post? Is there something you are interested in knowing more about relative to myths and realities about celibate partnership? Feel free to leave those and any other relevant discussion items in the comments section.

Comment Policy: Please remember that we, and all others commenting on this blog, are people. Practice kindness. Practice generosity. Practice asking questions. Practice showing love. Practice being human. If your comment is rude, it will be deleted. If you are constantly negative, argumentative, or bullish, you will not be able to comment anymore. We are the sole moderators of the combox.

A Review of The Third Way

Posted on by

Recently, we’ve received several emails asking us for our thoughts on The Third Way. One reader indicated that this film “explains exactly what you’re talking about with your lives.” With such a ringing endorsement from a person who had watched the video, we thought that it would make sense to feature The Third Way among our resource reviews. Because this resource is a film, we’ve provided a significant synopsis of The Third Way to help readers understand the reasoning behind our critiques. As such, this review is a bit lengthy. Nonetheless, we hope that providing detail will help our readers locate the most relevant sections for their own needs and interests.

It seems fitting that this film will be the third resource we’ve reviewed. You can also click on the following links to read our reviews of God and the Gay Christian by Matthew Vines and Generous Spaciousness by Wendy VanderWal-Gritter. As with all of our reviews, this one will attempt to answer two questions: What does this resource have to say to LGBT Christians who are living celibacy or exploring the possibility of celibate vocations? How does this resource contribute to conversation about celibacy as a way of life that LGBT Christians might choose?

According to the film’s promotional materials, “The Third Way will dispel common misconceptions about homosexuality and unveil the [Roman Catholic] Church’s truly compassionate and forward-thinking position on the issue.” Produced by Rev. John Hollowell and directed by John-Andrew O’Rourke, it runs just over 38 minutes. The video is comprised largely of different people speaking with their faces to the camera about experiences with same-sex attraction and the Roman Catholic Church. The voices include those with direct, personal experience of same-sex attraction and straight Catholics known for their public presentation of official teaching on sexual ethics. We thought that The Third Way had some strong points relative to the lives of celibate LGBT Christians, but we are concerned that the people interviewed in this film do not represent the diversity of LGBT Christians committed to celibacy.

After an opening sequence featuring scenes of violence against the LGBT community and the question, “Is there another way?” we meet seven Catholics, identified simply by first name, who describe how they came to know their experiences of same-sex attraction. Almost immediately, the film turns toward emphasizing various negative experiences as causal mechanisms for homosexual orientation such as a troubled home life, sexual trauma, an emotionally dependent friendship that became too close, and a disconnect with a positive cisgender identity. Specifically, David mentions that his father was an alcoholic who physically abused him, stating emphatically, “Everything about masculinity scared me, terrified me, I hated it. ” Julie says that her relationship with her mother “was like ice.” She shares, “I grew up hating men. I had been molested as a child, and in my mind, men were just vicious brutes who just only wanted one thing from you. And I wanted nothing to do with them.” Joseph speaks well of his parents and his upbringing. Charles describes how he grew up feeling very depressed because his mother frequently told him that he was unwanted. Richard expresses not fitting in with his father’s expectations of manhood. Christopher describes how his being artistic and creative lead to trouble bonding with other boys his own age. Of all the people who describe their home lives and upbringings, Joseph is the only person has anything positive to say about how he grew up. The other stories featured have many elements used by the ex-gay movement to justify “reparative therapy” in order to reorient a person’s sexual orientation from gay or lesbian to straight. The film does not advocate such therapies directly, but LGBT people who have survived abuses within the ex-gay world will likely find these stories troubling.

Melinda Selmys, who appears in the film but whose growing-up story was not featured, expressed concerns about looking at a person’s home life and upbringing to explain the causes of homosexuality. After The Third Way was released, she published a blog post about how an unintended consequence of this documentary might be the shaming of good parents for “causing” their son or daughter’s sexual orientation. We considered Melinda’s contribution one of the film’s highlights. In the middle of this montage about the causes of homosexuality, she explains, “You have to understand that for women especially it’s very often not so much a matter of strong physical attractions to one gender or the other gender. It’s a matter of how you emotionally interact with people.” This quote is the film’s only indication that gay people may not view their sexualities as being principally orientated towards a desire for sex, but rather as an indicator of a broader way of interacting with other people. Melinda’s viewpoint may resonate with celibate LGBT Christians who don’t see their sexual orientations and gender identities as being primarily about desire and attraction.

A strength of The Third Way is that it gives voice to the realities of bullying based on real or perceived sexual orientation, and both celibate and non-celibate LGBT Christians will find commonality with the interviewees’ stories of mistreatment. Nearly all of them talk about the cruelty they experienced in school, among church members, or within their families. David shares about how his peers were relentless, flicking him on the back of the head while spouting anti-gay slurs. Christopher describes how he didn’t feel like he could talk to people at church about the bullying he experienced so he sought refuge within the gay community. Julie tells about an experience in a Pentecostal church where she was told that it wasn’t enough for her to “leave the gay lifestyle,” and that she also had to become heterosexual in order to be a good Christian. Elements of all these tales are familiar to LGBT Christians who might view The Third Way.

Touching on ex-gay rhetoric once again, the film then moves into discussing the emptiness of “the gay lifestyle.” We hear from Julie about how she was involved in gay community organizations to the point of “pretty much [running] the gay church.” Charles shares that he had a boyfriend with whom he broke up with because “this isn’t who I am at my core.” David says, “I felt extremely depressed living in this life. The depression was overwhelming. The loneliness was overwhelming.” Christopher says, “I was really stuck in the middle of not being able to connect with men and not being able to have a healthy relationship with women.” This segment might have resonance with some celibate LGBT Christians, but will likely strike others as overly generalizing and relying on harmful stereotypes.

Throughout all of the interviews, we see two young actors walking outside in the snow. The young man and young woman are featured in isolation from one another. Eventually they end up in an abandoned, derelict building with graffiti featuring phrases like “Goodbye Tomorrow” and “Go where you love.” The meaning of this sequence is unclear and could be read in many ways. The actors might be walking alone in the snow to portray the isolation felt by the interviewees growing up. The empty shell of a building could be an attempt to portray the false promises of “the gay lifestyle.” The building might be (and closer to the end of the film, seems to be) an old church that has been defaced, perhaps trying to shame members of the Catholic Church into providing additional support. From context, it seems like the dilapidated building is trying to describe “the gay community” as a poor substitute for the community one should find in church. As the participants share their stories of living “the gay lifestyle,” the actors stand beneath a doorway reading “Out” contrasted against another doorway reading “In.” We found that bit of symbolism rather disconcerting.

At the 17 minute mark, the video begins to shift to the interviewees’ stories of why they became Catholic or became more fully committed to the Catholic Church. For a film based on Catholic experiences of spirituality, some of these stories have curious echoes of the American evangelical Protestant “and then I got saved” narrative. Julie chokes up with emotion as she says, “I was just so lost and so broken. And I knew that I needed God. And I knew that the Catholic Church was the right church and there was something that I didn’t have.” David notes changes that started to happen when he focused on God: “I stopped sex, I stopped alcohol, I stopped drugs, and I verbally forgave my dad.” Joseph reflects on how a confessor made himself available to hear more about his story and help him process his experience, being a real father to Joseph, supporting him on his journey. Celibate LGBT Christians may find the separation between one’s “gay life” and one’s “Christian life” as portrayed in the film distressing, particularly as ex-gay rhetoric continues to permeate this segment. However, Joseph’s contrasting story with being able to talk through questions about sexual orientation with a spiritual director will be encouraging. We would have appreciated hearing more about the roles of other people’s spiritual directors in helping them navigate questions of sexuality and vocation.

Celibate LGBT Christians might be aware of key places where popular sources misrepresent Catholic teaching. The Third Way highlights three such places: homosexual acts as intrinsically disordered, homosexual persons as called to chastity, and Catholics as called to combat unjust discrimination that targets homosexual persons. Five well-respected Catholic educators, who–unlike the gay interviewees–are identified by their full names and occupational titles, explain discrepancies between how people perceive Catholic teaching and what the Catholic Church officially teaches. Together, these voices present what “disordered” means in the Catholic Church and argue that this tradition’s teachings are not actually bigoted against LGBT people because everyone has disordered desires of some kind. Rev. Michael Schmitz says, “All of us are in the exact same boat. Every human being, regardless of what you actually desire, you’re made for more than what you might desire right now.” Jason Evert makes a distinction to clarify that homosexual desires are not chosen. Celibate, LGBT Christians might be encouraged to hear well-respected Catholic educators explaining what this tradition means by “intrinsically disordered” as so many who represent Catholicism have used this phrase to justify discrimination against LGBT people.

We were especially encouraged by the film’s handling of the Catholic belief that “homosexual persons are called to chastity” because it focuses upon celibacy as a meaningful way of life. Celibate, LGBT Christians who have worked hard to integrate (rather than repress) their sexualities will likely cheer when Joseph explains, “The chaste person is not the asexual person. The chaste person is somebody who knows what to do with their sexuality.” Equally, Sr. Helena Burns discusses the importance of intimacy for all people, noting that intimacy need not be sexual. As we have highlighted the importance of defining a celibate vocation by what it has rather than what it lacks, we are glad to see intimacy defined broadly. We hope this might encourage celibate LGBT Christians to continue to integrate their sexualities and find greater freedom to develop meaningful relationships with others.

The video’s next segment moves back to the topic of bullying and harassment, this time as discussed from the perspective of the film’s straight interviewees. We appreciated the forthrightness of the speakers in acknowledging that Christians, including Catholics, have contributed to LGBT bullying. Jason Evert bemoaned his own behavior as a high school student:

“You know Christianity in general is in a position where we need to start asking forgiveness for those people who have been bigoted to those who have these attractions, whether it be their own family members, whether it be their pastors, kids in their youth groups. Like we need to say, ‘I’m sorry.’ Some of these people have suffered a lot and that’s their notion of the Catholic Church. Maybe that’s all they know of the Church. You know, I’ll admit, I went to an all-guy’s high school. And I confess I took part in it. You know, this ‘You’re gay! No, you’re gay! You’re gay!’ Just this stupid, stupid behavior. And I ask, I ask forgiveness on behalf of the entire community of people who experience these attractions that you’ve experienced any of this stuff from people who claim to be Christian like me, claimed to be Catholic. I did it.”

Listening to the stories of David, Joseph, and Julie as they shared their own experience of unintentional bullying at the hands of Christians provides even more weight to Jason’s apology and the film’s call for Catholics to do more to prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Unfortunately, it’s not until minute 31 of this 38-minute film that we actually find out what the title means. From what we inferred, the “third way” means holding to a firm belief that same-sex sexual activity is inappropriate, but loving people who experience same-sex attractions. Rev. Michael Schmitz says it this way:

“The Catholic Church puts forth a third way: to treat every person, but in this case particularly persons with same-sex attraction, to be able to say, ‘We do not in anyway hate or condemn or fear or want to isolate you. At the same time, we can’t embrace everything that you choose.’ So we’re going to choose this third way, and that third way is love. We’re going to love you.”

Though some of the film’s messages might be comforting to celibate LGBT Christians, particularly those who are Catholic, we perceive that the storyboard detracts from the broader message of The Third Way. The film begins with an aggressive portrayal of the causes of homosexuality, where each cause has potential to make people search for love “in the wrong places.” Then the film highlights the “emptiness” found in the gay community. We’ve seen many reviewers focus on the apparent disconnect between unconditional love and “We can’t embrace everything that you choose.” After the explanation of the term “third way,” many of the film’s voices describe why the Catholic Church is the place for same-sex attracted people to receive love, but it’s unclear how they would respond to LGBT people making choices that cannot be embraced within the Catholic tradition. We can appreciate this skepticism, especially as the last spoken words of the video are from David, stating, “I know that I am a Catholic man. That’s my identity. I used to think I was gay. I’m not gay. I am David, a Catholic man.”

Watching The Third Way is unlikely to change anyone’s mind about homosexuality and the Catholic Church. For all this film’s attempts to clarify Catholic teaching, many people will not be able to hear that message because the apologies are few, and for some, too little and far too late. Further, it seems that all the gay/same-sex attracted people featured are at least 30 years old, with most being older. The video does not engage with how to support young people wrestling with questions of sexual orientation and gender identity, and the latter topic is not discussed at all. We think that opening with a seventeen-minute montage about the perceived causes of and “emptiness” within homosexuality was a bad choice on the part of the producer, and many LGBT people will simply turn off the film rather than watch it in its entirety. The Third Way has potential to be a strong conversation starter in Catholic parishes about how Catholics could work to address LGBT bullying. However, we are unsure about the film’s effectiveness at presenting a more compassionate view of LGBT people because it reinforces many destructive stereotypes about those who use words like “gay” and “lesbian” to describe their sexual identities.

Comment Policy: Please remember that we, and all others commenting on this blog, are people. Practice kindness. Practice generosity. Practice asking questions. Practice showing love. Practice being human. If your comment is rude, it will be deleted. If you are constantly negative, argumentative, or bullish, you will not be able to comment anymore. We are the sole moderators of the combox.