The Strange Notion Of "gay Celibacy"

[4588686]

It is precisely because issues like human sexuality and issues like it are so personally experienced by just about everyone that a dispassionate, 'clinical' if you like, discussion must be allowed to take place. Surgeons talking amongst themselves will discuss a condition without wearing their heart on their sleeves, so surely all of us (because as humans we all deal with our sexuality) should be able to do something similar. There is a place for an outwardly emotional empathy in this discussion, but also a need to not be clouded by the same. Past threads have been coloured by that emotional side of things - it's time for one without.
 

 

Right. That's an obviously bad analogy. The discussion here that people found un-empathetic was not that of highly trained professionals discussing the details of how Bayesian inferences impacts the best response to conditions 'x', 'y', and 'z' arising. 

 

You don't get to play scientist about something unscientific. 
 

This discussion was a highly unrigorous and speculative discussion by individuals who have no expertise on the topic about a highly personal aspect of some phatmassers' identities. 

 

There's no royal road to science. If you want to have a rigorous, unemotional, and clinical discussion about this then do get some advanced training in theology/philosophy and social biology, start doing research, and publish your findings.

 

If you don't put in that work then you're not having a 'clinical' discussion. You're just talking out of your ass about a highly personal and emotional topic. And that's fine. You don't have to be an expert to talk about it. But you just shouldn't be so self-indulgent as to be surprised when someone who is offended by your uninformed discussion about a highly personal aspect of their identity takes offense at your uninformed opinions. 

[Nihil Obstat]

Nihils response is essentially "but life is hard, why would you make the hardness part of your identity"

No, that is not essentially my response. My response is that homosexuality, being inherently disordered, should not be part of one's identity. The fact that it constitutes a massive cross to bear, while relevant, is not part of that assessment.

Our life, if we live in faith, will always be marked by suffering and pain. I do not think that suffering can or should be minimized or explained away or compared. It is an integral part of the human condition, especially when we live in accordance with God's will.

But homosexuality and the suffering caused by that burden are not the same thing. The 'condition' itself is, as we are taught by the Church, inherently disordered. The suffering the individual carries is sanctifying, if we allow it to be.

 

Sorry, there is no easy answer to why we suffer. You know it better than I do. But we can choose to let our suffering be a conduit for grace rather than an occasion for turning away from God's plan for us,

[Ice_nine]

I hope that is not what you took away from my post. You would really seriously be missing the point of what I was saying.

 

tbh I've read a lot of stuff between reading your post so I don't remember errything, but the "you" I as referring to was the author of the blog post more so than you nihil.

There it is

 

Before I saw your post I was gonna respond to anhistorian's exact same post with the same three words you did. I feel so wrong. Why is this happening to me?!

 

 

 

 

 

I kind of like talking about things, maybe not on person but on the interwebs, in a quasi-academic, detached way. It's gotten me on trouble on the facebooks and such. I don't know we're all different. Maybe what offends you doesn't offend everybody the same way and maybe some things need to be discussed that are inherently offensive to some people. I don't know. I try to have thick skin and be sensitive yet honest at the same time but it's a hard line to walk you know?

 

But continue on I'm sure we'll get somewhere lol

[Nihil Obstat]

Fran, I have those posts you linked to up on my browser, and at my next opportunity I will respond to them as well as I am able. That may be tonight, or it may be tomorrow.

[Nihil Obstat]

I have studied philosophy on and off at university for like five years now. I have gotten used to debates that take place entirely in writing. There us a certain way they tend to write. It is very direct, very forceful. They do not pull punches. But it is also very professional, and I do not think they usually take those professional disagreements personally.
I think the Catholic blogosphere might learn a thing or two from the academic philosophy establishment on that subject. Everything is so personal. It gets very wearing.

[ChristianGirlForever]

Thank you for posting this, Nihil Obstat. God bless this man for his courage to speak publicly about this. Good for him for being able to be honest with himself! I pray he doesn't get any dangerous threats.

[Ark]

Peace be with you Nihil Obstat,

 

No, that is not essentially my response. My response is that homosexuality, being inherently disordered, should not be part of one's identity. The fact that it constitutes a massive cross to bear, while relevant, is not part of that assessment.

 

How is this different from a person identifying as a sinner?

[Nihil Obstat]

Peace be with you Nihil Obstat,


How is this different from a person identifying as a sinner?

Inasmuch as we are sinners we are likewise called to die to ourselves and fully reject our sin.
Sin is a result of our brokenness, not part of God's active Will. Edited January 28, 2015 by Nihil Obstat

[Maggyie]

No, that is not essentially my response. My response is that homosexuality, being inherently disordered, should not be part of one's identity. The fact that it constitutes a massive cross to bear, while relevant, is not part of that assessment.

Our life, if we live in faith, will always be marked by suffering and pain. I do not think that suffering can or should be minimized or explained away or compared. It is an integral part of the human condition, especially when we live in accordance with God's will.

But homosexuality and the suffering caused by that burden are not the same thing. The 'condition' itself is, as we are taught by the Church, inherently disordered. The suffering the individual carries is sanctifying, if we allow it to be.

 

Sorry, there is no easy answer to why we suffer. You know it better than I do. But we can choose to let our suffering be a conduit for grace rather than an occasion for turning away from God's plan for us,

 

My terminal inability to reproduce as someone in her 20s is inherently disordered. As is alcoholism or mental illness (not comparing these to being gay, I am just giving you examples).   

 

Gay people cannot ungay themselves any more than my mother can de bipolar herself. I feel like you are arguing that they should pretend they don't have the attractions or that it doesn't impact their lives in huge ways. 

 

If your identity includes being in love and having kids, whoops gay people don't get to found a family and being in love is an occasion of sin (so I've heard)

 

If your identity is built around your vocation, oops gay people pretty much just get to have the single life vocation, no discernment soup for you. 

 

And I'm not agitating against this I'm just saying its facile to imagine dealing with Variable X that pretty much all by itself determines a large part of how you are going to spend the next 80 years, is not going to be part of your identity. 

Edited January 28, 2015 by Maggie

[CatherineM]

I agree it doesn't have to be part of our public identity. When I meet a new person, I never say that I'm a heterosexual. I am a woman. That's usually apparent unless I'm covered in parka and balaclava.

Why is it un-Christian to congratulate someone who is attempting to live a life following the Church's teaching?

[Ark]

Peace Nihil,

 

Inasmuch as we are sinners we are likewise called to die to ourselves and fully reject our sin.
Sin is a result of our brokenness, not part of God's active Will.

 

Maybe I misunderstood your point but I thought you were saying that people should not identify as "gay" because it's inherently disordered. Sin is also disordered and so it would seem we should not identifying as sinners either. Nor should we identify people according to a particular sin, e.g. sodomites or wankers. 

[Nihil Obstat]

My terminal inability to reproduce as someone in her 20s is inherently disordered. As is alcoholism or mental illness (not comparing these to being gay, I am just giving you examples).

Gay people cannot ungay themselves any more than my mother can de bipolar herself. I feel like you are arguing that they should pretend they don't have the attractions or that it doesn't impact their lives in huge ways.

If your identity includes being in love and having kids, whoops gay people don't get to found a family and being in love is an occasion of sin (so I've heard)

If your identity is built around your vocation, oops gay people pretty much just get to have the single life vocation, no discernment soup for you.

And I'm not agitating against this I'm just saying its facile to imagine dealing with Variable X that pretty much all by itself determines a large part of how you are going to spend the next 80 years, is not going to be part of your identity.

I am not sure comparing to infertility and mental illness is helpful here, inasmuch as those disorders are not inherently directed towards sinful acts.

I simply find it theologically problematic to consider an inherent disorder, something necessarily ordered contrary to God's will, as part of a person's identity.
A strong influence on their life certainly. But a person's identity is more than the sum of their actions on earth.

[Nihil Obstat]

Peace Nihil,


Maybe I misunderstood your point but I thought you were saying that people should not identify as "gay" because it's inherently disordered. Sin is also disordered and so it would seem we should not identifying as sinners either. Nor should we identify people according to a particular sin, e.g. sodomites or wankers.

Sin is part of our identity only in the sense that we all are afflicted by it and we are all obligated to reject it. Our identity on an inherent level is to be sanctified and to reject sin.
One might say that the rejection of sin is part of our identity, maybe. I did not consider that.

[Maggyie]

I am not sure comparing to infertility and mental illness is helpful here, inasmuch as those disorders are not inherently directed towards sinful acts.

I simply find it theologically problematic to consider an inherent disorder, something necessarily ordered contrary to God's will, as part of a person's identity.
A strong influence on their life certainly. But a person's identity is more than the sum of their actions on earth.

 

How about addiction, which is directed toward sinful acts. Actually forget that. 

 

I think you may be investing the concept of identity with too much power. How do you define identity. 

[KnightofChrist]

We don't seem to use the logic that one should identify with other temptations that we don't act upon.

If a man is tempted to steal, but does not steal, should he identify himself as a thief? No. If a man is tempted to commit acts of formation, but does not fornicate, should he identify as a fornicator? No. If a man is tempted to lie, but does not lie, should that man identify as a liar? No.

 

 

Edited January 28, 2015 by KnightofChrist