The Strange Notion Of "gay Celibacy"

[franciscanheart]

While I'm at it, can we all please recognize that even the CATECHISM of the CATHOLIC CHURCH refers to people like me as "homosexual persons"? So, yes, I think it's totally fine that I refer to myself as a homosexual / gay / homo / lesbian / whatever.

[CrossCuT]

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.

 

Thank you that was quite helpful!

 

Nothing in there jumps out to me as very cold or unfeeling. In fact, I find the above quite warm towards homosexuals while still rejecting their orientation. 

 

Well, in MY opinion, its all croutons and its terrible, but I can see that for a Catholic, it will leave you feeling warm and fuzzy inside.

Edited January 29, 2015 by CrossCuT

[franciscanheart]

Thank you that was quite helpful!
 
Nothing in there jumps out to me as very cold or unfeeling. In fact, I find the above quite warm towards homosexuals while still rejecting their orientation. 
 
Well, in MY opinion, its all croutons and its terrible, but I can see that for a Catholic, it will leave you feeling warm and fuzzy inside.

:lol:

See? This is what we have to go from and yet, so much of the real-world, everyday practice is so negative and hostile. It's disheartening at times. But I (and many like me) cling to the Eucharist and march forward, doing my best to educate and love. I guarantee you that if I listened to even half of what surrounds me, I would not stay put in the Church. Church teaching, however, IS quite warm and my Lord is beyond merciful; I've no reason to leave -- especially over the ignorance of my brethren. So I journey on and do my best to not internalize the negativity that swirls all around me. Edited January 29, 2015 by franciscanheart

[CrossCuT]

Although still...as a side note...i think some of those passages are wrong. How do they know that the number of people with deep seated tendencies are negligible? Did they run a census? I mean, the mere fact that homosexuals are discriminated against wouldnt at all effect a reporting rate?

 

 

Another note, they dont mention anything about a homosexuals place in the church. They touch on that their inclinations are wrong but that we should be kind and loving...but it didnt say anything about participation. Is it implied that they are to proceed as a normal hetero granted they are celibate? 

[PhuturePriest]

Although still...as a side note...i think some of those passages are wrong. How do they know that the number of people with deep seated tendencies are negligible? Did they run a census? I mean, the mere fact that homosexuals are discriminated against wouldnt at all effect a reporting rate?

 

 

Another note, they dont mention anything about a homosexuals place in the church. They touch on that their inclinations are wrong but that we should be kind and loving...but it didnt say anything about participation. Is it implied that they are to proceed as a normal hetero granted they are celibate? 

 

I'm not sure what you want, exactly. Do you want a special ministry or set of pews exclusively for Catholics with same-sex attraction, or what?

[franciscanheart]

I've broken up your post into two quote boxes for ease of response.

Although still...as a side note...i think some of those passages are wrong. How do they know that the number of people with deep seated tendencies are negligible? Did they run a census? I mean, the mere fact that homosexuals are discriminated against wouldnt at all effect a reporting rate?

Actually, the text says that the number is not negligible. I think this is huge and important. :)

Another note, they dont mention anything about a homosexuals place in the church. They touch on that their inclinations are wrong but that we should be kind and loving...but it didnt say anything about participation. Is it implied that they are to proceed as a normal hetero granted they are celibate?

It is implied that they have as much place in the Church as their heterosexual counterparts, yes. They've simply set aside instruction on the morality of the sexual act. I do appreciate that they emphasize respect and a lack of discrimination, even if it is often not very well heeded.

[CrossCuT]

Ok now that we have the black and white words from the CCC, I feel like we can now add the next layer on top. We know what the church says about it, so no we can start talking about peoples perceptions to it, how they interpret it, and if there are issues with that. (At least this is how it is progressing in my mind)

 

So in what I view as the next layer,...I think about homosexuals involvement. That includes things like, can they be teachers in catholic schools? Can you make them cake? Can you go to their weddings? Can you allow homosexual family members to come to family gatherings while children are present? These are all things that have been discussed on this site before. I dont know if that is waaaaay too big of a piece to bite off, but now that i have the ground work context of the teaching, Id like to look at it with a fresh mindset. 

 

 

 

:lol:

See? This is what we have to go from and yet, so much of the real-world, everyday practice is so negative and hostile. It's disheartening at times. But I (and many like me) cling to the Eucharist and march forward, doing my best to educate and love. I guarantee you that if I listened to even half of what surrounds me, I would not stay put in the Church. Church teaching, however, IS quite warm and my Lord is beyond merciful; I've no reason to leave -- especially over the ignorance of my brethren. So I journey on and do my best to not internalize the negativity that swirls all around me.

 

Well I commend your strength. I think the homosexuality issue was sort of the catalyst to my leaving of the Catholic faith. (It wasnt my only problem, but it was a big one.)

I saw the blatantly cold and uncharitable way in which homosexuals were treated, spoken of, and whatnot in my own Catholic circles by people I respected. It was shocking and really perturbed me. Fast forward a few years, and Ive had enough.

 

I witnessed the same things you did but I went a step further and decided on my own that the churchs stance on homosexuality was old croutons written by old men who didnt know how to digest these "different" things they were seeing. The church is still run by a bunch of old men. But anyway thats not what I want to get into.

 

I've broken up your post into two quote boxes for ease of response.

Actually, the text says that the number is not negligible. I think this is huge and important. :)

It is implied that they have as much place in the Church as their heterosexual counterparts, yes. They've simply set aside instruction on the morality of the sexual act. I do appreciate that they emphasize respect and a lack of discrimination, even if it is often not very well heeded.

Ah yes, I read that wrong. Thanks for pointing it out. That makes me feel better haha

 

I'm not sure what you want, exactly. Do you want a special ministry or set of pews exclusively for Catholics with same-sex attraction, or what?

Separate pews, of course not. Why would you think that was a logical progression of thought for me?

 

But a special ministry just for them? Hell yeah! That sounds cool! But also more visibility and inclusion! I dont want to see other catholics feel so homophobic. I want them to realize that there are gay catholics and that is ok. 

Edited January 29, 2015 by CrossCuT

[franciscanheart]

Ok now that we have the black and white words from the CCC, I feel like we can now add the next layer on top. We know what the church says about it, so no we can start talking about peoples perceptions to it, how they interpret it, and if there are issues with that. (At least this is how it is progressing in my mind)
 
So in what I view as the next layer,...I think about homosexuals involvement. That includes things like, can they be teachers in catholic schools? Can you make them cake? Can you go to their weddings? Can you allow homosexual family members to come to family gatherings while children are present? These are all things that have been discussed on this site before. I dont know if that is waaaaay too big of a piece to bite off, but now that i have the ground work context of the teaching, Id like to look at it with a fresh mindset.

That really is quite a bit to bite off. I'll do my best to give you what I have been taught and believe to be true.

Can they be teachers in catholic schools?
Assuming they don't smell of elderberries. [yuk yuk yuk] Seriously, though: If they are qualified and adhere to the teachings of the Church, yes. A lot of schools will not hire staff who are not Catholic or who defy Catholic teaching -- even in their personal lives. They are supposed to be setting an example so, for instance, they could not in good conscience hire and employ someone in an open sexual relationship or someone who intended to be married to his or her homosexual life partner. It's not just a matter of gay or not gay, but a matter of conduct and adherence to the faith.

That said, at the Catholic school I attended, we had Protestant teachers and administrators. They were expected to set a good example, attend and participate in Mass (as much as allowed), and to instruct the children in the Catholic faith. They were also made to sign morality agreements or some such thing, but all teachers and administrators were.

Can you make them cake?
I think I may be missing a cultural reference here. With no innuendo or other reference, I'd like to make it known that you and any other are welcome to make me cake any time. I'm pretty sure Catholics won't sin in doing so. If anything, this will probably be seen as an act of love. Maybe also an act of charity. So, WIN.

Can you go to their weddings?
As in, a man marrying a man or a woman marrying a woman? I don't believe you could do that in good conscience, no. If by attending you are supporting the union of two men or two women, then you have gone against the teaching of the Church which you (theoretically, as a practicing Catholic) claim to be True. It would seem to me to be contrary to your profession of faith to attend such a ceremony.

Can you allow homosexual family members to come to family gatherings while children are present?
Uh, duh. Gay and pedophile aren't synonymous*, so I don't see why not.

*I know that you haven't implied that. I was attempting humor there, poking fun at the foolishness of believing children need to be "protected" from interaction with gay people -- especially gay people who are adherent to the teachings of the Church.

 

Well I commend your strength. I think the homosexuality issue was sort of the catalyst to my leaving of the Catholic faith. (It wasn't my only problem, but it was a big one.)

I saw the blatantly cold and uncharitable way in which homosexuals were treated, spoken of, and whatnot in my own Catholic circles by people I respected. It was shocking and really perturbed me. Fast forward a few years, and I've had enough.

As I said before, this is not uncommon. I'm sorry you left, but I understand why you would struggle with that. (Obviously.)
 
 

Ah yes, I read that wrong. Thanks for pointing it out. That makes me feel better haha

:like:

I don't want to see other catholics feel so homophobic. I want them to realize that there are gay catholics and that is ok.

Don't we all...

[CrossCuT]

That really is quite a bit to bite off. I'll do my best to give you what I have been taught and believe to be true.

Can they be teachers in catholic schools?
Assuming they don't smell of elderberries. [yuk yuk yuk] Seriously, though: If they are qualified and adhere to the teachings of the Church, yes. A lot of schools will not hire staff who are not Catholic or who defy Catholic teaching -- even in their personal lives. They are supposed to be setting an example so, for instance, they could not in good conscience hire and employ someone in an open sexual relationship or someone who intended to be married to his or her homosexual life partner. It's not just a matter of gay or not gay, but a matter of conduct and adherence to the faith.

That said, at the Catholic school I attended, we had Protestant teachers and administrators. They were expected to set a good example, attend and participate in Mass (as much as allowed), and to instruct the children in the Catholic faith. They were also made to sign morality agreements or some such thing, but all teachers and administrators were.

 

I understand that they tend to hire Catholics, and I get it. But what comes up in my mind that if you were to fire someone over conduct (like abusing children, being gross, and other misconduct things) is that comparable to being in a loving relationship with a partner? It just urks me. They site that its against Catholic teaching but lawd, those kids could use some lessons in acceptance imo. Its good for them to be exposed to diversity when it isnt an actual harm to them. 

 

Fictional teacher Linda who is in a long term, committed relationship with her partner (but is otherwise an upstanding citizen in the eys of the church) is no harm to school children. At least that is my opinion. Maybe we would have fewer homophobes if we allowed these non threatening aspects of real life to permeate our walls.

 

Id go so far as to say youre doing those children a disservice by intentionally isolating them from diversity and the human experience (again taking note for their saftey...obviously we wouldnt allow a pedo to teach class to accommodate for diversity).

 

Can you make them cake?
I think I may be missing a cultural reference here. With no innuendo or other reference, I'd like to make it known that you and any other are welcome to make me cake any time. I'm pretty sure Catholics won't sin in doing so. If anything, this will probably be seen as an act of love. Maybe also an act of charity. So, WIN.

 

That was just my way of referencing the scandal of a christian baker making a cake for a gay wedding. I think its deplorable and utterly unnecessary to make such a fuss, but people are legit concerned about it.

 

Can you go to their weddings?
As in, a man marrying a man or a woman marrying a woman? I don't believe you could do that in good conscience, no. If by attending you are supporting the union of two men or two women, then you have gone against the teaching of the Church which you (theoretically, as a practicing Catholic) claim to be True. It would seem to me to be contrary to your profession of faith to attend such a ceremony.

 

I meant it in the context of "Can you attend a gay wedding if you feel homosexual relationships are geared towards the moral evil"?

 

Can you allow homosexual family members to come to family gatherings while children are present?
Uh, duh. Gay and pedophile aren't synonymous*, so I don't see why not.

 

I have read peoples comments on PM before where they didnt want gay family members to show up. I also know of a very "Catholic" family who essentially disowned their gay son because they didnt want him around their younger children. What reason did they have? I honestly dont know. It might have been a mix of fears; the fears that the kids might turn gay and/or grow to think homosexuality is ok...or that gay relationships are ok.
 

[An Historian]

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.

Does this not give you pause? This is exactly what Nihil was trying to discuss. You have built an identity centred around your sexuality, an identity that goes beyond your sexuality, which is rooted in something which is inherently disordered.

In my opinion, you're making a bigger deal about your sexuality than the Catholics you've been lambasting for the past couple of pages. If your entire identity is wrapped up in your homosexuality then there's something wrong. Because you are more than the act of "getting friendly with female body parts". You're a human being. But you've intrinsically associated your identity with that act. I think you are the one with issues here.

All of this talk of recognising homosexuals as a group, offering them services, and a position within the Church, is an inherently flawed approach because it simply dehumanises homosexuals. It turns them into mere sexual acts. It's so... Freudian!

Some chicks dig chicks. Some dudes dig dudes. Something went wrong down the line and you're stuck with it. I'm rather fond of the female posterior. Doesn't give me free license to commit sodomy nor does it define my entire identity.

With all the love in the world... get over it?

[CrossCuT]

All of this talk of recognising homosexuals as a group, offering them services, and a position within the Church, is an inherently flawed approach because it simply dehumanises homosexuals. It turns them into mere sexual acts. It's so... Freudian!

Some chicks dig chicks. Some dudes dig dudes. Something went wrong down the line and you're stuck with it. I'm rather fond of the female posterior. Doesn't give me free license to commit sodomy nor does it define my entire identity.

With all the love in the world... get over it?

Wut

 

lol

 

Omg someone who is starving! Should we give them food? Oh ho ho no! Because we would be confirming that they are poor and cant afford any and we dont want reduce their identity to merely an empty stomach!

 

 

 

In my opinion, you're making a bigger deal about your sexuality than the Catholics you've been lambasting for the past couple of pages. If your entire identity is wrapped up in your homosexuality then there's something wrong. Because you are more than the act of "getting friendly with female body parts". You're a human being. But you've intrinsically associated your identity with that act. I think you are the one with issues here.

No I dont think she is making it a bigger deal than it is. Catholics are super homophobic and ridiculous about the whole thing. You mention that youre gay and suddenly they are like "Well as long as she doesnt hit on me Im ok"

 

Like wut?

[Era Might]

Does this not give you pause? This is exactly what Nihil was trying to discuss. You have built an identity centred around your sexuality, an identity that goes beyond your sexuality, which is rooted in something which is inherently disordered.

In my opinion, you're making a bigger deal about your sexuality than the Catholics you've been lambasting for the past couple of pages. If your entire identity is wrapped up in your homosexuality then there's something wrong. Because you are more than the act of "getting friendly with female body parts". You're a human being. But you've intrinsically associated your identity with that act. I think you are the one with issues here.

All of this talk of recognising homosexuals as a group, offering them services, and a position within the Church, is an inherently flawed approach because it simply dehumanises homosexuals. It turns them into mere sexual acts. It's so... Freudian!

Some chicks dig chicks. Some dudes dig dudes. Something went wrong down the line and you're stuck with it. I'm rather fond of the female posterior. Doesn't give me free license to commit sodomy nor does it define my entire identity.

With all the love in the world... get over it?

 

Honestly, this kind of straightjacketing of human nature is why I can't believe in Catholicism. I don't think it has any way to understand sexual desire except to refer it to an eternal ideal. What's wrong with liking a female posterior? I'm not asking because I care about your sexual proclivities, but just saying...why question stuff too much? Does everything have to have an eternal purpose? I assure you people have had a lot of fun with the female posterior over the centuries, Catholics included. But, I'm probably too Freudian anyway, so we probably won't see this in the same way. :)

Edited January 29, 2015 by Era Might

[An Historian]

Wut

lol

oh my goodness (don't blasphemy) someone who is starving! Should we give them food? Oh ho ho no! Because we would be confirming that they are poor and cant afford any and we dont want reduce their identity to merely an empty stomach!

No I dont think she is making it a bigger deal than it is. Catholics are super homophobic and ridiculous about the whole thing. You mention that youre gay and suddenly they are like "Well as long as she doesnt hit on me Im ok"

Like wut?

I'm not saying homosexuals should not be helped to carry their cross. I'm saying it shouldn't be given any greater pirority over any other sexual issues that humans face. Homosexuality shouldn't been internalised and integrated so much into a person's identity and personality that they cease to exist separate from it. "Oh? You're attracted to men/women? Okay, avoid occasions of sin, don't dwell on lustful thoughts, don't engage in sinful sexual behaviour, pray an rely on God's help."

Yeah, there are bigger issues at work with homosexuals due to the rather alienating nature of same-sex attraction. For most it will mean a future as a single person. But single heterosexuals exist who face many of the same challenges. Forget the root cause behind the reasons and offer them the same support and love as anyone else.

And I don't care what Mary-Jane Sue-Bobs knee jerk reaction is to someone comin out. It shouldn't matter to anyone

[franciscanheart]

I understand that they tend to hire Catholics, and I get it. But what comes up in my mind that if you were to fire someone over conduct (like abusing children, being gross, and other misconduct things) is that comparable to being in a loving relationship with a partner? It just urks me. They site that its against Catholic teaching but lawd, those kids could use some lessons in acceptance imo. Its good for them to be exposed to diversity when it isnt an actual harm to them.

I hear you and I understand where you're coming from. I'm afraid I'll do a terribly inadequate job responding but here are my thoughts. I don't believe that firing (or not hiring) someone for being in a homosexual relationship can be necessarily related to firing (or not hiring) someone for things like abuse or inappropriate behavior with colleagues or minors. I think the better comparison is to something like, firing (or not hiring) someone who is in an adulterous relationship and has no qualms about it. I would say the same would be true for someone who is having a sexual relationship with his or her live-in boyfriend or girlfriend.

Actually, the comparisons are quite difficult. Hmmm.

Comparisons aside, I think children can learn all about diversity without being instructed in matters of faith in morals (sometimes strictly through actions and example) by someone who is living in direct opposition to the Church. Make sense? That said, please see below commentary about our fictional friend, Linda.

Fictional teacher Linda who is in a long term, committed relationship with her partner (but is otherwise an upstanding citizen in the eys of the church) is no harm to school children. At least that is my opinion. Maybe we would have fewer homophobes if we allowed these non threatening aspects of real life to permeate our walls.
 
Id go so far as to say youre doing those children a disservice by intentionally isolating them from diversity and the human experience (again taking note for their saftey...obviously we wouldnt allow a pedo to teach class to accommodate for diversity).

For starters, I would guess Linda would not apply for a position at a school like this one. But for argument's sake, let's say she does want to work at a faithful Catholic school.

You're correct, she's of no physical harm to the children. She's not doing coke in the restroom or ogling them for sexual snacks at recess. However, her example, the Church would argue, puts them in spiritual danger. How can Linda, who is herself in a homosexual relationship, stand in front of her students and teach that it is wrong. There is contradiction there, and especially in young minds, this becomes quite complicated. You are telling me this is spiritual unhealthy, Miss Linda, but you are doing it yourself. You tell me it's wrong and yet you do it. Why? Well, because Linda doesn't adhere to the teachings of the Church. The teachings of the Church whose school employs her to teach the faith. Do you see where this becomes an issue? It's not that Linda is a predator or unfit to teach, just that it becomes an issue of moral clarity for her pupils.

What I would say is this: the responsibility falls first and foremost on the leaders of our domestic churches, i.e. mom and dad. It is their job to instruct their children in matters of faith and morals. If they have gay friends or family or neighbors or whatever, they should be teaching them in those moments. Every person is to be treated with dignity and respect. We love other humans because they are, not because they do or not possess certain traits. Beyond that, the parents are first responsible for instructing in faith, and for integrating those lessons into everyday life.

I am sure these thoughts are only half-baked and probably have gaping holes, but that's what I think and can articulate for now (on my break from studying).

That was just my way of referencing the scandal of a christian baker making a cake for a gay wedding. I think its deplorable and utterly unnecessary to make such a fuss, but people are legit concerned about it.

Ah! I can be dense, at times. I don't know what the answer is to this one on a moral level. Good question.

I meant it in the context of "Can you attend a gay wedding if you feel homosexual relationships are geared towards the moral evil"?

Well, I don't think that if you hold it seriously in your heart that homosexual relationships are geared towards a moral evil, that you would attend. I think people who believe that firmly will avoid any act which can be perceived to condone such a union. (This, by the way, is were we start getting into the "they do it with love" talk and that's just a lot to swallow this early on so I'll leave it at that.)

I have read peoples comments on PM before where they didnt want gay family members to show up. I also know of a very "Catholic" family who essentially disowned their gay son because they didnt want him around their younger children. What reason did they have? I honestly dont know. It might have been a mix of fears; the fears that the kids might turn gay and/or grow to think homosexuality is ok...or that gay relationships are ok.

I, too, have seen mention of this, here and elsewhere. It's sad. Yes, it hurts. But it's misguided.

I can understand not wanting public displays of affection in front of children in one's home (complicating the teaching of faith and morals for the parents since they are being perceived as condoning the behavior while also condemning it). I can understand not allowing other family members to inject their own version of Church teaching. I can understand not allowing young, impressionable children to interact with people who will aggressively challenge the faith of young children who have neither the depth of understanding nor the skill necessary to explain Church teaching.

What I do not understand, do not support, and cannot reconcile with Church teaching is distrust of homosexuals simply because they are homosexual. I do not understand or support, and cannot reconcile, shunning anyone on the sole basis of homosexual orientation. Homophobia is alive and well, but it is not promulgated by the official teaching of the Catholic Church.

[An Historian]

Honestly, this kind of straightjacketing of human nature is why I can't believe in Catholicism. I don't think it has any way to understand sexual desire except to refer it to an eternal ideal. What's wrong with liking a female posterior? I'm not asking because I care about your sexual proclivities, but just saying...why question stuff too much? Does everything have to have an eternal purpose? I assure you people have had a lot of fun with the female posterior over the centuries, Catholics included. But, I'm probably too Freudian anyway, so we probably won't see this in the same way. :)

Yes everything has to have an eternal purpose. You can't have God only 90% of the time, and 10% for whatever tickles your fancy.

We were created to know, love and serve God. He created the world, and there are laws that regulate existence and purposes for existences. In the case of sexuality, it exists for the two-fold purposes of procreation and spousal unity (which is most fully realised in procreation). The act of sodomy, even heterosexual sodomy, is contrary to this two-fold purpose of sexuality.

Yeah, we're in a straightjacket. Look at what humanity does when it's let loose.