In her response to the criticism surrounding the conference “Accompanying and Welcoming Our Brothers and Sisters with Same-Sex Attraction,” jointly sponsored by the Archdiocese of Detroit and Courage International, Dr. Janet Smith used the term “pastoral” nine times:
“good pastoral approaches”
“good pastoral practices”
“developing pastoral approaches”
“fixed template for pastoral approaches”
“successful pastoral approaches”
“to be truly pastoral”
“Being pastoral means many things”
“a pastoral exercise”
“the pastoral touch”
To an initiated layman like myself - what does all this mean? What is “pastoral?” The shortest definition is: “Pastoral theology is the science of the care of souls.” But I think Fr Kenneth Baker, S.J. has the best understanding of what “pastoral” signifies and its contemporary subtext:
The term “pastoral” comes from the Latin, pastor, meaning “shepherd,” and thus refers to the work and concern of the shepherd for his sheep. Jesus referred to himself as “the Good Shepherd,” and to those who believe in him, as his “sheep,” so the terminology is founded on the very words of Christ…The word “pastoral” has taken on a new, unexpressed meaning. The new meaning is often related to the ideas contained in words like “permissiveness,” “pragmatism” and “relativism.” We hear calls for a “pastoral solution” to some problem. What does that mean? Sadly, it often means either bypassing, or going against, Church teaching and Church law “for the good of the faithful.”
Part and parcel with Janet Smith’s “pastoral approach” is “dialogue:” “Being pastoral means many things, among them, listening carefully and charitably to those with whom we dialogue.” In the context of the Conference she is referring to her “dialogue” with proudly “out” Catholics Eve Tushnet and Joseph Prever, but she clearly intends this “exercise” to serve as model for wider outreach to the larger gay community: “If we cannot dialogue with and welcome and accompany those who are committed to chastity, to seeking holiness, and to the Catholic faith, are we really willing to walk with others who are still on a journey to these commitments?”
Yet, and I am in no way an accomplished academic or a theologian, but as a rather simple guy who grew-up hurt and alienated, made all the wrong choices as a teen, and lived the gay lifestyle to its eventual end - I see a major disconnect here between the gay reality and the imagined “pastoral” perception of how some imagine the homosexual existence vis-a-vis through the lens of Tushnet and Prever. I think this is intimately connected with whom Janet Smith chose to “dialogue” with; here, its helpful to introduce something that Melinda Selmys wrote, in a blog entry about me, concerning her circle of “gay” friends, which incidentally includes both Tushnet and Prever: “…in my experience, most gay men are sexually restrained (likely chaste) and have degrees in theology or classics.” In interviews and written articles, several times Tushnet has admitted, in terms of her own upbringing and exposure to a wider gay experience: “I was very sheltered.” Similarly, in an interview, Prever said: “…the idea of gay culture, gay rights, gay marriage, gay anything really, is foreign to me;” in a more recent interview, the reporter stated: “that he [Prever] had a spiritual director from the time he was 19 onward who was always available to talk about anything at all.” At 19, I was doing my first porn film; I didn’t know what a “spiritual director” was. Although I am not acquainted with the particulars of their lives, I would assume that neither Tushnet or Prever had first-hand experience with just how dark and sick the gay experience can become or they would not hold onto the gay moniker as strongly as they are: for myself - keeping the gay label around would be like a released prisoner insisting that he still wear his old jail uniform every day - everywhere he went. When you go through hell - you don’t want to be reminded of it.
Prever describes “gay” as: “persistently and predominantly attracted to those of the same sex.” If you consider yourself gay, then you probably will be “persistently and predominantly attracted to those of the same sex” for the rest of your life. Only, what if the Good Shepherd were to come and fetch you - would you say: “Don’t bother…I am comfortable trapped in this thorn bush with my persistent and predominant attractions.” Now, some observers would contend that Tushent and Prever and myself occupy opposite sides of the gay spectrum, but I would argue that the gay experience has never been middle-of-the road and always careened towards the hard-core. I literally discovered this fact on my first outing to a gay dance-club with the scene in front of my appearing like some gay version of Hieronymus Bosch’s “The Garden of Earthly Delights;” when I rather naively ventured alone away from my friends to use the restroom, I had no idea I would be walking through a tangle of twisted male bodies engaging in everything from oral sex to full-on anal penetration. Over the years, little has changed, today, there exists a “bathhouse for your pocket” via the gay social app Grindr; and several others. This continuing promiscuity is repeatedly revealed in the methodically released, but little reported on, surveys from the CDC: “While overall HIV diagnoses have been declining nationwide, a sobering CDC report…found a 132% increase in new HIV diagnoses among young gay men between 2001 and 2011.” Here are some more related findings: gay men are 140 times more likely to contract HIV or syphilis than straight men; in comparison, according to the American Lung Association: the risk of developing lung cancer is about 23 times higher in male smokers compared to male non-smokers; 61% of new HIV infections are in 4% of the population - gay men; 73% of gay men have had 10 or more sex partners, 40% of straight men have been as promiscuous; 13% of gay men have died of AIDS, 0.1% of straight men have died of AIDS; recent data has shown that a peculiar antibiotic resistant form of gonorrhea has taken up residence in the anuses of gay men. (See notes 1-5). As for “gay-marriage” serving as a hoped sexual bulwark against such excess: in a study of 500 gay male couples in San Francisco: 45% had monogamous agreements, 47% had open agreements, and 8% reported discrepant agreements; the average age of participants was 41 years. In a more recent study of partnered gay men: 64% described agreements that, to varying degrees, allowed sex with outside partners. (See notes 6 +7).
Especially with the last two studies, one which reports that antibiotic resistant gonorrhea is on a dramatic rise in the gay male community and the other concerning the “open“ nature of gay male unions, it seems rather obvious that any “pastoral approach” to homosexuals, especially men, must take on a more urgent tone and not one derived from the experiences of a very narrow and small segment of the gay population; for, if Janet Smith is sincere in her stated belief that: “listening and learning from those who experience SSA” has become “an indispensable element for developing pastoral approaches,” than she really chose the wrong two people; although, I think Tushnet and Prever have something to share - though I believe its extremely limited and relegated to perhaps where pastoral approaches have gone wrong: especially in terms of being overly pragmatic resulting in a locking of the orientation and a borderline decadent obsession with identity that sadly mimics the contemporary pop preoccupation for all variations of sexual dysfunction from Bruce Jenner’s persona of a “lesbian trapped in a man’s body” to the recent Miley Cyrus revelation as a “pansexual.” But what caused this phenomena of mass gender dysphoria? Joseph Prever stated that individuals and society as a whole must move “…towards self-acceptance and away from shame.” Yet, it’s this willingness to accept “disorder” and to publicly confirm its centrality which prevents wholeness and re-integration of the human person. Therefore, it’s my contention that a supposed “gay Catholic,” no matter how chaste, is equally fragmented.
The correct approach, in my experience - goes back to Fr. Baker’s authoritative definition of pastoral that wisely took into account the Latin origin of the word: “pastor, meaning “shepherd.’” This is significant because I have never knew a single active gay man to convert to Catholicism because he was sermonized, catechized, or pastoral-ized. What typically occurs is a crisis state brought on by suicidal feelings after being abandoned one too many times, contracting a sexually transmitted disease, or experiencing the tragic death of a loved one -usually from AIDS. This sudden crisis or tragedy can leave some desperate and humiliated - at that moment, all options are back on the table: even a return to the religion of your youth. Here, if you want to call it a pastoral approach, the Church should do as it had done when the Apostles were predominantly preoccupied with Baptizing, healing, and casting out demons. If we do our part to tend their wounds, the Good Shepherd will continue to carry the lost back home. Within artistic traditions of the West, Jesus as the Good Shepherd is frequently depicted rescuing a lamb that became entangled in a thorn bush; and, this is a good analogy for how the Church can approach those trapped in the gay lifestyle: because its not a “pastoral exercise,” but something which transcends theory in order to bind the real wounds of gay men and women; its not an intellectual “dialogue,” but a willingness to move beyond mere words - to offer your life for the sake of others; and its certainly not “self-acceptance,” but a self-renunciation.
“The good shepherd lays down his life for his sheep" (John 10:11). While Jesus pronounced these words, the apostles did not understand that he was talking about himself. Not even John, the favorite apostle, knew it. He understood it on Calvary, at the foot of the cross, seeing him offering his life silently for "his sheep.”
“…my thoughts, prayers and actions were animated by only one desire: to witness that Christ, the Good Shepherd, is present and works in his Church. He is in constant search of each lost sheep, leads it back to the sheepfold, bandages their wounds; looks after the weak and sick sheep and protects the strong.” ~ St. John Paul II (Homily on 25th Anniversary of Pontificate)
1. “Compared with MSW, MSM differed significantly on all demographics and reported a higher prevalence of condom use at last sex (62.9% vs. 38.3%) and of past-year HIV testing (53.6% vs. 27.2%) but also more past-year sex partners. MSM HIV and P&S syphilis rates were 2526.9/100,000 and 707.0/100,000, each of which was over 140 times MSW rates.”
“Men who have sex with men have a 140-fold higher risk for newly diagnosed HIV and syphilis compared with heterosexual men in New York City.”
Pathela P et al.
J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2011 Dec 1;58(4):408-16.
2. “Data in the U.S. show that MSM make up approximately half of all persons living with HIV infection (whether diagnosed or undiagnosed) and that in 2009, MSM accounted for 61% of new infections. However, the rates calculated here indicate that this disease burden, relative to the size of the MSM population, is of tremendous magnitude.”
“Estimating the Population Size of Men Who Have Sex with Men in the United States to Obtain HIV and Syphilis Rates”
David W Purcell et al.
Open AIDS J. 2012; 6: 98–107.
3. “MSM were more likely than non-MSM (those reporting female partners only) to have first sex at <15 years (31.9% vs. 17.3%), have > or =10 lifetime sex partners (73.6% vs. 40.8%), …homosexual MSM reported the highest number of lifetime male partners and had the highest HIV prevalence (16.5%).”
“Men who have sex with men in the United States: demographic and behavioral characteristics and prevalence of HIV and HSV-2 infection: results from National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2001-2006.”
Xu F et al.
Sex Transm Dis. 2010 Jun;37(6):399-405.
4. “Compared with heterosexual men, MSM evidenced greater all-cause mortality. Approximately 13% of MSM died from HIV-related causes compared with 0.1% of men reporting only female partners.”
“Sexual orientation and mortality among US men aged 17 to 59 years: results from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey III.”
Cochran SD1, Mays VM.
Am J Public Health. 2011 Jun;101(6):1133-8.
5. “Surveillance data from a number of countries have indicated that antibiotic resistance in Neisseriagonorrhoea is strongly associated with men who have sex with men (MSM). This manuscript advances the hypothesis that certain features of the MSM sexual ecosystem may be responsible for this association. It is argued that in comparison with heterosexuals, high-risk MSM (hrMSM) have a higher prevalence of oro-penile, oro-rectal and anal sex which facilitates an enhanced mixing of the pharyngeal, rectal and penile microbiomes. In addition, hrMSM have an increased number of sexual partners per unit time and an increased prevalence of sexual relationships overlapping in time. The increased flux of microbiomes between different body habitats between sexual partners, in combination with the increased connectivity of the sexual network, serve to create a novel high-risk MSM sexual ecosystem with important consequences for the genesis and spread of antibiotic resistance.”
“Certain attributes of the sexual ecosystem of high-risk MSM have resulted in an altered microbiome with an enhanced propensity to generate and transmit antibiotic resistance.”
Kenyon C1, Osbak K
Med Hypotheses. 2014 Aug;83(2):196-202.
6. “Relationship Characteristics and Motivations behind Agreements among Gay Male Couples: Differences by Agreement Type and Couple Serostatus”
Colleen C. Hoff, PhD, Sean C. Beougher, M.A., Deepalika Chakravarty, M.S., Lynae A. Darbes, PhD, and Torsten B. Neilands, PhD
Published in final edited form as: AIDS Care. 2010 Jul; 22(7): 827–835.
7. “Sexual Agreements among Gay Male Couples”
Colleen H. Hoff, PhD and Sean C. Beougher, MA
Published in final edited form as: Arch Sex Behav. 2010 Jun; 39(3): 774–787.