The Strange Notion Of "gay Celibacy"

[PhuturePriest]

Hopefully you guys can help me out, because I am legitimately and sincerely curious, but I simply can't wrap this around my head.

 

You all admirably and unwaveringly assent with Church teaching that being gay (Or having same-sex attraction, as the Church prefers to call it) is inherently ordered towards a moral evil. So why do you identify with that? Why would you identify with something which orders you towards a moral evil? It's logically and theologically inconsistent. As the Church itself has very clearly said, we all have inherent disorders, because we are all prone to one sin or another. But you don't see people identifying with other disordered desires. When I used to watch pornography, I never identified myself as a pornosexual, or identified it as something that was a major part of me simply because it directly involved my sexuality. So why do you do that with same-sex attraction? It's something you struggle with, yes. It's something you will always likely struggle with. But that does not mean you should therefore identify yourself with a disordered desire.

 

Again, these are simply my thoughts. If one of you could explain to me why you do this and why you think it's logically consistent and/or helpful to you in your spiritual life, I would sincerely appreciate it.

[Amppax]

The problem with Mattson is that he reduces sexuality to the biological. This is a huge emphasis of Tushnet and others, that there is a difference in how one relates with the world. I think it's a fair critique in some senses.

[Maggyie]

Phuture I think it's because sexuality is a very deep seated part of human beings. It strongly influences everything else - vocation, family, etc. it would be very challenging to go a day and not be reminded that you are gay, if only by the circumstance that you aren't partnered.

It's not something you can put in a box and and put to the side. Pornagraphy is disordered but you were still a straight person the whole time you were watching porn. You can wake up one day and not watch porn, a gay person is going to be gay every day they wake up.

[Lil Red]

Hopefully you guys can help me out, because I am legitimately and sincerely curious, but I simply can't wrap this around my head.

 

You all admirably and unwaveringly assent with Church teaching that being gay (Or having same-sex attraction, as the Church prefers to call it) is inherently ordered towards a moral evil. So why do you identify with that? Why would you identify with something which orders you towards a moral evil? It's logically and theologically inconsistent. As the Church itself has very clearly said, we all have inherent disorders, because we are all prone to one sin or another. But you don't see people identifying with other disordered desires. When I used to watch pornography, I never identified myself as a pornosexual, or identified it as something that was a major part of me simply because it directly involved my sexuality. So why do you do that with same-sex attraction? It's something you struggle with, yes. It's something you will always likely struggle with. But that does not mean you should therefore identify yourself with a disordered desire.

 

Again, these are simply my thoughts. If one of you could explain to me why you do this and why you think it's logically consistent and/or helpful to you in your spiritual life, I would sincerely appreciate it.

 

I know that franny AND OTHERS (oh my gosh!) has addressed this, multiple times in multiple threads. Do you think they want to explain it again? 

Edited January 27, 2015 by Lil Red

[PhuturePriest]

I know that franny has addressed this, multiple times in multiple threads. Do you think she wants to explain it again? 

 

Who said I was talking to Frannie? She doesn't have a sole claim on being the only Catholic with same-sex attraction on this website.

[Lil Red]

 

I'm sure those same threads have other people's experiences as well. 

[Anomaly]

Hopefully you guys can help me out, because I am legitimately and sincerely curious, but I simply can't wrap this around my head.

You all admirably and unwaveringly assent with Church teaching that being gay (Or having same-sex attraction, as the Church prefers to call it) is inherently ordered towards a moral evil. So why do you identify with that? Why would you identify with something which orders you towards a moral evil? It's logically and theologically inconsistent. As the Church itself has very clearly said, we all have inherent disorders, because we are all prone to one sin or another. But you don't see people identifying with other disordered desires. When I used to watch pornography, I never identified myself as a pornosexual, or identified it as something that was a major part of me simply because it directly involved my sexuality. So why do you do that with same-sex attraction? It's something you struggle with, yes. It's something you will always likely struggle with. But that does not mean you should therefore identify yourself with a disordered desire.

Again, these are simply my thoughts. If one of you could explain to me why you do this and why you think it's logically consistent and/or helpful to you in your spiritual life, I would sincerely appreciate it.

PP,
The difference is the attraction as a human toward another as a fundamental human need. We couple to become one that is greater then two individuals. A SSA person as a Catholic has to eliminate any possibility if an intimate life partner and have to chose forever single hood. A Hetero has the choice to do so or not.
That's different from just avoiding specific sexual behaviors. The sexual attraction is only part of a fundamental need to love and be loved in human experience. Not all heterosexuals can be happy being single, but a homosexual must be single all their life, despite their need for a life mate. Edited January 27, 2015 by Anomaly

[Nihil Obstat]

PP,
The difference is the attraction as a human toward another as a fundamental human need. We couple to become one that is greater then two individuals. A SSA person as a Catholic has to eliminate any possibility if an intimate life partner and have to chose forever single hood. A Hetero has the choice to do so or not.
That's different from just avoiding specific sexual behaviors. The sexual attraction is only part of a fundamental need to love and be loved in human experience. Not all heterosexuals can be happy being single, but a homosexual must be single all their life, despite their need for a life mate.

Yeah, sometimes life sucks. Nobody denies that. It is a consequence of living in a world marked and broken by sin.

A man who is totally impotent can also never get married, no matter how heterosexual he is. It could be very difficult and very lonely for him. But his circumstance is a call to embrace God's plan in his life, even if it is not what he might have preferred.

[PhuturePriest]

PP,
The difference is the attraction as a human toward another as a fundamental human need. We couple to become one that is greater then two individuals. A SSA person as a Catholic has to eliminate any possibility if an intimate life partner and have to chose forever single hood. A Hetero has the choice to do so or not.
That's different from just avoiding specific sexual behaviors. The sexual attraction is only part of a fundamental need to love and be loved in human experience. Not all heterosexuals can be happy being single, but a homosexual must be single all their life, despite their need for a life mate.

 

I would disagree with you on a few nuanced points of your post.

 

Though I reject the idea that God purposefully makes people have SSA, I also believe that God gives us the grace and strength to overcome anything and fulfill us despite what we don't have (Note: I don't mean "overcome" as in "overcome your SSA"). If you are to be single the rest of your life, God will give you the grace and fulfillment necessary to do that. God will always give us everything we need to overcome anything that might be detrimental to our spiritual lives, including SSA. SSA isn't its own special entity that not even God can touch.

 

I agree that, as humans, we have a fundamental need for love between us. But I (Like the Church) disagree that our fundamental need for love means romance and eros in particular. In fact, I quite agree with C.S. Lewis that agape is the greatest of the four types of love, and people with SSA have a unique means to develop agape in its purest form.

Edited January 27, 2015 by PhuturePriest

[Maggyie]

Yeah, sometimes life sucks. Nobody denies that.

Yah. But what you are missing is that sometimes life sucks in life altering, identity altering ways. I imagine this has never happened to you.

Impotent man is a great example. his inability to have an erection (which has nothing to do with his capacity to form lasting emotional bonds and in every other way fulfill the role of spouse) means he is robbed of the opportunity to fall in love, live with a partner, parent children etc. I imagine he would wake up every day pretty aware of his impotence and how this affects his sexuality.

[PhuturePriest]

Yah. But what you are missing is that sometimes life smells of elderberries in life altering, identity altering ways. I imagine this has never happened to you.

Impotent man is a great example. his inability to have an erection (which has nothing to do with his capacity to form lasting emotional bonds and in every other way fulfill the role of spouse) means he is robbed of the opportunity to fall in love, live with a partner, parent children etc. I imagine he would wake up every day pretty aware of his impotence and how this affects his sexuality.

 

But again, this goes down a line of thinking the Church disagrees with, because it implicitly says we need eros in order to be properly happy and fulfilled.

[Nihil Obstat]

Yah. But what you are missing is that sometimes life smells of elderberries in life altering, identity altering ways. I imagine this has never happened to you.

Impotent man is a great example. his inability to have an erection (which has nothing to do with his capacity to form lasting emotional bonds and in every other way fulfill the role of spouse) means he is robbed of the opportunity to fall in love, live with a partner, parent children etc. I imagine he would wake up every day pretty aware of his impotence and how this affects his sexuality.

I have no doubt that it is awful. But the real question is how do we respond? We cannot change reality; we can only respond to it.

Obviously, for a Catholic, we have to respond in a way that is open to grace and allows for our sanctification. Resignation to the Divine Will.

No, it is not easy. It is the hardest thing in the world, doubly so for those people who suffer from major disorders or tragedies through no fault of their own. But sometimes reality imposes on us obligations that we did not ask for and do not want.

Edited January 27, 2015 by Nihil Obstat

[4588686]

. But sometimes reality imposes on us obligations that we did not ask for and do not want.

 

Sometimes. But sometimes we can ignore reality and just keep chugging along.

[Maggyie]

But again, this goes down a line of thinking the Church disagrees with, because it implicitly says we need eros in order to be properly happy and fulfilled.

DUDE! Yeah yeah you don't need eros. Do we tell young people who want to get married "now remember you don't need romance to be fulfilled"? No. That's because most people in spite of knowing you can be fulfilled with other things nevertheless want to get married and have a family. Because it's part of being human.

I bet you would be the person who tells infertile women "you can be fulfilled by mentoring others and being involved in your parish and blah blah blah" none of which addresses the MATERNAL instinct inscribed on a woman's heart. Even if it's true.

[4588686]

I don't label myself as gay just because I really, really want to have sex with men and have no desire to have sex with women. TAKE THAT MODERN WORLD!!!!