The Strange Notion Of "gay Celibacy"

[franciscanheart]

I think it's fair to say that, given all the culture war fracas surrounding it, homosexuality is a cross that is sometimes ill understood. There are a lot of people who don't make the distinction between the individual who is grappling with these feelings (often in a vulnerable state) and the activists who make their sexuality into a political statement. Faithful Catholics can often be made to feel like the Church doesn't want them, or is holding them under especial scrutiny.

That doesn't mean that everything gay/ssa/whatever Catholics have to say about homosexuality is beyond criticism. We all need an outside perspective on our lives - and indeed, the fact that we're all Catholics here is a sign that we recognize that. But things can get a bit tone deaf in these discussions.

​I was with you through the whole first paragraph. That second paragraph, however, lost me. I can see where some statements (those contrary to Church teaching) open themselves to criticism by nature of their intended message. I do not, however, understand how ANYTHING a gay person says about THEIR EXPERIENCE IN BEING A GAY PERSON should be open to criticism. We're describing our experiences. The church has a lot to learn about that. Straight people will never fully understand what it means to be gay in the same way men will never understand what it means to be women and so on. If straight people in the Catholic church approached the gays in a way that was compassionate, kind, and unassuming, things might be different. As it is, the church is fraught with ignorance, prejudice, and a seemingly stubborn unwillingness to listen.

[Nihil Obstat]

​I was with you through the whole first paragraph. That second paragraph, however, lost me. I can see where some statements (those contrary to Church teaching) open themselves to criticism by nature of their intended message. I do not, however, understand how ANYTHING a gay person says about THEIR EXPERIENCE IN BEING A GAY PERSON should be open to criticism. We're describing our experiences. The church has a lot to learn about that. Straight people will never fully understand what it means to be gay in the same way men will never understand what it means to be women and so on. If straight people in the Catholic church approached the gays in a way that was compassionate, kind, and unassuming, things might be different. As it is, the church is fraught with ignorance, prejudice, and a seemingly stubborn unwillingness to listen.

If we are looking at 'experiences' as being simply factual re-tellings of events, then sure, experiences are only open to criticism inasmuch as they do not match reality. But if experiences also include perceptions and feelings and interpretations of the events, then I think we are obliged to criticize when necessary.

If all someone says is "I am gay, and this priest said a dumb thing to me", then sure, that is a thing that happened. If the 'experience' is "I am gay, and this priest said a dumb thing because the Church's teachings on sexuality do not yet properly deal with gay people", then that is an experience that invites critique.

[Amppax]

I should butt out, I'll let people speak for themselves. 

Edited April 27, 2015 by Amppax

[Nihil Obstat]

I should butt out, I'll let people speak for themselves. 

Dunno about anyone else,  but I would like to hear your input.

[veritasluxmea]

Catholics have to say about homosexuality is beyond criticism. 

​Technically that could be read as their opinions and beliefs about homosexuality. For example, a gay Catholic saying homosexuality is caused by abuse, a gay Catholic saying gay marriage should be legal, and so on can all be criticized. Not the same as sharing an experience. 

Edited April 27, 2015 by veritasluxmea

[franciscanheart]

If we are looking at 'experiences' as being simply factual re-tellings of events, then sure, experiences are only open to criticism inasmuch as they do not match reality. But if experiences also include perceptions and feelings and interpretations of the events, then I think we are obliged to criticize when necessary.

If all someone says is "I am gay, and this priest said a dumb thing to me", then sure, that is a thing that happened. If the 'experience' is "I am gay, and this priest said a dumb thing because the Church's teachings on sexuality do not yet properly deal with gay people", then that is an experience that invites critique.

Again, I made it very clear that we are not speaking of things homosexuals might tell you about their experience being a gay person (especially in the church) that contradict Church teaching. Do you follow what I'm saying? I feel like all the well-meaning straight people of phatmass are trying to throw flags over something I'm not even addressing. If a gay person comes to you and says, "My pastor is stupid because he told me it is necessary for me to remain celibate, according to the teaching of the Church," I would hope you would respond with compassion. I am not suggesting you accept that this priest is "stupid" because he is urging this man or woman to live according to his or her professed faith. I would, however, hope that you would respond with love and meet that person where they are.​

That aside, there are SO MANY of us who already adhere to the teachings of the Church but who STILL feel as though we cannot be our authentic selves and express ourselves in the church because of ignorance and stubbornness just like this.

I have been very fortunate to find (mostly online) a handful of extremely compassionate, reasonable, and intelligent Catholics who possess a humility which allows them to understand that they will never know what it's like to live in my shoes as a lesbian Catholic.

 

I should butt out, I'll let people speak for themselves. 

​I'd love to hear your input. Keeping things in gets us nowhere.

[Not The Philosopher]

​Technically that could be read as their opinions and beliefs about homosexuality. For example, a gay Catholic saying homosexuality is caused by abuse, a gay Catholic saying gay marriage should be legal, and so on can all be criticized. Not the same as sharing an experience. 

​That is closer to what I meant. We don't need to get bogged down in phenomenological questions here. You can't really argue with an experience. What I was taking aim at was more, "because you don't know what it like to be x, your opinion on x is null/less important than mine." Obviously there's a kernel of truth in recognizing that we can sometimes be blind to the trials that someone in a different position is going through, and can speak out of ignorance. But I find that the extreme of this is often used as a trump card for shutting down discussion.

 

[franciscanheart]

​That is closer to what I meant. We don't need to get bogged down in phenomenological questions here. You can't really argue with an experience. What I was taking aim at was more, "because you don't know what it like to be x, your opinion on x is null/less important than mine." Obviously there's a kernel of truth in recognizing that we can sometimes be blind to the trials that someone in a different position is going through, and can speak out of ignorance. But I find that the extreme of this is often used as a trump card for shutting down discussion.

​Sometimes it's used because it's fair to use it. If you're not gay, you won't ever know what it's like to BE gay. You won't. You also won't understand the depth and weight of the ignorance in the church. (Please, everyone, note that I am using "church" and not "Church".) This is the same way I cannot, as a white-looking woman, understand what black women face in today's society. I cannot understand what it is to be a man, because I'm female. That's fair. That's valid.

[Amppax]

Dunno about anyone else,  but I would like to hear your input.

​I read Not a Philosopher's post quite differently than Frannie. Here's my original, unedited post: 

​​I think you (meaning Frannie) misread him (NAP). There's a different between everything, and anything. Everything- denoting that just because a person's gay/ssa/whatever, doesn't mean their statements are beyond criticism. Anything- open season to criticize. 

But I don't want to speak for NAP. That was just my understanding, and it seemed to me that Frannie took something quite different from it. 

 

[Amppax]

I think that we should err towards giving more weight in this discussion to those who have the experience of this cross (or however we best want to describe things), however it think it's also important that there is balance. I also think, in general, the discussion in Catholic circles is largely dominated by those who don't experience ssa. There is definitely a fine line in this discussion that needs to be maintained, considering both the volatile political situation and the intense emotion which this issue generates. 

[franciscanheart]

 

​I read Not a Philosopher's post quite differently than Frannie. Here's my original, unedited post: 

But I don't want to speak for NAP. That was just my understanding, and it seemed to me that Frannie took something quite different from it. 

​I just wanted to be sure we were all on the same page about this. I'm not talking about gay people raising any issues with Church teaching. I'm coming from a place of absolute adherence to Church teaching. I'm coming from a place of submitting to the teaching of the Church even when I don't understand or like it. I'm not trying to argue what the Church teaches. What I am saying is this: if it's this difficult for ME -- a single, celibate, lesbian, Catholic woman -- to be heard and respected and understood in the church, how much more difficult must it be for those who have not yet arrived at this place where I now stand?

Do the "faithful" Catholics of phatmass and beyond not want to grow in understanding of others? Do they not wish to practice compassion? Exercise humility? Admit ignorance? Because any time a discussion like this comes up, the gays always have it wrong. Even the ones who (like me) are doing everything they're "supposed to do and believe" in the Church.

 

edited to fix a few typos and mistakes born of going wayyyy too fast.

Edited April 27, 2015 by franciscanheart

[franciscanheart]

I think that we should err towards giving more weight in this discussion to those who have the experience of this cross (or however we best want to describe things), however it think it's also important that there is balance. I also think, in general, the discussion in Catholic circles is largely dominated by those who don't experience ssa. There is definitely a fine line in this discussion that needs to be maintained, considering both the volatile political situation and the intense emotion which this issue generates. 

​Very well said, Amp. I think we are ultimately in the same space on this point.

[Catlick]

That aside, there are SO MANY of us who already adhere to the teachings of the Church but who STILL feel as though we cannot be our authentic selves

Isn't the whole idea of being Catholic that you try to be another Christ instead of being your 'authentic self'? What is being your 'authentic self'? 

[Not The Philosopher]

​Sometimes it's used because it's fair to use it. If you're not gay, you won't ever know what it's like to BE gay. You won't. You also won't understand the depth and weight of the ignorance in the church. (Please, everyone, note that I am using "church" and not "Church".) This is the same way I cannot, as a white-looking woman, understand what black women face in today's society. I cannot understand what it is to be a man, because I'm female. That's fair. That's valid.

​I don't deny that there is a fair use to it.  And for what it's worth, my cred is pretty similar to Tushnet's in this regard: I was raised in a secular Jewish(ish) household, discovered in my teen years that I wasn't quite experiencing puberty the way my male peers did. I got involved with the local gay community once I graduated high school, made friends, volunteered for my university's LGBTQ group, etc......and by the end of my undergrad years I was somehow a Catholic (long story).

Those years also kinda made me jaundiced towards identity politics,  how people can hyperventilate over small things, and how the line between legitimate criticism and being hurtful gets blurred. Not fun, these things.

 

 

​I read Not a Philosopher's post quite differently than Frannie. Here's my original, unedited post: 

But I don't want to speak for NAP. That was just my understanding, and it seemed to me that Frannie took something quite different from it. 

 

​That's more or less it.

[Catlick]

Hahahaha! It's just occurred to me that you're actually a perfect example of what we deal with every single day in the church. You scream "sodomy" and we're just asking for a little compassion -- and maybe a little less ignorance. And definitely a whole lot less pride and assumption on the part of well-meaning straight Catholics.

​Why the angry reaction at the mere use of the term 'sodomy'? The Church has always used this term. Great saints have preached against it, calling the sin by its name like Jesus did with the sins he encountered. Or were these saints screaming ignoramuses? 

In other words: does the very recent and very intense sensitivity regarding sodomy necessitate that the Church changes the moral vocabulary she has used ever since her founding? 

Edited April 27, 2015 by Catlick