Republic of the Philippines

Region VIII
Province of Northern Samar
University Town, Catarman, Northern Samar
University of Eastern Philippines

Performing Gay: How Selected Roman Catholic Gay Men

Negotiate their Sexuality in the Church

Members:

Franco Raphael L. Tido

Lance Kirby Sarzata
Jinky Joy J. Corong
Reyboy R. Adora
Cherry Gil Bernaldez

AB Literature - 3

In partial fulfillment of the requirements in

LCS 106: Literature and Cultural Studies
under Prof. Jill O. Cerbito-Basierto
 Performing Gay Life: How Selected Roman Catholic Gay Men Negotiate
their Sexuality in the Church in Catarman, Northern Samar

Chapter I

Rationale:

This paper aims to determine and elucidate how selected Roman Catholic gay
men perform their sexuality in the church in Catarman, Northern Samar. It also explores
factors that play out in their performance of their sexuality inside such a religious space.
This is very relevant to our society that embraces Christianity as its belief system where
gay people often find their sexuality in conflict with it.

Studies show that religion, particularly Roman Catholicism, fosters negative

stereotypes against gay men and even homophobia with its doctrines. Because of this,
gay men who follow the religion encounter issues in how they present themselves as
homosexuals inside the church. Because of this, exploring this phenomenon will unveil
the complexities that underlie the psychological and societal background present in
these gay men.

The conduct of this paper will not only add additional discoveries about the
culture of gay men’s performance of their sexuality to the existing corpus of literature
about the same social and cultural phenomenon but also help in fostering a society that
is more inclusive to the gay community. Although modern Philippine society has already
gone to a point where it is more accepting of gay people, it is still important to reach out
to its members who are otherwise, informing them about the struggles of gay men in
society, especially in religious spaces such as the Roman Catholic Church.

Objectives:

1. Determine the sexuality of the respondent on the gender spectrum.

2. Determine how they perform their sexuality when attending a mass or any
religious gathering.
3. Determine and explore factors that influence their performance of their sexuality.
Review of Literature

Objective 1: Determine the sexuality of the respondent on the gender spectrum

To begin with, it is necessary to establish that before gay men’s performance of

their sexuality in the Roman Catholic Church is determined, their sexuality has to be
determined on the spectrum of gender. It is because the understanding of human
sexuality and its various orientations is crucial in recognizing the diverse experiences
and struggles faced by individuals on the gender spectrum. This literature review aims
to explore the placement of respondents on the Kinsey Scale and analyze the complex
factors contributing to sexual orientation. By determining the orientation of respondents,
we can navigate the gender spectrum and gain insights into the unique challenges
individuals may encounter.

The Kinsey Scale, developed by Alfred Kinsey and his colleagues in 1948,
introduced the concept of a continuum of human sexual orientation. It challenged the
binary understanding of sexuality by proposing a range of orientations beyond
heterosexual or homosexual sexual identification. This scale directly relates to our
objective of determining the orientation of respondents on the gender spectrum. Utilizing
the Kinsey Scale, we can categorize respondents based on their self-reported
experiences and attractions, providing a more nuanced understanding of their
orientation.

Additionally, the Kinsey Scale played a significant role in challenging existing

laws and psychiatric classifications, sparking a broader understanding of sexual
orientation. Its historical significance provides an important context for interpreting
respondents' orientations within a societal and psychological framework. By
acknowledging the limitations of the Kinsey Scale, such as its assumption of a binary
view of gender and its conflation of sexual behavior with attraction, we can approach
our research with a critical lens and strive for more inclusive conversations about sexual
orientation.
 Furthermore, accurately determining the orientation of respondents on the vast
gender spectrum is essential, as gay men in different placements on the spectrum have
distinct experiences and struggles. This understanding supports the idea of a gender
spectrum, highlighting the importance of recognizing and addressing the diverse needs
within the LGBTQ+ community.

Christopher C. H. Cook's study, "The causes of human sexual orientation,"

explores the complex factors influencing sexual orientation. This study delves into
genetics, hormones, and environmental factors, shedding light on the development of
sexual orientation. It directly contributes to our objective by providing insights into the
factors influencing respondents' orientations on the gender spectrum.

Cook's research highlights the significant genetic contribution observed in twin

and genetic marker studies, challenging the prevailing notion that the social
environment is the primary determinant of sexual orientation. The study also examines
the role of non-social environmental factors, such as intra-uterine conditions, in shaping
sexual orientation. Furthermore, it explores hormonal influences during critical
developmental periods and acknowledges the existence of sexual fluidity, particularly
among women. By integrating perspectives from theology and the science of sexual
orientation, Cook's study advocates for interdisciplinary engagement, emphasizing the
importance of a comprehensive understanding of sexual orientation.

Objective 2: Determine how they perform their sexuality when attending a mass or any
religious gathering

The performativity of homosexuality varies across different spaces, both secular

and religious. While it has to be acknowledged that in numerous (and probably the
majority) spaces there exists gender inclusivity where gay people’s rights, freedom, and
expression are recognized, research findings show that there are still gay people who
have anxiety fully showing their homosexuality in fear of stereotypes and homophobia.
This review of related literature explores how gay people perform their sexuality in
spaces that include secular ones apart from the religious affiliated. In this context,
spaces refer both to physical environments and people with where and whom gay men
interact. Specifically, spaces explored in this review are the workplace, educational
institutions, and circles of friends. It is valuable that how gay men perform their sexuality
in secular spaces is determined since there could be similarities to how they perform
their sexuality in religious spaces that can be culled out.

The interaction between heterosexual and homosexual individuals differs, but

achieving inclusion in the workplace can be challenging due to heteronormative notions
of professionalism, which hinder inclusivity, as noted by Jansen (2015): "The degree to
which an individual perceives that the group provides him or her with a sense of
belonging and authenticity." Thus, fostering a sense of belonging is crucial for
individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation, in the workplace. This dynamic
impacts individuals differently based on their sexual orientation and highlights the
negative consequences faced by homosexual individuals.

The assumption that everyone is "naturally" heterosexual undermines the

inclusivity that workplaces should embody. This heteronormativity in the workplace
poses challenges for individuals who identify as queer, affecting their performance and
professionalism because they are perceived as outside the norm (Brower, 2013). This
pressure may lead LGBT employees to conceal their sexual orientation to conform to
heteronormative standards of professionalism, rather than feeling comfortable
expressing their true selves.

Furthermore, studies have shown that heterosexual job applicants are often
favored over gay and lesbian applicants (Horvath and Ryan, 2003; Hebl, Foster,
Mannix, and Dovidio, 2002). This bias reflects a preference for individuals who conform
to societal norms, perpetuating systemic discrimination in the hiring process.

For individuals leaving home for university or school, a new environment can
provide a sense of freedom to express oneself without fear of judgment from those who
know them in their personal lives. This newfound liberty can empower individuals to
embrace their LGBTQ identity, as seen in Paul's experience during graduate school
(Cain, n.d.). Supportive environments created by institutions can facilitate this process,
fostering inclusivity and acceptance.

While same-gender friendships may seem easier to maintain due to

heteronormative assumptions, the stigma surrounding male friendships can hinder their
development. Some may perceive close male friendships as indicative of same-gender
attraction, leading to social stigma and alienation. However, gay men often seek
friendships with others who share their sexual orientation, creating safe spaces for
mutual support and understanding (Galupo, 2009; Nardi, 1999).

In friendships between heterosexual and homosexual individuals, there can be

discomfort in discussing romantic or sexual experiences due to perceived differences in
romantic preferences (Cain, n.d.). These boundaries may impede open communication
and hinder the development of genuine connections, underscoring the importance of
creating inclusive spaces where all individuals feel comfortable expressing themselves.

In religious spaces, there exerts a profound influence on the sexual orientation

development of individuals, notably evident in the engagement of young African
American men who have sex with men (MSM). A study by Woodyard, Peterson, and
Stokes (2000) draws from 76 semi-structured interviews conducted with men aged 18 to
29, detailing their recent sexual activities with other men in Atlanta and Chicago. This
investigation unveils a heightened involvement of these individuals within African
American churches and elucidates the consequential impact on self-esteem and sexual
conduct. The findings underscore how participation in such church settings fosters an
environment conducive to sexual secrecy, correlating with reduced frequency of same-
sex encounters. The study further posits that proactive engagement by African
American clergy and church leaders could engender constructive dialogues with MSM
attendees, redirecting ministerial endeavors toward cultivating inclusive and nurturing
religious communities that refrain from marginalizing these individuals.

In a complementary exploration, Rodriguez and Ouellette (2000) investigate the

experiences of identity integration among individuals reconciling their sexual orientation

with religious convictions. Utilizing qualitative and quantitative methodologies, the study
focuses on forty members and participants of the Metropolitan Community Church of

New York (MCC/NY), a gay-affirmative congregation in Midtown Manhattan. The

research reveals that a majority of participants successfully reconcile their homosexual

and religious identities. Furthermore, the study highlights a correlation between

integration and heightened engagement within MCC/NY, such as membership status,

attendance at worship services and activities, and tenure within the church. Noteworthy

findings also indicate variations between lesbians and gay men, with lesbians displaying

a higher propensity for integration and reduced conflict between identities. The pivotal

role played by MCC/NY in facilitating this integration process among participants is

underscored.

Beyond religious institutions, the familial and social milieu, encompassing

interactions within the home and among friends, exerts considerable influence on the

formation of an individual's sexual identity and orientation. Elizur and Mintzer (2001)

propose a novel conceptual framework delineating the dynamics of gay male identity

formation vis-à-vis self-perception, familial relationships, and social networks. Drawing

from an Israeli sample of 121 gay men, the study identifies three foundational processes

—self-definition, self-acceptance, and disclosure—integral to gay male identity

development. Findings indicate that self-acceptance and support from friends predict

secure attachment in adulthood, while self-definition and familial support significantly

influence disclosure. Notably, the study highlights the mediating role of familial attitudes

toward same-sex orientation in the disclosure process, underscoring the distinct

contributions of family and peer support in shaping one's identity and coming-out

journey.

Objective 3: Determine and explore factors that influence their performance of their

sexuality
 Factors that shape how gay men perform their sexuality stretch back to the
sociological origin of existing sociocultural norms that elicit expectations of how they
should behave. Mauss (1973) highlights that children learn by imitating adults they
perceive to have authority over things they believe they ought to mimic. Drawing from
this, Mauss (1973) argues that existing sociocultural norms of how members of society
behave find their roots in how children are introduced to society, confining them to
certain social and cultural expectations that they feel they need to fulfill. In this way,
these sociocultural expectations play a massive factor in how gay men's performance of
their sexuality is shaped in societies where masculinity and patriarchy dominate,
fostering heteronormative expectations.

In the heteronormative and gender-normative surveillance of Martino and Pallota-

Chiarolli (2001), they discovered that participants often felt pressured to conform to
traditional gender roles and stereotypes, leading to the suppression or modification of
their sexuality. Martino and Pallota-Chiarolli (2001) additionally revealed the role of
normalization practices in perpetuating these norms, creating barriers to authentic self-
expression of LGBTQ+ individuals. These findings underscore the profound impact of
societal norms and expectations on individuals' expressions of gender and sexuality.

However, amidst these challenges, Martino and Pallotta-Chiarolli (2001) also

identified instances of resistance and negotiation. Participants demonstrated agency in
navigating and challenging societal expectations, finding ways to assert their identities,
and forming supportive communities.

Drawing from this background, these social expectations result in members of

society harboring homophobic stigmas and sentiments against gay men. In the study of
Arora et al. (2022) entitled ”It’s a Man’s World: A Qualitative Study of Gender and
Sexuality amongst Australian Gay Men”, respondents elaborated on the perceived
pressures that compel them to conform to heteronormative expectations out of their fear
of homophobic treatments which included: fathers, male figures, mothers, religion,
school, authority figures, television, and movies. Arora et al. (2022) contend that these
pressures imply seclusion, which leads to how gay men perform their sexuality based
on heteronormative expectations across spaces.
 Speaking of pressures or stigmatizing sociocultural systems and structures, in
the study of Peumans (2016) entitled "The Moral Breakdown between Religion and
Sexuality", the tension between religion and sexual freedom, particularly in Western
societies, is broken down, exploring how traditional religious teachings often clash with
modern understandings of sexuality, leading to moral dilemmas and societal discord.
Peumans (2016) adds that this tension compels a huge percentage of gay men to
negotiate their sexuality with the imposition of religious and heteronormative
expectations. In a study, these negotiations include selective disclosure, where
individuals choose whom to disclose their sexual orientation to based on perceived
acceptance or safety, as well as concealing their sexual identity in certain contexts to
avoid discrimination or harm (Heyse et al., 2021).

Additionally, participants in the study of Heyse et al. (2021) described navigating

heteronormative expectations by adopting behaviors or relationships that conform to
societal norms while maintaining their true identity privately or within supportive
communities be because of. Overall, these negotiations reflect the complex interplay
between individual identity, cultural expectations, and social context experienced by gay
men in conservative and religious environments.
 Chapter II

Research Design

Five selected gay men who attend mass gatherings in the Roman Catholic
Church were interviewed about how they perform their sexuality in the church and
around churchgoers. A letter was sent to LGBTQIA+ organizations in the municipality of
Catarman, asking permission from their members to participate in the study. Actual
interviews were conducted with them, asking for relevant information about their
narratives and experiences on how they perform their sexuality in the Roman Catholic
Church.

Ethical Considerations

It dictates that participants shall be asked for informed consent, with an

assurance of utmost confidentiality regarding the data gathered from them. Their
identities will be kept anonymous both within and outside the academic scope of this
study.

Locale

The locale of the study is Catarman, Northern Samar, specifically in Roman-

Catholic-Church-related spaces.

Conduct of Study

The data was gathered from May 1 to May 6, 2024, in Catarman, Northern
Samar. Interviews were conducted with the participants. The transcript of the interviews
was translated into English to initiate the analysis.

Interpretation of Data and Analysis

 In the interpretation of data, narrative analysis and constant comparison were
utilized. Narrative analysis refers to a cluster of analytic methods for interpreting texts or
visual data in a narrative form. The narrative analysis used in the study was to find the
narrative structure of respondents' accounts of how they perform their sexuality in the
catholic church. Constant comparison was used to continuously compare and contrast
data within and across cases to identify patterns.

Theoretical Framework

The theory that is associated with this paper is Queer Theory. It offers a critical
lens through which we deconstruct and challenge societal norms, particularly those
pertaining to gender and sexuality. At its core, it seeks to destabilize rigid categories
and binaries, such as male/female and gay/straight, by examining how these constructs
are socially constructed and maintained. Drawing from various disciplines including
sociology, literary studies, and cultural studies, the theory highlights the fluidity and
complexity of identity, emphasizing the importance of intersectionality in understanding
individuals' experiences. By centering marginalized voices and experiences, Queer
Theory interrogates power dynamics and advocates for social justice and inclusivity.

Furthermore, Queer Theory interrogates the notion of heteronormativity and exposes

the ways in which it is used to marginalize and oppress gay people. Through its critique
of heteronormativity, Queer Theory challenges the assumption that certain identities
and behaviors are natural or superior to others. Instead, it celebrates difference and
diversity, recognizing the multiplicity of identities and experiences within queer
communities. By destabilizing normative frameworks, Queer Theory opens up spaces
for free gender expression, ultimately striving for a more equitable and inclusive society.
 Chapter III
Analysis:

This paper gathered five respondents, each having unique experiences in

performing their sexuality in the church. Upon gathering the data, the researchers
identified key factors that influence their performance of their sexuality — their sexual
orientation on the gender spectrum, level of religiosity, temperamental proclivities, and
personal discretion. However, it is significant that we know that these factors play as
continuums. There are levels of these factors to which a respondent’s attribution
belongs, which affects their overall performance of their sexuality. For example, under
the temperamental proclivities factor, a gay man who is assertive of his sexuality in the
church but not as strongly assertive as another gay man in the same space may
perform his sexuality differently from the latter’s. In addition, the influences of these
factors do not have the same share of contribution to how respondents perform their
sexuality. This is evident in cases where, as an example, two gay men have the same
level of religiosity, for the sake of argument, but one is more assertive of his sexuality,
resulting in a discrepancy between how the two perform their sexuality and implying that
perhaps personal discretion plays more influence than the other factors.
Another consideration in the analysis is the overlapping nature of these factors.
Some data are under two or more factors. To illustrate, how the respondents dress in
the church is attributed to their sexual orientation, temperamental proclivities, and
personal discretion. Essentially, one who identifies as transgender and scores a high
assertiveness level in their temperamental proclivities will cross-dress in the church
unlike a homosexual who dresses manly and scores low in their assertiveness.
Meanwhile, even if a gay man scores high in their temperamental proclivities, he still
has discretion over how he will perform his sexuality in the church.
 The researchers did not include perceived homophobia as a separate factor
because a gay man’s performance of their sexuality is determined by how he reacts to it
under their temperamental proclivities and personal discretion.
This analysis is presented in separate parts based on the participants.
Throughout the analysis, the researchers assigned pseudonyms for each participant to
hide their identity. The pseudonyms for each respondent are as follows: the respondent
who identifies himself as a homosexual is referred to as John; the one who identifies as
a non-binary is referred to as Gerald; the first and second trans women respondents are
referred to as Mary and Caroll respectively; and the last respondent who identifies as a
bisexual is referred to as Peter.

John’s Performance of His Sexuality

Identifying the sexual orientation of the respondents is essential in determining

the way they negotiate their sexuality with people in the church. The sexual orientation
of a gay man affects his behavior when around churchgoers. Cross-dressing is one
eminent issue in gay men’s behavior based on their sexual orientation on the gender
spectrum. For example, an exclusively homosexual on the Kinsey scale might be more
likely to cross-dress in the church than a predominantly heterosexual but slightly
homosexual.
The first participant who identifies himself as exclusively heterosexual based on
his narrative claims that he does not cross-dress. After being asked if he pretends to be
a heterosexual in the church, he denied it while claiming that he just discreetly shows
his sexuality to people around him. This issue is not only concerned with his sexual
orientation but also with his discretion over what kind of behavior he displays in the
church.
When asked about the difference between how he performs his sexuality inside
and outside the church, John contends that he is more open and expressive outside,
outlining his discretion to behave discreetly when attending the church. He reasoned
that the factor that influences his behavior inside the church is mainly the solemn rules
imposed by the church to manage churchgoers’ behavior apart from his perceived
homophobia in the religious space. “…[The] church is a sacred place, it's totally
different from other institutions that I go to, so that is why of course since I am attending
the mass I need to conform [to] the norms inside the church. And one is to wear the
prescribe clothes.”, John defends.
In terms of his level of religiosity, John claims that he rarely goes to church.
While this may negatively impact the amount of narrative information on how he
performs his sexuality in the church, this can also be an interesting social phenomenon
that may suggest how gay men become less religious in the face of the aforementioned
factors. This frontier can be explored in further research studies that may reveal other
relevant conclusions.

Gerald’s Performance of His Sexuality

Gerald identifies as a non-binary. A non-binary contends that they do not fall into
the two categories of being male or female. In his narrative, Gerald is a highly religious
Catholic and at the same time a very vocal gay rights activist. They are a leader of a
Catholic youth organization in a municipality in Northern Samar, and they always go to
church. While having gone to other Asian countries to participate in conventions for the
promotion of gay rights, Gerald claims that they are one of the proponents of the SOGIE
bill in the Senate that is still lobbying in the senate. “I am part of team SOGIE bill, [but] it
is twenty three years now under lobbying in the senate.”, Gerald claimed.
In terms of his temperamental proclivities, his narrative reflects that he is very
unapologetic. They claim that there is no huge difference between how they perform
their sexuality inside and outside the church, not daring to be intimidated by those
religious people who harbor homophobic sentiments towards their presence. When
asked about their experiences of being discriminated against for their homosexuality
due to their assertive gender expression, they stated that they did not bother,
highlighting their highly assertive temperamental proclivities. “I went to Thailand to
represent the Philippines on the progress of gender LGBTQIA rights and health. So
when I arrived… in Philippines, the priests greeted me, [and] congratulated me but there
was a backhanded compliment saying [that I would] leave the church because [I am]
gay. With that remark, it made me feel bad but because I am unapologetic, I am still
inside the church.”, Gerald recounted.
However, it can be culled out that Gerald’s strong religious conviction overlaps
with their advocacy. When asked about their gay rights advocacy campaign if they are
affirmative of same-sex marriage, they argued that the matrimony of a gay couple
should come from the church, hence their advocacy only for the legalization of same-
sex civil union. They stated, “When somebody asks me if [I] agree on same-sex
marriage, I would say no with reservations because same-sex matrimony is in the
jurisdiction of the church and not of the state. And in the intangible clause, there is the
separation of the church and state and we should acknowledge that, but I am always for
the same-sex civil union not of matrimony.” Their conviction suggests a not totally
progressive worldview on same-sex marriage that can be granted by the state alone,
preventing them from thinking about the possibility that marriage can be a secular
ceremony initiated by the state alone, free from the monopoly of religion on it.
This entails that their discretion to choose their worldview on the enterprise of
marriage overrides an extent of their progressivism as a gay rights activist. In addition to
their level of religiosity and discretion over their behavior in performing their sexuality,
Gerald claims that they observe proper decorum when in the church, not totally
performing their sexuality in the same way they perform it outside Catholic spaces.

Mary’s Performance of Her Sexuality

Mary identifies as a trans woman and claims that she cross-dresses when
attending the church. When asked to recount why she cross-dresses, she contended
that it is her decision and prerogative to do so even if there are boundaries within the
church that she has to follow and respect on its premises. It is for this reason that she
performs her sexuality differently when she is outside the church where she is free to
express her sexuality with her friends. “Actually how I present myself varies from the
environment in which I go to. If I am in the church, of course, I have to be formal [in
expressing] myself. But I have to set boundaries and limitations, considering and
respecting these people, especially the religion. Even though we are allowed to express
[ourselves] in any way possible, I still have to respect.”, Mary stated. Her discretion to
behave differently is no different from the reasons of the previous two participants.
To explore her religiosity and temperamental proclivities, Mary was asked about
her experiences of going to church as a trans woman, particularly searching for answers
about her possible experiences of homophobia. She was also asked about the reasons
why she negotiates her sexuality with religious people differently from when she is
outside the church.
She answered the first question by stating that homophobia exists in the church
and for a trans woman to be enthusiastic about attending the church, they have to be
ready for the possibility of being discriminated against. She added that she is not
interested in attempting to persuade homophobic churchgoers to be otherwise because
she thinks that she is not in control of it. She stated, “I do not want to challenge the
status quo because it would be too hard for me. I do not want to be canceled because
there are tendencies [where] if you go against the church or challenge it, you will be
canceled despite only seeking equality or, you know, acceptance. But there are people I
don’t want to call narrow minded… you know like their doctrines and teachings are
embedded in them…so it could not be changed in just an instance, I just need to adjust.
Someone has to adjust between two parties just to become better.”

Mary answered the second question by pointing out that it is her sole discretion
to just respect the existing rules of the church to live in harmony. She contended that
she still has to respect the church in the same way that she wants herself to be
respected by religious people for her sexuality, implying her demand for social harmony.
“We have to harmonize and coexist with these people to at least have a peaceful flow in
our relationship with one another because when they keep insisting on their teachings
and principles while we are keeping insisting on our principles, [there will be chaos]. So,
it is better to respect one another.”, Mary stated.
Further opining on the need for social harmony, she argued that religious people
must recognize secularism to give respect to the religious pluralism in the country.
However, her answers to the two questions imply her low assertiveness in her
temperamental proclivities by virtue of her stand that a trans woman just has to expect
that she will face homophobia when attending the church of which she is not in control.
This is supported by her answer to the second question that she just wants harmony in
why she performs her sexuality in accordance with the demands of the church and
chruchgoers. Although her desire to have herself respected by religious people for who
she is may imply that she scores high in her assertiveness of her rights, just desiring
respect is not a strong indication of resistance to the dominance of religious systems
because in order to be so there have to be some forms of actualizing it to challenge its
influence. Unlike Gerald, Mary is quite passive in her advocacy to have the gay
community respected by the religious sector.

Caroll’s Performance of Her Sexuality

Just like Mary, Caroll identifies as a trans woman who is very religious but
occasionally misses the church when joining gay pageants among other reasons.
According to her narrative, the way she negotiates her sexuality with churchgoers in the
church is by dressing decently, not daring to wear makeup and lipsticks that would stir
attention to her. In her narrative, she does this because of two reasons — to conform to
the rules of the church about proper decorum and to cope with her perceived
experience of homophobia. “I am very conscious of my physical appearance and attire
because there is a difference between what dress is considered appropriate and what is
not in the church. So, when I go to church, I make sure to wear decent clothes to avoid
provoking any homophobic feedback.”, Caroll submitted.
According to Caroll, she always thinks in her mind that she is being looked at and
judged by the churchgoers around her, cementing her perception with actual
experiences of facing homophobia.
Serving as a choir member and a catechism teacher at one point, she received
remarks that questioned her qualifications because of her sexuality. Sometimes,
according to her narrative, a priest asked the council of their church if they are ready for
allowing trans women lead such a religious activity in front of her, suggesting that they
are not close yet to approving of her participation. “...I was told not to serve as a
catechism teacher during May Flower Catechism just because I am part of the
transgender community. During a meeting with our pastor and the church council, one
of the elders said to everyone, ‘I have something to say,’ and continued by asking, ‘Are
we really ready to open our door for… transgender people to teach children about
God?”, she narrated.
Although she experiences this form of homophobia in the church which leads to
her submissive and passive mindset of always thinking that there are homophobic eyes
straing at her, she reasoned out that her faith in God remains unchanged, claiming that
she goes to church not for religious people’s approval. “My faith is based on my belief in
God, not necessarily on the actions or teachings of the religious people in the church”,
Caroll explained.
Caroll’s narrative entails a complex temperamental proclivity, probing how such a
low level of assertiveness, by virtue of her mindset where she always feels that she is
silently being judged and discriminated against, can be reconciled with her conviction
that she attends religious gatherings not to please religious people but to serve and
worship God.
It can also be inferred that her way of performing her sexuality in the church to
wear decently without potentially attracting disgust from other churchgoers is under her
personal discretion and high level of religiosity. Her discretion in following the proper
decorum required by the church can be observed, highlighting her strong religious
conviction in the face of homophobia.

Peter’s Performance of His Sexuality

The last participant identifies as a bisexual. He claims to often go to church. As a

bisexual, his narrative implies that he is discreet in how he negotiates his sexuality but
also claims that he is not pretentious enough to try to convince religious people that he
is not bisexual. He also added that he makes sure that he is presentable when
attending the church. Peter said, “I am the type of person who's not pretentious. I
always show them who I am. And when I go to church, I make sure that I am
presentable.”
 When asked if there is a difference between how he performs his sexuality inside
and outside the church, he claimed that there is no difference as he contended that he
is authentic in his self-expression. “How I show myself outside the church is really how I
show myself inside the church. I don't like to pretend, especially to myself.”, Peter
stated.
Peter’s narrative and presentation of his sexuality probes the maze of gay men
who are authentic in their self-expression, not bothering about how they should perform
their sexuality outside and inside the church. For this reason, it can be inferred that he is
high in the assertiveness of his sexuality, and in addition entails his complete control his
way of negotiating his sexuality with religious people in the church. He may not score
high in his level of religiosity, but his assertive temperament of being authentic in his
sexuality inside and outside the church plays a factor in how he performs his sexuality.

Conclusion:

A number of recurring patterns and contrasts emerge from the narratives of the
participants of the paper who are John, Gerald, Mary, Caroll, and Peter in relation to
their experiences of negotiating their sexuality in the church. In the confines of the
church, John is cautious advocating for conformity within its boundaries and at the same
time freely expressing his sexuality outside. Conversely, Gerald is strongly assertive; he
does not fear any homophobic behavior of churchgoers in the church and actively fights
for LGBTQ+ rights while still being active in church, which reflects the vast and complex
relationship between religiosity and gay rights activism not significantly affecting each
other negatively
In her narrative Mary attempts to establish a balance between her self-
expression and adherence to tradition. Although she acknowledges that homophobia
exists within church circles, Mary chooses peaceful coexistence over confrontation,
stressing on how important peace is in religious-social interactions. Caroll follows the
same course within religious spaces while maintaining a conservative look due to
potential criticism but maintaining her faith after experiencing discrimination.
 Peter emerges as an exceptional individual who remains authentic in his self
expression inside and outside the chuch. Peter neither compromises on his bisexuality
nor pretends that he is not bisexual just because it doesn’t fit into religious practices,
demonstrating great confidence in himself alongside refusal to conform to societal
expectations. These diverse approaches highlight the complexity of negotiating
sexuality within religious contexts, with each individual navigating a unique balance of
personal identity, faith, and social dynamics.
As an endpoint, the narratives of John, Gerald, Mary, Caroll, and Peter shed light
on the complex and multifaceted ways gay men negotiate their sexuality within the
Roman Catholic Church. From cautious conformity to bold assertion, each gay man's
performance of their sexuality reflects a complex interplay of sexual orientation,
religious conviction, temperamental proclivities, and personal choice. While some
prioritize harmony and respectful coexistence within religious communities, others
advocate for LGBTQ+ rights and assert their authentic selves unapologetically. These
contrasting narratives accentuate the diverse paths individuals take in navigating the
intersection of sexuality and religion, further highlighting the ongoing dialogue and
tensions inherent in this complex relationship. Ultimately, these accounts serve as
reminders of the importance of understanding and respecting the diverse experiences
and perspectives of LGBTQ+ individuals within religious spaces.

References
Elizur, Yoel., Mintzer, Arlette, "A Framework For the Formation of Gay Male Identity:
Processes Associated with Adult Attachment Style and Support From Family and
Friends", Archives of Sexual Behavior, 2001, Volume 30, pages 143-167,
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1002725217345.https://
link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1002725217345.

Martino, Wayne., Pallota-Chiarolli, Maria. " Gender performativity and normalizing

practices: Exploring heteronormativity, homophobia and heterosexism in the lives
of young people at school", 2001,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280733500
Peumans, Wim. "The Moral Breakdown between Religion and Sexuality in Narratives of
Muslim Gays, Bisexuals, and Lesbians in Belgium", 2016,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324789646

Rodriguez, Eric M., Oullette, Suzzane C. "Gay and Lesbian Christians: Homosexual and
Religious Identity Integration in the Members and Participants of a Gay-Positive
Church", 2000, Journal for the scientific study of religion 39 (3), 333-347.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/0021-8294.00028.

Thepsourinthone, Jack, et al. "It's a Man's World: A Qualitative Study of Gender and
Sexuality amongst Australian Gay Men", 2022, https://www.mdpi.com/1660-
4601/19/4/2092.

Vinney, Cynthia. "What Is the Kinsey Scale?" Verywell Mind, 24 June 2022,
www.verywellmind.com/what-is-the-kinsey-scale-5199426. Reviewed by
Nicholas Blackmer.

Woodyard, Jeffrey Lynn., Peterson, John L. "Let Us Go into the House of the Lord”:
Participation in African American Churches among Young African American Men
who Have Sex with Men, 2000, Journal of Pastoral Care 54 (4), 451-460.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/002234090005400408.