A Traditional Catholic... with a boyfriend?

[LatinByzCath]

If they were chaste is it fair to use the word homosexual in regard to them?
And I love how the poster says “The Church has never denied…” which it seems is the mother of all proof of wrongdoing nowadays.

The Church has never denied I scratched myself this morning either.

I know in this case, there have been found letters written between them that would suggest this, but I don’t think it’s something that needs to be made a big deal out of.

I was having a discussion with a friend over this last night. If someone is not actively engaging in homosexual behavior, are they still homosexual? That begs the question, if someone who is attracted to the opposite gender is not actually acting on those attractions (ie. is single), are they still heterosexual?

I guess it depends on whether or not we’re talking about attraction or action here.

When I was going through a journey of self discovery, there was a long period where I felt I had homosexual attractions. However, I soon learned that telling a priest or vocations director that one is “homosexual” usually leads them to think one is having sex, not merely talking about an attraction. I learned that identifying with something that makes up absolutely no part of who I am except a passing interest wasn’t practical.

I can see both sides, honestly. I think it depends on what the majority interpret “homosexual” to mean.

 

[clem456]

I know in this case, there have been found letters written between them that would suggest this, but I don’t think it’s something that needs to be made a big deal out of.

I was having a discussion with a friend over this last night. If someone is not actively engaging in homosexual behavior, are they still homosexual? That begs the question, if someone who is attracted to the opposite gender is not actually acting on those attractions (ie. is single), are they still heterosexual?

I guess it depends on whether or not we’re talking about attraction or action here.

We use the words that way, but it seems to me “sex” is an action. I suppose the word attraction is better. “Same sex attracted”. The problem is the word homosexual is so charged with assumptions.

When I was going through a journey of self discovery, there was a long period where I felt I had homosexual attractions. However, I soon learned that telling a priest or vocations director that one is “homosexual” usually leads them to think one is having sex, not merely talking about an attraction. I learned that identifying with something that makes up absolutely no part of who I am except a passing interest wasn’t practical.

I can see both sides, honestly. I think it depends on what the majority interpret “homosexual” to mean.

Yes.
Sexuality is one part of a whole person.

 

[LatinByzCath]

We use the words that way, but it seems to me “sex” is an action. I suppose the word attraction is better. “Same sex attracted”. The problem is the word homosexual is so charged with assumptions.

Yes.
Sexuality is one part of a whole person.

I would also point out that, while I in no way condone conversion therapy, I know that in myself, homosexual desires were a manifestation of my own self image issues. I worked through them with my therapist. I no longer feel these feelings, and I suspect most men with same sex attractions struggle with some emotional and psychological issues that manifest in this way. What I mean to say is, attraction can change, so I don’t think focusing so much on it is really a great idea (however, people who have lead a lifestyle surrounding their attractions/actions in this way need to be dealt with differently than people who merely have, or have had an attraction. Especially as concerns vocations.)

 

[Denise1957]

Homosexuality seems to be the most cringe worthy offense in the Church today (well, I can think of a few others…) We have to remember, though, that sin is sin. Unless we want to go around to all of the heterosexuals who are having sex outside of marriage, or to all of the married and non-married couples who are contracepting, we’d do better to keep our mouth shut.

You bring up an important issue here. I can understand the stance where, if we aren’t going to correct heterosexuals who are living in sin, we’d better keep our mouths shut. But…I think that part of the problem which has lead to the ‘normalcy’ in our society of heterosexual couples having relations outside of marriage has been at least partly due to keeping quiet. It’s just what everyone does now. Perhaps if we had been more vocal in opposition against this change in society, it wouldn’t be considered normal now. But then another factor is the media, and social media, of course.

I haven’t kept quiet about the issue in my own family (with my grown sons and their girlfriends). Not that they pay a lot of attention to what I say, but at least I’ve informed them of the nature of sin and why it’s a bad idea to engage in relations before marriage. They aren’t Catholic or even Christian, so they haven’t a proper context into which they can relate to what I’m saying. I care about them, so I can’t remain silent.

Regarding a traditionalist who is a practicing homosexual, it’s my opinion that the person in question can’t really be a traditionalist, since one of the definitions of traditionalist is that they believe in all that the Church teaches, and strive to live up to all teachings, and to live in a state of grace, free from mortal sin. I’m not trying to judge the person in question, though.

 

[LatinByzCath]

You bring up an important issue here. I can understand the stance where, if we aren’t going to correct heterosexuals who are living in sin, we’d better keep our mouths shut. But…I think that part of the problem which has lead to the ‘normalcy’ in our society of heterosexual couples having relations outside of marriage has been at least partly due to keeping quiet. It’s just what everyone does now. Perhaps if we had been more vocal in opposition against this change in society, it wouldn’t be considered normal now. But then another factor is the media, and social media, of course.

I haven’t kept quiet about the issue in my own family (with my grown sons and their girlfriends). Not that they pay a lot of attention to what I say, but at least I’ve informed them of the nature of sin and why it’s a bad idea to engage in relations before marriage. They aren’t Catholic or even Christian, so they haven’t a proper context into which they can relate to what I’m saying. I care about them, so I can’t remain silent.

Regarding a traditionalist who is a practicing homosexual, it’s my opinion that the person in question can’t really be a traditionalist, since one of the definitions of traditionalist is that they believe in all that the Church teaches, and strive to live up to all teachings, and to live in a state of grace, free from mortal sin. I’m not trying to judge the person in question, though.

I totally agree with you.

The normalization of sin in our society is horrible. The people who would have liked to turn the Church upside down during the last decades have not helped in this, either.

https://scontent-b-sea.xx.fbcdn.net...=eb6562df06ecd2e5a793fa8093b89c9b&oe=54D94F7C

 

[Denise1957]

I totally agree with you.

The normalization of sin in our society is horrible. The people who would have liked to turn the Church upside down during the last decades have not helped in this, either.

https://scontent-b-sea.xx.fbcdn.net...=eb6562df06ecd2e5a793fa8093b89c9b&oe=54D94F7C

St. Catherine was, and is, an amazing saint! . That’s a great quote.

 

[commenter]

Have you ever encountered a practising homosexual who also, except for that, is a largely faithful Catholic?

My head hurts at the thought. But, yes, such things exist. I feel rather confused, and yet I feel like I should have known people could or would do this.

My question is, is this homosexual Catholic, living in a life of sin and yet still largely Catholic in culture and to some degree religion - is he any better off than those who feel they can no longer be Catholic because they are “homosexual”?

Or am I just overreacting? Is it really no less strange than the liberal nuns who advocate for women’s ordination and the “pro-choice Catholics” whom some bishops will not excommunicate?

I’m just having trouble believing what I’ve heard. But I am absolutely sure I heard from the same mouth a male Catholic with a relative fervour for the Church - who also is a man with a boyfriend.

My head hurts.

An alcoholic can be a fully practicing Catholic. He tries to stay sober, avoids occasions of drinking, but falls sometimes. He goes to confession, and continues to avoid occasions of drinking. The situation of the homosexual is similar.
But suppose the alcoholic puts himself in situations or relationships that he knows greatly increase his chances of drunkenness even if they might not be dangerous to all people. In that case, he isn’t a practicing Catholic because he isn’t living up to the sacrament of Confession, or moral prudence in general.

If a homosexual “falls” on occasion, can’t overcome the craving triggered by an unexpected temptation, he can get himself back to confession, avoid that temptation in the future, he is a practicing Catholic. But if he has a “boyfriend”, if it is romantic in any way, he isn’t a practicing Catholic. The problem is doubled, because he is reinforcing a pattern of behavior and expectations in the “boyfriend” that go against chastity and prudence. It may be that the boyfriend’s expectations are more sexual, or less sexual, than his own, in either event he is sinning by scandal. Even for other people, seeing him having a boyfriend reinforces the notion that “having a same sex boyfriend is ok”. His having a boyfriend hurts other people. It’s not an unexpected temptation. This is scandal.

It’s not prudent to compare severity of sins (as the OP did) because that leads in our minds “this sin is less bad than that sin”; the next step is that this sin is all right. None of this is part of the road to sainthood.

Same sex marriage is evil because it builds in the source of temptation, makes it much harder to get out of. Having a “steady” same sex partner or boyfriend is no more safe and wholesome than an alcoholic having a full time job serving alcohol.

 

[OraLabora]

But if he has a “boyfriend”, if it is romantic in any way, he isn’t a practicing Catholic. The problem is doubled, because he is reinforcing a pattern of behavior and expectations in the “boyfriend” that go against chastity and prudence. It may be that the boyfriend’s expectations are more sexual, or less sexual, than his own, in either event he is sinning by scandal. Even for other people, seeing him having a boyfriend reinforces the notion that “having a same sex boyfriend is ok”. His having a boyfriend hurts other people. It’s not an unexpected temptation. This is scandal.

It could be that what the homosexual with a partner craves is the emotional, and physical closeness of another loving human being, in additional to the sexual aspect. The sexual aspect means it may not be possible to have that with someone of the opposite sex.

I think we all to a great degree crave that closeness, whether our inclination is ordered or disordered.

I can’t imagine never ever being able to enjoy the closeness of the kind I enjoy with my wife (not just the sexual aspect but the rest). It would be a very cruel burden to bear in my case. I’ve often thought it would be easier to no longer be able to have sexual relations than never being touched again. It’s why I have a hard time condemning a homosexual for similar cravings.

As someone else said earlier, we can’t feel their pain. But we should try to imagine their loneliness. It’s not to say it’s any lonelier than a widow(er) or an unmarried heterosexual or celibate religious or clergy (incidentally something a priest told me is that they often find the lack of emotional and physical closeness more difficult to bear than the lack of sexual contact); but it makes one understand better why one would cave given the opportunity. I know I might, if widowed or divorced, cave into the temptation of an illicit heterosexual relationship if that’s all that was available to me. There but for the grace of God go I.

In short I’m not prepared to say if a homosexual in those shoes is or isn’t a “practicing” Catholic. We all fall short of the glory of God and should bear each others’ foibles with magnanimity.

 

[clem456]

It could be that what the homosexual with a partner craves is the emotional, and physical closeness of another loving human being, in additional to the sexual aspect. The sexual aspect means it may not be possible to have that with someone of the opposite sex.

I think we all to a great degree crave that closeness, whether our inclination is ordered or disordered.

I can’t imagine never ever being able to enjoy the closeness of the kind I enjoy with my wife (not just the sexual aspect but the rest). It would be a very cruel burden to bear in my case. I’ve often thought it would be easier to no longer be able to have sexual relations than never being touched again. It’s why I have a hard time condemning a homosexual for similar cravings.

As someone else said earlier, we can’t feel their pain. But we should try to imagine their loneliness. It’s not to say it’s any lonelier than a widow(er) or an unmarried heterosexual or celibate religious or clergy (incidentally something a priest told me is that they often find the lack of emotional and physical closeness more difficult to bear than the lack of sexual contact); but it makes one understand better why one would cave given the opportunity. I know I might, if widowed or divorced, cave into the temptation of an illicit heterosexual relationship if that’s all that was available to me. There but for the grace of God go I.

In short I’m not prepared to say if a homosexual in those shoes is or isn’t a “practicing” Catholic. We all fall short of the glory of God and should bear each others’ foibles with magnanimity.

What does it mean to be “practicing”?

One thing it does not mean is attained perfection.
Virtue is **the practice of **the virtue in question. The habituation of it. We are all practicing virtue in that regard, are we not? We hope for increase in virtue, we have faith we can move forward by the love of Christ. The reality of sin in our lives does not necessarily mean we are not practicing. Christ’s love “bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.” I try to assume the best of someone, within the dictates of prudence (also a virtue to be practiced).

 

[LatinByzCath]

It could be that what the homosexual with a partner craves is the emotional, and physical closeness of another loving human being, in additional to the sexual aspect. The sexual aspect means it may not be possible to have that with someone of the opposite sex.

I think we all to a great degree crave that closeness, whether our inclination is ordered or disordered.

Spot on. It’s also worth noting that what many same-sex attracted men greatly lack in their lives is affirmation from other men. When I was younger and was exclusively SSA, there’s nothing I wanted more than to just me “one of the guys”, but for some reason I wouldn’t let myself feel that affirmation.

Homosexual relationships have a special aspect of mutual healing and affirmation, which are very important to any individual. (We’ve all got “daddy issues”, but for whatever reason finding out their sons are attracted to the same gender really makes many fathers detach from their sons, which is just as unnatural an arrangement.)

I know of Catholic men who are celibate, and same-sex attracted. They have a “boyfriend”, a roommate of sorts who they are open to about who they are. Their roommates can also be gay, celibate Catholics, and the two rely on each other for understanding and support when the cross of celibacy gets heavy. They don’t have sex. What I mean to say is, in the religious context, having a “boyfriend”, for men or for women, doesn’t (and shouldn’t) mean they’re having sex, or plan to if they cannot be married.

I know two such people, lesbian women who are Eastern Orthodox, and run a blog about their experience, if anyone is interested.

aqueercalling.com/

 

[OraLabora]

What does it mean to be “practicing”?

One thing it does not mean is attained perfection.
Virtue is **the practice of **the virtue in question. The habituation of it. We are all practicing virtue in that regard, are we not? We hope for increase in virtue, we have faith we can move forward by the love of Christ. The reality of sin in our lives does not necessarily mean we are not practicing. Christ’s love “bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.” I try to assume the best of someone, within the dictates of prudence (also a virtue to be practiced).

Indeed, Catholicism is a lot like learning a musical instrument. A few are virtuosos (saints), but it’s worth noting that one becomes a virtuoso with lots of practice. Some of us, self included, can do no better than screech out a harsh note even after lots of practice.

 

[Corki]

I don’t see what that has to do with my question about whether you know for a fact that he is “a practising homosexual” (as you said in the original post), or whether you are just, for some reason, assuming that?

If he has a boyfriend, he’s a practicing homosexual.

 

[commenter]

Indeed, Catholicism is a lot like learning a musical instrument. A few are virtuosos (saints), but it’s worth noting that one becomes a virtuoso with lots of practice. Some of us, self included, can do no better than screech out a harsh note even after lots of practice.

No, actually ALL Christians are saints (in potential), it’s just that most of us throw it away. Secular media and even some Christians point out, well yes, it’s really nice to practice total abstinence when needed, or some other practice (and a few saints can actually do it) but the rest of us regular folks can do quite well with a same sex boyfriend, or some other vice. The media constantly portrays heroes who are more respected because they have their little vices, as compared with boring, holy-holy saint types, with “virtues”.

Our whole culture portrays virtue as something to be admired, but tells us “real people” live their lives in the real world, and pretends maybe being imperfect makes them even more lovable. A homosexual is not more lovable or “human” because he has a same sex boyfriend, anymore than an alcoholic is more lovable because he gets someone else with an alcohol problem to get drunk. Too many Christians have enabled drunkeness, and now are enabling other vices.

The word “vice” comes from the same root as the word “vicious”.

 

[OraLabora]

No, actually ALL Christians are saints (in potential), it’s just that most of us throw it away. Secular media and even some Christians point out, well yes, it’s really nice to practice total abstinence when needed, or some other practice (and a few saints can actually do it) but the rest of us regular folks can do quite well with a same sex boyfriend, or some other vice. The media constantly portrays heroes who are more respected because they have their little vices, as compared with boring, holy-holy saint types, with “virtues”.

Our whole culture portrays virtue as something to be admired, but tells us “real people” live their lives in the real world, and pretends maybe being imperfect makes them even more lovable. A homosexual is not more lovable or “human” because he has a same sex boyfriend, anymore than an alcoholic is more lovable because he gets someone else with an alcohol problem to get drunk. Too many Christians have enabled drunkeness, and now are enabling other vices.

The word “vice” comes from the same root as the word “vicious”.

I think sanctity does take practice. We are all sinners and fall repeatedly. The Sacrament of Reconciliation is there to help us when we do. I’m certainly not suggesting that we at sin. It’s just that for some, some sins are more stubborn and difficult to shake off and we need compassion for those people because, well, I have my own stubborn sins that are difficult to shake off. It doesn’t mean I don’t want to…

I agree though that the media is certainly not from where people should be taking their direction. We shouldn’t seek to admire virtue, we should seek to attain virtue.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Have you ever encountered a practising homosexual who also, except for that, is a largely faithful Catholic?

My head hurts at the thought. But, yes, such things exist. I feel rather confused, and yet I feel like I should have known people could or would do this.

My question is, is this homosexual Catholic, living in a life of sin and yet still largely Catholic in culture and to some degree religion - is he any better off than those who feel they can no longer be Catholic because they are “homosexual”?

Or am I just overreacting? Is it really no less strange than the liberal nuns who advocate for women’s ordination and the “pro-choice Catholics” whom some bishops will not excommunicate?

I’m just having trouble believing what I’ve heard. But I am absolutely sure I heard from the same mouth a male Catholic with a relative fervour for the Church - who also is a man with a boyfriend.

My head hurts.

I think the “except for that” part was a little humorous. But yes, I know several practicing homosexuals who also are active in the Church. I also know a priest who left the priesthood to “marry” a man. And I know adulterers, and people that are pro choice…etc.

They will answer to God. And they have the opportunity to repent. The rest is out of my hands. But I agree it is sad.

 

[clem456]

No, actually ALL Christians are saints (in potential), it’s just that most of us throw it away. Secular media and even some Christians point out, well yes, it’s really nice to practice total abstinence when needed, or some other practice (and a few saints can actually do it) but the rest of us regular folks can do quite well with a same sex boyfriend, or some other vice. The media constantly portrays heroes who are more respected because they have their little vices, as compared with boring, holy-holy saint types, with “virtues”.

Our whole culture portrays virtue as something to be admired, but tells us “real people” live their lives in the real world, and pretends maybe being imperfect makes them even more lovable. A homosexual is not more lovable or “human” because he has a same sex boyfriend, anymore than an alcoholic is more lovable because he gets someone else with an alcohol problem to get drunk. Too many Christians have enabled drunkeness, and now are enabling other vices.

The word “vice” comes from the same root as the word “vicious”.

I’m not sure the culture gives much admiration to virtue. It seems the media-driven culture discourages the practice of virtue period.

While our imperfections don’t necessarily make us more loveable, it’s worth noting that we simply are not perfect. Imperfection is part of being a real person. We don’t need the media to glorify our imperfections…we simply have them. Our imperfections should be admitted (not the same as tolerated) as a cross to be carried. A person who can’t admit his own humanity can’t accept the humanity of another person. Is that a fair statement? I think we run into trouble when we begin comparing the “damnability” of one person or type of sin over another, (while still accepting the Church’s position on degrees of sin…mortal-venial etc…).

This, to me, is the brilliant pastoral direction contained in Pope Francis’ “Who am I to judge”. Here’s what’s interesting:
All the discussion of this phrase is on the words “to judge”. We really get anxious about that word “judge”. We’d like to employ it. We make judgments all the time, use good judgment, judge other people, like to think we know their eternal destiny.

What about his words “Who am I…”?
In the context of being human, this is an important question about our identity. It’s an admission that as a human being, the Pope identifies with his flock. “Identifies” can have a pop-psych connotation, but I think he is recognizing his fundamental identity before God, one that he shares with all of humanity, even homosexuals: This is what I hear the Pope saying:
“We are all created by God, and I accept my common humanity, and recognize that we all need the God who created us. He is our judge.”
Far from excusing behavior, it gives us a commonality, so that we might help one another become saints.

 

[Thomas_White]

It is a difficult issue, but as has been noted there are millions—and reportedly hundreds of millions—of Catholics that have ignored the Encyclical Humanae Vitae and nevertheless have carried on as practicing Catholics. There is much data to support this conclusion. It has also been reported that more than 80% of U.S. Catholics do not believe that artificial contraception is immoral. This is despite the Papal Encyclical that proscribes otherwise.

I can only understand this as the result of Catholics resorting to the primacy of conscience, a core teaching of the Church. Unlike the divorce of a Catholic who remarries in a civil ceremony, the practice of artificial contraception is not transparent, as transparency typically is among remarried Catholics. Only what is known is judged in a meaningful way. I do not expect to attend Mass and hear it said anytime soon that any Catholics violating Humanae Vitae must remain in their seats and not come forth to receive Holy Communion. Divorced and remarried Catholics are often told just that by their pastors.

Then-Cardinal Rozinger, in his Prologue to ‘God and the World’, says that a Catholic must obey the dictates of his or her conscience even if it differs from the official teachings of the Church. Having read several of his works, I saw that his perception and understanding of theology is vastly wider and deeper than is apparently widely understood. The importance of what he said could hardly be overestimated. It means that a Catholic must act in accordance with the dictates of conscience.

Without doubt, there are practicing homosexual Catholics even now receiving Holy Communication. That’s disturbing enough. But I believe the truth sets us free, so I won’t mince words. There is every reason to believe that some of them are Roman Catholic priests. As is the case with Catholics remarried outside the Church, this is not transparent, and if it should become transparent there are or should be consequences. There is reason to believe even that has not in recent years occurred in a meaningful way in every instance. And we know it has been much worse than even that. That bishops can err too there is no doubt.

What to make of all of this? I know I cannot understand all of it. There is in Matthew 7.1 the following: “Judge not, that you not be judged.” That neither I nor any other human being could possibly realize and understand every last bit of what concerns the existential life of hundreds of millions of individual Catholics and then correctly judge all of it is, I think, the very reason for Matthew 7.1. It is utterly beyond our ability and comprehension.

That is not to say that one cannot believe or think than an action is right or wrong. An informed conscience lets us know what is right and wrong, and this is not a judgment. In the case of the adulterous woman of whom Christ says, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone,” it is not that all those present, including Christ himself, do not recognize the sin: “Go and sin no more,” He says to her. The teaching is forgiveness rather than the casting of a stone. In this instance, it is the casting of a stone that would be judgment. And we are told in Matthew 7.1 not to do it.

 

[Thomas_White]

EDIT: In the fifth sentence of the fourth paragraph of my comment above, I stated the following:

“As is the case with Catholics remarried outside the Church, this is not transparent…”

This was an inadvertent misstatement. The sentence should read as follows: “As is the case with Catholics ignoring Humanae Vitae, this is not transparent…”

A civil remarriage outside the Church is indeed often transparent.

 

[OraLabora]

If he has a boyfriend, he’s a practicing homosexual.

Why so? In my youth (I’m male), I had “girlfriends” with whom I was not sexually active. Why could a gay man not have a “boyfriend” while being chaste?

Perhaps that would lead to a non-chaste relationship at some point, but we should not assume that “boyfriend” or “girlfriend” automatically means sexual impropriety. Unless we know for sure otherwise, the charitable course would be to assume the best of the pair, not the worst.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Why so? In my youth (I’m male), I had “girlfriends” with whom I was not sexually active. Why could a gay man not have a “boyfriend” while being chaste?

Perhaps that would lead to a non-chaste relationship at some point, but we should not assume that “boyfriend” or “girlfriend” automatically means sexual impropriety. Unless we know for sure otherwise, the charitable course would be to assume the best of the pair, not the worst.

Because a romantic relationship is what “boyfriend” means. We can be charitable that they may not be engaging in sodomy but they are pursuing an unnatural and unholy bond. Lets not get too far removed from the real world by misusing the idea of “Charity”