A Traditional Catholic... with a boyfriend?

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Not entirely. Since I was age 6 (more than 60 years ago), I have attended Mass. Not once have I ever seen any of the anti-gay behaviour you describe while I was inside a Catholic Church. In my experience, that one is gay isn’t even known inside a Catholic Church. That might not be true, however, in every case. I don’t know.

But is the issue that openly gay individuals, and gay couples, should be able to freely and openly receive Holy Communion?

I often hear people claim that they’ve never seen discrimination against divorced people, but if they become one they quickly change their tune.

I’ll admit that most of us (humans) were at one time, sinners.

"Romans 3:23:

For all have sinned and do need the glory of God.

OP said this guy was a practicing homosexual. What is a practicing homosexual? What happens when a faithful Catholic gay guy or woman finds a boyfriend/girlfriend. My son found a girl he really liked. As time went on they became more serious. They became more affectionate, they held hands and each other. They kissed, they went on outings together and spent most of their time together. The natural progression was they wanted to get married. I don’t know if they were intimate before they were married, but they could have been. Everyone knows how it feels to be close to someone you have feelings for. I think it’s a problem for gay people because if they end up being serious and wanting to marry then the are in trouble with Church teachings. The point I am trying to make is; If you are gay you have the same wants and desires that we all have. Most of us found someone we really liked and married and settled down. That’s not something gay people in the Church can do. That means that they have SSA and no relationships or have a platonic loving one without ever being physical or marrying. It’s a problem for those that find someone.

It is possible to have a meaningful and deep relationships without sex. While sex can certainly be quite enjoyable I do not think it meaningfully improves a relationship.

 

[SMGS127]

It is possible to have a meaningful and deep relationships without sex.

Agreed.

While sex can certainly be quite enjoyable I do not think it meaningfully improves a relationship.

Whoaaaaaa. Even I don’t go that far. Sex clearly improves relationships, both marital and non-marital, and if the Church didn’t teach the sinfulness of same-sex sexual acts, I would not hesitate to engage in them in order to improve my emotional bond with my girlfriends. It is a very vulnerable form of intimacy.

However, with that said, this gift of intimacy also comes with rules on which we are expected to use it, which is why I am celibate. But to say it doesn’t improve relationships is fairly inaccurate Joie. It may be the case for some people (namely asexuals), but not for most, I would argue.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Agreed.

Whoaaaaaa. Even I don’t go that far. Sex clearly improves relationships, both marital and non-marital, and if the Church didn’t teach the sinfulness of same-sex sexual acts, I would not hesitate to engage in them in order to improve my emotional bond with my girlfriends. It is a very vulnerable form of intimacy.

However, with that said, this gift of intimacy also comes with rules on which we are expected to use it, which is why I am celibate. But to say it doesn’t improve relationships is fairly inaccurate Joie. It may be the case for some people (namely asexuals), but not for most, I would argue.

There are two important phrases in that sentence “I think” and “meaningfully improve” the former of which denotes that what follows is my opinion that I recognize as such and the latter denotes that I am talking about improves it enough to matter.

Is sex fun? It can be quite fun.
Is it intimate? Yes, I don’t think it is more intimate than anything else.
Is it vulnerable? In that particular moment you are vulnerable.

I personally think that to lay bare your soul, to expose your hopes, dreams and fears to make yourself vulnerable not just in that moment, but forever is more intimate than an act which leaves one temporarily physically vulnerable.

In retrospect I think to use the word “deepen” would have been a better choice than “improve”.

 

[esieffe]

They want the Church to accept that homosexuality is ordained by God and thus natural, nothing less.

I am afraid I can’t agree with that. There are single Catholics who do not fornicate and stay single. Why is such a leap of faith to assume there are not SSAs who want to be Catholic and go to heaven. Single heterosexuals aren’t waiting around for the CC to approve fornication, what’s the difference?

If someone who is gay in a sexual active relationship, wants to be accepted by a church, they would find much greener pastures in an Episcopal or Methodist Church. I am sure there are gay people who would love for the CC to change doctrine, but why put your money on a horse that is bound to lose? It doesn’t add up.

 

[esieffe]

Even though many in the “world” labeled me as homosexual, I was never labeled this way in the Catholic Church nor much less treated badly. Sins are a private affair mostly, until we do something that calls attention.

In the case of those with SSA, they cannot accept that people won’t accept their condition, .

I am a single Catholic male, and I am sure that there are people in the church who wonder if I am shacking up with ladies every Saturday night. There might be those who even wonder if I am gay, simply because I am not married. I could care less either way. I am not there to gain anyone’s approval. I am there to get closer to God, not to win a popularity contest.

Our liturgy director is gay and has said on many occasions he does not care what people think. As far as I know, he is celibate, but I certainly am not going to ask him as it is completely none of my business.

I hate it that you were tormented as a child with these accusations that proved to be false. Why can you not offer that same benefit of doubt as to the motives of your fellow Catholics who happen to be gay and in your church? Maybe they love Catholicism for what it is, maybe they like all the spiritual tools we have access to. Why does it have to be that they want to rope everyone in to agreeing or sympathizing with them? Maybe they just want to go to church.

I don’t mean to be harsh, really I don’t but don’t let the awful pain you went through as a child color your views about an entire segment of society, and please, consider taking your Catholic brothers here on CAF at their word.

Peace and blessing be with you.

 

[desales09]

I thought I would join in and share my thoughts.

There are two ways we can err in this matter.

One way we can err - and I haven’t read anybody erring in this direction - is to condemn the homosexual and his “boyfriend.”

The other way we can err - and I, at least, think several have erred in this direction - is to pretend “boyfriend” means something other than it does in the effort to “not judge” and “be charitable.” (And, along with this, by scolding the OP for being legitimately scandalized by the use of the word “boyfriend”).

I think the gospel way is to recognize the situation for what it is, call a spade a spade, and then pray for these two people. The OP can be truly charitable by continuing his friendship with this man and speaking the truth in love as the opportunity presents itself. Maybe he can start by asking, when it comes up, “Can I ask what you mean by ‘boyfriend’?” Then go from there with Church teaching as your guide. If this particular work of mercy (admonishing the sinner) seems scary, believe me, I know, and I fall short of this standard. But I think the quote below is correct:

“Mercy without truth is an empty gesture. Kindness without correction is cowardly.” Fr. Dwight Longnecker

 

[Kurisu35712]

I don’t see the problem with openly gay individuals being able to freely receive Communion. Being gay or lesbian has never been a sin in the Church. I understand the uncomfortability people have with gay or lesbian couples, but if they are completely chaste, then they are still in a state of grace and would be able to receive as well. Obviously any sexually active gay people would be barred, just as any sexually active unmarried straight people would be. But that’s not really the biggest concern, considering all of this is already currently in place and allowed. The concern is with the vile atmosphere in the Church.

Again, you just don’t notice. For a gay person, we hear every sly remark someone makes about gays or lesbians. We get upset every time we hear the fake gays/pedophilia link. We have to put up with homilies on how “ridiculous” gay relationships are (YES, that was a real homily, only a few weeks ago). We have to put up with people talking about how we have this “lifestyle” and how immoral we are and how we’re “sodomites.” We have to put up with people automatically assuming sexual promiscuity, even if we’re celibate and not in a relationship. We have to deal with people afraid to allow us around their children.

The thing is, you don’t see any of this because it doesn’t affect your life. But there is a reason that the Synod of the Family emphasized respect of homosexuals. There are many who openly disregard respect for us whatsoever. And if members of the Church aren’t even respecting celibate homosexuals, they’re certainly not respecting our gay & lesbian brethren in deep sin that we need to be reaching out to, not hatefully condemning.

Hear hear.

The generalizations faced by people with SSA, gay and bisexual alike, can be, quite obviously, devastating. They are really the last thing one wants to hear when struggling with these feelings you are told so often are wrong, yet can’t stop yourself from feeling. Stop yourself from acting on, certainly. But controlling ones thoughts and desires is not quite as simple.

I’m equally able to relate to homosexual and heterosexual individuals. And I would like to say this. I do not see it as appropriate or charitable to *assume *that simply because one has a boyfriend, that they are therefore unchaste and unworthy to receive Communion. As we do not know what they are doing, we cannot and should not decide that they are unable to receive. It is not our place to determine whether or not other parishioners are in a state of mortal sin.

I’ve only ever dated girls. And honestly, it’s really only been one girl anyway. People always assume that because we’ve been dating for… what 5 years now, that obviously we’ve had sex. But we haven’t. And honestly, I’ve started to find it entertaining to tell people that I am a virgin if they ask, because the look of surprise on their faces is terribly amusing. The fact that this surprises people says more to me about them than it does about me.

I’d also like to agree with OraLabora here. Seeking platonic intimacy with another person, regardless of their gender, is undeniably a good thing. To consign people with SSA to a life of emotionally detached relationships simply because they are attracted to their own gender rather than the opposite is frankly quite cruel. It is difficult for people with SSA to essentially be told they are to be lonely forever, when they can look and see so many other people in emotionally intimate and fulfilling relationships. I understand that that is hyperbole and no one is telling them that they are to be alone. But one must strive to understand the sentiment that is being conveyed. Choosing not to have sex is in no way impossible. But the pain of loneliness is certainly something that cannot be endured forever.

“Disinterested friendship” in no way means that those with SSA are condemned to a life of solidarity, merely entrusted with a life of celibacy. It would be prudent of us not to immediately assume that the term boyfriend/girlfriend means rampant or even occasional sexual activity. Given the societal context of the words, that can certainly be a potential implication. But as asserted by other posters on this very thread, that does not have to be (and I would imagine with practicing Catholics is often not) the case. We should indeed admonish the sinner. But we are not arbiters of God’s Justice. We are proclaimers of His Mercy. If sexual activity is not a confirmed fact, it is not charitable of us to assume such of any couple, and condemn the couple for it.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

I thought I would join in and share my thoughts.

There are two ways we can err in this matter.

One way we can err - and I haven’t read anybody erring in this direction - is to condemn the homosexual and his “boyfriend.”

The other way we can err - and I, at least, think several have erred in this direction - is to pretend “boyfriend” means something other than it does in the effort to “not judge” and “be charitable.” (And, along with this, by scolding the OP for being legitimately scandalized by the use of the word “boyfriend”).

I think the gospel way is to recognize the situation for what it is, call a spade a spade, and then pray for these two people. The OP can be truly charitable by continuing his friendship with this man and speaking the truth in love as the opportunity presents itself. Maybe he can start by asking, when it comes up, “Can I ask what you mean by ‘boyfriend’?” Then go from there with Church teaching as your guide. If this particular work of mercy (admonishing the sinner) seems scary, believe me, I know, and I fall short of this standard. But I think the quote below is correct:

“Mercy without truth is an empty gesture. Kindness without correction is cowardly.” Fr. Dwight Longnecker

Have you considered that boyfriend just means significant other to him? It doesn’t necessarily mean one is in a sexual relationship.

“Truth” without basic human decency is futile.

 

[BrassAnkles]

Only sex in a marriage can make the relationship stronger, not homosexual sex in any kind of relationship. That actually undermines the relationship.

 

[Corki]

Have you considered that boyfriend just means significant other to him? It doesn’t necessarily mean one is in a sexual relationship.

“Truth” without basic human decency is futile.

Whether it’s a sexual relationship is largely irrelevant. It’s still immoral to call another man his “boyfriend” and to opine that homosexual relationships are not sinful. It is immoral to be in a romantic relationship with a member of the same sex even if it isn’t, or isn’t yet, sexual.

Words like “boyfriend” and “significant other” might have had a purely platonic meaning in decades past but in current language have a connotation of a romantic attachment rather than just a close friendship. It is highly unlikely, to the point of being nearly implausible, that someone would choose to refer to his own relationship like that if all he means is a good friend.

 

[Jubilarian]

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.

 

[Jubilarian]

When it comes to homosexuality, my brain (much to my dismay) envisions what one gay person is physically doing to another . That should squash any difficulty with the "practicing Catholic’ mindset.

 

[BrassAnkles]

I am a single Catholic male, and I am sure that there are people in the church who wonder if I am shacking up with ladies every Saturday night. There might be those who even wonder if I am gay, simply because I am not married. I could care less either way. I am not there to gain anyone’s approval. I am there to get closer to God, not to win a popularity contest.

Our liturgy director is gay and has said on many occasions he does not care what people think. As far as I know, he is celibate, but I certainly am not going to ask him as it is completely none of my business.

I hate it that you were tormented as a child with these accusations that proved to be false. Why can you not offer that same benefit of doubt as to the motives of your fellow Catholics who happen to be gay and in your church? Maybe they love Catholicism for what it is, maybe they like all the spiritual tools we have access to. Why does it have to be that they want to rope everyone in to agreeing or sympathizing with them? Maybe they just want to go to church.

I don’t mean to be harsh, really I don’t but don’t let the awful pain you went through as a child color your views about an entire segment of society, and please, consider taking your Catholic brothers here on CAF at their word.

Peace and blessing be with you.

I am only opposed to those that would claim that homosexuality is innate or that the Catholic Church is not clear that this is a psychological condition because it has very serious consequences.

One, for those struggling with this issue, as opposed to others who have embraced it, this disinformation can cause them to believe their condition is permanent and as such not recognize that SSA is disordered and thus not believe they can be healed.

Two, some of those who embrace their homosexuality on this forum also state they let advise others that struggle with SSA, even young adults, that it is perfectly normal thus worsening the persons identity crisis and causing them to doubt that they can be healed.

Peace.

 

[BHL_20]

There is PLENTY of reason for them to be dating. Companionship is a clear good. An obvious good that everyone can agree is a good. In American and most other cultures, dating is not about marital discernment; or rather, “being a boyfriend/girlfriend” is not about marital discernment. Societally, the phrase is used merely to describe one’s companionship with/commitment to someone else. It has no sexual connotations – asexuals who are not aromantic actually prefer relationships with no sexual involvement.

So yes, plenty of good can come out of chaste homosexual relationships. We are not uncontrollable animals who cannot go a day without involving our genitalia with another person. We can handle chaste relationships. And it is in the Catechism that one must always assume chastity. Always.

The Catholic Church does not go by the definition of dating used by American culture. Heterosexuals shouldn’t date either, if they don’t intend to get married in the foreseeable future. It would be wrong for me just to date a girl because I wanted companionship.

 

[Corki]

The Catholic Church does not go by the definition of dating used by American culture. Heterosexuals shouldn’t date either, if they don’t intend to get married in the foreseeable future. It would be wrong for me just to date a girl because I wanted companionship.

In or out of the Church, dating is not something that a person can do with anyone he/she chooses without sinning. If I, a married woman, date another man, that’s sinful. It’s not all “fine” until we commit adultery. It’s already wrong. If a man “dates” his sister or his niece, it’s wrong. If a homosexual man dates another homosexual man, it’s wrong.

 

[Thorolfr]

If someone who is gay in a sexual active relationship, wants to be accepted by a church, they would find much greener pastures in an Episcopal or Methodist Church. I am sure there are gay people who would love for the CC to change doctrine, but why put your money on a horse that is bound to lose? It doesn’t add up.

The United Methodist Church is not very affirming of “practicing homosexuals”, at least not yet:

As stated in the Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church, the United Methodist Church holds that “homosexual persons no less than heterosexual persons are individuals of sacred worth.” In other words, all individuals are of worth to God. Nevertheless, in keeping with historic Church teaching, it considers the “practice of homosexuality [to be] incompatible with Christian teaching,” For this reason, the “United Methodist Church does not condone the practice of homosexuality” or allow “self-avowed practicing homosexuals” to be “certified as candidates, ordained as ministers, or appointed to serve in The United Methodist Church.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Methodism

 

[BrassAnkles]

In or out of the Church, dating is not something that a person can do with anyone he/she chooses without sinning. If I, a married woman, date another man, that’s sinful. It’s not all “fine” until we commit adultery. It’s already wrong. If a man “dates” his sister or his niece, it’s wrong. If a homosexual man dates another homosexual man, it’s wrong.

 

[Thomas_White]

What the question before the Synod concerning homosexuality means is anything but clear, or at least it isn’t to me. What does it mean, exactly, that the Church should be more open and accepting of homosexuals and homosexual couples? I understand the words, but what might it entail? I don’t know. Is it that these individuals should be permitted to receive Holy Communion or is it that the Church should embrace them in some other meaningful way? Again, I don’t know. In that context, and though there is no fault here in the discussion by anyone, I don’t really understand the thread. What is it exactly that we are discussing?

There has very obviously been considerable abuse hurled toward homosexuals in our society, and that the affected individuals would feel discriminated against is entirely understandable. It is not paranoia. And the abuse and discrimination is clearly wrong, so the end of that question for me, though I have not seen any comments that disagree with this.

There is a second major question on the agenda of the Synod, and it concerns divorced and remarried Catholics. Society is not hostile toward heterosexual couples remarried in a civil ceremony, so there is a huge difference. But these remarried Catholic must remain in their pews as others go forth to receive Holy Communion—or at least if they obey the teachings of the Church they should not go forth to receive Communion. Maybe: there remains the primacy of conscience, with the individual knowing things nobody else could know about the Sanctity of his or her Marriage in the Church. And it also involves what is said in Matthew 7.1.

There are often readings and homilies that condemn adultery, and that is exactly the way the Church perceives the situation of divorced and remarried Catholics. And it is presumptive. This is as it is, and it is surely a difficult experience for those individuals and one that could easily be perceived by them as not particularly welcoming of their presence in a very significant way—that though they are Catholic they are not accepted into communion with the faithful. And this is very visible. It would be understandable if such an individual decided he or she could no longer endure this situation and vanished from the Church. This involves many millions of souls, and their numbers surely far exceed those of homosexual Catholics. In my view, this is the work of the judgments of the post-Vatican II marriage tribunals by their retroactively judging the validity of a Sacrament. That this is problematic ought to be obvious. How could what was once considered a valid Sacrament under Canon Law become invalid, under continually evolving rules, by the later judgment of human beings?

This is entirely at issue in the question before the Synod, with Pope Francis reportedly concerned that as Canon Law is interpreted and applied by the marriage tribunals nearly half of all Catholic marriages are invalid. Those who do receive an annulment are usually permitted to remarry in the Church. It is known that many divorced Catholics do not perceive the marriage tribunals, for various reasons and with Matthew 7.1 not the least of them, as legitimate and thus do not bother to seek an annulment. For many, I think, this involves rather a question of the primacy of conscience, just as it surely does concerning the Encyclical Humanae Vitae.

These are important questions. That the Pope is concerned is proper, I think.

 

[Thorolfr]

Why can you not offer that same benefit of doubt as to the motives of your fellow Catholics who happen to be gay and in your church? Maybe they love Catholicism for what it is, maybe they like all the spiritual tools we have access to. Why does it have to be that they want to rope everyone in to agreeing or sympathizing with them? Maybe they just want to go to church.

I have a friend who is gay and is still an active member of the Catholic Church. I don’t know if he is celibate or not since I haven’t asked him (it’s none of my business), but I did ask him once why he remains in a church that, at least to me, seems very hostile to gay people. And he said that he was raised Catholic and still loves its traditions. I understand that. There are some traditions of the Catholic Church that I also find very appealing even though I’m not Catholic and was baptized in a Southern Baptist church. For me, the Southern Baptist church and some other Protestant denominations like it seem rather plain and austere with a bone dry spirituality. I like the ritual in the Catholic Church. The mystical tradition in Catholicism interests me very much: John Scott Eriugena, Meister Eckhart, Julian of Norwich, John of the Cross, Richard Rolle, etc. I’ve also been interested in the cult of the Saints for a long time. Right now I’m a member of a Lutheran Church which I like much more than the Baptist church I grew up in. It has a lot more ritual and tradition than the Baptist church (or at least it feels that way to me) and my partner of 17 years was also raised Lutheran.

 

[SMGS127]

In or out of the Church, dating is not something that a person can do with anyone he/she chooses without sinning. If I, a married woman, date another man, that’s sinful. It’s not all “fine” until we commit adultery. It’s already wrong. If a man “dates” his sister or his niece, it’s wrong. If a homosexual man dates another homosexual man, it’s wrong.

Completely irrelevant. You are also barred from being alone in a locked room with another man, but that does not mean a single woman (or man) would also be barred from such. By nature of being in a vocation, you have volunteered to put a high number of restrictions on your behavior that are not placed on the behavior of a single person. A single gay man can be in a non-sexual, platonic relationship with another man just as a single straight woman can be in a non-sexual, platonic relationship with another man. However, a married woman (or man) or a priest or nun or brother, etc. cannot by virtue of their vocation.

Whether it’s a sexual relationship is largely irrelevant. It’s still immoral to call another man his “boyfriend” and to opine that homosexual relationships are not sinful. It is immoral to be in a romantic relationship with a member of the same sex even if it isn’t, or isn’t yet, sexual.

Words like “boyfriend” and “significant other” might have had a purely platonic meaning in decades past but in current language have a connotation of a romantic attachment rather than just a close friendship. It is highly unlikely, to the point of being nearly implausible, that someone would choose to refer to his own relationship like that if all he means is a good friend.

That’s actually highly incorrect. Asexuals often refer to their romantic partners as “boyfriends” or “girlfriends.” Many people who are not asexual also engage in non-sexual relationships with each other. There is nothing immoral about doing so, because they are not dating in the Catholic sense, only in the American culture sense of companionship.

Two points are brought up in discussing this issue, both of which are irrelevant.

One is the issue of temptation, but temptation is a highly personal matter, and temptation can never be used to issue a blanket [im]morality on a behavior. For example, many straight Catholic men avoid the beach because it causes immoral lusting. However, as a lesbian, despite my attraction to women, mainly have the reaction of “dang I wish my body looked like that! So jelly!” and don’t really lust, so I don’t avoid the beach. Thus, it is immoral for straight men who can’t handle the beach to go to the beach, but it is not immoral for me to go to the beach, despite my attraction to women.

The second is the issue of scandal, which is also irrelevant. Why? Because scandal is defined as acting or speaking in a manner likely to lead others into sin or believing in the neutrality of a sin. The only people who will assume a sexual nature must be present in a gay relationship are radical Puritan conservatives, the group I find least likely to be led into thinking gay relationships are fine. In many cases, actually, being open to relationships has led to far more evangelization experiences, as I have been able to sit down with friends (both Catholic and non-Catholic) and explain Catholic sexual teaching in the context of explaining why I seek a celibate relationship.

So, no, being a “boyfriend” or “girlfriend” of a member of the same sex is not immoral. Treating it as if you are dating for purposes of a Catholic vocation would be, and acting in a sexual manner would be, but merely providing each other companionship and non-sexual intimacy is not immoral, nor is labelling it/making it exclusive. One should always assume the most charitable assumption about a brother or sister in Christ – e.g., that the gay man referred to in the OP is in a non-sexual relationship with his boyfriend.