Catholic And Gay

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1323059622' post='2344752']
Kia ora I have a highly nuanced answer towards your question that I don't have the energy to get into right now, but I will say this.argued that the idea of romantic love didn't even exist until the middle ages.



Disagree. In order for something to be universally wrong I think you have to examine the issue cross-culturally and across history. Marriage has not always been associated with romantic love and there are many cultures that exist today which do not have this concept of romantic love. Hell, it could be Therefore I don't think it's that simple.

Yes our culture has romance associated with candlelit dinners and all sorts of other activities that can be a segue into erotic love, but that does not entail that romantic love and eros cannot be separated from each other.

The church even uses the term "homogenital acts" which for me is so painfully specific it takes away a lot of ambiguity.
[/quote]
You're approaching it at a different angle from me, but I think we're arriving at the same destination.

Two homosexuals, like any two people, can have perfect, Christian love for one another, just as all Christians are called to have that love for all people.
However, a homosexual romantic relationship is founded on disorder and thus cannot truly be called love, because it brings both to sin. To love another person may be defined as wishing good for another, and so if both lead each other to grave sin, no love is present.

ETA: The Bible uses numerous examples in which the love between a husband and wife is used as a model. Maybe love isn't universally associated with marriage, but it certainly is in the Christian tradition.

Edited December 5, 2011 by Nihil Obstat

[Ice_nine]

Any homo[b]sexual[/b] relationship is disordered, but a romantic relationship does not have to be heterosexual, or homosexual nor does it have to be a prelude to a theoretically sexual relationship. Often times that's the case within our given culture in our given time period, but it does not [i]have[/i] to be the case. People often conflate romance and sex but it doesn't mean the two can't be separated. You see?

As for the question of two homosexual people (I don't even like to identify people as such because I do not believe sexual orientation is some fixed, innate and immutable thing within someone, but for the purposes of discussion . . .) entering a romantic relationship I don't think it's inherently sinful if romanticism is not associated with sex. There is no objective connection between the two, that's what I'm trying to get at.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1323060700' post='2344760']
Any homo[b]sexual[/b] relationship is disordered, but a romantic relationship does not have to be heterosexual, or homosexual nor does it have to be a prelude to a theoretically sexual relationship. Often times that's the case within our given culture in our given time period, but it does not [i]have[/i] to be the case. People often conflate romance and sex but it doesn't mean the two can't be separated. You see?

As for the question of two homosexual people (I don't even like to identify people as such because I do not believe sexual orientation is some fixed, innate and immutable thing within someone, but for the purposes of discussion . . .) entering a romantic relationship I don't think it's inherently sinful if romanticism is not associated with sex. There is no objective connection between the two, that's what I'm trying to get at.
[/quote]
How are you defining romance?

[Ice_nine]

how are YOU defining it?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1323061089' post='2344768']
how are YOU defining it?
[/quote]
Well I'm not quite sure how in you're mind you're able to remove a sexual element from romance. I don't think it's possible.

[Ice_nine]

I'll explain it like this (forgive me it's late and I'm tired): I think that intense love, longing, affection/tenderness (whether physical or not, which I assume is what makes a lot of people uncomfortable), proclaiming your love for the other, and other things that I can't think of right now are all associated with romantic love. Sure sex can be, and often is a part, but I don't think it absolutely has to be.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1323061950' post='2344774']
I'll explain it like this (forgive me it's late and I'm tired): I think that intense love, longing, affection/tenderness (whether physical or not, which I assume is what makes a lot of people uncomfortable), proclaiming your love for the other, and other things that I can't think of right now are all associated with romantic love. Sure sex can be, and often is a part, but I don't think it absolutely has to be.
[/quote]
So then what separates romance from caritas?

[MithLuin]

I have to agree that romance typically implies something rather different from brotherhood. It might not actually lead to sexual activity, but it's strongly linked to both infatuation and seduction, so...yeah...it's connected to sex.

It is true that marriage has not always been related to romantic love, especially with the idea that your family chooses your spouse in arranged marriages and such. Marriage has very much always been to give stability for the raising of children. But just because there might not have been candlelight dinners didn't mean you weren't supposed to love one another.



But anyway, back to this original blog post. I think it would be easy for a Catholic to read this and congratulate ourselves for being nonjudgmental and accepting, since that was this writer's experience among his Catholic friends. However, I don't think that's an entirely fair take-away message. For a lot of people who *don't* have to deal with any temptation on this front, gays are an easy target. It is easy to focus on how completely disordered and serious this sin is. Okay, fine. But any mortal sin will get you to hell (if you're unrepentant, I mean), and it seems that people are so much less vocal about all the rest of them (well, with the exception of abortion). One could claim that it's because our society doesn't recognize this as sinful...but then, divorce and remarriage is something that's even more acceptable in our culture, and yet clearly adultery (and thus a mortal sin) in Catholic moral teaching.

So...I have to imagine it's something about it being fairly safe to point out other people's sins, or personal unease with associating with 'people like that.' Or perhaps some other reason. But regardless, I don't think we're allowed to let ourselves off the hook unless we truly are showing Christian charity towards our neighbors regularly. YES, I know this includes speaking the truth. I'm not suggesting anything about ignoring the Church's teachings...more as treating everyone as our fellow man and, hey, we're all sinners, so we're in the same boat. As long as we don't lose that, then I guess we are in some way deserving of the props this blog post gives to Catholics [the people, not the faith].

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1323062847' post='2344779']
But anyway, back to this original blog post. I think it would be easy for a Catholic to read this and congratulate ourselves for being nonjudgmental and accepting, since that was this writer's experience among his Catholic friends. However, I don't think that's an entirely fair take-away message. For a lot of people who *don't* have to deal with any temptation on this front, gays are an easy target. It is easy to focus on how completely disordered and serious this sin is. Okay, fine. But any mortal sin will get you to hell (if you're unrepentant, I mean), and it seems that people are so much less vocal about all the rest of them (well, with the exception of abortion). One could claim that it's because our society doesn't recognize this as sinful...but then, divorce and remarriage is something that's even more acceptable in our culture, and yet clearly adultery (and thus a mortal sin) in Catholic moral teaching.

So...I have to imagine it's something about it being fairly safe to point out other people's sins, or personal unease with associating with 'people like that.' Or perhaps some other reason. But regardless, I don't think we're allowed to let ourselves off the hook unless we truly are showing Christian charity towards our neighbors regularly. YES, I know this includes speaking the truth. I'm not suggesting anything about ignoring the Church's teachings...more as treating everyone as our fellow man and, hey, we're all sinners, so we're in the same boat. As long as we don't lose that, then I guess we are in some way deserving of the props this blog post gives to Catholics [the people, not the faith].
[/quote]
The best homilies in the world are the ones that make you squirm in your seat and book an appointment for confession the minute you get home.

[stevil]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1323033827' post='2344516'] So then for you, right and wrong is what the law says is right and wrong. You accept this... on faith? What if the government tells you to do what is wrong, or not to do what is right? How is right and wrong determined in your world, with no authority higher than the State?[/quote]
Not quite, I haven't stated that the law defines what is wrong and right from an objective sense. I don't subscribe to the concept of morality, so what is an objective wrong and right?
A government sets rules to define a functioning society, you break a rule then you face the legal consequences.
I don't necessarily agree with all laws, this is a personal subjective thing, not objective.

If the law was to outlaw homosexual sex and if I were gay and in love with someone of the same sex, then I would have no problems breaking this law, either that or I would move to a more inclusive country.

Not being homosexual, I will try to change this law as I want my fellow society members not to be discriminated against. My sphere of influence is very small, I have the power to vote and I have the ability to discuss the topic with others. Discussing this topic on a devout Catholic site might be as effective as me trying to convince a cat that it is OK to take a bath and yet here I am investing time in discussion. I don't really expect to change your opinion on this, but at least I can try and understand it. It just seems to boil down to a personal chosen adherence to the authority of the Christian god as per the Catholic interpretation of the bible and possibly a confusion as to how to define one's "moral" position on things if there isn't a divine author of morality.

[MithLuin]

Right, [b]NO[/b].

But I guess pride opens up the door to always have that holier-than-thou attitude creep in, well at least I'm not like *that* guy who can't even...well, you get the picture!

So, a nice dose of humility and human solidarity tends to help with that.

Edited December 5, 2011 by MithLuin

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1323063212' post='2344783']
Not quite, I haven't stated that the law defines what is wrong and right from an objective sense. I don't subscribe to the concept of morality, so what is an objective wrong and right?
A government sets rules to define a functioning society, you break a rule then you face the legal consequences.
I don't necessarily agree with all laws, this is a personal subjective thing, not objective.

If the law was to outlaw homosexual sex and if I were gay and in love with someone of the same sex, then I would have no problems breaking this law, either that or I would move to a more inclusive country.

Not being homosexual, I will try to change this law as I want my fellow society members not to be discriminated against. My sphere of influence is very small, I have the power to vote and I have the ability to discuss the topic with others. Discussing this topic on a devout Catholic site might be as effective as me trying to convince a cat that it is OK to take a bath and yet here I am investing time in discussion. I don't really expect to change your opinion on this, but at least I can try and understand it. It just seems to boil down to a personal chosen adherence to the authority of the Christian god as per the Catholic interpretation of the bible and possibly a confusion as to how to define one's "moral" position on things if there isn't a divine author of morality.
[/quote]
What right do you have to tell us Catholics that we need to change our teachings on homosexuality, or that our positions are discriminatory, if right and wrong don't exist? If objective morality doesn't exist, then it is somewhat absurd for you to bother even bother discussing, or even thinking about moral questions.

[Basilisa Marie]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1323063212' post='2344783']
Discussing this topic on a devout Catholic site might be as effective as me trying to convince a cat that it is OK to take a bath and yet here I am investing time in discussion. I don't really expect to change your opinion on this, but at least I can try and understand it. It just seems to boil down to a personal chosen adherence to the authority of the Christian god as per the Catholic interpretation of the bible and possibly a confusion as to how to define one's "moral" position on things if there isn't a divine author of morality.
[/quote]

As am I trying to understand how you make your's work. I don't expect to change your opinion either, but I think mutual understanding is a good place to start for both of us.

As Catholics, we do make a choice to accept the existence and authority of the Catholic interpretation of God and morality (aka God's laws). Catholics believe that a certain code of morality is objectively true, and should apply to all people. The kicker is that we also believe that people have religious freedom, so we have to convince them to agree with us, not force them. But that means we can also work in many ways to help change the world to conform to this code of ethics, like through laws.

So you're saying that there is no universal code of morality. I would agree with you on one point - if there is no divine author of morality, then there is no universal morality at all. One wouldn't be able to come up with a list of things that are universally "bad." Now, I haven't actually talked with someone who doesn't accept objective moral truth in a while. Can you explain how that's true? That is, is there nothing that is universally moral or immoral (or praiseworthy or blame-worthy, if you don't want to use "morality")? Because my mind automatically jumps to things like murder, rape, and child pornography (to use an example I think you came up with earlier) as counting as always being wrong no matter the circumstance.

[stevil]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1323065590' post='2344800']
So you're saying that there is no universal code of morality. I would agree with you on one point - if there is no divine author of morality, then there is no universal morality at all. One wouldn't be able to come up with a list of things that are universally "bad." Now, I haven't actually talked with someone who doesn't accept objective moral truth in a while. Can you explain how that's true? That is, is there nothing that is universally moral or immoral (or praiseworthy or blame-worthy, if you don't want to use "morality")? Because my mind automatically jumps to things like murder, rape, and child pornography (to use an example I think you came up with earlier) as counting as always being wrong no matter the circumstance.
[/quote]
I don't think we need a god authored moral code for us humans to realise that in general murder, rape and child pornography is undesirable. There are some circumstances where most of society agrees with murder e.g. abortion, especially in cases where the fetus has serious issues. I think murder is desirable in terms of euthanasia and in order to terminate the threat some undesirable people whom commit terrible repetitive crimes. I've even had a conversation with a Catholic pro gun person whom said they would shoot a person if they saw them stealing their car (this would also be a form of murder, however I don't condone this one).

As humans we are intelligent enough to know that if we don't like things forced on us then others wont like things forced on them. This is called the golden rule, it does not require a god author. As members of society (humans are very social animals) we generally take care of our own, we certainly elect to have leaders that will help us to function as a society. When we walk through the streets, we want to be safe, we want our children to be safe, hence we want a society with rules to improve the safety of ourselves and our children. Using our capacity to think things through and learn from the past we are able to come up with a pretty decent set of rules to build a functioning society. I don't think we need a god author of a static old book from which to interpret morality.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1323107219' post='2344951']
I don't think we need a god authored moral code for us humans to realise that in general murder, rape and child pornography is undesirable.[/quote]
You think it's undesirable. Do you think it's wrong? Or is it more... ill-advised than wrong? Would you tell a murderer "what you did was wrong"? Or would you just say "that was kind of lame man, I don't personally agree with you murdering people"?
If things are merely undesirable and not actually wrong, what right do you have to condemn it?