Nihil Obstat Posted January 28, 2015 Author Share Posted January 28, 2015 I kinda get that vibe too. Similar to when there are racial issues and a black guy comes out and says "come on black people we need to be responsible and stop blaming the cops,: that spreads like wild-fire with a certain segment of white folk because it confirms their own biases and such. I don't have the energy to adequately address your post nihil. I will just say that you can be charitable and sanctimonious at the same time. By saying something along the lines of "calling myself gay is a rejection of God" then you are in a way saying everyone who calls themselves gay is rejecting God or God's design or whatever. I am sorry, but I do not think there is anything I can address here. I have clarified in several places why I consider identification with an inherent disorder to be theologically problematic. As usual it is not my place to judge souls, so I do not assume that a Catholic who takes a position different from my own does so because they reject God's will. I simply think they are mistaken on a complex and emotional subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted January 28, 2015 Author Share Posted January 28, 2015 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. I think that the enormous burden caused by homosexuality on a faithful Catholic is a specific call to holiness. We are all called to die to ourselves and conform our will to God's. For a homosexual Catholic, they have been shown one way in which they can do so. God gives each of us the graces we need to accept Him. That has to be our starting point. It need not be easy, but we have to believe that it is possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
franciscanheart Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 I think that the enormous burden caused by homosexuality on a faithful Catholic is a specific call to holiness. We are all called to die to ourselves and conform our will to God's. For a homosexual Catholic, they have been shown one way in which they can do so.God gives each of us the graces we need to accept Him. That has to be our starting point. It need not be easy, but we have to believe that it is possible.I don't think anyone has refuted this point. I think we are all in agreement on this part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted January 28, 2015 Author Share Posted January 28, 2015 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, I have nothing here to disagree with. A homosexual Catholic has been given an enormous burden that they probably did not want and certainly did not ask for. But as I have been saying, suffering is a call to sanctification. I feel for the fact that such a person is called by the Church and by God to a potentially very lonely existence. There is nothing easy about it, and it will surely cause great suffering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted January 28, 2015 Author Share Posted January 28, 2015 I'm not gay, but I am celibate, and a celibate life can still be loving and enriching. I have had people assuming that I must be miserable and that there's something 'wrong' with me because I don't want to date (this is one reason why I rarely talk about it) but I and others are living proof that you don't need a romantic partner to be happy in life. That much is true. It's also not required by Catholic teaching to view gay people as sick. I certainly don't. However, this doesn't change the fact that many people do treat them as sick, even going so far as to claim that by medicalising people's experiences they're being compassionate ("I love them, it's not their fault they have a disorder..."). And to be honest I don't know how gay Catholics cope with that either. It may not be integral to Catholicism, but the unfortunate fact is that this is what many gay people are experiencing, and a beautiful theory is poor comfort when you're surrounded by people whose practice puts you in pain. I just try to make sure my practice is different. It's the only thing I can do. Not really anything I can respond to here, unless I am missing something important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted January 28, 2015 Author Share Posted January 28, 2015 That is everything you gave me. The common thread that is evident here is that the 'condition', for lack of a better word, causes great suffering. As you said, nobody disagrees with that. But I did not find what I was looking for, which is: I did not find a defense of a Catholic considering "gay" to be part of their identity as a human being. And that has been what I thought was the main point of contention here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
franciscanheart Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Yeah, I have nothing here to disagree with. A homosexual Catholic has been given an enormous burden that they probably did not want and certainly did not ask for. But as I have been saying, suffering is a call to sanctification.I feel for the fact that such a person is called by the Church and by God to a potentially very lonely existence. There is nothing easy about it, and it will surely cause great suffering.I don't believe anyone has said anything contrary to notion of sanctifying grace being found in suffering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted January 28, 2015 Author Share Posted January 28, 2015 I don't believe anyone has said anything contrary to notion of sanctifying grace being found in suffering. No Catholics, anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
franciscanheart Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 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.Quoted this here in case Nihil and others missed the link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted January 28, 2015 Author Share Posted January 28, 2015 Thanks. I cannot watch that now, but I will try to get to it later. Unfortunately economics textbooks are long, dense, and take a lot of energy to read. :sad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Egeria Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 (edited) I'm just lurking and don't really intend getting involved in this discussion, but I wondered if any of you know this article? http://www.firstthings.com/article/2014/03/against-heterosexuality As I see things, it's one of the best things I've read on the topic. There's also a follow-up here http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2014/08/against-obsessive-sexuality (For some reason I'm having problems inserting links - sorry! Edited January 28, 2015 by Egeria Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted January 28, 2015 Author Share Posted January 28, 2015 I'm just lurking and don't really intend getting involved in this discussion, but I wondered if any of you know this article? http://www.firstthings.com/article/2014/03/against-heterosexuality As I see things, it's one of the best things I've read on the topic. There's also a follow-up herehttp://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2014/08/against-obsessive-sexuality (For some reason I'm having problems inserting links - sorry! I just finished reading the first link. Provocative. Very challenging. I like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted January 28, 2015 Author Share Posted January 28, 2015 I just finished reading the first link. Provocative. Very challenging. I like it. For some reason I keep reading "orientation" as "orientalism". Not sure what I have been reading that is causing that to be the more dominant word. :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Something I find interesting his "being gay" is increasingly becoming a narrative of inclusion with the modern family, which is itself effeminate in many ways. The modern "man" lives a life of dependence, dependent on his company for status and a paycheck, dependent on social institutions such as schools and hospitals to chart his life for him, dependent on advertising and consumerism to shape his home life and relationship with his wife and kids, etc. The great "gay dream" is for this modern family. I think sexual desire, which is pretty subjective and diverse across the board, is the least relevant to being "gay" today. Being gay just means being a good middle class member of modern civilization, a questionable goal for gays and straights alike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Something I find interesting his "being gay" is increasingly becoming a narrative of inclusion with the modern family, which is itself effeminate in many ways. The modern "man" lives a life of dependence, dependent on his company for status and a paycheck, dependent on social institutions such as schools and hospitals to chart his life for him, dependent on advertising and consumerism to shape his home life and relationship with his wife and kids, etc. The great "gay dream" is for this modern family. I think sexual desire, which is pretty subjective and diverse across the board, is the least relevant to being "gay" today. Being gay just means being a good middle class member of modern civilization, a questionable goal for gays and straights alike. Just to add, compare "being gay" today with ancient Greek and Roman homosexuality, which didn't have the same economic and social dynamic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now