The real sin of priests who "build a bridge" to the lgbtqia+++ community
it's not what you think it is
In light of recent events, we wanted to post an excerpt from this piece where we clarified that the real sin of priests who seek to “build a bridge” to the LGBTQIA++ community is not what you think it is:
a certain group of priests1 kept hammering away at how bad homophobia was in the Church, and how much the Church needed to accept the gays—while being ambiguous about their beliefs about the ethical implications of gay relationships. There was a need to “build a bridge” between “the gays” (whoever they are) and “the Church.”
They receive a lot of flack from reactionaries who accuse them of being heretics, perverts, even satanists; and applause from libs who think they are courageous for trying to lead the Church in the right direction.
Surely, there’s something noble about trying to extend a hand to a group of people with whom the Church has not done a great job dealing. And few of these types of priests will openly reject official Catholic doctrine about the unitive and procreative ends of sexuality. So I don’t feel inclined to call them heretics or evil people.
Their real sin, their crime, is something else: These priests are insufferably cringe.
Their way into the intersection between Christianity and sexuality is not based. And ultimately, most of them are boomers who are out of touch with the youth culture of the day.
Their framing of homosexuality remains stuck in (1) the victim narrative (sometimes for good reasons) and (2) the essentialist view of sexual orientation. This is why you see mostly white, upper-middle class, older millennials/boomers at their events. The younger millennials and zoomers grew up in a time when homosexuality was less stigmatized, and thus dealt with less homophobia. Also, sexual orientation is less of a fixed category for the youth, as they understand sexuality to be more fluid.
Lastly, the new gen is more based—meaning, less attracted to abstract, rationalistic platitudes about identity and more interested in the the messy, raw, earthy…which is why they aren’t as averse as older generations to accept that there is something ontologically transgressive, weird, “intrinsically disordered” about homosexuality…and also why they are drawn to the traditional Catholic doctrine, liturgy, art, and spirituality.
The “building a bridge” club seems incapable of speaking to the “horseshoe” between queer culture and Catholicism, as for them, gayness is purely an identity category, it’s “neutral”—and not an experience with profound metaphysical implications, for better or worse. All they are offering is acceptance and toleration. They have nothing to say about the concrete, fleshy experience of homoerotic desire, and what Christ has to do with it.
Acceptance is nice and all, but how is that going to lead you any further in your path toward discovering the ultimate meaning of existence? They’re offering milk (in the Freudian sense), when what we really need is wine.
I just want to acknowledge that the one priest who is most publicly involved in this type of ministry is someone who I actually respect in many regards, and with whom I’ve spoken one-on-one on a few occasions. Thus please don’t take my criticisms as a sign that I am denigrating him or others in his milieu. I believe he’s genuinely a good person who takes his vocation seriously.