Jump to content
An Old School Catholic Message Board

The Strange Notion Of "gay Celibacy"


Nihil Obstat

Recommended Posts

I've seen people who are very adamant about "coming out" and those who refuse to accept the label. Fine. What about this:

 

Let people deal with their sexuality how they want to. They're trying to follow church teaching, if the feel the need to claim, or conversely,reject, a label then for God's sake just let them. The problem is with people thinking their way is the right/only proper way to deal with it.

 

I know I'm not the only phatmasser who has had to negotiate a non-heteronormative psychosexual er, history. I've gotten comfortable with how I've reconciled my sexuality with my faith but there's always someone to say I'm doing it the wrong way. And for the record I mostly agree with the author I think it's a reasoning smiliar to my own but WHY oh WHY must his line of reasoning be foisted upon everyone who struggles with this issue. 

 

Pardon if I come off as a bit touchy. I used to think my way of dealing with **** was the best way for a faithful Catholic to deal with it. Talk about hubris. I've come to see that there are different approaches that fit different people and it can be so hard and such a cross to bear, leave the poor people who are trying alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen people who are very adamant about "coming out" and those who refuse to accept the label. Fine. What about this:

 

Let people deal with their sexuality how they want to. They're trying to follow church teaching, if the feel the need to claim, or conversely,reject, a label then for God's sake just let them. The problem is with people thinking their way is the right/only proper way to deal with it.

 

I know I'm not the only phatmasser who has had to negotiate a non-heteronormative psychosexual er, history. I've gotten comfortable with how I've reconciled my sexuality with my faith but there's always someone to say I'm doing it the wrong way. And for the record I mostly agree with the author I think it's a reasoning smiliar to my own but WHY oh WHY must his line of reasoning be foisted upon everyone who struggles with this issue. 

 

Pardon if I come off as a bit touchy. I used to think my way of dealing with **** was the best way for a faithful Catholic to deal with it. Talk about hubris. I've come to see that there are different approaches that fit different people and it can be so hard and such a cross to bear, leave the poor people who are trying alone.

Does it have to be about forcing though? I mean, I did not read much aggressiveness into the article, so I am not reading it with much of an impression that he wants to force or browbeat Catholics into accepting his way of thinking.

I do think he author thinks what he is talking about is the best way, the most authentic way to address this as a Catholic. I think that is to be expected. Otherwise I doubt he would have bothered to write it. But that is how we do things as Catholics, right? We are always going to be falling short on something, and there is always going to be someone else out there who can help us do better. And sometimes we also need help even just to see where we can be improving.

I mean... here is a somewhat-related example. I was gently scolded in the confessional once because it had been four weeks since I went last. My confessor said four weeks was too long to really do a thorough examination of conscience. And he is right. He recommended that I make an effort for at least every three weeks, better yet every two. 

For a Catholic who is just returning to a serious practice of the faith, confession every two weeks might seem absolutely insane. Maybe getting there every couple of months is really huge progress for them. 

That is great, but we would still gently lead them towards more frequent confessions too. And they may need encouragement to do so. It is a both/and thing. We are happy they are making such great progress, and when it is appropriate we might try to help them do better.

 

So yeah, even if someone is doing pretty ok with something, sometimes they still need help. Sometimes it is our place to offer that help, and sometimes it is not. I would rather see it as an expression of genuine concern and charity rather than self-righteousness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic in general seems way too sensitive for most, not all people, but most people to try and bridge the gap on..... most of us can grasp the idea of celibacy , no sex before marriage, and then the reality of teenagers, hormones that are out of control , the lack of discussion and guidance by clergy and parents on how to help young teens in understanding the importance of celibacy/marriage/ why they are important... and to make things even harder, we have a society that is non stop pumping promiscuity and sex into our lives in some form or another at some level or another.....

 

and then to tack this onto homosexuals becomes odd, it seems the focus shouldn't be so much at the beginning of hey this or that is considered a sin, or this or that is considered a disorder, but the focus should be is how do we welcome / evangelize / convert / anyone but in this case homosexuals to Christ and the Church...  Just to get that person past the door an to simply sit in a pew.  Forget preaching or lecturing to the person.

 

IF people find a good, and honest way to encourage others be it homosexual, atheist, whatever, to encounter Christ, then there is something to go from...

 

but to just pop open the catechism and point to a certain page, and to quote theology and scripture, who is that helping, how is it not just opening up a debate and nothing more, and at the end to just hope the person can no longer continue the debate, concede and then what convert ?

 

I don't see the need for the discussion any more,  what I do see the need for is more books for those who are homosexual, and want to be Catholic, or do not understand certain things,,,,,,,  I don't know if Scott Haan has ever written such a book, but I think he is a good author and might come up with something really good for a start. 

 

I think that is something I would find more helpful is a pinned thread, on educational books, or some kind of book in general on  evangelizing  that spans the range from Homosexuals and other religions....

 

I could have used such information before bringing it up in my 8th grade class half hazardly out of the blue just to get the class talking and see what they think, biggest mistake ever and got a slap on the wrist for even trying.   live an learn. Had I been really wanting to talk about it I would have researched material first and sought advise first, but it was just getting really slow in class lol so threw a grenade and it blew up on me go figure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

 

That's bleak. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Me too. Reading that article was quite disturbing for me because I had a friend who used to write blog posts in a similar style to that, getting lots of approval and pats on the back from the particular Catholics she surrounded herself with (some of whom told her that her attraction to women was caused by demons). She was performing for an audience. Eventually it wore her out and didn't help her mental health at all. She doesn't believe in God any more.

 

Such articles mostly seem to be written for the benefit of straight people who find the word 'gay' to be icky and want to be able to wave around a piece of paper going, "See! This gay person agrees with me!" I don't see any benefit to anyone in doing that, so I will join you in sitting out and hope that you have brought some cake. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Me too. Reading that article was quite disturbing for me because I had a friend who used to write blog posts in a similar style to that, getting lots of approval and pats on the back from the particular Catholics she surrounded herself with (some of whom told her that her attraction to women was caused by demons). She was performing for an audience. Eventually it wore her out and didn't help her mental health at all. She doesn't believe in God any more.

Such articles mostly seem to be written for the benefit of straight people who find the word 'gay' to be icky and want to be able to wave around a piece of paper going, "See! This gay person agrees with me!" I don't see any benefit to anyone in doing that, so I will join you in sitting out and hope that you have brought some cake. :)

I think you're making a pretty uncharitable assumption about the author. It's like the atheist who says theists don't ACTUALLY believe in all this God stuff, they're just lying to themselves, it's all an act. So your friend talked like this and has rejected faith, I don't think you need to project that onto the author.

While I can see how you could read that into his piece, why not just take him at his word?

Additionally, the assumption that everyone who reads the article is just looking for something saying that "icky" feeling they have about homosexuality is A-okay is about the same level of demeaning. Just speaking for myself, there are several people I'm close to who identify as gay. When I read on the topic my goal is to learn how to love these people I care about more. Not so I can sit back in self satisfaction and say "See? I knew it all along, to hell with teh gayz."

Anyway, that's all I want to say about that. Edited by Amppax
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you're making a pretty uncharitable assumption about the author. It's like the atheist who says theists don't ACTUALLY believe in all this God stuff, they're just lying to themselves, it's all an act. So your friend talked like this and has rejected faith, I don't think you need to project that onto the author.

While I can see how you could read that into his piece, why not just take him at his word?

Additionally, the assumption that everyone who reads the article is just looking for something saying that "icky" feeling they have about homosexuality is A-okay is about the same level of demeaning. Just speaking for myself, there are several people I'm close to who identify as gay. When I read on the topic my goal is to learn how to love these people I care about more. Not so I can sit back in self satisfaction and say "See? I knew it all along, to hell with teh gayz."

Anyway, that's all I want to say about that.

 

 

I'm not saying that I think the blog author is going to reject his faith. I mean that reading anything in that language or style is disturbing for me because it brings back memories of my friend (and what she had to do to herself in order to buy acceptance in a certain circle). I should have been clearer on that.

 

But regarding the popularity of articles like this in certain Catholic circles, I stand by what I said. I have seen people doggedly referring to homosexuality as SSA, never mind that using an acronym with a quasi-medical feel might be quite hurtful to gay people, and when challenged on it (including by actual gay people) they go, "But I'm being loving, a person is always so much more than their sexuality, so I'm just trying to show that! I just don't want to reduce people to a label!" This has practically become a cliche. But when someone uses terms like SSA to describe their experience, they grab that writing and flourish it around as proof of their position - and what can the subtext of that be other than "Look, one of them agrees with me!"? This is reducing people to their sexuality despite all claims to the contrary, and it harms people. They might have the best intentions in the world but even the best intentions can still be damaging. Let's face it - the homosexuality discussions on Phatmass are rarely initiated by gay people (and on the few occasions that franciscanheart made threads about her experiences, there was a backlash from some users about how she was trying to put too much attention on herself and how she's gay). It's always seems to be straight people who love talking this to death and to be honest I don't think that this obsessive level of interest in anything is pure.

 

I also don't think we need to read articles debating uses of terminology ad infinitum in order to learn how to love people better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

franciscanheart

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.

What would be icky? I ask with genuine curiosity.

Here's the thing, Nihil: there is an effort being made. Whether you have the heart or mind enough to recognize that this is subdued is not a problem for which I wish to take responsibility, but I would suggest you now note, if you have not already, that this is restraint. If you are ignorant about the depth and weight of such issues, perhaps it would be more charitable of you to stay out of the discussion, or reserve your participation for such arenas as your dining room table with mom and pop. I've been told people often mold their young into something like themselves and that, even when they stray, most are uninclined to consume their young.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

franciscanheart

I'm not saying that I think the blog author is going to reject his faith. I mean that reading anything in that language or style is disturbing for me because it brings back memories of my friend (and what she had to do to herself in order to buy acceptance in a certain circle). I should have been clearer on that.
 
But regarding the popularity of articles like this in certain Catholic circles, I stand by what I said. I have seen people doggedly referring to homosexuality as SSA, never mind that using an acronym with a quasi-medical feel might be quite hurtful to gay people, and when challenged on it (including by actual gay people) they go, "But I'm being loving, a person is always so much more than their sexuality, so I'm just trying to show that! I just don't want to reduce people to a label!" This has practically become a cliche. But when someone uses terms like SSA to describe their experience, they grab that writing and flourish it around as proof of their position - and what can the subtext of that be other than "Look, one of them agrees with me!"? This is reducing people to their sexuality despite all claims to the contrary, and it harms people. They might have the best intentions in the world but even the best intentions can still be damaging. Let's face it - the homosexuality discussions on Phatmass are rarely initiated by gay people (and on the few occasions that franciscanheart made threads about her experiences, there was a backlash from some users about how she was trying to put too much attention on herself and how she's gay). It's always seems to be straight people who love talking this to death and to be honest I don't think that this obsessive level of interest in anything is pure.
 
I also don't think we need to read articles debating uses of terminology ad infinitum in order to learn how to love people better.

You get the biggest slice. I'll eat the crumbs. :love:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not saying that I think the blog author is going to reject his faith. I mean that reading anything in that language or style is disturbing for me because it brings back memories of my friend (and what she had to do to herself in order to buy acceptance in a certain circle). I should have been clearer on that.

 

Thanks for the clarification. 

 

 

But regarding the popularity of articles like this in certain Catholic circles, I stand by what I said. I have seen people doggedly referring to homosexuality as SSA, never mind that using an acronym with a quasi-medical feel might be quite hurtful to gay people, and when challenged on it (including by actual gay people) they go, "But I'm being loving, a person is always so much more than their sexuality, so I'm just trying to show that! I just don't want to reduce people to a label!" This has practically become a cliche. But when someone uses terms like SSA to describe their experience, they grab that writing and flourish it around as proof of their position - and what can the subtext of that be other than "Look, one of them agrees with me!"? This is reducing people to their sexuality despite all claims to the contrary, and it harms people. They might have the best intentions in the world but even the best intentions can still be damaging. Let's face it - the homosexuality discussions on Phatmass are rarely initiated by gay people (and on the few occasions that franciscanheart made threads about her experiences, there was a backlash from some users about how she was trying to put too much attention on herself and how she's gay). It's always seems to be straight people who love talking this to death and to be honest I don't think that this obsessive level of interest in anything is pure.

 

I also don't think we need to read articles debating uses of terminology ad infinitum in order to learn how to love people better.

 

 In my mind, the debate isn't about the terminology, it's the anthropology underlying (which, I think the author did a good job of highlighting). And, insofar as that anthropology relates to the truth, I think it does impact how we love. I'm actually fairly neutral in this particular debate ("New Homophiles" vs. Mattson et. al.; Crisis Magazine vs. Spiritual Friendship), I've read things from both sides that I found compelling. I think it's a discussion worth having. In terms of this article, while I found it interesting, I wouldn't say I agree with everything he said. I do agree with you, the focus on the terminology, if that is the center of the discussion, is misplaced. 

 

I should also be clear, I'm interested in this on more than one level, considering theology is more than just an armchair hobby for me, but my career/vocation/etc. Considering this has become maybe the most pressing social issue, I don't think the interest is necessarily out of place. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I find interesting is that the author discusses his sexual identity as being a function of the other gender. I disagree. Being gay does not make you less of a man because you dont prefer vaginas....gay men are still men. Although later on he is like "IM A MAN LIKE JESUS AND ADAM CUZ THEY LOVE THEM CHICKS AND STUFF!"

 

Oy oy oy

 

I will be in the minority when I say the church really needs to straighten out (bad pun) their views on homosexuals because its just freaking convoluted at this point. The dude sounds like he is rambling about ways to convince himself that the church doesnt shun him as completely as it actually does. And then all us straight people can sit back and give ourselves a round of applause for finding a gay person who will denounce himself for the sake of his faith "See gay people get it!"

His article might sound happy and like he has it all figured out, but he is most definitely denouncing himself...its sad to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Such articles mostly seem to be written for the benefit of straight people who find the word 'gay' to be icky and want to be able to wave around a piece of paper going, "See! This gay person agrees with me!" I don't see any benefit to anyone in doing that, so I will join you in sitting out and hope that you have brought some cake. :)

Im glad Im not the only person with this thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anyone's interested, there's a debate between the author of the article and Eve Tushnet, author of the book "Gay and Catholic." You can find it here, skip ahead to 8:25 to hear the beginning of the discussion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not The Philosopher

If anyone's interested, there's a debate between the author of the article and Eve Tushnet, author of the book "Gay and Catholic." You can find it here, skip ahead to 8:25 to hear the beginning of the discussion. 

 

I'd like to check it out when I have the time. I've been following Tushnet and Mattson for the past couple of years, so it'll be interesting to hear them sparring with each other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...