AUSTIN RUSE defends his recent essay on the “New Homophiles.” (See “The New Homophiles: A Closer Look.”)

There is a group of Catholics who experience same-sex attraction. They accept the teachings of the Church on sexual morality. They do not act on their same-sex desires. . . .

You might think that their desires alone are enough for me to want them to simply disappear from the Church and from society.

You might think this if you read Damon Linker on my recent column about the New Homophiles. You might think so if you read the comments of blogger Mark Shea, who said my column was “appalling” and much worse. You might think so if you read the comments by Maggie Gallagher who said my column was “vile.”

But the thing is, I have never written a cross or even critical word about the men and women I describe above. These are men and women of the Catholic apostolate Courage. . . .

So, what’s the difference between the New Homophiles and Courage?

I’m not surprised by Shea’s response to Ruse, given what he has written in the past:

Catholic blogger Mark Shea, whom some people still think of as some kind of conservative, wrote this incredibly smarmy post in which he idolizes a “gay man” as a “saint.” This “gay man” was a professional opera expert in Seattle and a music teacher in a volunteer position at Shea’s church. Based on his obituary (see following quotation) it appears that he lived with a homosexual “companion” of many years . . .

In Shea-world, it was fine for this pair to be together as an openly homosexual couple, qua couple, saying that they were “in love,” going on “dates,” the first of which was to church. It was fine for a person living in such a way to be admired greatly and vocally as a Christian by everyone, including his priest, in his Catholic church. In Shea-world, who is to blame if someone says, “Gee, this certainly looks like a sexual relationship. . . . Isn’t that a cause of scandal? . . . Should we be praising him to the skies?” Shea blames the person who asks those questions! Such a person is nosy. He’s wondering about something that is “none of his business.” Instead he should join Mark Shea in gushing about a “gay man who was a saint.” . . .

Shea is so mixed up by the “priests he has talked to” that he thinks it could be legitimate for a priest to counsel a homosexual person to continue in a sexually active homosexual relationship–this is clearly what Shea means to be referring to in the context–because, for various “special reasons” peculiar to that relationship, it would be “more destructive” to end it. See for yourself. It’s right in the post. So Shea is so confused about these matters by the people he’s listening to that it would be difficult to know how to un-confuse him.