Andrew Sullivan recently commented on the natural connection between Catholic estethics and the sensory sorts of things that gay men (whether by nature or by social conditioning) appreciate.

I’ve often wondered how many straight Catholics fully appreciate how gay their church has always been. Especially in the old days. High Mass was, in its heyday, more elaborate and choreographed than a very melodramatic Broadway musical.

There was some negative reaction to this comment, along the lines of, “How superficial! To think that some people only go to church for the entertainment value!” That’s not what Sullivan is saying.  The point he’s making, and one that I try to make here, is that Catholicism has a fundamentally sensual approach to reality. And gays pay close attention to those sensory things, which makes for a lot of natural overlap.

If God really did become man and take our flesh to Himself, and even keep it after He ascended to His Father, then we need to take fleshly things (imagery, sound, smells, texture) seriously, especially in our religion. That doesn’t mean that High Mass is a sussed-up spiritual drag show or grand opera with crucifixes, even if it ought to be pressing some of the same buttons.

Today is the yearly celebration of the martyr St. Sebastian.

Oh, those wacky heterosexuals! FOX News reports on a revealing gag:

Yesterday on KDWB-FM’s morning radio show, host Dave Ryan asked his listeners if they would be willing to give up their baby for 24 hours in exchange for the new PS3. To his shock the radio station was flooded with calls from listeners willing to make the trade!

Ryan says the question was meant as a gag, and couldn’t believe so many people were “lined up to turn their kids over to strangers!”

Some callers played along with the joke but about three quarters of the listeners calling in were dead serious about offering up their children.

Good thing that gays can’t adopt. God knows, traditional straight families are the only way to keep our children safe! (Link found at Musing Minds.)

There’s a fairly good article in the Washington Blade on the American bishops’ gay outreach guidelines and the challenges of being both Catholic and gay. Most of the commentary is predictably from the leftish side of the argument, as the more conservative gay Catholics are probably not lining up to be interviewed by the Blade. This comment was really good, although it probably needs a few nuances:

One significant question for Catholics who remain active in the church’s gay ministries is how they reconcile their sexual orientation with the church’s teachings on the matter.

“I know what the church, the hierarchy, the people way up at the top are saying, but for myself it’s a personal issue with me and God,” Silva says about why he chooses to remain a practicing Catholic. “It has nothing to do with what the cardinal, the Pope, the bishops say.”

When he read about the bishops’ plan to vote on the gay ministry document, Silva was dismayed. But placing it in the context of other church teachings on sex, it didn’t seem so harmful, he said.

“They tell straight people not to have sex … without getting married,” Silva says. Discussing the matter is a step in the advancement of gay rights within the church, he says. “It’s a start, it’s a sort of waking up.”

A lot of more secular gays think, as the article’s author does, that the dissonance is between Church teaching and our orientation. The dissonance is really more between the teachings and our sexual choices. The Silva fellow hits on that, pointing out that there is plenty of dissonance between Church teachings and the sexual choices of most straight Catholics. In that context (the bishops also repeated Church teaching against contraception in the same meeting as they discussed ministry to gays), it’s not so much about condemnation as it is about holding up a sexual ideal that society has pretty much rejected, rightly or wrongly. Straight Catholics who are all homophobic need to realize that the Church (for many of the same reasons) also rejects a guy sleeping with his girlfriend, a single man practicing the “solitary vice,” a wife going down on her husband, a married couple using the pill, or a divorced man remarrying while his ex-wife is still alive. Gays aren’t being singled out. If it seems like that, then I think it’s more about homophobia than Church teaching as such.

Another thought occurs from the above selection. Yes, there’s a difference between my faith in God and the things that the Pope and cardinals say, but that doesn’t mean the two don’t have anything to do with each other. Even if they are wrong sometimes or ignorant, they’re still the main teachers of the faith I have. Even if I listen to them with a critical ear (in the good sense), I still ought to listen. Then, weighing their words against what I know from scripture, tradition, and solid theology, my conscience may accept or reject what they are saying, but it’s got to be more than just a knee-jerk reaction. And that goes not just for gay sex, but for straight couples and their contraceptives, too.

What about the Bishops’ Conference’s new guidlines for gay and lesbian ministry? Everyone seems to be all worked out about them.  On right-wing blogs and news sites, people are accusing the bishops of betraying Truth (always with capital letters), of soft-pedalling sin, and of capitulating to The Gays. Some of the nervous nellies are even claiming that — gasp — this document is worse than Always Our Children (being part of the Vast Homosexual Conspiracy, I predictably like AOC). Presumably, that’s because the document begins by reiterating Catechism teaching that gays and lesbians have human dignity, too, presumes that sexual orientation is neither a choice nor generally changeable, does not endorse “reparative therapy” pseudo-science, and does not wallow in excessive verbiage about how twisted, warped, and evil we are.

On the other side of the fence, gay activists are making lots of noise about the same document being hateful, homophobic, etc. Presumably that is because this national document doesn’t reject the teaching of the world-wide Church, because it reiterates (in much more careful and considerate language) what the Church has been teaching all along, and because it repeats the standard discipline that if a person has engaged in what the Church considers serious sexual sin (of whatever sort), then confession is necessary before receiving the Eucharist. In other news, the sky is still blue. One valid criticism, I think, is the way the document discourages people coming out: on that, more in a bit.

The document seems very balanced to me. In 25 pages, it sets out a framework of what a ministry should look like if it (a) sets out to help gay Christians in our particular struggles to follow Christ and (b) intends to bill itself as a Catholic ministry. What follows is a listing of the various topics covered by the document, with my own comments on each section.

Ministry to Persons with a Homosexual Inclination: Guidelines for Pastoral Care

Introduction: The document has been prepared because the Church ministers to everyone, and ministry to “persons who experience same-sex attraction” can be particularly challenging. Confusion, it says, enters because society has a warped notion of sexuality in general, and this affects certain views of homosexuality in particular.

My comments: The document’s avoidance of the words “gay” and “lesbian” is a bit annoying, and the replacement term is clunky, but that’s a matter of taste, I guess. Very important is the framing of the homosexuality debate in the broader discourse of sexuality in general. What is said here regarding homosexuality, they are saying, applies mutatis mutandis to heterosexuality, too.

The document is divided now into two main sections: General Principles and Pastoral Care.

1. Respecting Human Dignity. The document’s first principle is that the Church is sent to all people. Each individual innately possesses human dignity, is loved by God, and created in God’s image and likeness. This is prior to any other discussion. It repeats the Catechism’s deploration and condemnation of injustice, scorn, and violence against “persons with a homosexual inclination,” whether that is openly expressed or concealed, and remarks that this fundamental respect is especially required of the Church’s ministers.

Me: Starting point is not sin or sex, but human dignity. If you can’t respect and love the people you minister to, you need a different job.

2. Place of Sexuality in God’s Plan. Cites Genesis 1:27 on the creation of humanity as male and female, deducing the complementarity of the sexes as part of God’s plan for sexuality. This complementarity makes new life possible in procreation. The purpose of sexual desire is to draw man and woman together in marital union, toward the two purposes of procreation and the mutual good of the spouses. Such is the natural design of humanity, and by fulfilling it, people obey God’s will and fulfill their nature.

Me: Standard theology of the body presentation of traditional natural law argumentation. Note that there is still no mention of sin, and that sex is presented in a positive light as a created good. While it’s true that Genesis presents the man and the woman as complementary — she is his helpmate and support, one like himself — the sexual complementarity has more to do with procreation than the mutual good. I don’t think you can prove from Scripture or Tradition that the opposite sex is necessary for a person to be fulfilled in his “individual human nature” when finding a “helpmate and support.” Until the romantic period, most philosophers would say that a man’s most natural partner in mind and soul would be another man. For procreation, it goes without saying, but for mutual support?

3. Homosexual Acts Cannot Fulfill the Natural Ends of Human Sexuality. Basing itself upon the theology of the body in the previous section, a conclusion is drawn that only sex within marriage and open to the possibility of procreation can fulfill the natural ends of human sexuality. Any other kind of act is therefore sinful. The document points out that this rules out the possibility of adultery, pre-marital sex, masturbation, contraception, and (among these others) homosexual acts. Specifically, homosexual acts are by their nature closed to procreation and don’t reflect the complementarity of the sexes. In addition to this natural-law argument, the document mentions that whenever homosexual acts are mentioned in Scripture, is is always to condemn those acts. A special mention is given to St. Paul, who writes that homosexual acts can arise in those who worship the creature instead of the Creator.

Me: Other than the theology of the body bit about complementarity of the sexes, it’s all quite traditional. It starts with the stronger argument, from natural law, and then moves on to mention the Scriptural texts, which are less cogent and more difficult to use as proofs. They are less cogent because they offer no framework or discussion of why homosexual acts are forbidden, and because the authors had no notion of stable homosexual orientations. Relationship arrangements as we see them today simply didn’t exist in the mental landscape of the Biblical authors. It’s worth pointing out that homosexual sins are, in this document, treated in the same breath as kindred heterosexual sins, and not as a special category of perversion. What is said regarding gay sex is explicitly said also of the corresponding straight sins.

4. Homosexual Inclination Is Not Itself a Sin. As distinct from homosexual acts, homosexual inclinations are not chosen and, thus, not sinful. And just as straights can sin by giving into sexual fantasies and indulging in sexual pleasure outside the categories mentioned above, so too can gays. The famous “objectively disordered” term is raised: the homosexual inclination is “objectively disordered” because it disposes (orders) a person toward something that contradicts what is naturally good for him. The document states that heterosexuals, too, frequently experience disordered sexual inclinations. A paragraph is dedicated to emphasizing that it is the particular inclination to have sex with members of the same sex that is “disordered,” not the person himself. The person is still loved by God and welcomed by the Church. Emphasis is made that many other drives can be disordered, too, and not just sexuality. The document ends this section by admitting the difficulty in accepting this, and by distinguishing between the Church’s belief that morality is rooted in the design of human nature, and a secular belief that morality is mere convention and cultural constructs.

Me: The whole “objectively disordered” thing really deserved the careful discussion the bishops gave it. Even very well educated people (on both sides of the argument) misunderstand the philosophical language that the Vatican has used in speaking of disordered inclinations. And in light of some ignorant beliefs that being homosexual is itself a sin (think of the common declaration that “homosexuality is immoral), the opening statement to the contrary is very important. If this statement comes as a surprise to anyone,
then that person hasn’t paid any attention to Catholic theology at all. Notable, too, is how the document discusses homosexuality in light of other common sexual temptations, and places all of that in a discussion of disordered passions in general. Light years from a sin “that dare not speak its name.” The last section is also important, on the basis of morality. Even if a Christian chooses to reject the traditional teaching on homosexuality, it is up to him then to show how his personal sexual morality theory is rooted in human nature and not just a do-what-you-please secular approach.

5. Therapy for Homosexual Inclinations? Notice the question mark. The document says that there is no consensus about whether orientation is changeable and that its genesis is largely unknown. “A considerable number of people who experience same-sex attraction experience it as an inclination that they did not choose.” Some find that burdensome and seek therapy to change it, but it’s unknown whether that works, although some think it helps them. Without advising therapy, the document merely counsels that one who seeks it should find a qualified mental health professional, who accepts Church teaching, and a spiritual director and confessor.

Me: I find the literature and online materials of the “reparative therapy” people very creepy, and a significant number of credentialed professionals denounce “reparative therapy” as dangerous pseudo-science. What is undeniable once one examines the track record is that even intense therapy on individuals who are highly motivated to change rarely, if ever, succeeds in changing a person from primary sexual orientation toward the same sex to primary sexual orientation toward the opposite sex. I wouldn’t be surprised if they can be conditioned to experience some sexual attraction toward the opposite sex and less attraction toward the same, and to modify their actions and willed thoughts accordingly, but that is not “conversion.” I do wish that the bishops, instead of being cautiously neutral, had discouraged such therapy as probably useless.

6. The Necessity for Training in Virtue. Billed as “another kind of “therapy” or healing of which we all stand in need,” the document positively counsels training in virtue. Virtues are ingrained good habits, and thus need repeated practice. This is true for everything, not just sexuality, but today’s culture makes chastity particularly challenging. Chastity does not automatically mean “no sex.” Rather, “Chaste living overcomes disordered human desires such as lust and results in the expression of one’s sexual desires in harmony with God’s will. “Chastity means the successful integration of sexuality within the person and thus the inner unity of man in his bodily and spiritual being.”” A good, traditional explanation of virtue and vice, together with the passions, follows. Consideration of the social damage caused by vice. Virtue (and vice) grows by repetition, as the passions are brought under control. Not just a matter of willpower, but God’s grace gives us supernatural assistance.

Me: Very good stuff, applicable to many aspects of life. For the Christian, our morality cannot be simply, if I’m inclined to it, it must be natural and good. I’m inclined to all sorts of things that I know are bad for me. I must recognize that my sexuality is no exception. The traditional ascesis isn’t life-denying, it’s realistic in its recognition that we are selfish bastards very often, and that our appetites need to be brought under rational control.

7. Necessity of Friendship and Community. You can’t be healthy in isolation. Good Aristotelian observations about the necessity of friendship to human happiness. Applied to sexuality: “Living in isolation can ultimately exacerbate one’s disordered tendencies and undermine the practice of chastity.” Homosexuals should seek friendship with both homosexuals and heterosexuals, avoiding the tendency to segregate ourselves. Friendship should make chastity easier, and sharing friendship is a higher good than sharing sex. The Church should particularly encourage friendship between gay people and members of their own families and of the local community of the Church.

Me: A good appreciation of wholesome friendships would help society in more than just chastity, and it’s wonderful that the bishops are preaching that. Isolation and loneliness make us do all sorts of regrettable things, and sex is one of the first quick-fix substitutes that many people run to (together with booze and drugs). I’ve felt in myself and seen in my friends that when a person is satisfied in his/her friendships, that person’s less likely to do foolish and risky things. We also need support in doing the other difficult things that virtue demands, and friends help with that. Sort of following what they suggested in AOC, the bishops underscore the importance of families maintaining friendship with gay children, even when there are different ideas about what is sexually correct. And the parish! A lot of families and churches need to learn that lesson. I think the advice about having gay and straight friends is very good, and we could add male and female to that, too.

8. Growth in Holiness. Grace building on nature, a discussion of friendship with God follows the discussion of friendship with other people. Holiness is a call to every individual, an intimate relationship with the Holy One. Treatment of the love of God being above all else, and being reflected in love of neighbor. This is a call for homosexuals, too. The life of holiness and growth of grace takes place in union with the cross and resurrection of Christ, experienced in the sacraments of the Church, and so anyone seriously interested in growth in holiness will avail himself of them.

Me: Good, basic Catholicism, underscoring the calling of every soul to salvation.

9. Cultural Obstacles. If ministry to “persons with a homosexual inclination” is to be effective, it must be in conformity with Church teaching and be based on a Catholic understanding of human nature and the purposes of sexuality. The Church does not support any organization that is opposed to, ambivalent about, or silent on the Church’s sexual teaching. There are various cultural obstacles to the Church’s mission of ministry to gays. First obstacle is violence toward and intolerance of people perceived as different, homosexuals in this case. Second, moral relativism, which rejects objective rules of moral behavior. This leads people to mistake the Church’s insistence on moral principles for injustice and opposition to human rights (of the individual to be affirmed in all his choices). Homosexuality is not equivalent to race, ethnicity, etc., and so things like opposition to gay marriage are not by that fact alone unjust. Third obstacle, the prevalent hedonism of the culture.

Me: I don’t think anyone would deny that those things are obstacles to the Church’s pastoral outreach to gays and lesbians. I wonder to what extent otherwise faithful Catholics have absorbed those mistaken values — intolerance of difference, moral relativism, and hedonism?

This finishes the first section, on principles. The second section derives pastoral guidelines from those principles.

Church Participation. The Church welcomes and encourages the full and active participation of homosexual persons in the life of the local faith community of the Church. This is the foundation of spiritual life and the life of virtue. Recognizing that many gays feel themselves marginalized and excluded by the Church, “a welcoming stance” on the part of bishops and pastors, as well as the whole community, is essential. People who are striving to live in accordance with Church teaching should be welcomed into active roles of service. Others, if their lifestyle behaviors violate Church teaching, should be limited, in order to avoid scandalizing the people or seeming to approve of their failings. People involved in the ministry of the Church must not belong to dissident groups or be hostile or neutral toward Church teaching. Some find “revealing their homosexual tendencies” (coming out) to select persons or groups to be helpful, but general disclosure in the parish setting isn’t helpful and isn’t encouraged. There should be outreach and evangelization directed specifically at gays everywhere, and in places of higher concentration there could be people dedicated exclusively to that work. The Church should have procedures in place against harassment and unjust discrimination of gays.

Me: Some have already complained that this is an Uncle Tom attitude. If you’re a good homosexual, then you can have roles in the Church. If not, then just sit in the congregation and be quiet, and please don’t scandalize the old ladies. But, really, that’s the attitude to everyone. If a man is living with his girlfriend, the pastor won’t make him a lector at Mass. Or if someone’s divorced and remarried, they can’t distribute Communion. If you want a public role of authority in the Church, you have to accept the public rules for acceptable behavior. Setting all that aside, I think that all of this section would be a big challenge for most parishes. Most parishioners would probably feel awkward in welcoming an obviously gay man (even if he doesn’t engage in “general self-disclosure” and is presumably chaste) in a role of responsibility in the parish, unless he’s the priest. But that’s what the bishops are insisting on, in keeping with the Gospel. That’s probably a bigger challenge for the straight people in the pew than for the gays. On the subject of coming out to the parish, I guess the main question is why would I want to “declare myself” to my fellow parishioners? Seems rather self-centered to me. All the same, the only way in which it “is not helpful” is that it will cause a bit of a stir, force the priest to do a bit more work, and perhaps scandalize the people who are prone to rash judgment. On the positive side, it fixes the abstract term “homosexual” to a concrete person (whom the people hopefully think well of), and that helps combat ignorant prejudice.

2. Catechesis. Should be “welcoming, but challenging.” Meet you where you are, but don’t leave you there. Needs to enunciate the entire sexual teaching, without glossing over the stuff we don’t want to hear. Catechetical formation begins with forming the ministers. Teach people how to form their consciences. Priests should preach the whole truth from pulpits and form the general congregation, as ignorance is a barrier to proper ministry. Parishioners should be catechized against prejudice, unjust discrimination, etc. Local bishop should oversee materials being used. Form the young in understanding sexuality’s meaning and chastity.

Me: Good balance.

3. Sacraments and Worship. If you live in accordance with teachings, full participation in sacraments is important, especially Eucharist. Special attention to those who try but fail, offering spiritual direction and frequent confession, with encouragement to keep trying and to stay in the faith community. Priests cannot bless gay marriages or civil unions. Since same-sex partnerships are sinful, such couples shouldn’t adopt. But, if people do adopt, the Church should baptize their children if there is well-founded hope that they will be raised in the Catholic religion. Priests should be careful in planning the ceremony (presumably, not to shock the other parents) and distinguish between natural and adoptive parents on the certificate.

Me: Nothing really radical here. I think, given the whole complication of adoption, if a decent gay couple wants to adopt a child that can’t find traditional parents, surely the gay home is preferable to an orphanage or foster custody. It seems as if Catholic Charities (and Archbishop Levada) agreed with that in San Francisco at one point. No principles are being sacrificed. That same pastoral flexibility is evidenced in the sensible advice about baptisms.

4. Pastoral Support. Spiritual direction from a priest is the most important pastoral resource for living virtue and not falling into the “gay subculture.” Particularly so for young people. Pastoral services should be available for people experiencing permanent or “situational” homosexual tendencies, and their families. To avoid isolation and alienation, it’s helpful for faithful gays to meet others in similar situations for support and prayerful solidarity. Courage is singled out in a footnote as an example of such a support group. Gay people shouldn’t identify themselves primarily in terms of their sexuality (the reason why this document presumably never says “gay” or “lesbian”) or participate in the “gay subculture.” Particular dangers to gay youth are suicidal thoughts, promiscuity, and vulnerability to exploitation by older people. The Church should make appropriate, Catholic-minded psychological services available. However, care should be taken that only services in line with Church teaching are promoted. Pastoral support should include outreach to those with STDs and HIV/AIDS. Since the Church wants families to accept gay members, the Church should have support groups for families, teaching how to accept Church teaching and accept their kids. Non-Church organizations can either help or hurt the goal of healthy, chaste life for homosexually-inclined people: each group has to be judged on its own merits.

Me: That’s a lot. And stop a moment to consider how much has changed since 50 years ago. Imagine what the old Irish monsignor would have said if you had suggested to him what the bishops just said to us. In 50 more years, I’m sure things will have progressed even further, in God only knows which ways. Granted, if I just want Church permission to have sex with my boyfriend, then I’ll not be satisfied. If, on the other hand, I want the Church to speak the Gospel to me in the midst of my particular reality, and to tell society about its obligations to respect me in that reality, then there’s a lot to admire. And even if I think it’s silly to avoid the word “gay” in a document about gays, I appreciate what the document says about not reducing ourselves to our sexual orientation. I’m gay, but that’s hardly all I am, or even the most important thing. I think it should also have been said that homosexuality cannot be reduced to mere same-sex shagging, either. The sexual attraction to other men is only one part of what it is to be gay. The “subculture,” whatever precisely that is, reflects that. It’s certainly too sexualized, and promotes all sorts of values (not just sexual ones) that are not compatible with our Gospel faith, but it also has its positive aspects, and that is perhaps given short shrift here. All in all, though, these guidelines are very Christ-like.

The document ends with general remarks, including an invitation to respectful dialogue, in which different points of view and concerns can be exchanged, hopes and needs can be voiced, and dignity can be mutually respected.

*Christopher has written a very thoughtful post on the nature of male sexuality (of both the gay and straight varieties) and the need for elucidating first principles that lead to healthy integration, rather than self-destructive and compulsive “acting out.” I’m not sure I agree with all of his conclusions, but I think he has hit the problem in the bull’s eye. Whether or not one comes to quite the same conclusions, I think *Christopher points us all on the right track in terms of where the solutions lie.

I came across this blog dedicated to our patron saint, Sebastian. Lots of neat information.

The guy at This Gay Christian’s Blog has a funny snippet from AlterBoyz the Musical, about identities that not everyone approves of:

“I look into your eyes, and I see the pain you hold inside,

Aren’t you tired of the lies you tell so you can hide?

(What if my friends don’t accept me?) I know…

(What if my parents reject me?) I know!

But you won’t truly be you, until you can saaayy…

I,

am,

a Catholic! ….

It reminds me of Oscar Wilde’s famous quip, “My position is curious: I am not a Catholic: I am simply a violent Papist.” Of course, he eventually went on to become a Catholic, to boot.

Here’s an interesting article in The Tablet on a Catholic adoption agency sailing between Scylla and Charybdis. On the one hand, Catholic adoption agencies have seen that sometimes it’s in the best interest of a child to place him or her with a gay couple and have quietly been doing so for some time now. On the other hand, the Vatican has reasserted that the ideal is for a child to be placed with a man and woman in a traditional marriage, and that gay partnerships are so far from that ideal that Catholics (and, a fortiori, Catholic agencies) ought to oppose gay adoption. Adding to the dilemma is the insistence of certain governments that an agency either does not discriminate regarding sexual orientation, or gets out of the adoption business altogether.

The Boston Archdiocese’s pullout has gotten the most notice. But the Archdiocese of San Francisco makes for an interesting contrast. There, the letter of the law is being followed, with the Archdiocese no longer placing any children for adoption since it can no longer place with homosexual couples, but the Church is nevertheless “loaning” employees to do basically the same work with another non-profit group that does occasionally place children with gays and lesbians.

It seems logical to me that children would do best in a loving, Catholic family with a Mom and Dad and other siblings. But sometimes that sort of family is not available for a particular child, particularly if the child has special needs. Surely it’s better to place a kid with a loving, responsible same-sex couple than to let him be tossed around from foster home to foster home until he turns 18.

Certainly, what matters most is the welfare of the child, and not the wishes of the would-be parents. But there are no data to support the notion that kids of gay couples turn out any better or worse than kids of straight couples, all else being equal. So, even if one agrees with the Vatican that the best thing would be to place the kids with a man and wife, sometimes the best available option is to place them with homosexuals. Really, if I were a Catholic adoption agent, I would be more worried about the religion of the prospective parents than about their sexual orientation.

One of the greatest artists in human history, and one of the leading lights of the Renaissance, Michelangelo Buonarroti was also a man who understood the Catholic attraction to the beauty of the human form, a beauty in which God deigned to clothe Himself in the Incarnation.

It’s hard to imagine a modern artist being paid by the Pope to decorate a church with the vibrant nudes that Michelangelo used for the Sistine Chapel. Or of any esteemed Catholic artist today who would fashion a crucifix with a naked Christ. Or so daringly combine the strength of devotion with the strength of the unveiled male body. Michelangelo did it all.

In spite of the opposition to this glorying in the human form, Michelangelo is but one representative of an authentic current of Catholic esthetics that figures that if God has created man’s body as good and that if Christ has glorified that by His own coming as man, then art is free to use that form to glorify God, even in ways that aren’t explicitly “religious,” as we see in some of the “merely” decorative nudes that Michelangelo uses in the Sistina. Indeed, if man in his body and soul is truly the culmination of God’s creation, then he becomes the most fitting creature to be represented by art.

The artist’s own sexuality gave him a particular insight into the beauty of the male form and a sensitivity to its beauty. This perhaps was a gift that allowed him to offer his particularly vigorous art to God’s glory and for the building-up of the generations that have come after him.

That peculiar (queer?) viewpoint comes through also in some of his written art, the exquisite sonnets that he composed. This page discusses his sexuality, as seen through certain of his sonnets.

It’s too bad that our own culture, warped perhaps by mutant strains of Calvinist Puritanism (both of the religious and non-religious sorts), equates human flesh with nothing but lust. The old Catholic genius, rooted in Christ’s own flesh, saw the body as an expression of God’s glory, and the erotic as one of the most vivid metaphors for the overpowering presence of the Divine.