The Strange Notion Of "gay Celibacy"

[Anomaly]

No, they should not. People are so much more complex and interesting than who they find attractive. Unless a woman is hitting on me or acting militantly, I don't care if she likes girls or not. The same goes for a man who likes men.

Someone who has a mental illness does not act as though the mental illness is "who they are," and people with ssa should not, either. This entire issue has turned very political, when it should be psychiatric and spiritual only.

I 300% literally can't even....

[ChristianGirlForever]

I'm sorry but... Psychiatric? Why?

Until political pressure became too strong, the APA defined Homosexuality as a mental illness. I'm not Catholic, and I'm not going to bring up Orthodox Church teaching on a Catholic website. It wouldn't be right. The Catholic Church believes homosexuality to be "objectively disordered" because it is a great perversion and is against the natural law created by God. (Please correct me if I am wrong.) If you are powerfully inclined to do something that is objectively disordered, then that is a mental condition. It is not a sign of mental wellness.

This is not a personal attack on homosexual people, but since this has grown into a political issue, I am writing about it in a clinical manner. I have genuine admiration for homosexual Christians who work so hard to have a pure and holy life. They bear their great cross with so much dignity, humility, and grace. Many who are not homosexual could learn from them.

[CrossCuT]

I really do believe we need to understand fully and completely what the church teaches on this (or at least I do)...the hard core, nitty gritty stuff. I want to be able to understand peoples reactions, their statements, and their emotional responses.

 

 

I know Ill fundamentally disagree with whatever I find out,  but I want to know it anyways because I truly dont believe Catholics can go along with the teaching. We are loving creatures. There is going to be some difficulties with duty vs sympathy.

 

Even if all of our knowledge comes back to so and so said this in the OT then whatevs, it needs to be looked at in a new context. Call it what you want, the evil modernism or relativism blah blah...but really. Those old dudes form many moons ago didnt understand the natural world the way we do. They saw something different and went "ick" and we have been plaques with "ick" ever since. 
---

 

I feel like the church is very cold when they view and define homosexuality. Its a mental disorder....disordered against the Catholic definition of natural. Its not "right" so therefore its "wrong". These people are therefore cast out with no means of return because there is so far no conceivable way for them to participate on the same level as a heterosexual; case closed. Even if they living meaningful single/celibate lives, they are still robbed of vocations and discernment. And a lot of the Catholic community will expect them to simply die to themselves, denounce their feelings, and join the rest of the hetero world without any instances.

 

"I know youre gay but dont tell me about it and dont act like it because I dont want to know and it makes me feel uncomfortable."

 

 

 

I would say 99% of Catholics on here will be like "Oh em gee I dont think that!" which is amesome! Welcome to being a part of my previous statement in that I dont believe any of us actually do follow the churchs cold teachings on homosexuality...cuz we cant....cuz we are logical people and we get it. The church is wrong.

 

 

 

 

And thats why I dont get this topic. The church says one thing but the members act/do another thing. Even when people ar like "Im the best Catholic eveah! Yeah homosexuality is totes wrong but I dunno...gay people are cool and we should be nice to them!" 

Evidence, this entire thread.

So whats going on?

Do catholics no care about teaching?

Are they having troubles coming to terms with the teaching?

Whats happening?

 

Also, why do homosexuals (like the man who wrote the article) feel compelled to write that? 

 

 

 

 

I apologize for the long post, but I would be grateful for any replies. This is what ultimately bothers me.

Edited January 29, 2015 by CrossCuT

[ChristianGirlForever]

Crosscut, I'm not going to respond to your entire post, because I know you are looking for answers from Catholics.

Dan Mattson felt compelled to write about his views on homosexuality because he believes them to be true. He wasn't doing it to become popular. I imagine he has received quite a bit of flack from homosexual Catholics for breaking ranks, so to say.

When I saw Desire of the Everlasting Hills, I was very moved by Mr. Mattson's humility. He was full of pain, but he was no longer angry with the world and with God because of his condition. He humbly accepted that this was his cross to bear. He was a beautiful example of a holy Catholic man who is a homosexual (or whatever word he word he would prefer).

I believe his belief about homosexuality was a grace given him by God, and I hope it helps other devout Catholics in his situation. It should help people, in general. Who better is there to speak about this issue, than one who suffers with it, himself?

Edited January 29, 2015 by ChristianGirlForever

[franciscanheart]

I don't have much time to respond at present but I do want to say this:

Eve Tushnet made an excellent point in that radio interview about the word “disorder” as used by the Church. It is extremely frustrating trying to explain the difference to Catholics and non-Catholics alike and it almost always causes an immediate defensiveness in the discussion. Eve said she was at a conference at Notre Dame and that a protestant person in the audience asked something to the effect of, “By ‘disorder’, does the Church mean what we mean as Protestants when we say that our sexual inclinations were affected by The Fall?” She said the person who was there said basically, “Yes, I think so. That sounds right.” So Eve and Matt and the radio show host discussed that point and decided that yes, it means the same thing. This inclination which is out of order with God’s will is a result of The Fall.

That said…
Eve makes a point about “disorder” that is worth consideration at least: If something is “dis-ordered” then the natural inclination is to ask what you can do to make it ordered. The answer then is that the homosexual person is dis-ordered and therefore, in order to become ordered, needs to become heterosexual. But this isn't right, either. And frankly, it’s not possible. (I know this is where some may disagree. If you do, morals aside, tell me that you can make yourself truly homosexual. It can’t happen.)

So is there some hostility to word choice? Yes. Can it get out of hand? Yes.

Matt makes the point that the Catechism is precise in language BUT we also have to examine what the Catechism means. I think there’s a whopping three paragraphs about homosexuality in the Catechism. It definitely requires a close look and some explanation – for all sides of this.

I understand what “disorder” means in the context of Church teaching, but that doesn't mean that it isn't perverted by Her people and made to be something or imply something that it does not because it cannot.

On a completely different note:
It really aggravates me when homosexuality is simplified to mean muff on muff and log on log. It’s not JUST about sex. [sigh]

[Anomaly]

On a completely different note:
It really aggravates me when homosexuality is simplified to mean muff on muff and log on log. It’s not JUST about sex. [sigh]

I don't think that is a different note. If you remove sexual activity from both single hetero Catholics and "SSA" Catholics, what is the difference in being a good Catholic as far as actual behavior?

[franciscanheart]

I don't think that is a different note. If you remove sexual activity from both single hetero Catholics and "SSA" Catholics, what is the difference in being a good Catholic as far as actual behavior?

Even without sex removed, the requirements are the same. But it frustrates me when people devolve homosexual people into merely their sex acts. When I tell you that I'm gay, I'm not ONLY telling you I like to get friendly with muff, yet that's what most people hear.

[CrossCuT]

But this is what I keep asking. Isnt that how Catholic teaching treats homosexuality? They boil it down to the disordered inclination of sexual desire; that you are wrongfully attracted to someone of the same sex. So catholics and non-catholics alike always get their panties in a twist if they have to share the locker room with a gay or trans for fear of being violated.

 

I mean, the whole reason youre shunned from certain aspects of Catholic life are because of this wrong inclination to disordered desires. Thats how they define you. If they didnt define you by which gender you want to get down with then where is the problem?

[franciscanheart]

But this is what I keep asking. Isnt that how Catholic teaching treats homosexuality? They boil it down to the disordered inclination of sexual desire; that you are wrongfully attracted to someone of the same sex. So catholics and non-catholics alike always get their panties in a twist if they have to share the locker room with a gay or trans for fear of being violated.
 
I mean, the whole reason youre shunned from certain aspects of Catholic life are because of this wrong inclination to disordered desires. Thats how they define you. If they didnt define you by which gender you want to get down with then where is the problem?

I don't actually take issue with Catholic teaching about homosexual behaviors. I see the good and desirable nature of those teachings and I adhere to them as faithfully as I can. My issue, usually, is with the people who make up the Holy Catholic Church and their real-world, every-day approach to homosexual people. There is so much added on top of and so much that is twisted that they look at us and slap a label of "BAD SEX" on us without really understanding the true circumstance of our disposition.

I think if the Catholic community could understand more fully what it is to be gay, the ministry and the attitudes would change. People are so rigid in their ignorance that I (and many like me) become frustrated and hurt -- not by the Church but by Her people.

Am I making sense? Am I talking in circles. I'm happy to continue to dialogue, just want to make sure I'm answering your questions and doing so in a way that makes sense.

[Anomaly]

But this is what I keep asking. Isnt that how Catholic teaching treats homosexuality? They boil it down to the disordered inclination of sexual desire; that you are wrongfully attracted to someone of the same sex. So catholics and non-catholics alike always get their panties in a twist if they have to share the locker room with a gay or trans for fear of being violated.

I mean, the whole reason youre shunned from certain aspects of Catholic life are because of this wrong inclination to disordered desires. Thats how they define you. If they didnt define you by which gender you want to get down with then where is the problem?

CC, Sharing locker rooms is totally different. It's an almost universal social norm to have bathrooms separated by sex, or at least are out if public room. Why are there any nudity rules at all? Why does society discourage male coaches going into women's locker rooms and vis a versa? Other than modesty norms, the Catholic requirements are no different for singles, no matter what they are sexually attracted to. Heterosexual couples can't marry if it is physically impossible to have children according to the Church.

[ChristianGirlForever]

I don't actually take issue with Catholic teaching about homosexual behaviors. I see the good and desirable nature of those teachings and I adhere to them as faithfully as I can. My issue, usually, is with the people who make up the Holy Catholic Church and their real-world, every-day approach to homosexual people. There is so much added on top of and so much that is twisted that they look at us and slap a label of "BAD SEX" on us without really understanding the true circumstance of our disposition.

I think if the Catholic community could understand more fully what it is to be gay, the ministry and the attitudes would change. People are so rigid in their ignorance that I (and many like me) become frustrated and hurt -- not by the Church but by Her people.

Am I making sense? Am I talking in circles. I'm happy to continue to dialogue, just want to make sure I'm answering your questions and doing so in a way that makes sense.

You made a lot of sense, FranciscanHeart. Thank you for explaining where you are coming from. I understand a little bit better where faithful gay Christians are coming from. I am very ignorant, so thank you for the help!

[Basilisa Marie]

I don't actually take issue with Catholic teaching about homosexual behaviors. I see the good and desirable nature of those teachings and I adhere to them as faithfully as I can. My issue, usually, is with the people who make up the Holy Catholic Church and their real-world, every-day approach to homosexual people. There is so much added on top of and so much that is twisted that they look at us and slap a label of "BAD SEX" on us without really understanding the true circumstance of our disposition.

I think if the Catholic community could understand more fully what it is to be gay, the ministry and the attitudes would change. People are so rigid in their ignorance that I (and many like me) become frustrated and hurt -- not by the Church but by Her people.

Am I making sense? Am I talking in circles. I'm happy to continue to dialogue, just want to make sure I'm answering your questions and doing so in a way that makes sense.

 

That's the thing, though. It's so complicated to try to parse out what actually constitutes Church teaching (or accurate interpretation of said teachiing) and what constitutes extra stuff that can change. It's all very well and good to get clinical in our theology, but we can't be clinical when we start applying that theology to pastoral situations. 

 

Like, the whole "no unjust discrimination" phrase. On the surface it's perfectly clear, we're supposed to love our homosexual brothers and sisters in Christ and treat them in ways that recognizes their equal human dignity, while at the same time acknowledging that there are some very real differences and limitations. But once we put that into pastoral practice, it gets all kinds of muddled and confusing.

The fact is we don't know what the role of gay people is in the Church, because so many people in the Church are much more comfortable ignoring the fact that gay people exist in the Church. Heterosexuals who prefer that gay people "not define themselves by their ssa" need to take a step back and seriously discern what their motivation is, and if any of that motivation comes from not wanting to deal with the fact that someone's gay. Sometimes we need to shut up and listen to what actual gay Catholics have to say about what it's like to be gay and Catholic. 

[franciscanheart]

That's the thing, though. It's so complicated to try to parse out what actually constitutes Church teaching (or accurate interpretation of said teachiing) and what constitutes extra stuff that can change. It's all very well and good to get clinical in our theology, but we can't be clinical when we start applying that theology to pastoral situations. 
 
Like, the whole "no unjust discrimination" phrase. On the surface it's perfectly clear, we're supposed to love our homosexual brothers and sisters in Christ and treat them in ways that recognizes their equal human dignity, while at the same time acknowledging that there are some very real differences and limitations. But once we put that into pastoral practice, it gets all kinds of muddled and confusing.

The fact is we don't know what the role of gay people is in the Church, because so many people in the Church are much more comfortable ignoring the fact that gay people exist in the Church. Heterosexuals who prefer that gay people "not define themselves by their ssa" need to take a step back and seriously discern what their motivation is, and if any of that motivation comes from not wanting to deal with the fact that someone's gay. Sometimes we need to shut up and listen to what actual gay Catholics have to say about what it's like to be gay and Catholic.

Agreed. :)

 

You made a lot of sense, FranciscanHeart. Thank you for explaining where you are coming from. I understand a little bit better where faithful gay Christians are coming from. I am very ignorant, so thank you for the help!

:heart:

[CrossCuT]

I don't actually take issue with Catholic teaching about homosexual behaviors. I see the good and desirable nature of those teachings and I adhere to them as faithfully as I can. My issue, usually, is with the people who make up the Holy Catholic Church and their real-world, every-day approach to homosexual people. There is so much added on top of and so much that is twisted that they look at us and slap a label of "BAD SEX" on us without really understanding the true circumstance of our disposition.

I think if the Catholic community could understand more fully what it is to be gay, the ministry and the attitudes would change. People are so rigid in their ignorance that I (and many like me) become frustrated and hurt -- not by the Church but by Her people.

Am I making sense? Am I talking in circles. I'm happy to continue to dialogue, just want to make sure I'm answering your questions and doing so in a way that makes sense.

But this is where I have confusion. If Catholics adhere directly to what the church is saying, is their every-day approach wrong? Youre saying that it is through your perspective of what being gay means to you. But are they actually doing it wrong if they are following what the church is saying? Thats what i want to know. And again, I am looking at this not from a personal "this is what I think about the teaching" stance, but from a "this is actually what the teaching says" stance.

 

Are you saying there is room for interpretation?

 

That's the thing, though. It's so complicated to try to parse out what actually constitutes Church teaching (or accurate interpretation of said teachiing) and what constitutes extra stuff that can change. It's all very well and good to get clinical in our theology, but we can't be clinical when we start applying that theology to pastoral situations. 

 

Like, the whole "no unjust discrimination" phrase. On the surface it's perfectly clear, we're supposed to love our homosexual brothers and sisters in Christ and treat them in ways that recognizes their equal human dignity, while at the same time acknowledging that there are some very real differences and limitations. But once we put that into pastoral practice, it gets all kinds of muddled and confusing.

The fact is we don't know what the role of gay people is in the Church, because so many people in the Church are much more comfortable ignoring the fact that gay people exist in the Church. Heterosexuals who prefer that gay people "not define themselves by their ssa" need to take a step back and seriously discern what their motivation is, and if any of that motivation comes from not wanting to deal with the fact that someone's gay. Sometimes we need to shut up and listen to what actual gay Catholics have to say about what it's like to be gay and Catholic. 

 

Is their  motivation wrong? Are people who strictly follow Catholic teaching "bad Catholics"?

 

 

 

Now this is an outsiders interpretation, but it seems to me that while the church says "X, Y, Z" which is in fact a rather cold and analytically statement, that many Catholic members take it loosely.  Or that their mannerisms in relation to the law/rule are loose because we are emotional beings. "This is what being gay means to me therefore teat me like that and not how the church says" or other such things.

 

 

Maybe this is along the lines of what Nihil was getting at...and I was very interested. 

Edited January 29, 2015 by CrossCuT

[franciscanheart]

But this is where I have confusion. If Catholics adhere directly to what the church is saying, is their every-day approach wrong? Youre saying that it is through your perspective of what being gay means to you. But are they actually doing it wrong if they are following what the church is saying? Thats what i want to know. And again, I am looking at this not from a personal "this is what I think about the teaching" stance, but from a "this is actually what the teaching says" stance.
 
Are you saying there is room for interpretation?

I don't think I fully understand what you're asking. I think I need to first understand what you think the Church is saying and how you think that translates to everyday behavior.


From the glossary in the back of the Catechism:
HOMOSEXUALITY: Sexual attraction or orientation toward persons of the same sex and/or sexual acts between persons of the same sex. Homosexual acts are morally wrong because they violate God’s purpose for human sexual activity (2357).


From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
Chastity and homosexuality
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,[141] tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”[142] They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved. (2333)

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection. (2347)


The footnotes for the above section:
141 Cf. Gen 19:1-29; Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10.
142 CDF, Persona humana 8.