A Traditional Catholic... with a boyfriend?

[Joie_de_Vivre]

When it comes to homosexuality, behaviors that are based on one’s attractions to the same sex that in a heterosexual person would be ordered toward the opposite sex. Noninclusive of actions such as PDAs, dating, entering a civil union, holding themselves out to others as a couple.

If it is an activity that a homosexual person does with all of his/her friends regardless of sex and regardless of attraction, it is probably not immoral.

I totally agree that presenting themselves as a married couple or entering into a marriage is sinful however having a legal mechanism by which they are automatic assumed as next of kin and other such things is not inherently sinful.

Why is holding each other out as a couple wrong? Assume said couple does not hold themselves out as married.

What PDAs are wrong?

What exactly within dating is wrong?

That’s the point. My closest friend is a homosexual man I have known since high school. We have a level of commitment and love that is more than any of my other friends - male or female - other than my husband. I would never call him my boyfriend because “boyfriend” conveys something more - something that is not just a friendship, no matter how deep that friendship might be.

The issue with calling him boyfriend is that it denotes a level of commitment that borders spousal neglect, not that someone might take it as sexual.

No, sexual immorality is not THE sin, it is A sin. It is not the only sin. Being a caretaker is not a sin. Having a same sex boyfriend or girlfriend in a relationship that is exclusive and romantic is.

Why is it a sin? On what basis do you claim it sin? It is certainly a common opinion for many conservatives, but is it truly Church teaching?

 

[clem456]

I totally agree that presenting themselves as a married couple or entering into a marriage is sinful however having a legal mechanism by which they are automatic assumed as next of kin and other such things is not inherently sinful.

Why is holding each other out as a couple wrong? Assume said couple does not hold themselves out as married.

What PDAs are wrong?

What exactly within dating is wrong?

The issue with calling him boyfriend is that it denotes a level of commitment that borders spousal neglect, not that someone might take it as sexual.

Why is it a sin? On what basis do you claim it sin? It is certainly a common opinion for many conservatives, but is it truly Church teaching?

If the relationship is conducted under the ruse that it is spousal, that is a deception. Connect the dots concerning deception.
What degree of sin is that? How would I know? It’s not our job to condemn others, but it is our call to speak the truth. Pretending a relationship is something it is not is dishonest.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

If the relationship is conducted under the ruse that it is spousal, that is a deception. Connect the dots concerning deception.
What degree of sin is that? How would I know? It’s not our job to condemn others, but it is our call to speak the truth. Pretending a relationship is something it is not is dishonest.

If you could please rephrase that as I have no idea what that means I’d be much obliged.

 

[clem456]

If you could please rephrase that as I have no idea what that means I’d be much obliged.

Correct me if I am wrong…
You are referring to relationships that have all the elements of spousal relationships, without the sex. Is that right or am I confusing your post with others?

 

[SMGS127]

Correct me if I am wrong…
You are referring to relationships that have all the elements of spousal relationships, without the sex. Is that right or am I confusing your post with others?

I think Joie is asking you what you mean by “spousal relationship.” I’m somewhat confused too.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Correct me if I am wrong…
You are referring to relationships that have all the elements of spousal relationships, without the sex. Is that right or am I confusing your post with others?

What do you mean by “spousal” and why do you use the word “ruse” in relationship to it.

 

[OraLabora]

What do you mean by “spousal” and why do you use the word “ruse” in relationship to it.

I think he means that they’re being tricked into thinking that their relationship is somehow equivalent to a spousal relationship, or tricked into thinking that “husband and husband” or “wife and wife” are somehow equivalent to “husband and wife”.

That’s a ruse, or deception, because by definition a spousal (or perhaps a better term here would be conjugal) relationship can only be one that involves two persons of the opposite sex. The very etymology of the word “conjugal” refers to “unite”. Physiologically, a conjugal union is only possible between members of the opposite sex, because that is a true union: both parties become one physiological entity designed to have a physiological outcome (insemination).

Same-sex relations do not unite two persons in any physiological sense, though I would venture to say that psychologically it may be another matter. But there’s no way that such a union could ever be more than a pseudo-marriage without entirely changing the definition of marriage; and to do so would require that we come up with a new term for a conjugal union (assuming the word “conjugal” is also adulterated to be something it isn’t).

There’s simply no way that we can make two things that are completely different, completely equivalent. A conjugal (in the traditional sense) union is more “valuable” than a same-sex one, because it can fulfill a primary biological function (reproduction) which the same-sex one cannot.

 

[BrassAnkles]

If the relationship is conducted under the ruse that it is spousal, that is a deception. Connect the dots concerning deception.
What degree of sin is that? How would I know? It’s not our job to condemn others, but it is our call to speak the truth. Pretending a relationship is something it is not is dishonest.

 

[BrassAnkles]

Please post a defense, supported by papal evidence, that an exclusive, non-sexual, relationship of caretaking between two members of the same sex is immoral merely because they call each other their “boyfriends” or “girlfriends.” There was a 1000-page thread about this very issue where people were completely unable to defend their position and just spouted it off as fact with no evidence. If you are so confident in your position, surely you can find some comment about it somewhere from some papal statement.

A thousand pages and no one could find a doctrinal defense???

"There are some who have been so used to idolatry up until now that, when they eat meat sacrificed to idols,* their conscience, which is weak,** is defiled. Now food will not bring us closer to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, nor are we better off if we do. But make sure that this liberty of yours in no way becomes a stumbling block to the weak. If someone sees you, with your knowledge, reclining at table in the temple of an idol, may not his conscience too, weak as it is, be “built up” to eat the meat sacrificed to idols? **Thus through your knowledge, the weak person is brought to destruction, the brother for whom Christ died. When you sin in this way against your brothers and wound their consciences, weak as they are, you are sinning against Christ. **Therefore, if food causes my brother to sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I may not cause my brother to sin." *

 

[Thomas_White]

That’s the point. My closest friend is a homosexual man I have known since high school. We have a level of commitment and love that is more than any of my other friends - male or female - other than my husband. I would never call him my boyfriend because “boyfriend” conveys something more - something that is not just a friendship, no matter how deep that friendship might be.

There is the concept of “emotional infidelity”. By definition, it does not involve physical intimacy. There are other terms for that, such as adultery. Emotional infidelity involves a close relationship with a third party, usually of the opposite gender, that does not include the spouse. It can be as hurtful to the spouse as actual adultery. This emotional closeness and sharing with a third party can be extremely insidious in a marriage and often results in marital strife and divorce.

I’m certainly not saying this is the case here. How would I know? But I see the comment and wish to repond. That’s all. My comment is meant to explain that infidelity, or the perception of it, does not necessarily involve physical intimacy. But it means nothing at all relative to your comment.

 

[clem456]

What do you mean by “spousal” and why do you use the word “ruse” in relationship to it.

Ora had a good answer above.
It seems to me the point of departure in this thread is the use of the word “boyfriend”. The word has an undeniable connotation in our culture. It seems to me that denying this meaning is a self deception. Friend is the term we use for friends…
“This is my close friend Tom”. Using “boyfriend” for a platonic same sex relationship is twisting commonly held language for…what purpose? What is the point?

If I am someone’s friend, why would I make the choice to use the charged term “boyfriend”, rather than the simple, accurate, and direct term “friend”. If I use “boyfriend”, It seems I am representing a relationship as something it is not. Or on the other hand, I am taking an inappropriately intimate relationship and proposing it for common acceptance by twisting the meaning of the language. In that case, aren’t I asking others to adjust their understanding of the face value of the word, and bend the meaning to something else"? Why would I want to twist commonly held modes of communication to fit my personal understanding? That it seems, is an agenda, since it goes against commonly held understanding.

By spousal I simply mean a relationship that holds all the elements of a marriage, even if the sexual is set aside ( and again, I would submit that a couple of true friends who live together would not use the word boyfriend to describe their relationship).

Spousal:
Exclusive in it’s intimacy. The couple has physical elements that are exclusive to that arrangement, that would not be practiced with any other friend.

Common and intimate living arrangements. Sharing a bed. Sharing a checking account.

A sense of common familial and economic inheritance between a couple… rearing of children together, leaving property to one another.

I am all for getting rid of the phobias surrounding spiritually intimate friendships between two men and two women, and moving back to a classic model of friendship. A good read in this area is “Spiritual Friendship” by Aelred of Rievaulx, a great treatise on what true friendship is.
I am also for speaking truthfully and plainly about marriage, and not bending the language in ways that don’t serve much purpose other than to decieve.

 

[SMGS127]

Spousal:
Exclusive in it’s intimacy. The couple has physical elements that are exclusive to that arrangement, that would not be practiced with any other friend.

Common and intimate living arrangements. Sharing a bed. Sharing a checking account.

A sense of common familial and economic inheritance between a couple… rearing of children together, leaving property to one another.

Almost all of this was commonly done between very close friends (yes, even exclusivity, see John Newman + Fr. Ambrose) in human history before the Puritan age; you are speaking out of American bias . Very few things were limited to marital couples, all of which revolved around sex. It has been a modern bias that these things are now done between people who call themselves “boyfriends” or “girlfriends;” that term is a recent term, and before there was a distinct separation between close, exclusive friendships between single people and pre-vocational discerning of marriage.

 

[clem456]

Almost all of this was commonly done between very close friends (yes, even exclusivity, see John Newman + Fr. Ambrose) in human history before the Puritan age; you are speaking out of American bias . .

Is bias a bad thing per se? It seems the problem with bias is when we don’t admit we have it. Don’t we all have a bias, a way of looking at things, formed by the culture we live in? Our way of looking at things is expressed by the words we use. If we can’t even agree on common usage of language as it is used in the here and now, how can there be an honest discussion?

 

[Denise1957]

Is bias a bad thing per se? It seems the problem with bias is when we don’t admit we have it. Don’t we all have a bias, a way of looking at things, formed by the culture we live in? Our way of looking at things is expressed by the words we use. If we can’t even agree on common usage of language as it is used in the here and now, how can there be an honest discussion?

I agree that we all have bias, but we have the Church to define what is sinful. Whether or not we have a bias in one direction or another, we use Church teaching to inform and direct our actions so that we can avoid occasions of sin; that is, if we believe that the Church is really the one true Church that Christ founded.

 

[clem456]

This apostolic letter is in the context of mass communications, but this paragraph seems relevant to this discussion, or to the idea of honest communication anyway…:
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_20050124_il-rapido-sviluppo_en.html

Throughout the history of salvation, Christ presents himself to us as the “communicator” of the Father: “God, in these last days, has spoken to us through his Son” (Heb 1:2). The eternal Word made flesh, in communicating Himself, always shows respect for those who listen, teaches understanding of their situation and needs, is moved to compassion for their suffering and to a resolute determination to say to them only what they need to hear without imposition or compromise, deceit or manipulation. Jesus teaches that communication is a moral act, “A good person brings forth good out of a store of goodness, but an evil person brings forth evil out of a store of evil. I tell you, on the Day of Judgment people will render an account for every careless word they speak. By your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.” (Mt 12: 35-37)

 

[Thomas_White]

When a male has a ‘girlfriend’ or a woman has a ‘boyfriend’, the connotation is generally understood as involving romance. When a woman says she has a ‘girlfriend’, or ‘girlfriends’, it is usually understood as a reference to a friend or friends, and there is no perception of romance. However, when a male says he has a ‘boyfriend’, the term is generally understood quite differently from that of a woman having a ‘girlfriend’. Males have buddies, pals or just plain friends, even close friends, and this is also understood as not involving romance. So, words have a contextual meaning. For a male to have a friend that is a boy is one thing, for him to have a boyfriend is quite another. This is just the way all this is usually understood.

What follows is important: when a divorced Catholic enters into a civil marriage it is at once problematic with the Church. What is problematic is not friendship but the presumption of conjugal relations–ipso facto there is the presumption of adultery. Any sexual intimacy by Catholics that occurs outside of marriage in the Church is an issue, and even conjugal relations occurring within a Catholic marriage are considered sinful if the sole intent of such relations is anything other than propagation—the intent to conceive a child. This is the teaching of the papal Encyclical Humanae Vitae. How this applies to couples beyond a certain age is somewhat mysterious. The explanations I have seen involve the miraculous and sound more like rationalizations—e.g., there remains the possibility that an 87 year-old woman could conceive a child. Sure, no doubt this is what the faithful couple is hoping to achieve.

This is, in part, is why I believe that the primacy of conscience should be genuinely acknowledged. It is a core teaching of the Church. It provides that a Catholic must act in accordance with the dictates of an informed conscience even when it is contrary the teachings of the Church. Pope Benedict XVI is himself adamant on this point.

 

[clem456]

When a male has a ‘girlfriend’ or a woman has a ‘boyfriend’, the connotation is generally understood as involving romance. When a woman says she has a ‘girlfriend’, or ‘girlfriends’, it is usually understood as a reference to a friend or friends, and there is no perception of romance. However, when a male says he has a ‘boyfriend’, the term is generally understood quite differently from that of a woman having a ‘girlfriend’. Males have buddies, pals or just plain friends, even close friends, and this is also understood as not involving romance. So, words have a contextual meaning. For a male to have a friend that is a boy is one thing, for him to have a boyfriend is quite another. This is just the way all this is usually understood.

What follows is important: when a divorced Catholic enters into a civil marriage it is at once problematic with the Church. What is problematic is not friendship but the presumption of conjugal relations–ipso facto there is the presumption of adultery. Any sexual intimacy by Catholics that occurs outside of marriage in the Church is an issue, and even conjugal relations occurring within a Catholic marriage are considered sinful if the sole intent of such relations is anything other than propagation—the intent to conceive a child. This is the teaching of the papal Encyclical Humanae Vitae. How this applies to couples beyond a certain age is somewhat mysterious. The explanations I have seen involve the miraculous and sound more like rationalizations—e.g., there remains the possibility that an 87 year-old woman could conceive a child. Sure, no doubt this is what the faithful couple is hoping to achieve.

This is, in part, is why I believe that the primacy of conscience should be genuinely acknowledged. It is a core teaching of the Church. It provides that a Catholic must act in accordance with the dictates of an informed conscience even when it is contrary the teachings of the Church. Pope Benedict XVI is himself adamant on this point.

Open to…procreation.
Which is not the same as able to procreate.
The act has a form. The form is open to procreation, whether or not a couple is able to, or does in fact, procreate.

Here’s an analogy I like
A hammer is designed to drive a nail using proper form. I may not actually drive the nail to completion for various reasons…may aim may be off…my strength may be lacking, etc…But I use proper form anyway. I swing the hammer at it’s target.

If I use the hammer to bash a person in the head, that is dis-ordered. The hammer is used in a way that is not ordered to a proper form and use.

 

[AnthonyJ]

Yes and if he is a practicing homosexual with no intention to break free of that lifestyle, he is by no means a faithful Catholic, even if he goes to the Mass every day. It is true we are all sinners and fall repeatedly, but if we have no firm purpose of amendment to change our life, we are not being faithful Catholics.

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

 

[Thomas_White]

Open to…procreation.
Which is not the same as able to procreate.
The act has a form. The form is open to procreation, whether or not a couple is able to, or does in fact, procreate.

Here’s an analogy I like
A hammer is designed to drive a nail using proper form. I may not actually drive the nail to completion for various reasons…may aim may be off…my strength may be lacking, etc…But I use proper form anyway. I swing the hammer at it’s target.

If I use the hammer to bash a person in the head, that is dis-ordered. The hammer is used in a way that is not ordered to a proper form and use.

I respectfully disagree. It is an ‘openness’ to what is impossible that is difficult to understand. What is it that one would be open to? There is nothing there.

I say this in brotherhood. I really don’t get it.

 

[clem456]

I respectfully disagree. It is an ‘openness’ to what is impossible that is difficult to understand. What is it that one would be open to? There is nothing there.

I say this in brotherhood. I really don’t get it.

I am probably going to stumble here but…
The act itself has a real God-given form. The bodies of the couple are meant to interact in the obvious way.
Results are another thing. Not every act between a fertile young couple results in a child, eh? God is the author of life, he is responsible for the creation of it. We cooperate with God in his creation. By acting in the ordered way, we cooperate with God as he designed us. An elderly couple, obviously, is not going to conceive, but they are still using the act in the way God has designed it.