Are gay Catholics condemned to loneliness?

[TheAdvocate]

americamagazine.org/content/all-things/what-should-gay-catholic-do

Here is an article from James Martin, SJ, about what options gay Catholics have.

The article itself is a bit dated as it predates gay marriage, but still, I find it thought-provoking.

I agree with the Church teaching because I feel that I must, but I have to admit that if I were non-religious I probably would not have a problem with gay marriage.

In any case, being a gay Catholic must be sad if one wishes to abide by Church teaching. I mean, not to be able to experience romantic love or to have sex for the rest of your life.

 

[Brassring]

americamagazine.org/content/all-things/what-should-gay-catholic-do

Here is an article from James Martin, SJ, about what options gay Catholics have.

The article itself is a bit dated as it predates gay marriage, but still, I find it thought-provoking.

I agree with the Church teaching because I feel that I must, but I have to admit that if I were non-religious I probably would not have a problem with gay marriage.

In any case, being a gay Catholic must be sad if one wishes to abide by Church teaching. I mean, not to be able to experience romantic love or to have sex for the rest of your life.

Replace the words “gay Catholic” with “priest” and see if that changes your perspective.

Everyone is expected to sacrifice something for God’s service. It’s just a question of what.

 

[TK421]

americamagazine.org/content/all-things/what-should-gay-catholic-do

Here is an article from James Martin, SJ, about what options gay Catholics have.

The article itself is a bit dated as it predates gay marriage, but still, I find it thought-provoking.

I agree with the Church teaching because I feel that I must, but I have to admit that if I were non-religious I probably would not have a problem with gay marriage.

In any case, being a gay Catholic must be sad if one wishes to abide by Church teaching. I mean, not to be able to experience romantic love or to have sex for the rest of your life.

This is also something I accept through faith, but in practical terms, I don’t fully have my head/heart wrapped around the idea.

Nobody has to be lonely, but a gay person who doesn’t marry would have to be more creative in having that loneliness filled. Priests and religious have access to community that laity don’t, but depending on their circumstances I’m sure it affects them as much as anybody. Loneliness is something that is pandemic of the 21st century and not limited to select groups. The West is suffering terribly from it.

 

[AdamP88]

Just my thoughts on this article:

1.) Enjoy romantic love. At least not the kind of fulfilling love that most people, from their earliest adolescence, anticipate, dream about, hope for, plan about, talk about and pray for. In other cases, celibacy (that is, a lifelong abstinence from sex) is seen as a gift, a calling or a charism in a person’s life. Thus, it is not to be enjoined on a person. (“Celibacy is not a matter of compulsion,” said then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.) Yet it is enjoined on you. (“Homosexual person are called to chastity,” says the Catechism, meaning complete abstinence.) In any event, you cannot enjoy any sort of romantic, physical or sexual relationship.

I think it needs to be said more that romantic/sexual love is only capable of being fulfilling within the context of a married man and woman. Anything else is an abuse of the gift that God has given and is actually harmful to the individuals involved.

3.) Adopt a child. Despite the church’s warm approval of adoption, you cannot adopt a needy child. You would do “violence,” according to church teaching, to a child if you were to adopt.

Yes. Why should a child be denied the right to a father and mother so that a gay couple can have a child? In Ireland, single people are allowed to adopt, but I don’t even think this should be the case. Adoption is supposed to serve the needs of the child, not the desires of the parents.

4.) Enter a seminary. If you accept the church’s teaching on celibacy for gays, and feel a call to enter a seminary or religious order, you cannot–even if you desire the celibate life. The church explicitly forbids men with “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” from entering the priesthood. Nor can you hide your sexuality if you wish to enter a seminary.

5.) Work for the church and be open. If you work for the church in any sort of official capacity it is close to impossible to be open about who your identity as a gay man or a lesbian. A gay layman I know who serves an important role in a diocese (and even writes some of his bishop’s statements on social justice) has a solid theological education and desires to serve the church, but finds it impossible to be open in the face of the bishop’s repeated disparaging remarks about gays. Some laypeople have been fired, or dismissed, for being open. Like this altar server, who lives a chaste life. Or this woman, who worked at a Catholic high school. Or this choir director.

I think these paragraphs are a problem in the sense that they accept a reductionist view of gay individuals. It’s wrong to reduce one’s identity to their sexual preferences. I do not view myself as a “straight man”. In fact, the most important factors of my identity would probably take several paragraphs to explain. We are more than that and the view of many people that we should primarily identify according to our sexuality is wrong.

At the same time, if you are a devout Catholic who is attentive both to church teachings and the public pronouncements of church leaders, you will be reminded that you are “objectively disordered,” and your sexuality is “a deviation, an irregularity a wound.”

It’s not the person that is disordered, it’s the desires or actions. This final paragraph is the biggest problem with the article. Accepting the idea that homosexuality is a sort of valid form of “sexuality”. It’s not. It is a disorder. No it’s not inherently sinful to feel attracted to another man, but it’s not ordered to the good.

I don’t think it’s helpful to the salvation of people with homosexual tendencies to ignore the truth. I think it’s certainly more difficult to speak the truth in this age. At the end of the day though, either the Church is right, in which case we should do our utmost to try to lead these people to salvation. Or She’s wrong, in which case we’re all a bunch of homophobic bigots.

 

[Dorothy]

americamagazine.org/content/all-things/what-should-gay-catholic-do

Here is an article from James Martin, SJ, about what options gay Catholics have.

The article itself is a bit dated as it predates gay marriage, but still, I find it thought-provoking.

I agree with the Church teaching because I feel that I must, but I have to admit that if I were non-religious I probably would not have a problem with gay marriage.

In any case, being a gay Catholic must be sad if one wishes to abide by Church teaching. I mean, not to be able to experience romantic love or to have sex for the rest of your life.

It doesn’t have to be sad. Our Lord provided us with instruction for prayer, and He gives Himself to us in the Holy Eucharist. There are so many ways that He gifts and graces us to do His Holy Will!

 

[ArielRussu]

Replace the words “gay Catholic” with “priest” and see if that changes your perspective.

Big difference. Priest choose to remain celibate, and unless they are gay themselves have the option of marrying a woman and having sex. Homosexuals have no choice in the matter, and no, telling someone to pray the gay away and suppress there attraction and marry a woman isn’t an intelligent option. For many have tried that and found in the long run, living a lie doesn’t work.

 

[Brassring]

Big difference. Priest choose to remain celibate, and unless they are gay themselves have the option of marrying a woman and having sex. Homosexuals have no choice in the matter, and no, telling someone to pray the gay away and suppress there attraction and marry a woman isn’t an intelligent option. For many have tried that and found in the long run, living a lie doesn’t work.

No difference. A call to celibacy is a call to celibacy, no matter the reason. SSA Catholics are called to celibacy. Period. If they fail, and are contrite, they go to confession and receive reconciliation. Just like anyone else who sins.

The point is, The Church isn’t demanding anything of SSA Catholics that it doesn’t demand of its own priests and bishops.

 

[7_Sorrows]

You mean like divorced Catholics who are unable to get annulments?

 

[EasterJoy]

St. Paul saw it exactly in the reverse: that is, those who marry have more anxieties and are divided:

I should like you to be free of anxieties. An unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord. But a married man is anxious about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and he is divided. An unmarried woman or a virgin is anxious about the things of the Lord, so that she may be holy in both body and spirit. A married woman, on the other hand, is anxious about the things of the world, how she may please her husband.
I am telling you this for your own benefit, not to impose a restraint upon you, but for the sake of propriety and adherence to the Lord without distraction. 1 Cor. 7:32-35

The author seems to me to make a big deal about the Church teaching that homosexuality is disordered, as if those with this tendency were being singled out. The catechism also teaches that “Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes…masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action…fornication is… gravely contrary to the dignity of persons and of human sexuality…Pornography…does grave injury to the dignity of its participants…[and]…is a grave offense…Christ condemns even adultery of mere desire…The prophets denounce the gravity of adultery; they see it as an image of the sin of idolatry…Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law…”

Yes, the Catechism says that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered,” but also “This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial.” The Catechism is very particular about saying that it is the inclination that is disordered, not the person. Homosexuals are hardly alone even in the Catechism chapter on the 6th Commandment when it comes to phrases like “disordered” and “gravely immoral.”

 

[angell1]

You mean like divorced Catholics who are unable to get annulments?

or people with severe physical or cognitive impairments that make marriage impossible

or people who simply don’t find a spouse during their lifetime

 

[PluniaZ]

St. Paul saw it exactly in the reverse: that is, those who marry have more anxieties and are divided:

I should like you to be free of anxieties. An unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord. But a married man is anxious about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and he is divided. An unmarried woman or a virgin is anxious about the things of the Lord, so that she may be holy in both body and spirit. A married woman, on the other hand, is anxious about the things of the world, how she may please her husband.
I am telling you this for your own benefit, not to impose a restraint upon you, but for the sake of propriety and adherence to the Lord without distraction. 1 Cor. 7:32-35

Exactly. I’m a gay celibate Catholic. When I see the stress my married friends and siblings have to deal with, all I can think is, Thanks be to God.

 

[pianistclare]

Lots of single people in the world . Are you saying they are ALL miserable?
I’ve not found that to be so.

 

[at9009]

americamagazine.org/content/all-things/what-should-gay-catholic-do

Here is an article from James Martin, SJ, about what options gay Catholics have.

The article itself is a bit dated as it predates gay marriage, but still, I find it thought-provoking.

I agree with the Church teaching because I feel that I must, but I have to admit that if I were non-religious I probably would not have a problem with gay marriage.

In any case, being a gay Catholic must be sad if one wishes to abide by Church teaching. I mean, not to be able to experience romantic love or to have sex for the rest of your life.

I think a better person to read is Eve Tushnet (celibate gay Catholic) who wrote this: washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2016/02/10/being-single-shouldnt-mean-being-alone/?utm_term=.18419a5805e3.

Lot of the writings at spiritualfriendship.org work at countering the perspective that single and unmarried = alone and without love (it means no romantic eros love but that view neglects love and support found in friendship among other things). Because our culture (and to some extent Christian culture) kinda idolatrizes marriage, romance, and finding ‘the one,’ that is the perspective they have. It’s not a correct one, but it takes some time to break that narrative.

 

[TheTrinitySaves]

Yes

 

[MacBP]

Big difference. Priest choose to remain celibate, and unless they are gay themselves have the option of marrying a woman and having sex. Homosexuals have no choice in the matter, and no, telling someone to pray the gay away and suppress there attraction and marry a woman isn’t an intelligent option. For many have tried that and found in the long run, living a lie doesn’t work.

I’m somewhat inclined to agree with you that there is a distinction between voluntary embracing a life of celibacy and have one thrust upon you. I think a better, a very real comparison, would be single heterosexual Catholics who haven’t met anyone and won’t meet anyone. This is an not insignificant (and growing!) part of the Church.

 

[at9009]

I’m somewhat inclined to agree with you that there is a distinction between voluntary embracing a life of celibacy and have one thrust upon you. I think a better, a very real comparison, would be single heterosexual Catholics who haven’t met anyone and won’t meet anyone. This is an not insignificant (and growing!) part of the Church.

That reminds me of this article which I thought was a good read: spiritualfriendship.org/2016/08/24/voluntary-or-not-celibacy-is-a-gift/

 

[Sarcelle]

That reminds me of this article which I thought was a good read: spiritualfriendship.org/2016/08/24/voluntary-or-not-celibacy-is-a-gift/

Thanks for the link.

Did you read the comments? One commenter mentioned a pastor by the name of Tim Bayly, who condemned celibacy as a rebellion against God. I wonder how many Evangelicals consider singleness to be a sin?

 

[Peter_J]

americamagazine.org/content/all-things/what-should-gay-catholic-do

Here is an article from James Martin, SJ, about what options gay Catholics have.

Father asks a good question; but I think there’s the danger that people might take the question as the end of the conversation rather than the beginning.

 

[at9009]

Thanks for the link.

Did you read the comments? One commenter mentioned a pastor by the name of Tim Bayly, who condemned celibacy as a rebellion against God. I wonder how many Evangelicals consider singleness to be a sin?

I think the commenter was referencing that pastor but not endorsing those views. They were commenting about I think how can one have or feel the gift of celibacy if pastors are basically calling it a sin or something.

My response is then I’m glad I’m Catholic where we actually respect a celibate vocation and don’t endorse this almost idolatry of the nuclear family and marriage. It does seem a little like some Christians view marriage as the end all be all (the only path to fulfillment) and don’t really see it as the vocation (it’s almost viewed as a check box in life at this point). It is which can have trials and tribulations (along with its blessings). I’ve also seen some go as far as to view single life as evidence of less spiritually mature or signs or poor faith (some even imply sin or something). It’s categorically wrong on so many levels including scripturally, but it’s not something I really had to worry about as I have the backing of scripture, the Church, and tradition in my celibate vocation.

I know nothing about that pastor, his reach, or what even church he leads so can’t comment exactly on him only to say he’s flat wrong.

 

[TK421]

I don’t think it’s helpful to the salvation of people with homosexual tendencies to ignore the truth. I think it’s certainly more difficult to speak the truth in this age. At the end of the day though, either the Church is right, in which case we should do our utmost to try to lead these people to salvation. Or She’s wrong, in which case we’re all a bunch of homophobic bigots.

This is just hypothetical because the Church is of course right and the world is in error, but being “in error” doesn’t necessarily make a person a homophobic bigot or any other negative title. That judgementalism is also worldly thinking, and the secular liberal world is very eager to judge & enjoys doing it. But we shouldn’t be.

A Muslim that believes with conviction that a woman should wear the hijab isn’t (necessarily) a misogynist.

A person that believes with conviction that manmade climate change is false isn’t (necessarily) selfish.

There is a difference between being a jerk in some capacity, and being in error, and Christians should always assume the later rather than the former when we dialogue with people. We don’t know what has lead to different people believing different things, but we are all human beings and we are universally susceptible to ignorance. Most of the time, it is because they were inundated with a certain worldview around family and friends. Resorting to insults or belittlement isn’t going to help them.