Gerald Augustinus is a popular blogger who runs one of the best named blogs in the Catholic blogosphere, The Cafeteria is Closed. The title of his blog is a direct reference to Cafeteria Catholicism. Namely picking and choosing, like one would at a a cafeteria, which doctrines and teachings of the Church please the palette on any given day. Upon the election of Cardinal Ratzinger Pope as Pope Benedict XVI, Gerald cleverly quipped that the cafeteria was now closed. His blog has been on our blogroll since its inception. Now that will have to change.
Some weeks back Gerald posted his thoughts on the subject of homosexuality. His comments received quite a reaction from his readers, many of whom were not pleased. It was a rather long post, but some of the relevant excerpts follow. The post was written in response to a number of questions posed by a FR. RP. .
Gay people don’t “rub in” their sexuality (except for the more flamboyant participants of pride rallies or weirdos like the “Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence”) any more than straight people do. The fact that they act like any other couple is not “rubbing it in” (assuming there is no public indecency) but simply not hiding part of their lives. Since this is a free country, people can, absent injury to others, live as they please. The same freedom that makes it possible for you to be Catholic makes it possible for others to be “openly” gay. Obviously, the Catholic Church has every right to ban “Dignity” from church property, but that is where it ends, just like Muslims can’t ban others from the ‘right’ to eat pork in public. Tolerance doesn’t mean embracing those with whom one disagrees but rather to let them be. Unfortunately, P.C. sometimes goes so far as to outlaw opinions differing from mainstream culture. I’m very much a libertarian when it comes to speech and actions that don’t harm others.
…
Well, first of all, we’re always ‘in heat’, unlike animals. Again, being in a committed gay is not the same as being ‘enslaved’ to sex, much like an unmarried straight couple that’s not celibate isn’t ‘enslaved’ to sex by necessity of not being married. Sex addiction is of course a problem for people, both gay and straight. Promiscuity is easier, obviously, when only men are involved. Lesbian sexual behavior is usually different. Frequently, lack of sex can become a problem in a relationship.
….
While a church – or the law, for that matter – cannot offer ‘second’ options – say, “Well if you steal, try to steal only a bit”, a society certainly should be interested in a tolerant climate and committed gay relationships rather than guilt-ridden, marginalized, closeted individuals who once in a while go on a sex spree. And, once more, homosexuality is not about mere ‘biological functions’, just like heterosexuality isn’t. It can be, certainly, and more so when there’s only testosterone to go around.
This post garnered a very strong reaction from Gerald’s readers prompting many of them to ask Gerald if the Cafeteria was now open again. I think it is obvious that Gerald’s comments do not reflect Catholic thought. While Christians should treat all people with dignity and respect, I do not think that it is proper to encourage by word, deed, or legislative act sinful behavior. I certainly do not wish to people to be more committed to their intrinsically disordered acts ccc 2357.
In comment on the above post Karen Hall of Some Have Hats said the following which summed up well my sentiments at the time.
The ideal and the Truth are what are constantly being attacked — they take a much more tougher whipping than any minority group, and constantly. And we almost never get to see anyone stand up for them. With the exception of the Pope, who you may remember, is the reason your blog got its name. I have to admit, I’ve read it for a long time and right now, I feel a bit duped.
At the time I endeavored to give Gerald the benefit of the doubt. I thought perhaps he had become too attached to a libertarian line of thinking and that this had clouded his judgment. I could relate to this as it is a stage of political thinking through which I briefly passed some decades ago but soon dismissed due to its obvious shortcomings. I also wondered if Gerald was perhaps trying to give a secular civics lesson on a Catholic blog and in doing so ignored some of the explicit teaching on the church on these matters. Anyway, like I said, I gave him the benefit of the doubt.
Truth be told, however, I have rarely read his blog since that time so I missed some follow up posts on related matters that may indicate that the slack I cut him at the time may have been unwarranted. CMR pal Red Cardigan at And Sometimes Tea alerted me to some recent comments by Gerald that are even more troubling.
Gender identity disorder is real – it usually starts before school age. While the operation and the entire process [Hormone treatments and sex change operation] is easier before puberty, it’d seem wiser to let the person make the decision as an adult. Of course, parents have the right to decide on medical treatment – within limits.
Gerald now says that it would be morally licit for prepubescent children to undergo sex change therapy. This statement does not just reflect an overactive libertarian tendency, but an outright rejection of the teaching of the church on the nature of sexuality. Red Cardigan wrote in response:
I can’t even begin to express my sense of horror at the idea that children as young as ten might be give hormone treatments as part of a plan that includes the eventual mutilation of their sex organs as a way of treating what must be considered a deeply psychological problem.
I share her horror. It is because of the above that I am no longer assured that the Cafeteria is Closed will reflect Catholic teaching or can still rightly be called a Catholic blog. It is with regret that we feel that we must remove the Cafeteria from the CMR blogroll.
Gerald Augustinus, we are praying for you.
May 12, 2008 at 4:11 am
Gerald Augustinus, circa. 2006, taking issue with Fr. Richard McBrien’s support of homosexual adoptions: “Hey Padre, ever heard of Roma locuta, causa finita?”
Gerald Augustinus, circa April 2008:
“I took the Cafeteria tag out of my logo, btw, so spare me the umpteenth dig re: that. When I put it up, I a) meant it as a bon mot and b) had no idea that bishops would, eg, actively campaign against civil unions for homosexuals. Since I came out in favor of that and defended gay adoption (based on my wife’s prior work in the field and from the example of friends), too, my position as a ‘Cafeteria Catholic’ is firmly established and need not be brought up at every turn, as if it were a new insight. I freely admit it. The far-right and whatever you could be described as are correct in saying so.”
IMHO, if you find yourself butting heads with the formal teaching of the Magisterium, take that as a good indication to step back in humility and check your spiritual compass, even if it means going on a hiatus from blogging.
May 12, 2008 at 3:18 pm
This man is an open Heretic,and that demands immediate censure from all loyal Catholics.
His excommunication has already been accomplished when he dared mouth the filth he posted at his cesspool of a blog.
All that remains is the formality of Rome making that separation official.
May 12, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Frankly, anonymous, it’s talk like yours that generates “more heat than light.”
I think the cessation of links and endorsements is an appropriate form of action for a blogger that persists in embracing positions in open contradiction with the Church, but IMHO — give me less “burn at the stake” mob mentality ranting, more rational rebuttal. All the latter does is add fuel to the fire of resentment and dissent.
May 12, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Wow – where have I been? I read TCiC and blogged there a few times but never realized the extent of the host’s problems. Having read these posts I have a better idea – TCiC is not Catholic. When the masthead disappeared, I wondered if the cafeteria was again open (in the host’s mind). It appears so. People drift – they often misuse their intellectual gifts to reinforce a misguided agenda. O sin of pride, O pride of sin! Let’s hope and pray that GA gets the message when familiar bloggers at his site leave for more Catholic oriented sites.
May 12, 2008 at 11:56 pm
Maybe so Christopher,
but some apostates and heretics NEED a fire lit under them.
This one in particular.
Dominic.
Yes,THAT Dominic.
May 13, 2008 at 6:48 pm
“The Cafeteria is Closed” was touted as a Catholic blog, and that is where I have it listed in my blogroll. And the implication of a closed cafeteria led me to believe that Gerald was going to be discussing authentic Catholic doctrine.
Sadly this is not the case any more. It looks like the Cafeteria is indeed open.
To our cowardly anonymous friend talking about “you Catholics turning on each other”, Gerald has turned away from the teaching of the Catholic church. The nice part about being a Catholic (as opposed to being a Protestant) is that there is no ambiguity about what we, as Catholics, are expected to believe.
May 13, 2008 at 8:14 pm
that is a joy that you either believe what the Church teaches or you don’t, no grey area..
I’ve taken an attempt to help bring light to the term tolerance on my blog
May 14, 2008 at 1:24 am
Gerald’s comments may very well be a result of the ambiguous comments on homosexual deviancy contained in the “Catholic Catechism.”
May 14, 2008 at 1:30 am
That’s “ambiguous” as in your identity, right? (It’s always the anonymous ones, I’m tellin’ ya…)
May 14, 2008 at 4:20 pm
That is an ad hominem argument, David (whoever you are). My identity may be “unknown,” but there is nothing ambiguous about it. I simply do not desire that the truth of my words be clouded by who I am. So, you are also abusing the English language. It is clear that the language of the CC is problematic:
Catholic Catechism.
“2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.”
The above words have created many problems, especially in the United States. The issue, for one thing is what constitutes unjust discrimination? I would say that it is denying them basic necessities. The American Bishops, like Sheehan in Santa Fe, have used this language to justify being neutral on legislation that chips away at the sanctity of marriage by extending certain rights to homosexuals that should only be confined to married couples. Also, how can anyone know the truth of the first 2 sentences of the paragraph? Anyways, what is a homosexual? They act as if it is a separate species of man. A homosexual is simply a man or woman with sexually deviant tendencies, i.e. an intrinsically-disordered person.
A Nony Mouse
May 14, 2008 at 8:01 pm
Excuse me while I pluck the feathers out of the tar. The sex-change ‘accusation’ is complete crap. I never endorsed such procedures. I guess I failed to include derogatory condemnation or somesuch. The gay-friendly ‘accusation’, however, is largely accurate. One can thank the rabid homophobes who sometimes surface in comment boxes for my stance.
May 15, 2008 at 12:44 am
“The gay-friendly ‘accusation’, however, is largely accurate. One can thank the rabid homophobes who sometimes surface in comment boxes for my stance.”
As opposed to what often seems to be the San Francisco gay men’s chorus that also often resides on your blog.
Be kind enough, Gerald, to be truly manly and don’t blame the dogs for the poop on your shoes. You stepped into it, yourself.
May 15, 2008 at 6:33 am
Gerald,
With all due respect the “tar and feather” remark is an attempt at demagoguery. I am not trying to tar and feather you or anyone. I think that your stance on these issues is not catholic so we could not link you AS a Catholic blog. Hardly tar and feathers. Heck, you probably never even realized we had you linked in the first place.
As for the sex change accusation being crap, we are certainly open to a clarification. Your original comments however seemed to indicate that the decision about the operation for a minor is a prudential one left to the doctors and the parents. There is no legitimate reason to do that to a child regardless of the opinions of the parent or a million doctors.
Now while that may not be what you intended to say, the words as stated speak for themselves.
We are not out to condemn you or anyone. I have truly enjoyed your blog for quite some time. This post was intended as a brotherly nudge, nothing more. I am praying for you.
While we may not realize it or even like sometimes, the Church is right on these issues. If you come around on this issue, there is no issue.
May 15, 2008 at 1:35 pm
“That is an ad hominem argument, David (whoever you are). My identity may be ‘unknown,’ but there is nothing ambiguous about it. I simply do not desire that the truth of my words be clouded by who I am. So, you are also abusing the English language.”
Okay, okay, you got me. On the other hand, I’m not “abusing” the Catechism of the Catholic Church by calling it “ambiguous.” True or false, that’s a serious accusation. It says something about someone who can’t put their true identity behind such a claim.
And none of the “whoever you are” stuff. You know who I am. I use my full name, which means I’m not afraid to stand behind my convictions. So get off your high horse already.
May 15, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Gerald,
Your rhetoric is not helping you. If you use the sophistic methods of the left wing such as the “tar and feather” or “homophobes” comments then you will lose the trust of many who have supported you.
It does appear that you are objecting to the mistreatment and poor language. I object to the use of “sodomite.” and other language that treat a person as of they are nothing more than their sinful action. Many conservative Catholics object to this, as I have witnessed while at Steubenville. However, approval of civil gay marriage, civil unions and adoption without a reasoned consideration of natural law raises a new concern beyond mistreatment.
The church has gone to great lengths to speak on how issues of marriage and sexuality are not exclusively theological issues but can be understood through the light of reason. Why do you not address natural law and treat the catholic view as if its some theological view that has no place in the laws of a pluralist culture? These are the same assumptions made by pro-choice movement.
Too many contemporary thinkers can’t get past pluralism to discuss the real substance of the issues. I’d like to see Catholic bloggers at least try.
May 15, 2008 at 8:03 pm
California Supreme Court imposes Gay Marriage: http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_9269719?source=most_emailed
I suppose this explains why Gerald’s new view is due to his new understanding” of the constitution. At a time like this we need to rally politically not back down.
May 16, 2008 at 4:34 am
Does Gerald photograph so-called “gay” marriages in California and what’s that little Eastern state? or does he “homophobically” limit himself to marriages between men and women?
May 16, 2008 at 7:41 pm
David:
Whether I know your name or not, I do not know who you are, or whether you can really play the guitar or not.
The language of the Catechism which is problematic:
“The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial.”
These statements of opinion or alleged fact have no place in a Catechism of universal truths.
And the most problematic of all:
“Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.”
What is “unjust discrimination?” What is a “sign” of unjust discrimination? I agree that the shouldn’t be strung up from the nearest tree, but should they be given rights that traditionally belong only to truly married couples. The Catechism gives no guidance, and hence, certain American Bishops, such as Sheehan in Santa Fe, see fit to be neutral on legislation that derogates the sacredness of marriage, and scandalizes the faithful. And what do these neutral positions lead to? – one need only look at California’s Supreme Court to see where the Bishops’ lack of leadership has gotten us. It is unfortunate that this area of the Catechism was apparently politicized, so as not to hurt the feelings of so-called homosexuals too much.
Ambiguity, does not necessarily mean false. It may mean that something could have been worded better. Many Catholics of good reputation, not extremists, have also agreed that passages in the Vatican II documents are also ambiguous at best, but that is another issue.
Look at the truth or falsity of my words, not at who is or who is not saying it. Ad hominem is a fallacy also.
May 16, 2008 at 8:01 pm
A Nony Mouse, you wrote:
“‘The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial.’ These statements of opinion or alleged fact have no place in a Catechism of universal truths.”
Why not? They do not refute any traditional teaching. They simply concede the challenge raised by following it. The Church leaves open the possibility that this disorder may be involuntary, which provides some clarity in discussing the challenge it presents.
“And the most problematic of all: “Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.'”
There are parts of the world where they could be stoned to death simply for having such inclinations. This is not essential to their salvation.
Perhaps I could understand better what you are driving at, if I knew where in the Catechism you believe the teaching is stated incorrectly. Forget the preliminary remarks; what is at the heart of the text?
May 16, 2008 at 8:49 pm
Gerald is in my prayers.
On the one hand he seems to be apologetic while on the other still at odds with Catholic teaching.
While I checked in on his blog periodically since it’s beginning, and initially had him on my blogroll, I removed him from my blogroll in 2006 due to vulgarities and other things. I shared some of the same sentiments on issues, but could not accept the use of vulgar language especially since I have a young audience out of my parish who follow my blog and links.
Ditto with the personal attacks. It’s ok to attack someone’s position, including the worst of dissenters. But each and every human being is entitled to their dignity. Pope Benedict would never address the worst of offenders with name-calling or digs in the way we see them presented on some blogs, and at least in the early going, in Geralds. I hadn’t been there in a while so I don’t know whether it is still bad in that regard. This is the other reason I had to let go of his link.
Now that time has gone by, he now sees that using condescending names for people with SSA is not appropriate. He could step up and be a leader in this regard and encourage people to be respectful. Jesus didn’t teach with a bat, but ever mindful of the dignity of others.
One can hold the Church’s position on same-sex unions 100% without being cruel or insensitive to people who suffer same-sex attraction. It is not an either-or thing, with regards to Church position and charity. Often times the most charitable thing to offer is truth, with love and care – the way that Pope Benedict exemplified in each of his addresses here in the US.
Unfortunately, from what I have read, it seems Gerald has fallen into relativism. Just like abortion is right or wrong for everyone everywhere, so are homosexual acts, and anything that would put people with SSA in the near occassion of sin. This includes encouraging them in same-sex unions.
I pray he will take some time away from the blog and spend it with solid Catholic priests sorting through his philosophy and catechetics. Most of all, any time we find ourselves recognizing we are at odds with Church teaching, it is time to let go of every last bit of noise in our lives so that we can hear the voice of God. Fellow bloggers know that blogging itself can become a form of noise. There is the temptation to respond to popular opinion, to be so active that prayer and careful study & reflection gets neglected.
I pray he assents to Church teaching as an act of faith as he privately pursues truth – quietly and offline – with a good spiritual director.
He can make a choice to step back away from the attention while he sorts all of this out. For this, we should all pray.