The Silence: Christianity and Homosexuality

An exploration of silence in the Christian space on homosexuality.

The social or personal life of any given individual can be divided into a number of subsections. How we act often differs from one to another. Little Susie can be boisterous and energetic on her softball team, yet composed and attentive during her classical flute recital. She acts differently based on what she is taught and what she knows is expected of her in both situations. Where these subsections of life bleed together has the potential for harm and internal conflict. For example, Susie might ignore her flute teacher if they showed up to one of her softball games or feel embarrassed if one of her teammates came to a recital and giggled at her. These instances can result in damaging Susie’s relationships and self. She may have insulted her teacher for ignoring her at the game or suddenly feel awkward because of her teammate’s reaction to her recital. Catholic homosexuals face the very same instance as the fictional Susie. For most, the two identities exhibited in the title “Catholic homosexual” seem contradictory or even incompatible. This piece is pointed at exploring the controversial identity from where Catholicism and homosexuality converge: how the two parts shape the environment of those who live in it, how they navigate this intersectional space, what effects it has on them and their actions, and even more specifically how in this space is silence used and its repercussions. While the approach is academic, the limited nature of looking at a few viewpoints means the emphasis must remain on how it is an exploratory discourse not meant to broad-scheme or serve as the authority for others in the same position. To get a better sense of what Catholic homosexuals must consider in assessing their own identity and how they believe they must act, discussing a few different ways this space has been addressed by others is in order.

It is a known fact people love to have clear cut categories to place things and other people in. Having these clear cut categories makes forming a viewpoint and acting easier. The easiest number to choose from (besides one) is two. Dr. Dawne Moon (2014) argues society likes to use such a dichotomous situation on the topic of homosexuality in religion: one may only be pro-gay or anti-gay. Under this false binary, pro-gay allows for one to go as far as to say they are “born gay”, which provides homosexuals with an innate queerness nobody can debate because otherwise they would be battling a natural existence. Anti-gay takes on the “sinful choice” belief in that anyone who does not follow heteronormativity does have the choice to and should reform their ways to match the rest of cisgender society. For Moon, there are six religious views on homosexuality which span from homonegative, to moderate, to homopositive stances: “God Hates Fags,” “Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin,” “We Don’t Talk About That,” “They Can’t Help It,” “God’s Good Gift,” and “Godly Calling.” While all these are relevant to the discussion, “We Don’t Talk About It” is the category most relevant to the three people this discourse highlights. Rather than being asked a series of questions, all participants were asked to speak on how they see and interpret silence in the Catholic space when it comes to their homosexual identity. Note that silence, the main inquiry of this discourse, is most often used as a tool for control of homosexuality in the Christian faith.

Michael (pseudonym) is the first in this qualitative study to share their experience where homosexuality and Catholicism converge in their life. He is a single, white, nineteen year old freshman at Marquette University who identifies as gay. The university’s campus is a considerable distance away from his family home on the East Coast of the United States. In his family, dedication to the Christian faith is taken seriously; this includes involvement in parish programming. When asked to share his experience, he said, “After I came out to my parents, during mass the priest went on a very rude and offensive rant about the LGBT+ community. Instead of standing up for me, my parents only made excuses. Since then, nobody has brought it up because it is such a taboo topic. So basically due to the silence of the people in the Catholic Church that do support the LGBT+ (my parents included) it causes the bigoted hate speech of the church to go unquestioned and in turn forces my silence and makes it seem like I can not stand up and speak for myself.”

Clearly, Michael sees the silence being used by multiple parties in his life. Although the priest presiding over the parish his family belongs to is more likely in Moon’s “God Hates Fags” category because he is vocal about his position, Michael and his parents more readily can be placed in the “We Don’t Talk About It” category. He recognizes the reason his parents made excuses instead of supporting him when the priest verbally attacked the LGBT community is because they would rather avoid the topic than discuss it. Avoiding the topic allows them to not have to choose between their son and the church. Likewise, the silence Michael sees himself using also acts for the same purpose. Doing so allows for Michael and his parents to preserve their relationship, but within a contrived manner both parties are aware of. As Richard Pitt (2010) would say, this is evidently a form of compartmentalization. Compartmentalization separates the different pieces of a person’s identity which results in exhibiting different behaviors and personalities. A common example of this may be seen when comparing behavior with friends versus at work. Little Susie’s hypothetical situation also demonstrates this. Compartmentalizing oneself might be useful for maintaining professionalism, but in the case of compartmentalizing Michael’s (or any other homosexual’s) homosexual and Catholic identities, difficulties arise. It is safe to say Pitt’s discussion of these difficulties for Black men in their church parallels that of Michael’s situation because his writings state the divergence between Black and White men on the issue does not lie in ethnicity but in religiosity. Religiosity is the degree of involvement and “buy-in” to the teachings and values of one’s religion. He attributed the Church community’s over-sexualized perception of homosexuals, a maxim of both the Black church and Catholicism, to these difficulties. In his case study of a man named Bryan, Pitt finds the Christian identity dominating the homosexual identity because it is not only factored into their platonic relationships, but their romantic ones as well. Speaking from personal interaction with Michael, he is apprehensive and sometimes anxious to speak or act as himself around even other members of the LGBT community. He affirmed over the course of his freshman year here at Marquette that he has slowly started to feel more comfortability in his own skin, acting with less reservations. These observations lend themselves to a conclusion that Marquette University creates a more accepting space for LGBT (than the environment for him back home.) Yet, it does not offer resolution for Michael’s detached family life, unfortunately validating the continued compartmentalization of his identity.

Sandra (pseudonym) eerily touched on a similar experience, despite the lack of knowledge of Michael’s testimony. She is a single, twenty year old latina sophomore at Marquette University who identifies as bisexual. The response she sent was this: “As a Mexican womyn who was brought up in a Catholic household my Queer identity has very much been suppressed by my religion. The LGBTQ+ community is very much silenced within this religion. As a bisexual womyn my identity is not taken seriously because of the silence within this community. For example, the preacher was once speaking on the LGBTQ+ community saying that is was a sin for people of the same sex to raise children together. I believe this happens because there is a lack of education within the Catholic community on what it means to identify as LGBT. The LGBT community is then silenced within Catholicism because we are shunned and not listened to.”

She followed up this statement with how her parents do not take bisexuality seriously; they believe she is straight if she is dating a man and lesbian if dating a woman. Since she is currently single, her parents consider her straight. Any time she prods them on the matter, they at best behave as though she is going through a “phase” — diminishing the authenticity of her claim to bisexuality. Furthermore, even if she were dating a woman and they(parents) took it seriously, they would only recognize her as homosexual. Their inclination to prescribe to a homosexuality and heterosexuality binary echoes Moon’s statement on how binaries are blinding to the realities in between the only two categories they recognize. Consequent to their binary prescription, Sandra’s parents address her bisexuality in the same way they address those who truly identify as just homosexual. Additionally, their unwillingness to take her non-heteronormative identity seriously matches Michael’s situation. They both reside in the “We Don’t Talk About It” category. Sandra’s story takes a different turn than Michael’s though after this point. She does not participate regularly in religious activity with her family, but rather only practices spiritual engagement either independently or with like-minded, inclusivity-oriented people. This is due to her experience with the preacher’s homily where her sexuality and faith converge. Janet Armitage and Rhonda Dugan’s article “Marginalized Experiences of Hispanic Females in Youth-Based Religious Groups”(2006) voices the concepts necessary to discussing Sandra’s experience. Armitage and Dugan studied the Christian community’s institutionalization of gender roles. Gender roles for female members “rewarded female youth group participants for their control over their sexuality…” Sandra participated in youth Bible-study group and found similar gender roles marginalizing the feminine half. It cannot be denied that this fact builds a connection between Armitage and Dugan’s conclusions about gender roles and her choice to remove herself from traditional faith practice. Her decision to practice faith independent of her parents’ church must therefore be seated in her cognizance of the unfair marginalizing she is subject to, even by her own parents.

The last experience shared is that of my own. I am a biracial(white in appearance), twenty-two year old senior at Marquette University, currently dating another man, who in the past has identified as bisexual but am currently questioning if my preferences fall solely in the homosexual identity. Given that I am currently dating a man and for the sake of a more linear discourse, I will refer to myself as homosexual from now on. My experience where my homosexual identity and Catholic faith converge has mostly been, like Michael’s, initially anxious and apprehensive, but conversely a far more positive experience. Never have I experienced outward anti-gay sentiment in the religious community my family and I belong to. While I suspect my Dad might still retain reservations about having a son who’s not straight, he has not voiced any outside of behavior around my grandparents; this matches the hints of homophobia I have witnessed from his side of the family. Mom and her family have been supportive the entire time, only stumbling when they do not understand a concept here or there (i.e. sexuality as a spectrum). On the other hand, I have never forced the hand of anyone outside my nuclear family to discuss my status as a man dating another man who considers himself part of the Catholic faith. In this way, I too utilize silence for my own benefit. Again, this silence is a tool used simultaneously with compartmentalizing my identity. The lack of negative feedback to my relationship I had initially anticipated has prompted me to be more courageous in instances where both it and the religious community are present. For example, I have been consistently bringing my boyfriend to mass with my family on Sundays for months now; when my hands are not needed for other things like holding the song book, I am holding his hand. As of yet, I have not seen or interpreted any negative opinion of this action. Perhaps this derives from the privilege of being perceived outwardly white, or being a cisgender male, or perhaps even being a long-time established member of the parish. All of these are layers of solidarity in my identity with the larger heteronormative body of the parish. My ability to successfully do this is inconsistent with the teachings all three of us have faced growing up.

Controlling the actions of homosexuals extends itself into multiple manifestations. Sexual purity (Moselener 2015) is one such manifestation of control and is what I believe links the three narratives presented. Through the fore-fronting values of the times, evangelicals found a way to rally the youth back around the Church as they saw it. Abstinence and waiting till marriage evidently became cool and desirable. For LGBT youth, sexual purity is an incognito form of silencing through this understanding of the campaigns. When sexual purity campaigns are paired with the teaching marriage is a heterosexual union, LGBT youth are restricted to only platonic relationships. As a result, youth who wish to still belong to the Christian community after discovering their LGBT identity are supposed to remain silent about their desires and feelings.

All of us were involved in the youth groups of our religious communities Armitage and Dugan studied. The evangelization culture Moselener discusses is infused into these youth groups and is evident through our interpretations of the norms and expectations placed upon us by the Catholic Church. While all of us deviate from what was taught and expected of us, Sandra’s choice was a response to the unrelenting viewpoints of her religious community and their unwillingness to disrupt its rigidity so that she may be accepted wholly, but uses silence in this separation from that community. Michael has metaphorically “arched his back” away from the teachings of his religious community that cumulatively denigrate him as a homosexual while still being a part of the community. Yet, the fairly stagnant relationship maintained with his parents on the issue is the embodiment of the problem created by silence. My experience brings the best results, with supportive parents and seemingly supportive religious community, but it rests on a systematic use of silence. “We Don’t Talk About It” thus is the perfect title for all three of us, even with how different the experiences we each have had. Silence’s incognito status has been erased by all three of us, but this is just the first step in dissolving the complex set of conditions which make homosexuality and Catholicism seem conflicting.

Reverend Elizabeth Edman (2016) has developed a theory on the nature of Christianity which could dissolve this adversarial relationship problematic to the lives of each participant. To Edman, “God queers our lives and our world.” (2016)

This understanding of Christianity suggests queerness is in God’s plan for the world and His people. Moreover, it demands that we as the rational species are accepting of all His creations. Evidently, Edman then means to say it is not permissible for one person to deem any partial or whole nature of another person to be flawed or consequently subject to scrutiny and punishment. Her constant iterations of how it is improper to separate the queerness of her identity from that of her identity which is priestly and spiritual. “To say that they (identity components) have informed each other comes almost too close to suggesting that they are discrete. They are not divisible.” (2016)

Applying this core principle of Edman’s beliefs and teachings to the lives of the participants could be just the remedy necessary to bring harmony to their identities. Unfortunately, this remedy depends on the willingness of not only the participants to accept a natural queerness to Christianity, but their family, friends, clergy, and any other religious community members of importance to their lives. As the one with the greatest perceived family and parish support, I would theoretically be the most likely to succeed in this endeavor. But again, rapport can only take an argument so far; my target audience must be willing to shift their understanding of Catholicism. Anyone able to do so would truly be humble. Thankfully, the Catholic church teaches its members to strive to be humble, concluding this study on a positive look toward the future.

References

Dawne Moon, 2014, “Beyond the Dichotomy: Six Religious Views of Homosexuality,” Journal of Homosexuality 61 (9): 1215–1241.

Janet S. Armitage and Rhonda E. Dugan, 2006, “Marginalized Experiences of Hispanic Females in Youth-Based Religious Groups,” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 45 (2): 217- 231.

Rev. Elizabeth M. Edman 2016, “Introduction” and “On the Inherent Queerness of Christianity,” pp. 1–29 in her Queer Virtue: What LGBTQ People Know about Life and Love and How It Can Revitalize Christianity,Boston: Beacon Press.

Richard N. Pitt, 2010, “‘Still Looking for My Jonathan’: Gay Black Men’s Management of Religious and Sexual Identity Conflicts,” Journal of Homosexuality 57:39–53.

Sara Moselener, 2015, “Introduction: Sexual Purity and National Security,” Virgin Nation: Sexual Purity and American Adolescence, New York: Oxford.