The Strange Notion Of "gay Celibacy"

[franciscanheart]

​Well I thank you for sharing that. I can see where a benefit may be derived from some openness, but conversely I don't see people habituated to the sin of self-abuse and porn addiction really discussing their disordered sin in the open, and their sin is far more common than homosexuality. I think there is a danger with being too open and causing scandal by making homosexuality seem acceptable -- 'acceptable' meaning "ok" -- I do not mean to suggest that homosexuals should face abuse or any bigotry. 

​I second what Amp said below, though I understand and appreciate your line of thought. The distinction Amp mentions is incredibly important and I think invalidates any idea that we're discussing sinful behavior as if it's acceptable or "bound to happen". Make sense? Self-abuse or masturbation or viewing pornography -- those are all sins. Being gay isn't sinful. The tendency toward homosexual desire is not, in and of itself, a sin. Homosexual actions are sinful, and I would not talk about those things "openly" in the way I talk about just being gay. So to compare being gay to, as you offered up, watching pornography, isn't really fair -- though, again, I understand how you arrived at that comparison and appreciate the point you were attempting to make.

 

​You're wrong on that count, there've been quite a few threads on the topic of pornography before. 

However, you're missing an important distinction, between homosexual inclinations and actions. The actions are sinful, the inclination is not. I think when this distinction is made (and it's been made ad nauseum on this forum), scandal shouldn't be an issue. 

​Agreed.

[Ark]

​I second what Amp said below, though I understand and appreciate your line of thought. The distinction Amp mentions is incredibly important and I think invalidates any idea that we're discussing sinful behavior as if it's acceptable or "bound to happen". Make sense? Self-abuse or masturbation or viewing pornography -- those are all sins. Being gay isn't sinful. The tendency toward homosexual desire is not, in and of itself, a sin. Homosexual actions are sinful, and I would not talk about those things "openly" in the way I talk about just being gay. So to compare being gay to, as you offered up, watching pornography, isn't really fair -- though, again, I understand how you arrived at that comparison and appreciate the point you were attempting to make.

​Hmm. Well desire can certainly be sinful for a heterosexual so it can certainly be sinful for a homosexual. Our Lord said that a man who thinks of committing adultery has already become guilty of it. I guess what seems to be changing is this idea of homosexuality being acceptable in the sense that it's just another sexual orientation alongside heterosexuality. As if God ordained both as different valid paths for people to take. It's hard for me, because I don't mean to offend but I don't know how else to put this, but homosexuality is intrinsically disordered. I don't think a person should be content with experiencing such desires, but like a heterosexual, should control their passions and subdue them. Now the point about addicts to self abuse is poignant because if you ask any addict there is a point where the appearance of self-control is lost. Many people are exposed to porn at a very young age, some as young as 10 years old, so you'll hear people masturbating compulsively daily (or more) for years. The sin becomes so ingrained that it seems impossible to overcome, and arguably, it becomes a part of them in some apparent way, yet I don't see the same openness concerning this sin. I feel some caution is necessary, and that ordinarily this is something that should only be shared with a confessor. We don't need to know eachother's sins, falls, and struggles. In fact, we should be very similar to one another if we are living a virtuous life. Very little should differentiate us as our sins and passions would be under control.

These are just some thoughts, I mean no offense here, I myself was a very big sinner and lived a debauched life. You probably are a holier person than myself, so I mean no judgement against you. I don't share my sins so as not to cause scandal. 

Oremus pro invicem.

[franciscanheart]

​Hmm. Well desire can certainly be sinful for a heterosexual so it can certainly be sinful for a homosexual. Our Lord said that a man who thinks of committing adultery has already become guilty of it. I guess what seems to be changing is this idea of homosexuality being acceptable in the sense that it's just another sexual orientation alongside heterosexuality. As if God ordained both as different valid paths for people to take. It's hard for me, because I don't mean to offend but I don't know how else to put this, but homosexuality is intrinsically disordered. I don't think a person should be content with experiencing such desires, but like a heterosexual, should control their passions and subdue them. Now the point about addicts to self abuse is poignant because if you ask any addict there is a point where the appearance of self-control is lost. Many people are exposed to porn at a very young age, some as young as 10 years old, so you'll hear people masturbating compulsively daily (or more) for years. The sin becomes so ingrained that it seems impossible to overcome, and arguably, it becomes a part of them in some apparent way, yet I don't see the same openness concerning this sin. I feel some caution is necessary, and that ordinarily this is something that should only be shared with a confessor. We don't need to know eachother's sins, falls, and struggles. In fact, we should be very similar to one another if we are living a virtuous life. Very little should differentiate us as our sins and passions would be under control.

These are just some thoughts, I mean no offense here, I myself was a very big sinner and lived a debauched life. You probably are a holier person than myself, so I mean no judgement against you. I don't share my sins so as not to cause scandal. 

Oremus pro invicem.

​Well. Hmmm. Okay.

Before I begin, let me thank you for your honesty, frankness, and kindness. I don't take offense to anything you said. Often, the way a belief or ultimate difference of opinion is expressed makes all the difference between offense and frustration -- and I haven't even reached frustration yet. [thumbs up]

I'm going to start at the beginning and work my way through. I think in this instance, working through on a point by point basis will be helpful.

​Hmm. Well desire can certainly be sinful for a heterosexual so it can certainly be sinful for a homosexual.

Of course. Desire can always cross the threshold into lust and thus becomes sinful. Our sexual desire as given to us by God, however, is not, in and of itself, sinful. This is an important and necessary distinction if we're going to talk about the Church's teaching on homosexuality.

Our Lord said that a man who thinks of committing adultery has already become guilty of it.

We're talking about lust in this case, not base heterosexuality or base homosexuality. Entertaining the thoughts of having sexual relations is much different than the inherent desire to be sexually intimate with a partner.

I guess what seems to be changing is this idea of homosexuality being acceptable in the sense that it's just another sexual orientation alongside heterosexuality. As if God ordained both as different valid paths for people to take.

So this one is difficult to discuss in writing but I'm going to do my best. I think the perception in the church is often that, if we accept homosexuality as being a thing that happens, then we're condoning people being gay. Further, if we condone them being gay, then we're saying it's okay for them to think about sexual relations in that context. We're giving them too much rope and they're going to spiritually hang themselves if we let them think about any of this. So we need to tell them to deny this part of themselves and realize that God wants much more for them (because obviously they don't understand this if they want to claim that they are gay).

Now, I often exaggerate to make a point. But basically, this is the feeling I get from many -- you included. It's the idea many have, I think, that because I say I am gay and I am open about that in certain places and with certain people, that I think about having sex with women or that I want to live a lesbian lifestyle in the Church. Or like, I want to "play a lesbian" and just not have sex.

What does that look like to you? What is your schema about people who identify as gay?

I know for certain that I have never said in this thread or anywhere else we've talked about this on phatmass that I think it's okay for people to explore their homosexuality in the bedroom. I've never said here or elsewhere that it is or should be acceptable in the Church to practice homosexuality, or that it's physical expression is a valid expression of God's love for humanity. I have not said at any point that God ordained these both as "valid paths" for His children to take.

But then, I think we're talking about two different things again if we are talking about paths.

Does God have children who are heterosexual -- some of whom He calls to sexual intimacy and procreation? Yep. Does he want them to remain chaste? Yep. Does he also have children who are heterosexual who are meant to remain celibate and chaste? Yep. What about gays? Does God have homosexual children He calls to be celibate and chaste? Yep. We are all called to the same chastity, but not all of us are called to sexual intimacy.

Recognizing the difference between heterosexuality and homosexuality is not condoning the practice of both. It's simply acknowledging that there exists, in some of God's children, a desire for the same sex and not the opposite. But we're all called to chastity.

It's hard for me, because I don't mean to offend but I don't know how else to put this, but homosexuality is intrinsically disordered.

In the context of Catholic teaching, we are absolutely agreed. You do mean that in the context of Catholic teaching, correct?

I don't think a person should be content with experiencing such desires, but like a heterosexual, should control their passions and subdue them.

There's a difference between experiencing the desire and letting it run rampant. I like to think of my sexuality a lot like that of professed religious. Do you think religious walk around every day thinking about all the sex they don't get to have? Probably not. Does it cross their minds from time to time -- the idea of sexual desire? Perhaps. But we don't assume that they don't subdue their passions.

I experience the initial knee-jerk reaction of sexual desire the same way you or any other non-asexual person experiences desire. But I think your assumption is that because I say that I am gay, and I am not ashamed or "discontent" with that, that I am essentially saying that I allow myself to think in sexual terms about other women. I don't.

As far as asking homosexuals to be discontent with themselves in that regard, I don't know how to respond yet. Do you mean that homosexuals should feel discontent about their natural (read: inborn) desire to be intimate with the same sex for all of their lives, should pray in some kind of sorrow, or should hope to be "freed" of the "cross they've been asked to carry"? I'm not exactly sure I follow and I hesitate to make too many assumptions.

Now the point about addicts to self abuse is poignant because if you ask any addict there is a point where the appearance of self-control is lost. Many people are exposed to porn at a very young age, some as young as 10 years old, so you'll hear people masturbating compulsively daily (or more) for years. The sin becomes so ingrained that it seems impossible to overcome, and arguably, it becomes a part of them in some apparent way, yet I don't see the same openness concerning this sin.

Your mistake, in my opinion, is comparing homosexuals to addicts at all. It is the same mistake people make when trying to compare homosexuality to pedophilia. It isn't a just or logical comparison. Masturbation is the same for everyone -- gay or straight. Homosexuals are what they are; there isn't any changing that.

If I went really far out on a limb (which I had to do several times to try to bend myself into the pretzel necessary to follow your logic), I would think you're suggesting that homosexuals should never think of themselves as being gay because if they do they are likely to sin and then they will accept that sexual sin of lust as being an acceptable part of their person. That's not what you meant is it?

(And before I get too far, please know that the pretzel comment was a lighthearted joke about each of us trying to understand what the other is saying. I think we're taking two different approaches to meet the same end goal and it feels a bit like the Batman but going the length of Titan and the speed of Mr. Freeze. Ahem, Six Flags anyone?)

All that said, I think this is a faulty comparison. Homosexuals are not, by their nature, sinful. They have the same chances of falling prey to any number of sexual sins as a heterosexual -- with the added complexity of often desiring those things with a person of the same sex. (You can see, I'm sure, where the issue of something like porn or masturbation becomes a little more confusing and complicated when it's a person of the same sex. Though, I think we can agree that the sin is the same; it's a sin against the flesh and against God's love for us. It's a sin against a beautiful gift God gave to us, a perversion of the beauty of sexual relations.)

I feel some caution is necessary, and that ordinarily this is something that should only be shared with a confessor. We don't need to know eachother's sins, falls, and struggles. In fact, we should be very similar to one another if we are living a virtuous life. Very little should differentiate us as our sins and passions would be under control.

Caution is absolutely necessary, as it is with everything. But I don't see where my sharing that I am gay is reason to lock the door and turn off the lights. My telling you that I am gay is not admitting to you a sin, a fall, or even a struggle, really. When I tell you that I am gay, what I am telling you is that I am predominantly attracted to women. This means I am attracted to women over men in most forms of intimacy -- up to and including sex. What I am not telling you is that I have lustful thoughts about women, that I dwell on lustful thoughts about women, that I definitely want to have sex with women, that I do have sex with women, and so on. Does that make sense? When I say I am gay, the tendency, it would seem, is to think, "GAY SEX." Often I find that when someone thinks about me being gay, they go immediately to what they think I want to do in the bedroom. That seems very shortsighted and even ignorant, don't you think?

These are just some thoughts, I mean no offense here, I myself was a very big sinner and lived a debauched life. You probably are a holier person than myself, so I mean no judgement against you. I don't share my sins so as not to cause scandal. 

I have not shared any of mine, either. I hope I've made that clear with this post. My telling you that I am gay is not revealing anything about my sinfulness. The person who hears my confession is the one who knows my sin. My Lord knows my sin. Several close friends know my struggles, but not my sin. I imagine that's the truth for many -- gay or straight.

[Ark]

 

​Well. Hmmm. Okay.

Before I begin, let me thank you for your honesty, frankness, and kindness. I don't take offense to anything you said. Often, the way a belief or ultimate difference of opinion is expressed makes all the difference between offense and frustration -- and I haven't even reached frustration yet. [thumbs up]

I appreciate that, despite our differences you probably are a holier person than me, and I say that with all sincerity.

I agree that desires in and of themselves are not sinful but I think it's important to remember that God ordained one sexual orientation, that of a man towards a woman and vice versa. Anything else is not another sexual orientation per se but a malformation of what God originally made. For example there are scientists that say some people are genetically predisposed to pedophilia but I wouldn't describe this as another orientation. I also wouldn't say this is a "God given" desire, at least not in the sense that God positively ordained a person to have such a disordered inclination, rather God permitted it, the actual cause if it's genetic is to be ascribed to a flaw in nature. I think this is where we fundamentally differ. 

I don't think the issue is over whether homosexuality occurs, it does and has been occurring since time immemorial. What is changing is that people identify with homosexuality and are open about it. "I am Gay" vs "I have SSA". "Coming out" vs private spiritual direction. Christians with SSA have always been around but how they behave in public has changed, and in my opinion it is causing scandal, confusion, and divisiveness in our community.

I'm sorry if I gave you that impression but I know by identifying as Gay you don't mean that that you just want to have sexual thoughts. I do think by identifying with it and being public about it you are diminishing SSA's reality of being disordered and possibly contributing to scandal. I would say this not just for people with SSA but any other sinful or disordered tendency, whether they people who developed a tendency by their own actions, or those who perhaps are genetically predisposed but are not yet accepted by greater society.

My judgement is meaningless but as I mentioned earlier you're probably much holier than myself. I don't think we're at issue over whether a person can have SSA and live chaste, or be holy, or is loved by God. I think identifying with and and being public about it can have some negative effects even if it be unintentional.

Yes, I agree with you.

I'm not sure what you mean here, what is the meaning in a non-Catholic context? 

That is not my assumption and I apologize if that is the impression I gave. For me it's more an issue of diminishing the reality of SSA being disordered but it can potentially be promoting a Gay lifestyle. Again, I think you are holier than and I'm sure to some degree you recognize as a person that identifies with being Gay you are exceptional in many respects.

May question to you is, ought a person be "Gay and proud"? 

Let me clarify this a bit. We should be ashamed and discontent over our sins and any disordered inclinations. I want to emphasize I'm not singling out people with SSA but would also apply the same to habitual self-abusers that act out of compulsion, people with an inordinate sexual desire for children, adulterers, etc. We all have things to be ashamed of, and this especially includes myself, and this relates to the horror that is sin and the abominable nature of some of the sins we commit or are inclined to.

We ought to strive to the best of our ability to heal ourselves, regardless of what which dispositions we either developed in ourselves or may be genetically predisposed to. This is what I mean by being discontented. I don't mean a denial of one self as the disorders we posses are not a part of ourselves. We are attempting to be healed so that we be restored as we were meant to be. 

Now I do believe that despite arduous effort at self mastery and healing an inclination may still remain, and any further attempt at healing is unreasonable and perhaps damaging, I think in such a state a person can be "content" relatively. I certainly am not at this state. I am very discontented. 

Habitual sin can so harden a soul towards a particular act that it becomes virtually compulsive. The habitual self-abuser who is attempting to free themselves from the sin finds themselves in a very challenging position, and at times a sense of hopelessness. Overcoming their sin is painful and certainly feels like "self denial." All I meant here is that the struggle is really not that different. 

Now pedophilia is interesting because apparently there may be a genetic predisposition, in other words people are born with it. I sometimes wonder if the Gay-rights movement is really an interim step for making pederasty acceptable. NAMBLA is already using the same arguments that Gay groups are and I don't see how in a secular Western context these relationships can be denied. I think society will always abhor acts against he very young but I think it will reconsider age restrictions and condone mid-aged catamites and pederasts. Frightening, but such is the state we find ourselves in. 

Not exactly but it's not that controversial that once we identify with something we subconsciously play the part, a great example of this is with alcoholics. AA is terribly unsuccessful and one of the arguments why it's so unsuccessful is that it teaches people to accept that they are Alcoholics, "once an addict always an addict," and so in their minds they program themselves to believe that what they have is inescapable and incurable.  Are we then surprised that so many people relapse? Why would this principle not apply to people who identify with any other tendency? 

I think we're probably more in agreement than in disagreement and at points we've talked over each-other. I never meant to suggest a person with SSA can't be holy and still have SSA. 

We're in agreement here. 

​Like I said before you are an exceptional Catholic as well as an exceptional person who identifies as Gay. For most "being Gay" refers to a lifestyle, in your case it sounds like you simply accept having SSA but continue to live a virtuous and chaste life, excelling in nearness to our Lord, which no one (let alone myself) could fault you for. The terminology is weird because being something usually does denote some sort of action, and so it's unusual for a person to speak of "being heterosexual" but I see what you are getting at.

[Ark]

Looks like your quotes did not save... oh well

 

[franciscanheart]

I've been occupied all weekend and there is so much to respond to. Know that I've read through once and will think and pray until I've an opportunity to respond.