The Strange Notion Of "gay Celibacy"

[Nihil Obstat]

We have talked a lot on the forums recently about homosexuality, especially the authentic Catholic witness that could be provided by those Catholics who struggle with homosexual attraction. I think this article gives an interesting perspective that perhaps has not been addressed lately. Very Aristotelian and teleological, if I might speculate a bit.
 
 
Link to an article on Crisis Magazine:
 
http://www.crisismagazine.com/2015/strange-notion-gay-celibacy



 

"Why would I call myself a gay man, then, simply because I find men sexually attractive? This is in opposition to the way God made me and the nature he gave me. Regardless of what my feelings might tell me, my body reveals to me the truth that I am not gay, but rather a male made for a female. The Catechism is clear about our sexual identity: “Everyone, man and woman, should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity. Physical, moral, and spiritual difference and complementarity are oriented toward the goods of marriage and the flourishing of family life. The harmony of the couple and of society depends in part on the way in which the complementarity, needs, and mutual support between the sexes are lived out.”

Accepting myself as I truly am requires that I reject a belief that I have a sexual identity other than being a man made for women. Recognizing this truth of who I am, as a sexual creature, is fundamental to the virtue of chastity. When it comes to homosexuality, however, many seem to believe that sexual continence is the earmark of chastity. But this is not so. Rather, continence, in any single person’s life, is a necessary sign of chastity, but it does not express the fullness or breadth of the beauty of the virtue. Chastity is far more than what we do or don’t do with our sexual organs. The Catechism tells us that “chastity means the successful integration of sexuality within the person and thus the inner unity of man in his bodily and spiritual being.”
[...]
This truth about my sexual identity is the reason I also refuse to call myself celibate. Though I am living a single life, I am no different than all of my other single friends who have yet to be married. They do not speak of themselves as celibate, nor should I. They and I are single. Nor am I a part of a “sexual minority,” as some would say of a man like me. I am a male, just as Adam was, just as Christ was, just like all of my other male friends. As the 1986 Letter On The Pastoral Care of the Homosexual Person wisely tells me, “every one living on the face of the earth has personal problems and difficulties, but challenges to growth, strengths, talents and gifts as well.” One of my challenges is that I suffer from the privation of the good of seeing women as sexually desirable—but that fact doesn’t make me a different sort of man than all of the other men in the world around me. The virtue of chastity teaches me this truth."

 

Thoughts?

[PhuturePriest]

[Ark]

This man is a great Catholic and witness to the truth. May God reward him handsomely!

[Ark]

The author is linked to this documentary which looks awesome:

 

http://everlastinghills.org/movie/

[PhuturePriest]

The author is linked to this documentary which looks amesome:

 

http://everlastinghills.org/movie/

 

I can vouch for the goodness of this movie. One I recommend even more, however, is The Third Way, which is also free online.

[CatherineM]

I met some celibate gay men through some volunteer work with Courage. They are incredible witnesses.

[Not The Philosopher]

I find that some of the thinking that goes on in the side-b community, so to speak, blurs the lines a bit, and hence is worth evaluating critically in light of Church teaching. The sexual anthropology Mr. Mattson describes is correct. You're not a special snowflake, etc.

 

However, I do find a lot of these debates over what terms you should refer to yourself with to be a tad bit on the pedantic side. It makes the PC alarms go off in my head.

[Nihil Obstat]

Oh, I had meant to properly attribute this as well. The author is Daniel Mattson.

 

I find that some of the thinking that goes on in the side-b community, so to speak, blurs the lines a bit, and hence is worth evaluating critically in light of Church teaching. The sexual anthropology Mr. Mattson describes is correct. You're not a special snowflake, etc.

 

However, I do find a lot of these debates over what terms you should refer to yourself with to be a tad bit on the pedantic side. It makes the PC alarms go off in my head.

I see where you are coming from with that.

I think this article could be a useful caution against excess. There has been the whole debate surrounding the so-called "new homophiles". Personally I find the label kind of weird. Sounds like a word that should be borderline obscene, even though it is not. Anyway, whatever. There was an article recently on how the term itself is insufficient and misleading.

That controversy in particular seems to be marked not necessarily by one side having issues with Church teaching, but rather in both sides disagreeing on how best to think with the mind of the Church. In that context I think it seems to make more sense.

If I might be rather bold, I think that the so-called 'new homophiles' have, at times, gone a bit too far in identifying with homosexuality. I think that among some there has been a sort of subconscious effort to downplay the fact that homosexual attraction is, in itself, inherently disordered. And when such persons downplay the inherent disorder of the condition, it can then in some ways be accepted as "part of who we are", in a way beyond that in which concupiscence is a part of the human condition. Without caution some people could be led to forget that homosexual attraction is inherently disordered, and instead treat it as an ordinary temptation which finds its proper end in some related good.

 

So the way I am seeing this is not exactly that people are getting wound up by minutiae. Rather, that this is an emotionally charged and complex subject in which we seem to be having some trouble in conforming ourselves to the mind of the Church.

 

I think this also touches on the debates we have had on whether or not a gay Catholic should 'come out'. Sometimes it has been overly reduced to the idea that Catholics are just plain uncomfortable with gay people, but I think that misses the point, and I think this article touches on part of the reason.

[franciscanheart]

We have talked about this at length, actually -- this part you want to call attention to. Would it make you feel better if we all just shut up about it and didn't say anything and used no words to describe a difference because NOTHING TO SEE HERE?

Already I am troubled by this thread. Perhaps I'll sit this one out and let the heterosexual, armchair theologians have it; I'm sure they're holier and more correct than I'll ever be.

[dUSt]

We have talked about this at length, actually -- this part you want to call attention to. Would it make you feel better if we all just shut up about it and didn't say anything and used no words to describe a difference because NOTHING TO SEE HERE?

Already I am troubled by this thread. Perhaps I'll sit this one out and let the heterosexual, armchair theologians have it; I'm sure they're holier and more correct than I'll ever be.

 

I like heterosexual armchairs.

[PhuturePriest]

[Nihil Obstat]

We have talked about this at length, actually -- this part you want to call attention to. Would it make you feel better if we all just shut up about it and didn't say anything and used no words to describe a difference because NOTHING TO SEE HERE?

Already I am troubled by this thread. Perhaps I'll sit this one out and let the heterosexual, armchair theologians have it; I'm sure they're holier and more correct than I'll ever be.

Of course we have talked about it. But nobody thinks we have solved it. And I do think there are issues with the (for lack of a non-icky term) "new homophiles'" narrative.

I think it is easier to discuss these issues if we make an effort not to be hostile when we find disagreement. Like I said, it does not seem particularly to be an issue with anyone actually rejecting Church teaching.

[Not The Philosopher]

Of course we have talked about it. But nobody thinks we have solved it. And I do think there are issues with the (for lack of a non-icky term) "new homophiles'" narrative.

I think it is easier to discuss these issues if we make an effort not to be hostile when we find disagreement. Like I said, it does not seem particularly to be an issue with anyone actually rejecting Church teaching.

 

Well, that, or we could spend 10+ pages making "heterosexual armchair" jokes and memes.

[Nihil Obstat]

Well, that, or we could spend 10+ pages making "heterosexual armchair" jokes and memes.

I can do that.

[PhuturePriest]

Question: What is a "new homophile"?