A Traditional Catholic... with a boyfriend?

[Thomas_White]

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.

No stumble at all. I understand and agree with it. It does make sense in the way you explained it. Thanks.

 

[Thorolfr]

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.

But Sarah, Abraham’s wife, was 90 years old when she conceived

Genesis 17:17: Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed, and said to himself, “Can a child be born to a man who is a hundred years old? Can Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear a child?”

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

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."

That is tangential at best.

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. .

The word friend has become extremely devalued, even close friend today often is about the same as acquaintanceship used to be and as such it cannot adequately convey a relationship with real depth.

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.

Friendships used to be intimate (nonsexually).

Common and intimate living arrangements, sharing a bed, shared finances all used to be in the realm of normal for intimate friendships.

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?

No, bias per se is not necessarily a bad thing, what SMGS is getting at is that you have a Protestant bias, not a Catholic one. I personally am deeply biased, you’ll have trouble bringing me into the 21st century as you’ll have to coerce me to enter the 16th century first.

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.

Also, if you decide not to hammer it in all the way that would be sinful.

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.

Presumably you are talking about people like John Boswell who I am certain considered himself devout as he was a daily mass goer until he died.

 

[clem456]

That is tangential at best.

The word friend has become extremely devalued, even close friend today often is about the same as acquaintanceship used to be and as such it cannot adequately convey a relationship with real depth.

Friendships used to be intimate (nonsexually).

Common and intimate living arrangements, sharing a bed, shared finances all used to be in the realm of normal for intimate friendships.

No, bias per se is not necessarily a bad thing, what SMGS is getting at is that you have a Protestant bias, not a Catholic one. I personally am deeply biased, you’ll have trouble bringing me into the 21st century as you’ll have to coerce me to enter the 16th century first.

Also, if you decide not to hammer it in all the way that would be sinful.

Presumably you are talking about people like John Boswell who I am certain considered himself devout as he was a daily mass goer until he died.

Ok.
Can we agree that the word “boyfriend”, between two males, as understood in the here and now, is charged with unacceptable connotations in the eyes of the Church?

Surely it has a commonly accepted meaning, as does the word Protestant you used above, and we are not even going down that path.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Ok.
Can we agree that the word “boyfriend”, between two males, as understood in the here and now, is charged with unacceptable connotations in the eyes of the Church?

Where I live sexual relations are not assumed when the word boyfriend is uttered and if the man is gay and has a boyfriend the only people who assume they are engaging in sex is conservatives who seem to be under the impression gays are sex crazed and have sex with their regular friends to.

Surely it has a commonly accepted meaning, as does the word Protestant you used above, and we are not even going down that path.

You seem to have a very Anglo bias which especially if American is Protestant in origin. In the US a particularly virulent strain of Protestantism known as Puritanism has infected the mindset of American conservative Catholics (American liberal Catholics have their own set of issues).

 

[clem456]

Where I live sexual relations are not assumed when the word boyfriend is uttered and if the man is gay and has a boyfriend the only people who assume they are engaging in sex is conservatives who seem to be under the impression gays are sex crazed and have sex with their regular friends to.

You seem to have a very Anglo bias which especially if American is Protestant in origin. In the US a particularly virulent strain of Protestantism known as Puritanism has infected the mindset of American conservative Catholics (American liberal Catholics have their own set of issues).

Thanks for that
that’s a discussion-ender for me

 

[Thomas_White]

But Sarah, Abraham’s wife, was 90 years old when she conceived

Genesis 17:17: Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed, and said to himself, “Can a child be born to a man who is a hundred years old? Can Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear a child?”

I understand and above all I wish to avoid any contention. There are instances, not rare, where a couple is literally unable to conceive a child. This could, for example, result from necessary surgery. I understand the theory about form. And it is theory. It is not existential reality. A couple literally unable to procreate cannot engage in conjugal relations for that specific purpose. It is not possible. In that way, the couple is, among other things, exempt from the teachings of Humanae Vitae. This isn’t quite correct. It is closer to correct to say that while the teaching does not affect them, it otherwise might. And the teaching is about procreation.

I say this with no ill intent whatsoever. Though I hadn’t wanted to I ought to explain why this is so. I am a lifelong Catholic, and what I have described is my very situation. I am most certainly not judging the actions of others. But, obviously, I have my reasons for wanting to understand this issue. It is not theory for me.

 

[Denise1957]

Where I live sexual relations are not assumed when the word boyfriend is uttered and if the man is gay and has a boyfriend the only people who assume they are engaging in sex is conservatives who seem to be under the impression gays are sex crazed and have sex with their regular friends to.

You seem to have a very Anglo bias which especially if American is Protestant in origin. In the US a particularly virulent strain of Protestantism known as Puritanism has infected the mindset of American conservative Catholics (American liberal Catholics have their own set of issues).

Where you live isn’t really applicable to the situation as presented by the OP. I think that it can be assumed that the OP is referring to a situation here in the U.S.; therefore, we’re going by the definition of the term “boyfriend” in the context that it is used here, in our country. It hasn’t anything to do with Puritanism.

 

[clem456]

I understand and above all I wish to avoid any contention. There are instances, not rare, where a couple is literally unable to conceive a child. This could, for example, result from necessary surgery. I understand the theory about form. And it is theory. It is not existential reality. A couple literally unable to procreate cannot engage in conjugal relations for that specific purpose. It is not possible. In that way, the couple is, among other things, exempt from the teachings of Humanae Vitae.

I say this with no ill intent whatsoever. Though I hadn’t wanted to I ought to explain why this is so. I am a lifelong Catholic, and what I have described is my very situation. I am most certainly not judging the actions of others. But, obviously, I have my reasons for wanting to understand this issue. It is not theory for me.

I understand what you are saying. I am a married male who has other issues of a similar nature.
Form is not theoretical, it is the real use of our bodies. They work a certain way. God asks us to use them in the way we are designed. But we are not in charge of results. Not every sex act results in a child, right? The sex act is ordered to procreation, but that doesn’t mean it is procreation. A child may be the fruit of a properly ordered act, and it might not be.

 

[Thomas_White]

I understand what you are saying. I am a married male who has other issues of a similar nature.
Form is not theoretical, it is the real use of our bodies. They work a certain way. God asks us to use them in the way we are designed. But we are not in charge of results. Not every sex act results in a child, right? The sex act is ordered to procreation, but that doesn’t mean it is procreation. A child may be the fruit of a properly ordered act, and it might not be.

I get that and it is meaningful for me. Thanks again.

 

[SMGS127]

Where you live isn’t really applicable to the situation as presented by the OP. I think that it can be assumed that the OP is referring to a situation here in the U.S.; therefore, we’re going by the definition of the term “boyfriend” in the context that it is used here, in our country. It hasn’t anything to do with Puritanism.

Scandal only applies based on how people react. If the only people who assume “boyfriend” necessarily = “sexual relationship” are Puritans and conservatives, which is easily the case in the US, there is no scandal. Besides, it can be easily rectified by being open about the celibate nature of a relationship (although they shouldn’t have to; it should not be assumed that gay people = promiscuous and straight people = chaste).

 

[clem456]

Scandal only applies based on how people react. If the only people who assume “boyfriend” necessarily = “sexual relationship” are Puritans and conservatives, which is easily the case in the US, there is no scandal. Besides, it can be easily rectified by being open about the celibate nature of a relationship (although they shouldn’t have to; it should not be assumed that gay people = promiscuous and straight people = chaste).

I find it interesting that folks who advocate against assumptions and for loose and tolerant use of the language resort to typecasting people with labels.

 

[Thorolfr]

Form is not theoretical, it is the real use of our bodies. They work a certain way. God asks us to use them in the way we are designed.

How do we know all the ways that God thinks it is OK for us to use our bodies? Is it OK to use our bodies to ride a bicycle instead of walk? Is it OK to ride in an airplane and fly in the air since God did not give us wings? Can’t different parts of our bodies be used for more than one thing and only in one way?

 

[clem456]

How do we know all the ways that God thinks it is OK for us to use our bodies? Is it OK to use our bodies to ride a bicycle instead of walk? Is it OK to ride in an airplane and fly in the air since God did not give us wings? Can’t different parts of our bodies be used for more than one thing and only in one way?

Are we to assume that you have difficulty discerning the natural functions of the body parts we are talking about?

 

[Thorolfr]

Are we to assume that you have difficulty discerning the natural functions of the body parts we are talking about?

We can use the mouth to eat with and speak with. But is it OK to use the mouth to kiss someone? Is that a natural function of the mouth? I’m just trying to figure out how we know what a natural function of any body part is.

 

[BrassAnkles]

I find it interesting that folks who advocate against assumptions and for loose and tolerant use of the language resort to typecasting people with labels.

 

[Thomas_White]

The one thing I am sure of is that we don’t know everything. But there is Scripture and the teachings of the Church. I once heard a learned and wise priest say the following during his homily:

“There are those that are insistent that particular things that violate the teachings of the Church are acceptable. If that is their sincere belief, so be it. But there is a point beyond which they ought to stop referring to themselves as Roman Catholic.”

 

[Corki]

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.

If it helps at all, the Church often uses the term “ordered toward procreation” rather than “open to procreation”. An act is ordered toward procreation if it is the kind of act from which procreation can arise. Whether the particular couple is fecund or not doesn’t change the order of the act.

 

[Nolite_Timere]

I think one of the important things to remember on this topic is that any sex outside of the bonds of Marriage are sinful, I don’t believe there is a ranking order of sin, only the venial and mortal conditions.
Other common examples of people who struggle with this sin in their life could include; young heterosexual men and women who have had or are having pre-marital sex, heterosexual men who masturbate the list could really go on.
I don’t believe the point is so much that someone is attracted to the same sex, the sinful line to cross is when you break or abuse the sacrament of Marriage which as Catholics is what we strive to uphold (The sacraments)
So in essence when we’re speaking about this topic remember, a lot of us are actually in the same boat together, and that it is not isolated to homosexual orientation.