Are gay Catholics condemned to loneliness?

[Norseman82]

[BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]

This thread is kinda about gay/ssa people who have determined thst marriage is not their vocation abd you bring up the solution of marriage to loneliness. I’m not sure why. No one I mean literally no one shames someone for looking for a spouse.

The issue is those who are not called for marriage have traditonally received little support as a we are often hyperfocused on marriage.

Although it was started regarding SSA people, the posters I responded to started to make the comparison to non-SSA people, and inevitably many of the same points made to SSA people also are made to non-SSA single people who seek heterosexual marriage (and yes, they do get shamed, just read posts made by single people lamenting their singlehood and some of the responses stating that they are making marriage an “idol”).

 

[ConfusedLucy]

Someone mentioned the idea something like “if I wasn’t Catholic I’d have no problem with gay marriage”.

I’d offer this suggestion – that with some spiritual maturity, your own belief should be firmly that the desire for gay-sex is “disordered” at best. With more time, purity and reflection – it really should come about that you know there is something profoundly wrong with gay-sex behavior. If that doesn’t happen, then there is a problem. Something is causing you to attach to an irrational thought, and actually a dangerous thought.

I’d use the example of someone who wants to get high by sniffing glue. Let’s imagine the act is illegal (not sure if it is). The person says, “I’ve been sober on sniffing glue because I don’t want to get arrested. But if it was legal, I’d have no problem with it.”
Clearly, the person needs to see the immense danger he’s doing to himself by the act, and want to stop whether it is legal or not. In fact, he needs to arrive at a point where sniffing glue is an abhorrent thing to do.

To say “there’s nothing wrong with glue”, or “there’s nothing wrong with having fun - everybody needs to relax” – would clearly be an absurd justification for a dangerous addiction.

It’s really the same with gay-sex behavior. It is a damaging thing to do - not only physically, but it is an expression of a disordered thought. In terms of logic and reason, it does not make sense - it’s an insane thing to want to do.

When people think what I said is harsh or uncaring or lacking understanding, it is because they don’t understand the complimentary of men and women and how marriage can only be that way. The union of man and woman, and the integrity and sacredness of each person is something we find in the teaching of Christ and gay-sex behavior is a violation of all of that.

Someone just coming out of a deep gay-lifestyle will take a while to heal from that (any by healing I do not necessarily mean a change in orientation).
To what extent is an interest in gay-sex an intellectual process? 10%, 50%, 90%? I don’t know - but it is some %.
Whatever that is, we know we can reprogram our minds to think of good rather than evil. We can break habits of thought by replacing with good habits of thought.
We can learn that gay-sex is something very bad and then learn to break an attachment to it.

How do you know it would be loveless? What if you were the person that caused him to “go straight”?

But what if there isn’t anything different? Remember, it was God Who said that it is not good for the man to be alone (Genesis 2). According to CCC 1603, it is the vocation to marriage (obviously heterosexual) that is written into our very nature, and although celibacy (under the term “virginity for the sake of the kingdom”) is considered better, it is not the natural state - it requires supernatural graces, and not everyone is granted those graces (read what Jesus Christ said regarding the “eunuchs for the kingdom”). It’s not something everyone can handle. That is why I cringe when I hear terms like “imposed celibacy” - it is just as sickening as “forced marriages”. The only time celibacy is mandated by the Bible is when a person is divorced and his/her spouse is still alive (see one of St. Paul’s letters). Forcing celibacy on someone who can’t handle it but is canonically eligible for a heterosexual marriage is like trying to “force a round peg into a square hole”. That’s why I’m against outlawing “conversion therapy” - what if a person wants to convert? And what about those who turn to same-sex experiences due to early sexual abuse? Should we deny them healing until they are 18? What if that’s too late?

It’s a risk I personally would not choose to take as I’m not convinced conversion therapy genuinely works and wouldn’t want to be married to someone pretending to be something he is not. I wouldn’t outlaw conversion therapy i just wouldn’t want to be a guinea pig. If others feel they could handle a mixed orientation marriage that’s up to them.

Back to the general point of the topic the church culture isn’t really comfortable with people gay or straight that don’t follow the narrative of meeting a spouse, settling down, marrying and having a family. It may not be the teaching but it’s what a lot of Christians have to cope with. A lot of married couples only make time for each other, parents are a lot more concerned about who they allow around their children and many of us don’t live near extended family. All thos leaves singles out in the cold and marriage isn’t the solution for everyone.

 

[reggieM]

It may not be the teaching but it’s what a lot of Christians have to cope with. A lot of married couples only make time for each other, parents are a lot more concerned about who they allow around their children and many of us don’t live near extended family. All thos leaves singles out in the cold and marriage isn’t the solution for everyone.

True. There are certain pathways that are given more support and others (extended family) have more support built in.
So, the single celibate has to work a lot harder and build a social community. This becomes even more difficult if friends are celibate for a time and then get married - there will be a loss of companionship there.
Finding friends who are dedicated to celibacy is the challenge for the layman (even for priests it is a challenge if vocations dwindle).
Actually, in many ways it can be (not always) easier for the gay-celibate (than non-gay) because there is some identifier and support groups (Courage) exist.

 

[StudentMI]

Hey remember when this thread was a serious discussion of the lives of gay Catholics and not an ‘I hope my kid burns to death’ and ‘gays are whiners’ hatefest? Yeah that was a time.

 

[EasterJoy]

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 idolizes Eros at the expense of other kinds of love. Our society really does talk as if it is axiomatic that to be denied Eros is to be “condemned to loneliness.” The mystery to me is why a Christian would think like that.

“Jesus said to them in reply, “You are misled because you do not know the scriptures or the power of God. At the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are like the angels in heaven.” Matt. 22:29-30

If those who aren’t married are condemned to be lonely, then the Beatific Vision cannot be the ultimate happiness. It is impossible, because there is no marriage in Heaven.

We know by faith that the ultimate experience of love is reserved for a state in which no one is marred. That logically implies that those who are currently unable to marry are not “condemned to loneliness.”

Interestingly, Fr. Ronald Rohlheiser has proposed that the ultimate loneliness is not sexual loneliness, but moral loneliness

(From ronrolheiser.com/moral-loneliness-3/#.WW72FojytPY)
*
…More deeply than we long for a sexual partner, we long for moral affinity, for someone to visit us in that deep part of us where all that is most precious to us is cherished and guarded. Our deepest longing is for a partner to sleep with morally, a kindred spirit, a soul mate in the truest meaning of that phrase.

Great friendships and great marriages, invariably, have this at their root, deep moral affinity. The persons in these relationships are “lovers” in the true sense because they sleep with each other at that deep level, irrespective of whether or not there is sexual union. At the level of feeling, this type of love is experienced as a certain “coming home”. Sometimes it is surrounded by romantic feelings and sexual attraction and sometimes it isn’t. Always though there is the sense that the other is a kindred spirit whose affinity with you is founded upon valuing most preciously what you value most preciously. You feel less alone because, in that place where you cherish and guard all that is most precious to you, you know that you are no longer a minority of one. Like Adam looking at Eve, you have now found someone of whom you can truly say: “At last, flesh of my flesh, bone of my bone!”

Therese of Lisieux suggests that, as humans, we are “exiles of the heart” and we must overcome this through mysticism, that is, precisely by moral communion with each other through sleeping with each other in charity, joy, peace, patience, goodness, longsuffering, faith, fidelity, mildness, and chastity. A culture which does not value sufficiently non-genital love because it is considered “just platonic” might well examine what it means to be morally lonely … and what, in our loneliness, we are really looking for.*

 

[reggieM]

Hey remember when this thread was a serious discussion of the lives of gay Catholics and not an ‘I hope my kid burns to death’ and ‘gays are whiners’ hatefest? Yeah that was a time.

It is legitimate to have hatred for sin. In fact, that is a good thing to cultivate. If that’s what you mean by “hatefest”, then that shouldn’t be a problem. If, however, you think people here hate you – well I don’t see it that way. Is there anyone in particular here that you think actually hates you? Or has expressed hatred against you? That would be important to know, in my view.

In any case, I notice you opened another thread directed towards gay Catholics, so that is probably a better option for the kind of discussion you’re looking for. I read it there and I was impressed with the commentary you and others offered.

When this topic is open to everyone - keep in mind that people have different backgrounds and needs.

A young person, for example, first sorting out homosexual attraction or perhaps coming out of an active homosexual lifestyle, will require a much gentler approach than others. Normally, that person just needs encouragement and very little challenge.

Another person, who perhaps has lived a celibate lifestyle for many years, will not be as sensitive to various matters and may even be quite open for challenging responses.

Also, there are non-gay people who suffer also. In some cases, they suffer in a social setting that will not offer clarity about the moral prohibition on gay-sex. In their social setting, there may be a high-degree of tolerance of gay-behavior and very little on the guidance needed. These people will want and require a “harder” message. They need to be affirmed in their faith also.

Finally, there are gay people who have a very firm and passionate opposition to the temptations to gay-sex. Some of these might be the harshest against this sin.

 

[at9009]

Although it was started regarding SSA people, the posters I responded to started to make the comparison to non-SSA people, and inevitably many of the same points made to SSA people also are made to non-SSA single people who seek heterosexual marriage (and yes, they do get shamed, just read posts made by single people lamenting their singlehood and some of the responses stating that they are making marriage an “idol”).

The counter is this. If the topic wants to be changed, then one could easily start a thread on the other topics as well as often in other threads when it becomes off topic, mods come in and redirect it. Interesting never with this issue.

Also to counter your second point, there is a large amount of people who do indeed idolize marriage so saying that is not necessarily a mistake.

 

[reggieM]

The counter is this. If the topic wants to be changed, then one could easily start a thread on the other topics as well as often in other threads when it becomes off topic, mods come in and redirect it. Interesting never with this issue.

Also to counter your second point, there is a large amount of people who do indeed idolize marriage so saying that is not necessarily a mistake.

The best way to keep a thread on-topic is for the thread-owner to monitor and offer friendly reminders to people not to take it off-topic. That is better than relying on CAF moderators. But I also don’t think it’s a conspiracy – but then again, I didn’t see the “hatefest” that was mentioned, so perhaps I’m missing something.