HeatherN comments on the case of a Catholic man who remains celibate due to his same-sex attraction.
There are a million potential reactions to reading an article about Steve Gersham, who has same-sex attraction but remains celibate for religious reasons. I know I at least went through half a million of them as I read the article and visited the author’s website. Mostly though, what I felt was sadness tinged with a bit of pity. I know no one likes to be pitied (I hate it), but there it is. Now before you jump all over me, let me try to explain why.
At first glance you might think I pity Steve (the author) because of his celibacy, but that’s not it. By all means, be celibate; that’s fine. It’s the reasoning behind Steve’s celibacy that elicits my pity. This is a man who views his sexuality as a cross to bear, his great burden in life. As he says on his website:
“This is always true: SSA [same-sex attraction] is a cross, but cowardice is not. Some things are meant to be endured, and some things are meant to be overcome. Like the alcoholics say: Lord, grant us the wisdom to know the difference.”
That is what makes me so sad when reading the article. This is indicative to me of a culture and society which values leading a righteous life over self-acceptance. It treats homosexuality as something that is damaging and bad for him, as if having sex with a man could harm him in some way. And that is so very wrong.
Just to add: I totally get that Steve is pretty freaking brave writing so honestly about his experience. I do not mean to direct any of this toward Steve personally, but rather toward the social and cultural norms that create and perpetuate the idea that homosexuality is a problem.
Image of wooden cross courtesy of Shuttersock
” it’s the reasons behind Steve’s celibacy that elicits my pity. This is a man who views his sexuality as a cross to bear, his great burden in life ” That right there I find somewhat rude and ignorant of you. While your feelings are probably genuine and not meant to be taken in a rude way; this is only because clearly you don’t share the same religious philosophy, religious interpretation that Steve does. It is not uncommon for gay people who were raised in a Catholic environment to walk away from the church and the faith altogether in their… Read more »
Heather, I agree with you. What I find sad, is Steve’s lacking of freedom. I mean, he might think his it’s a free choice, but I wonder: if he had been born in a different context (country, culture, religion), would he have done the same choice? I highly doubt it. He took in some teaching, and followed them. Against his own feelings, needs, desires. “Betraying” his own body (that is likely to disagree with his mind). While I stil respect his choice (it’s his life, after all), I’m still thinking about him being conditioned. OTOH, when he talks about all… Read more »
This is what I don’t understand. When people bring up banning MGC, we’re told that there has to be an exemption for religion. For course, it’s not the infant’s right to practice religion that is being protected, but the parent’s right to practice religion and to some extent impose that religion on their child. Many people may grow to reject the religion of their parents, but no matter at least their parents were able to mark them for life. In this case, he’s an adult and seems to be practicing the religion he chooses to follow. Yet his reasons are… Read more »
“When people bring up banning MGC”
John, I have no idea what “MGC” is, so I Googled it and looked it up on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGC
and not even there I found its meaning. 😮
I think we need to consider how clear (or obscure!) an acrynom is, before using it. 😉
Sorry, MGC is male genital cutting.
As I have said in the past, I am against MGC, so that kind of comparison sort of doesn’t work in this instance. I wasn’t saying he should be pitied…I said that’s how I felt when reading about this.
Also, as I tried to explain in my article, it’s not the practice of his religion that I pity, it’s the way he is treating part of who he is as some great burden.
“my friend J. said when I told him recently about my homosexuality, “I guess if it wasn’t that, it would have been something else.” Meaning that nobody lives without a burden of one kind or another. As Rabbi Abraham Heschel said: “The man who has not suffered, what can he possibly know, anyway?” He didn’t characterize it as a burden. His friend J did and the rabbi, but if you want to take the position that he concurred, I would point out that he concurred based on their shared religious beliefs. He only sees it as a burden because if… Read more »