‘Where Peter Is’ Blog Shills for Homosexual Relationships

The blog “Where Peter Is” (WPI) is a super-ultramontanist website that has tried to present itself over the years as the reasonable voice in the room, explaining how Pope Francis’ statements and actions are all perfectly orthodox and that those alarmed by him are undermining the Church, revealing themselves to be “protestants.”

There is much that could be said of the heterodoxy of WPI, but a recent article published on the blog titled, “Why all Christians should support LGBTQ persons,” simply cannot go unanswered and unexposed for the assault on Catholic teaching that it is.  The article presents what it believes to be “seven reasons why” all churches “should welcome, appreciate, and care for LGBTQ persons,” but the principal errors of the article can be broken down into two distinct elements:

• The myth of sexual and gender identities.
• The scandalous notion that same-sex attracted individuals should form non-sexual, yet affectionate relationships.

The very first, and fundamental problem with the entire article is the establishment of “LGBTQ person” as an identity.  Without diving into what “LGBTQ person” actually means, the author (and many like him, ala James Martin, SJ and so forth) establishes the existence of “LGBTQ persons” as a given.  As a quick refresher, the acronym stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer.  There is a quantifiable definition that can be applied to each of these, except “Queer,” which seems to have no actual definition beyond “sexual and gender identities other than straight and cisgender.”  The others, however, are identities related directly to actual, definable sins.  Lesbianism refers to women engaging in sexual activity with other women, and “Gay” means the same thing, only for men.  Bisexual refers to those who engage in sexual behavior with both men and women, and transgender refers to gender dysphoria, where an individual believes themselves to be a member of the opposite sex.

Holy Scripture and Catholic moral teachings all throughout the history of the Catholic faith fully and unreservedly condemn – as intrinsically evil – all erotic and romantic homosexual activities and all manner of transvestitism (dressing as a member of the opposite sex).  What this means is that there are no circumstances whereby romantic relationships among homosexuals or transgender identities and/or behaviors can ever be supported, endorsed, or approved.  This is affirmed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 2357, which states:

“Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.” (emphasis added)

When one identifies as an “LGBTQ person,” he or she is indicating one of two things; either the individual is acting upon one or several of the related activities or he or she is afflicted with the intrinsically disordered desire for these things.  If it is the former, then the individual is living in a state of objective, grave sin.  If it is the latter, then the person is acknowledging the desire but not currently acting on it.  Whichever the case, there is an inherent danger of falling into the sins of scandal and malice by encouraging such individuals to identify with their disordered desires.

Every single human who has ever existed after the fall of Adam and Eve has struggled with concupiscence, which is defined as “the desire of the lower appetites contrary to reason.”  In practical terms, it is the desire for another drink when it is clear that another drink will lead to drunkenness.  It is the desire to take something that belongs to another person.  It is the desire to stab someone who caused an insult.  It is the desire to engage in illicit sexual behavior.  In short, it is the natural tendency toward sin.

To label and identify someone as inseparable from their unfulfilled sinful desires is grossly unjust.  We do not call someone who desires to steal things a “thief,” nor do we mark someone an “adulterer,” “drunk,” “murderer,” or other such thing if they are struggling against such disordered desires but are not acting on them.  But to repeatedly refer to such people by their inclinations, even encouraging them to identify with the inclinations as “normal” is to make them comfortable with those inclinations.  In fact, if one who struggles not to indulge in alcohol is repeatedly called a “party animal” and encouraged to “live” the part, then rather than being fortified against the sinful desire, such individuals are encouraged to indulge in it.  This is the sin of scandal, and if done with the foresight that such encouragement will lead to a fall into sin, then it is also malice.

It is exceedingly dangerous for an individual to identify with disordered desires toward intrinsic evils, and it is grossly uncharitable for others to encourage this identity.  And yet, this is precisely what the article at WPI does.  In fact, the article not only encourages such identities, but also suggests that the intrinsically evil behaviors themselves be openly approved and accepted.  For instance, at the beginning of the article, the author wrote:

“While it may be true that many traditional communities are not openly hostile to the LGBTQ community, one may nevertheless feel unwelcome simply for being gay or trans.” (emphasis added)

It is imperative to reiterate that one’s concupiscible desires do not constitute an ontological reality – meaning, we are not the sum of our desires, and those desires are not indicative of one’s very nature.  However, one is rightly called a thief when he steals, or a murderer when he unjustly kills innocent people because the guilt of the crime demands justice.  So, “being gay or trans” is a label that can only justly be applied to those engaging in the behavior, which includes flouting it in public.

If people are worried about being made to “feel unwelcome” because they struggle with same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria, the answer is to keep such struggles in private.  No one would know of an individual’s homosexual or gender dysphoric tendencies unless they made it public, either through words or behaviors.  So, if the conversation is about disordered desire and not behavior, then the solution is not to air the dirty linens in public.  However, if the discussion is about disordered public acts (cross-dressing, open homosexual relationships, etc), then yes, such individuals should be barred from parish life until they cast off the lifestyle.

While the notion of sexual and gender identity is pervasive throughout the entire article, the crux of the argument is found in the first “reason” listed by the author as to why all churches “should welcome, appreciate, and care for LGBTQ persons.” Listed first, the author asserts: “Because LGBTQ above all refers to individual persons and not merely any moral or political issue.”

In this portion, the author blurs the line between matters which pertain to the moral realm and matters which pertain to ontological realities.  The most telling line here is this, “Whether gay, lesbian, trans, or straight, all of us are made in the image and likeness of God.”  This statement confuses two distinct concepts and attempts to blend them as if they are one:

• All people are gay, lesbian, trans, or straight.
• All people are made in the image and likeness of God.

While it is true that all people are made in the image and likeness of God, they are not created for the embrace or fulfillment of sinful desires.  The comingling of these two aspects of the one statement is nothing short of an attempt to foster the false idea that God created people AS gay, AS lesbian, AS trans, or AS straight, and that those states of being are a reflection of the Imago Dei.  Both ideas are false.  God does not will any person to be created for the desire to, or commission of, sin but calls us out of our sinful desires and to the practice of virtue.  Furthermore, God Himself is completely without blemish, fault, sin, or even the slightest imperfection.  To suggest that homosexuality and transgenderism somehow reflects the Image of God in and of themselves is outright blasphemy.  But that is precisely what this article suggests.

This notion is continued in the author’s second “reason” which he labels “Because the Church is for everyone.”

Quoting St. Paul, this section attempts to equate ethnicities and social statuses with intrinsically disordered desires:

The Church is for everyone. That’s what the word “catholic” means: the Church is universal, encompassing all kinds of people. “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female,” as Paul says, for we are “all one in Jesus Christ” (Gal. 3:28). So why does it seem like our churches pick out LGBTQ persons to the extent of making them “other”? There is no other in the Body of Christ. As I once heard a priest say, there is no “them and us” — there’s only “us.”

The very idea that having homosexual inclinations is categorically the same as being a Jew, a Greek, a slave, a free man, or male or female is false on the face of it.  Being Jew or Greek, male or female are biological realities.  Being salve or free is a changeable social status.  Engaging in or identifying with homosexual and gender dysphoric behaviors is neither a biological nor social reality, but a moral one.  One does not CHOOSE to be a Jew, a Greek, a male or female, or even to be a slave or a free person.  However, one DOES choose whether to identify with an intrinsically disordered desire.

But the purpose of this false categorization and comparison is to assert that the Church should accept everyone as they are, regardless of their ongoing, public, and sinful behaviors.  The corollary to the notion that “all are welcome” in the Catholic Church is to point out from Scripture (specifically St. Paul) that all are NOT welcome.  He wrote in chapter 5 of his first letter to the Corinthians (11-13):

I have written to you, not to keep company, if any man that is named a brother, be a fornicator, or covetous, or a server of idols, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner: with such a one, not so much as to eat.  For what have I to do to judge them that are without? Do not you judge them that are within?  For them that are without, God will judge. Put away the evil one from among yourselves.

What he is saying here is that it is not fitting for Christians to judge non-Christians, and that they should not only judge the immoral brethren in their own ranks, but even cast out those who are notorious sinners.  In the next chapter, St. Paul indicates (vs. 9-11) that those who persist in gravely immoral behaviors cannot enter into Heaven, and then illustrates how those who once engaged in those activities are saved:

Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind (ie. Homosexuals), nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God. And such some of you were; but you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Spirit of our God. (emphasis added)

The operative word in this section is “were,” as in, “not anymore.”  One cannot identify with a sinful desire and put the sin in the past tense.  Those whom St. Paul said were justified are those who committed terrible sins, but who no longer identified with their former lives.  However, what WPI is saying is that not only CAN one identify with their past, sinful lives or inclinations, but that they SHOULD.  It’s a terrible lie, and one that leads souls to Hell!

“Reasons” 4 and 5 of the WPI article make a specious attempt to argue that homosexuality and transgenderism are about “more than just sex,” and that “meaningful” relationships should be accepted and celebrated.  In point 4, after complaining that it is “unwarranted and unjust” to identify LGBTQ identities as “intrinsically disordered,” the author incoherently argues that while

“acts can be sinful, and desires towards sinful acts can be morally disordered … sexuality or sexual orientation, which are much broader than desires to commit specific acts, can hardly be reduced to an intrinsically sinful inclination.” (emphasis added)

Did you catch the subtle substitution of the word “disordered” with “sinful?”  A tendency which is intrinsically “morally disordered,” meaning it is disordered in and of itself and can never be considered to be “rightly ordered,” is not the same thing as “intrinsically sinful.”  All homosexual and transgender tendencies are “intrinsically disordered” because they draw the induvial toward intrinsically evil acts, necessarily.  But tendencies and temptations are not sins – yet the author here dishonestly conflates the two in an attempt to justify the tendency.

In reason 5, the author dances around the issues of same-sex “marriage” and “celibacy.”  After creating a false narrative that “traditional churches” have led the faithful to believe that they are “forever alone and unfulfilled if [they are] never married,” the author then cites Genesis 2:18 (“man was not meant to be alone”) in the context of same-sex “marriage.”  He then asks:

“In our support of LGBTQ persons, can we promote meaningful paths of love and relationship? Can our churches recognize committed partnerships as a locus of Christian love — or are they to be rejected from the get-go as inherently sinful?”

In the phrase “committed partnerships,” the author links to one of his other articles suggesting that the Catholic Church resurrect the ancient practice of “brother making,” which was a form of blessing for deeply bonded friendships of the same sex.  It is somewhat akin to the old American Indian practice of making blood brothers.  But again, the author is conflating concepts as if they are comparable.  When considering the ancient blessing for non-related “brothers,” there was never any sense of physical or romantic attraction between the two men (or women) involved.  And the very notion of utilizing this practice for homosexuals necessarily implies a disordered sexual attraction, and therefore such a blessing would be a true scandal.  For one thing, it would give the appearance that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with same-sex, sexual attraction and that committed (and professedly celibate) relationships between such couples could receive the blessing of the Church.  For another, it places the couple in grave danger of falling into sin because of their proximity to each other and the appearance of a blessing for their attraction, all under the idea that their self-professed sexual identities are not intrinsically disordered.

As faithful Catholics, we cannot allow these false notions to gain a toe-hold in the Church.  The very idea of identifying people with their intrinsically disordered tendencies is grossly uncharitable, scandalous and malicious.  No good can come from doing this.  It is dehumanizing, demoralizing, and downright cruel.  Furthermore, it feeds into the false idea that because a person is ontologically identified with his or her sexual or gender identity, such persons need to be fulfilled in committed (even if professedly “celibate”) relationships – and those relationships must be accepted by faithful, pewsitting Catholics, as if scandalizing the young is not an issue.  Our Lord said, “he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea.  Woe to the world because of scandals.” The writers and editors at “Where Peter Is” should be checking their neck sizes if they intend to continue publishing garbage like this article.