The Strange Notion Of "gay Celibacy"

[franciscanheart]

​Definitely agree that for adults it's different; not as confusing and fluid. Like NTP I was just making a distinction. Not really much to explain? In high school I thought I was actually, really gay for a bit based on some experiences I had. Then realized I had other experiences of being straight and I could kind of choose which way I wanted to go. I just decided I wasn't going to choose to foster ssa, I understood my experiences for what they were and realized they didn't really define me or my sexuality. It's very difficult to explain... I can't say "hurr durr I made a choice" without sounding like I think every can do that or something :/ tbh I think (some) "straight" people,especially when they're young, experiment and shouldn't be defined by that. Keep in mind I reached this conclusion by myself; I didn't have an knowledge of gay Catholics beyond "some people are gay but they still live in line with Church teaching" from youth group. 

But here's the real issue I have with experiences and labels: People who are actually gay get tossed under the bus or confused with people who are just experimenting, which means they're given bad advice, can be very harmed and wonder why their struggles are so different, and people who are just experimenting can panic and think they're doomed to be gay for life and never have a relationship with the opposite sex because gay people can't change and they *think* they're gay. See how weird it gets? 

​Ah, understood. I see some of where you're coming from and think you raise a good point: we may too quick to label other people at a young age. Frankly, I know plenty of people who identified as straight or bi as teens and later realized they were gay, through and through. That was scary for them -- people of faith and not -- and took some time and experience to fully understand. I also know people who identified as gay in high school and still do. They know in the core of their being that they are not heterosexual. I know still others who experimented with both men and women in our teen years and ultimately settled down in a heterosexual relationship. I don't know anyone who didn't at least question their sexuality in high school who ended up in a homosexual relationship later. So yeah, I get it. People go through phases and there's no way to know, as a person looking from the outside in, which is which. That said, some people (a lot of people, really) know very early on that things are very different.

How do we address young people who think (or know) they are gay? How do you separate those who are experimenting from those who are actually gay? Is that our job? Is there some way to address both people without having to decide that they either are gay or are going through a phase? Can we address sexuality with them + life in the Church without invalidating their experience?

Teens tend to have an exaggerated experience anyway; how do you take that hyper sense of things and address it with dignity and respect?

Those are a bunch of questions I don't yet know how to address, and I think that the topic of gay teens in the Church definitely comes with its own set of complications. How we handle young people coming to understand their sexuality is big, and it's a lot different than addressing adults -- especially who have been sexually active. (I know, that throws in some non-Church-teaching-adherent behavior. But it happens.)

Allllll of that said, I firmly believe that well-adjusted, healthy adults will know if they are gay or not. I understand that they might be temporarily paralyzed by the idea that maybe they can't ever not be gay when in fact they aren't gay, but I do think you eventually grow enough (and learn enough about yourself) that you realize either that you are or you aren't. I can't say I was particularly healthy when I started down the path of discovery with myself, but even I managed to figure it out. I started talking about it when I was in high school (with phatmassers, even -- one of whom (a male) I was talking to in a romantic way) but didn't really come to terms with the gravity of the situation until several years later. Fast forward seven years and I'm only just now starting to feel like I have my footing.

It's complicated. It's nuanced. It's not a science.

What I know is that it takes a lot of compassion, humility, and Christ-like love to walk through this with someone. It's not just a matter of intellectual education; it takes a certain education of the heart, too. The people who will be most effective in helping gay Catholics find their place in the Church (and help their spiritual life to flourish best) will see the person who is suffering at the foot of the cross, with very human feelings and needs and wants, and minister to him or her without assumption and without judgment.

[MIKolbe]

 What I know is that it takes a lot of compassion, humility, and Christ-like love to walk through this with someone.

​Best sentence in the entire thread.  Most edifying thing I've read online in a while...Brava!

[veritasluxmea]

I feel like at this point the thread is so derailed I'm not even sure what we're talking about anymore. Basically I agree with you, or I don't see where I disagree with you at least. Same with NTP. It's complicated and people figure it out one way or another. I don't have answers to the questions... and they're questions we need to figure out. All I can do so far is simply teach theology of the body and help teens with those questions on a case-by-case basis. 

[MarysLittleFlower]

Oh, I had meant to properly attribute this as well. The author is Daniel Mattson.

 

I see where you are coming from with that.

I think this article could be a useful caution against excess. There has been the whole debate surrounding the so-called "new homophiles". Personally I find the label kind of weird. Sounds like a word that should be borderline obscene, even though it is not. Anyway, whatever. There was an article recently on how the term itself is insufficient and misleading.

That controversy in particular seems to be marked not necessarily by one side having issues with Church teaching, but rather in both sides disagreeing on how best to think with the mind of the Church. In that context I think it seems to make more sense.

If I might be rather bold, I think that the so-called 'new homophiles' have, at times, gone a bit too far in identifying with homosexuality. I think that among some there has been a sort of subconscious effort to downplay the fact that homosexual attraction is, in itself, inherently disordered. And when such persons downplay the inherent disorder of the condition, it can then in some ways be accepted as "part of who we are", in a way beyond that in which concupiscence is a part of the human condition. Without caution some people could be led to forget that homosexual attraction is inherently disordered, and instead treat it as an ordinary temptation which finds its proper end in some related good.

 

So the way I am seeing this is not exactly that people are getting wound up by minutiae. Rather, that this is an emotionally charged and complex subject in which we seem to be having some trouble in conforming ourselves to the mind of the Church.

 

I think this also touches on the debates we have had on whether or not a gay Catholic should 'come out'. Sometimes it has been overly reduced to the idea that Catholics are just plain uncomfortable with gay people, but I think that misses the point, and I think this article touches on part of the reason.

I think I see what you mean... Its like labelling yourself by a temptation you get. Cause such desires are disordered literally dis-ordered... I mean desires not people. It might be better to say "I experience SSA but live chastely as a man/woman". I don't want to label people with SSA by their sexual feelings either - it just seems like limiting the person to that. We all have concupiscence but our human nature is essentially good. 

Edited April 28, 2015 by MarysLittleFlower

[MarysLittleFlower]

I think I see what you mean... Its like labelling yourself by a temptation you get. Cause such desires are disordered literally dis-ordered... I mean desires not people. It might be better to say "I experience SSA but live chastely as a man/woman". I don't want to label people with SSA by their sexual feelings either - it just seems like limiting the person to that. We all have concupiscence but our human nature is essentially good. 

I also worry that labelling yourself as homosexual because you have SSA may make it harder and more discouraging to try be chaste. Because you begin to see your very being this way instead of saying - I get these feelings but I'm a man / woman and these are feelings that are not part of my soul as God planned it. They come from concupiscence and the fall and I can reject them. They are not WHO I am. Versus thinking - this is who I am it's my identity and now I have to fight that. That's more painful or discouraging to think if you're trying to be chaste? Any thoughts? 

Edited April 28, 2015 by MarysLittleFlower

[Era Might]

I think we (or at least I) underestimate what it means to be a Christian, to take whatever is broke and to put it together, not just any way, but to reconstruct a new person, who lives with a completely new mind, who opens their eyes to see the world in a new way, as a blind person might see the world after "seeing" it with his hands his whole life. I think there are a lot of people who are not able to do this, but they hang around the church because they recognize that they lack the strength either to leave or to stay. Young people are not mature, they lack the perspective to really "see" new dimensions to their existential anguish (whatever it is, being gay, being depressed, experiencing tragedy). I think of the icon of Christ standing on the cross, pulling Adam and Eve out of their tombs, with the cross acting as a sort of bridge:

http://www.christthesaviourhbg.org/images/Church Icons/The_Ressurrection_of_Christ.JPG

The shallow "altar call" faith of American religion, I hope, will be resisted by Catholics, because to cross that bridge of the cross is no small decision, and I think all we can do in this life is, first, try to have the courage to cross it ourselves, and second, try to help others across, knowing that they may have to lie in their tombs before they can. Thinking about this icon now, it's worth thinking about in terms of the phrase "coming out of the closet." I think that's something that Catholic spirituality very much understands, not coming out of a closet, but out of a tomb, a freedom that cannot be argued about, but only comes about by some hidden and mysterious action of love, mercy, redemption, and a life-giving hand to walk across the bridge that Christ lays down over the grave. St. Paul knew what it means to be a "new man," a new creation, to completely change the way you see the world...I think we underestimate how drastic and serious that is because we have come to see our religion as a social structure and to fit people into it, but where is the leaven in that?

I highly highly highly recommend you read some books or watch some YouTube videos of Henri Nouwen, a priest who was celibate but (I believe) also gay, but because of that understand very deeply the brokenness of heart and compassion that is at the center of the Gospel.

 

Edited April 28, 2015 by Era Might

[franciscanheart]

​Best sentence in the entire thread.  Most edifying thing I've read online in a while...Brava!

​

[Credo in Deum]

I've always wondered why we need to be labeled homosexual, bi, or hetero?  I ask this with the utmost respect and I'm not trying to down play anyone's experiences.  I have had my own experiences with SSA and I still have them today.  Yet I'm against labeling myself a homosexual, bisexual, or anything like that. To me I acknowledge that I am a male who is a sexual being and I reflect that as a human being (fallen) I am capable of loving persons, even to the point of loving them incorrectly. Please note when I say 'incorrectly' this is not to say all forms of love are incorrect when applied to the same sex.  Fraternal love is a correct form of love toward the same sex, in fact all sexes, because it is a love which is concerned for the salvation of others and it is one I am called to when tempted with romantic love for a person of any sex.  Yet I digress.  

As I said earlier I can love persons!  And I say persons because I don't think my attraction, when it comes down to it, is solely or primarily determined by someones gender, but rather I'm primarly attracted to personality!  IMO, my experiences in life have shown me it is the personality of a human being which wins the heart over, and which can cause one to question/cross lines they may have believed applied to them in the 'sexuality sand' so to speak.   

In the end though I ask what is the point of these labels if our lives are suppose to be in imitation of Christ?  Isn't our mission in life to have Christ live through us, and so wouldn't this mean that my authentic sexuality is found in the living of the gospel?  If so then why waste my time wondering if I should label myself homosexual, bi, or hetero, when all that matters is if my sexuality is in conformity with Christ and His Church's commands/doctrines?  

Why waste the short time I have on this earth bent out of shape because the world stresses that I should accept their labels regarding sexuality and be stressed because the Church calls it disordered? IMO, when I see the Church's doctrine there appears to be two types of sexualities that exist.  One which is based on the spirit of the world and the other which is based on Christ.  A worldly sexuality and a Sacred Sexuality. I mean seriously, being hetero doesn't mean everything you do is ordered.  Sure you may have the attraction, however, If the attraction is born from lust, or for multiple partners, or for any type of sexual act outside marriage and not open to life then it also is considered disordered. 

The Church hasn't denied me anything others aren't denied as well regardless of which label they choose.  If I labeled myself as a homosexual then I can't have relationships where there is no openness to life, but neither can a heterosexual.  How are we different then?  I know plenty of heterosexuals who want relationships but do not want kids. They're just as disordered in the eyes of the Church, so why am I looking at myself as if I'm some kind of special case the Church needs to cater to?  Should they also have to cater to those heterosexuals? I think not, and I think we spend too much time making our sexuality labels an idol.  These labels are not who I am and I will not be pigeon holed or told that there is no possibility for change or growth.  

With God all things are possible and if His will wants something then I have faith He will supply the grace for it.  If I'm going to be labeled anything it's going to be Catholic since that is where my authentic sexuality resides.  In Christ, With Christ, and Through Christ.  Anything other than that, IMO, isn't worth my time or energy.

In the end is God going to say, welcome my homosexual, bi, or heterosexual  servant?  No it's just going to be welcome my Faithful Servant. 

God bless.

 

ps. Sorry for the font size.  Stupid iPhones.

Edited April 29, 2015 by Credo in Deum

[franciscanheart]

General observation (because I haven't had much time to really pay proper attention to recent responses):

If we change the word "cater" to "minister", things start sounding very different.

[Nihil Obstat]

General observation (because I haven't had much time to really pay proper attention to recent responses):

If we change the word "cater" to "minister", things start sounding very different.

Those words tend to denote rather different activities. If we interchange them we are not really saying the same thing at all.

[PhuturePriest]

My sexuality is Gomez Addams.

[Ark]

iunno if coming out is necessarily the solution for teenagers - adolescence is naturally a very confusing period of life. It can cause more problems if you add a (social) identity crisis onto it. Some kids seem to go through a gay phase and grow out of it; I know a guy like that. Some don't, of course. But I find we live in an age that likes to solve problems by simply trying to slap a label on people, or fit them into some preconceived category instead of dealing with them as a unique individual (because we're all special snowflakes, etc.) And frequently this gets foisted on kids at far too young an age.

​Growing out of being gay? Well that certainly doesn't fit the paradigm

Supposedly sexual orientation is something we're born with and can not change. I too had a gay friend who told me he distinctly remembered being bisexual in his teens and then his orientation evolved to being homosexual. One wonders whether under certain conditions he could have steered his orientation into heterosexuality? Something to think about. 

[PhuturePriest]

It's pretty well established that, during puberty, our hormones are so insane and out of whack that they can confuse our sexual orientation and briefly make us bisexual or even completely one side or the other for a time. In the great words of Chris Stefanick, "If you're suddenly attracted to the same sex, don't freak out. You're a teenaged guy -- you're probably attracted to the toaster."

[Ark]

It's pretty well established that, during puberty, our hormones are so insane and out of whack that they can confuse our sexual orientation and briefly make us bisexual or even completely one side or the other for a time. In the great words of Chris Stefanick, "If you're suddenly attracted to the same sex, don't freak out. You're a teenaged guy -- you're probably attracted to the toaster."

​In my friends case the bisexuality lasted up until his teens, although what you mention is interesting. I think what makes us "us" is more complicated than a genetic reductionism. It's not as simple as saying "they're born that way." I think environment plays a huge factors in many cases, but as of right now it's not politically correct to investigate such a hypothesis. 

[veritasluxmea]

 "If you're suddenly attracted to the same sex, don't freak out. You're a teenaged guy -- you're probably attracted to the toaster."

​