The Strange Notion Of "gay Celibacy"

[Era Might]

Yes everything has to have an eternal purpose. You can't have God only 90% of the time, and 10% for whatever tickles your fancy.

We were created to know, love and serve God. He created the world, and there are laws that regulate existence and purposes for existences. In the case of sexuality, it exists for the two-fold purposes of procreation and spousal unity (which is most fully realised in procreation). The act of sodomy, even heterosexual sodomy, is contrary to this two-fold purpose of sexuality.

Yeah, we're in a straightjacket. Look at what humanity does when it's let loose.

 

Not have as much as what it does when it's repressed. FREEEUUUDDDD!

 

"Spousal unity" is a meaningless and relative idea...again, Catholicism has no way to account for the subjectivity of human, and sexual, experience.

Edited January 29, 2015 by Era Might

[Anomaly]

What I do not understand, do not support, and cannot reconcile with Church teaching is distrust of homosexuals simply because they are homosexual. I do not understand or support, and cannot reconcile, shunning anyone on the sole basis of homosexual orientation. Homophobia is alive and well, but it is not promulgated by the official teaching of the Catholic Church.

Way cool.

And with that in mind, it's not Church teaching to just say "get over it", just offer it up, nor say that ones sexuality is not an important or difficult thing to deal with whether you are married to the opposite sex, single, old, straight, old, or gay. Edited January 29, 2015 by Anomaly

[Anomaly]

"Spousal unity" is a meaningless and relative idea...again, Catholicism has no way to account for the subjectivity of human, and sexual, experience.

Spousal unity has much meaning in many philosophies. I can agree that individuals may chose to ignore the context of the society and perceptions and history of human experience.

[CrossCuT]

I'm not saying homosexuals should not be helped to carry their cross. I'm saying it shouldn't be given any greater pirority over any other sexual issues that humans face. Homosexuality shouldn't been internalised and integrated so much into a person's identity and personality that they cease to exist separate from it. "Oh? You're attracted to men/women? Okay, avoid occasions of sin, don't dwell on lustful thoughts, don't engage in sinful sexual behaviour, pray an rely on God's help."

Yeah, there are bigger issues at work with homosexuals due to the rather alienating nature of same-sex attraction. For most it will mean a future as a single person. But single heterosexuals exist who face many of the same challenges. Forget the root cause behind the reasons and offer them the same support and love as anyone else.

And I don't care what Mary-Jane Sue-Bobs knee jerk reaction is to someone comin out. It shouldn't matter to anyone

 

I get what youre saying, but its not reality....and while I hate that phrase, I am a big proponent of "We can change reality."

 

Homosexuality DOES need to be addressed in a special way right now because its under so much scrutiny and discrimination. Its similar to how I feel about the feminist movement. People are like "Oh em gee lets just treat people as people...not as men or women and cut all the crap". Yeah that would be great, but the idea is that things are not equal. We are not all treated the same. So we cant turn a blind eye and dismiss a group who are getting battered because its just another sexual disorder. 

 

When we rid the world of homophobia I think we can then stop caring about special ministries and help for gays. Please note that some crazy states try to pass laws that actually say homosexuals cant shop there if the owner has a problem with it. Does it remind you of anything?

[Era Might]

Spousal unity has much meaning in many philosophies. I can agree that individuals may chose to ignore the context of the society and perceptions and history of human experience.

 

I don't mean that there is no such thing as spousal unity, just that the phrase itself is theology-speak that tells us nothing real about human beings. I don't find the abstractions of the theology of the body very appealing. What good is there to be gained by turning a woman's behind into a holy of holies and making it your life's work never to enter it? If you like it, you like it, if you don't, you don't. I think the attempt to elevate the discourse of sex falls flat, at least when it comes to theology. I think you have to go to poetry or art to really elevate the discourse, you don't find pious ideals or abstractions in Chaucer like you do in the Theology of the Body.

 

Anyway, I'm all for trying to find meaning out of life, I'm not even against moral ideals, but I find the theological approach to sex silly most of the time. Just follow one rule and you'll be fine - never trust a big butt and a smile.

[franciscanheart]

You have built an identity centred around your sexuality, an identity that goes beyond your sexuality, which is rooted in something which is inherently disordered.

With respect, you've no idea what kind of identity I've created for myself. You know me not at all.

I also think you missed the point of the post. What I said was this: "When I tell you that I'm gay, I'm not ONLY telling you I like to get friendly with muff, yet that's what most people hear."

The message there was that we homosexuals relate to the world and to other people in a different way than heterosexual people do, by nature of being gay. When I tell you that I am homosexual, it does not just specify for you my sexual inclinations (really, even if you are to boil that down, it only tells you that I have a stronger preference for women, not necessarily even an exclusive one), it also tells you that I find comfort in intimate relationships with women more so than with men. It means I turn to women for the kinds of things other (heterosexual) women would seek in men.

I have never said, here or elsewhere, that homosexuality is the entirety of my identity. However, it is a large part of who I am, in the same way heterosexuality is a large part of the heterosexual person.
 

In my opinion, you're making a bigger deal about your sexuality than the Catholics you've been lambasting for the past couple of pages.

I don't believe I've lambasted anyone in the last few pages.

If your entire identity is wrapped up in your homosexuality then there's something wrong. Because you are more than the act of "getting friendly with female body parts". You're a human being. But you've intrinsically associated your identity with that act. I think you are the one with issues here.

Again, "gay" is not the entirety of my identity. I have not claimed that here or elsewhere. You might refrain from making such huge assumptions about someone you do not know, and with whom you have barely interacted.

All of this talk of recognising homosexuals as a group, offering them services, and a position within the Church, is an inherently flawed approach because it simply dehumanises homosexuals. It turns them into mere sexual acts. It's so... Freudian!

1. I think you'll find much in the hierarchy of the Church about ministering to homosexual people. You don't have to like it, but there is a need.

2. You have turned us into purely sexual acts or have viewed the label as doing such, we have not. Nor has the Church.

3. Regarding the bolded section, what problem have you with recognizing groups of any type of persons in the Church? Do we not address husbands and wives? Children and parents, mothers and fathers? Would it be dehumanizing to recognize those in the Church who struggle with mental or physical illness? Is it wrong to acknowledge those who struggle to bring forth life in the womb? I suspect your problem is with acknowledging homosexual people at all, but please correct me if I'm mistaken.

Some chicks dig chicks. Some dudes dig dudes. Something went wrong down the line and you're stuck with it. I'm rather fond of the female posterior. Doesn't give me free license to commit sodomy nor does it define my entire identity.

I've not suggested that having such an inclination grants me the right to act on it. I also didn't say that homosexuality defined my entire identity.

You know, this conversation would be so much easier if you were actually addressing things I've said instead of things I haven't said.

With all the love in the world... get over it?

How charitable.

[ChristianGirlForever]

Does this not give you pause? This is exactly what Nihil was trying to discuss. You have built an identity centred around your sexuality, an identity that goes beyond your sexuality, which is rooted in something which is inherently disordered.

In my opinion, you're making a bigger deal about your sexuality than the Catholics you've been lambasting for the past couple of pages. If your entire identity is wrapped up in your homosexuality then there's something wrong. Because you are more than the act of "getting friendly with female body parts". You're a human being. But you've intrinsically associated your identity with that act. I think you are the one with issues here.

All of this talk of recognising homosexuals as a group, offering them services, and a position within the Church, is an inherently flawed approach because it simply dehumanises homosexuals. It turns them into mere sexual acts. It's so... Freudian!

Some chicks dig chicks. Some dudes dig dudes. Something went wrong down the line and you're stuck with it. I'm rather fond of the female posterior. Doesn't give me free license to commit sodomy nor does it define my entire identity.

With all the love in the world... get over it?

The very things you mentioned bother me, too, AnHistorian. I find talking about private areas and sex like this vulgar, but I tried to read beyond that and saw how devout homosexual Catholics like FranciscanHeart struggle to live holy lives. We all need to do that.

I always try to work on charity, and something I've been lacking in is full charity toward homosexuals. I don't mean that I've treated gays differently or felt unkindly toward them, but I've been a bit too clinical in my beliefs about their issue. Reading FranciscanHeart's posts gave me more of an inside look at what she, and others like her, go through.

I agree that people with SSA have so much more to offer to life than their sexuality, but I now think we need to say it in a gentler, more sympathetic way. It is very difficult to understand something we have no ken about, so that's why it helps to hear their experiences. Then we can learn.

[PhuturePriest]

Separate pews, of course not. Why would you think that was a logical progression of thought for me?

 

But a special ministry just for them? Hell yeah! That sounds cool! But also more visibility and inclusion! I dont want to see other catholics feel so homophobic. I want them to realize that there are gay catholics and that is ok. 

 

I was using hyperbole to fully express how clueless I was as to what you actually want specially for Catholics who have same-sex attractions. You keep saying there needs to be things for them in the Church, but you never explain what those things are. Hence my asking if you want separate pews for them or something.

[franciscanheart]

I'm not saying homosexuals should not be helped to carry their cross. I'm saying it shouldn't be given any greater pirority over any other sexual issues that humans face.

I don't believe it is being given greater priority than any other sexual issue. Can you give me an example of how it would be?
 

Homosexuality shouldn't been internalised and integrated so much into a person's identity and personality that they cease to exist separate from it.

Sexuality is necessarily an integral part of the human experience. How do you propose one lives separately from sexuality?
 

"Oh? You're attracted to men/women? Okay, avoid occasions of sin, don't dwell on lustful thoughts, don't engage in sinful sexual behaviour, pray an rely on God's help."

Is that what you're suggesting should be the standard response to people struggling with homosexuality? (Honest question. Not sure what you were getting at with that bit.)
 

Yeah, there are bigger issues at work with homosexuals due to the rather alienating nature of same-sex attraction. For most it will mean a future as a single person. But single heterosexuals exist who face many of the same challenges. Forget the root cause behind the reasons and offer them the same support and love as anyone else.

I agree with the first and second sentences. As for the third and fourth: I can see where the challenges of celibacy would be the same across the board, but I think it's a mistake to ignore the fact that the homosexual will never have the opportunity to enjoy the marital embrace licitly. Singles may struggle in celibacy, but the reality of living a life without the kind of intimate relationship enjoyed by those who are able to be married is quite different.

Yes, the principles of chastity are the same across the board, but the circumstances of the homosexual person's life are, by nature, different than those of the heterosexual person's.

And I don't care what Mary-Jane Sue-Bobs knee jerk reaction is to someone comin out. It shouldn't matter to anyone.

So you don't mind when Catholics come out as being gay? You see some value (or at the very least, do not oppose) in that action?

[franciscanheart]

The very things you mentioned bother me, too, AnHistorian. I find talking about private areas and sex like this vulgar, but I tried to read beyond that and saw how devout homosexual Catholics like FranciscanHeart struggle to live holy lives. We all need to do that.

I always try to work on charity, and something I've been lacking in is full charity toward homosexuals. I don't mean that I've treated gays differently or felt unkindly toward them, but I've been a bit too clinical in my beliefs about their issue. Reading FranciscanHeart's posts gave me more of an inside look at what she, and others like her, go through.

I agree that people with SSA have so much more to offer to life than their sexuality, but I now think we need to say it in a gentler, more sympathetic way. It is very difficult to understand something we have no ken about, so that's why it helps to hear their experiences. Then we can learn.

:heart: Good word. This has warmed my heart.

[franciscanheart]

I agree with the first and second sentences. As for the third and fourth: I can see where the challenges of celibacy would be the same across the board, but I think it's a mistake to ignore the fact that the homosexual will never have the opportunity to enjoy the marital embrace licitly. Singles may struggle in celibacy, but the reality of living a life without the kind of intimate relationship enjoyed by those who are able to be married is quite different.

Yes, the principles of chastity are the same across the board, but the circumstances of the homosexual person's life are, by nature, different than those of the heterosexual person's.

I wanted to expound upon this just a little. I do not mean to imply that I cannot see the beauty of a celibate life, hetero, homo, or otherwise. I see that. I live that. But I do think you do a great disservice to yourself and to the homosexual people of the world to ignore the unique challenges they (we) face.

[Amppax]

I'm hoping to listen to the interview/debate between Mattson and Tushnet soon. Been home sick for (now) 2 days straight, but for most of that time I haven't been able to get out of bed. Just wanted to say, I'm really glad this is actually turning into something of a fruitful discussion. 

[Anomaly]

but the circumstances of the homosexual person's life are, by nature, different than those of the heterosexual person's.

That is a significant point. If you are a gay Catholic, you have no earthly hope of an intimate life partner. We can give up sex a lot more easily than we can accept loneliness. It's not that sexual attraction is only about physical sex regardless of gender preference. Who gets married just to have licit or legal sex. It's dismissive and mean to tell a gay person they just need to stop making a big deal of it.

Moralistic philosophies that dismiss being gay as being unable to live a worthwhile life really just makes rejecting Catholicism the healthiest option. The only reason a Catholic gay would endure the earthly suffering is the hope of happiness in the next life. Much is demanded of them. More than is asked if a well adjusted and socially accepted hetero ideal.

I think the OP was a bit dismissive of the inherent dim hope offered to gay Catholics by the Church. I think Fran has opened a few eyes to the bitter reality.

[franciscanheart]

I'm hoping to listen to the interview/debate between Mattson and Tushnet soon. Been home sick for (now) 2 days straight, but for most of that time I haven't been able to get out of bed. Just wanted to say, I'm really glad this is actually turning into something of a fruitful discussion.

Beware the heavy (loud) nosebreather. :ohno:

Feel better soon!

[franciscanheart]

That is a significant point. If you are a gay Catholic, you have no earthly hope of an intimate life partner. We can give up sex a lot more easily than we can accept loneliness. It's not that sexual attraction is only about physical sex regardless of gender preference. Who gets married just to have licit or legal sex. It's dismissive and mean to tell a gay person they just need to stop making a big deal of it.

Moralistic philosophies that dismiss being gay as being unable to live a worthwhile life really just makes rejecting Catholicism the healthiest option. The only reason a Catholic gay would endure the earthly suffering is the hope of happiness in the next life. Much is demanded of them. More than is asked if a well adjusted and socially accepted hetero ideal.

I think the OP was a bit dismissive of the inherent dim hope offered to gay Catholics by the Church. I think Fran has opened a few eyes to the bitter reality.

I really do need to study so I'll make this my last reply...

I do not mean to make it seem as if gay Catholics are doomed to a life of misery and discontentment. I think the opposite is true. We have available to us, through God's grace, a life of rich abundance and great comfort. The places we seek and receive our comfort are necessarily different -- errr, more limited -- than those of the heterosexual peer, but they are enough. If God is our source, it is enough.

I am actually quite excited to read Eve's book "Gay and Catholic" to see what she touches on as far as fulfillment in this life. She mentioned that she discusses in the book the various ways she has found to fill herself up with love and companionship as a homosexual person living a celibate, Catholic life.

The reality for homosexual persons in the Church is, I think it's fair to say, difficult in different ways than other groups. It is not, however, without joy, hope, or comfort.