Being homosexual, celibate, but still having a partner

  • Thread starter Thread starter turtlehawk13
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Alas I am a genuine 24 carat cynic and I always wonder whether words like celibacy mean what people think they mean. Celibacy is, by definition, the unmarried state. It does not mean someone who is sexually abstinent and chaste. Now what does it mean to be abstinent and chaste? It means no nocturnal emissions (commonly known as wet dreams), no involuntary movements resulting in emission or orgasm during the day, no masturbation, and no sex with anyone of either sex or with animal, vegetable, or mineral. it is almost as rare as dogs with gold teeth. For most of my life I was a sexual libertine, homosexual from the age of four, and an inveterate masturbator. I always longed for a lover and had a good few, but nothing that lasted. Unlike a great many homosexuals I never doubted that what I was doing was unacceptable to God and I longed for abstinence and chastity despite the evils of my ways. I tried everything conceivable to fight my lusts. I prayed, I sought counselling, I saw doctors, psychologist and psychiatrists. I tried every treatment in the book, including aversion therapy. Nothing whatever worked. At last I realised I was trying to fight the whole of nature and all her forces and I realised it was impossible. All the odds were on her side. I gave up trying. During all these years the physical encounters I had were not the important ones. It was love I wanted. I fell in love half a dozen times. It was always unrequited love and the pain was incredible, intolerable and inexpressible. Thirty seven years ago I had my last such love. In the meantime I discovered practical ways of pursuing a life leading to man’s possible immortality and followed them with dedication. I knew my sexuality was a stumbling block and longed to part from it. I could not. Then, three years ago by the grace of God the Holy Spirit gave me the gift of abstinence and chastity. The point I am trying to make is that I do not believe for one moment that we can decide to be abstinent. It is a gift. Gifts are not demanded, nor are they there to be plucked off trees. You fight, you struggle, you suffer, and perhaps after decades you are given the gift by the Holy Spirit (Galatians 2). I have heard over the years many stories told by people who believed they were “celibate” only to find a few years later that they were rutting like weasels. It is easy to con ourselves, I am afraid. I am not for one moment suggesting I am the only one to have been given the gift. I am sure others have, but it is not scattered around like confetti by the Holy Spirit. Now comes the hard part. Three years into my total abstinence and 37 years after my last great emotional love, I met a young seminarian. It was as though an arrow had gone through my heart and I was, for the first time in my whole life, smitten by love at first sight. He was 32 and I was 73. Ludicrous! Impossible! Obscene! In love with someone young enough to be my grandson! Disgusting! Whatever. I was, and am, in love. He is completely straight and the relationship has nowhere to go. I told him of my abstinence and I told him there was not the slightest genital thought in my mind in loving him. If he would consent (and he certainly won’t ) I would be prepared to spend he rest of my life with him, serving him as a menial, if necessary (I.e. as a housekeeper, for example). So what I am saying to you is that if you are certain you are chaste and abstinent, and if it has lasted without lustful thoughts of any kind whatever, you could have a successful life-long relationship. If you are not certain I’ll wager £1000 to a bale of hay that in time you will fall off the celibacy wagon.
 
I would add to Dakota’s post that some people are assuming scandal because of their own uncharitable assumptions. according to this line of thinking, two people of the same sex can’t live together because their neighbors will assume that they are engaging in homosexual sex.

Couldn’t the same be said of two opposite sex people going out on dates? I mean, that’s the message in the media and is certainly the norm now in our society.

What about working late with an opposite sex co-worker?

Or what about the man or woman who just “looks” gay? Can he or she receive sacraments or will others assume that he or she is actively engaging in sinful behavior?

What if it’s someone that you know used to commit some sort of sexual sin? should you assume that they are still sinning in that same way when you see them partake of the Eucharist?

is it up to you personally to plumb another’s soul?

“Scandal” as Dakota points out is a technical term where it is “essential and sufficient, with regard to the nature of the act and the circumstances under which it takes place, that it be of a nature to induce sin in another” and I don’t think that inducing another to make assumptions is what is being referred to.
Isn’t it simply scandalous how much theses people assume scandal everywhere?

Everything now is scandalous, but much isn’t technically scandal.

Society assumes scandal

Society assumes scandal

Society assumes scandal

Society assumes scandal

Only if you have accepted Jesus as your personal lord and savior.

Scandalous≠formal scandal.
Don’t be discouraged by the bickering. It just happens when humans actually think about things. Maybe it’s why so many people prefer NOT to think about things! 😉

“Near occasion of sin” is not always objectively discernable. If YOU and your best friend / roomate (sorry, but the word ‘partner’ innately is going to cause scandal) have made it through the struggles of coming to grips with God and the deep seated incompatibility between His loving plan for human sexuality and homosexual contact, then you may NOT be living in such a ‘near occasion.’ On the other hand, insistance on a special status such as ‘partner’ for your friend might imply that there is still a sexual intimacy between you, even if have lately managed the willpower to keep the clothes on. You’re going to have to figure this out for yourself. Time will be the ultimate test. If you start slipping back, repent again and THEN remove yourself from the situation. But for now, it sounds like you’re managing. Just be aware that sexual intimacy is more than genital contact. Work on getting to the point where you are happy to describe her as your ‘best friend.’ If that term doesn’t seem enough to you, you may still be more vulnerable to temptation than you think.

I’m no expert, but I tend to think we oversimplify things in life. We want to put everybody into either a ‘hetero’ bin or a ‘gay’ bin. But if the Church is right about God’s plan for human sexuality, then that says to me that people attracted to their own sex probably have a wide variety of reasons, causes and degrees in that regard. One size doesn’t fit all. I certainly see no harm in you two being close friends, supporting one another in faith and accountability and living under one roof. Just beware of creeping sexual intimacy and work at establishing a variety of friendships in your life rather than exclusively spending time with your best friend. And, of course, keep your mind open to the possibility that living together might NOT prove to be the best thing for you in the long run. Time and God’s small voice will tell which way is the way to go, if you are listening.
Sometimes I wish parishes would teach the entire CCC to people so that this whole forum would stop with the banal arguments.

Yes, if at least one of you has run the gantlet you can manage. The problem is what do you call someone when they are much dearer to you than a best friend, but not in a sexual way?

I wonder how people in ages past managed to survive that creeping intimacy.
Alas I am a genuine 24 carat cynic and I always wonder whether words like celibacy mean what people think they mean. Celibacy is, by definition, the unmarried state. It does not mean someone who is sexually abstinent and chaste. Now what does it mean to be abstinent and chaste? It means no nocturnal emissions (commonly known as wet dreams), no involuntary movements resulting in emission or orgasm during the day, no masturbation, and no sex with anyone of either sex or with animal, vegetable, or mineral. it is almost as rare as dogs with gold teeth. For most of my life I was a sexual libertine, homosexual from the age of four, and an inveterate masturbator. I always longed for a lover and had a good few, but nothing that lasted. Unlike a great many homosexuals I never doubted that what I was doing was unacceptable to God and I longed for abstinence and chastity despite the evils of my ways. I tried everything conceivable to fight my lusts. I prayed, I sought counselling, I saw doctors, psychologist and psychiatrists. I tried every treatment in the book, including aversion therapy. Nothing whatever worked. At last I realised I was trying to fight the whole of nature and all her forces and I realised it was impossible. All the odds were on her side. I gave up trying. During all these years the physical encounters I had were not the important ones. It was love I wanted. I fell in love half a dozen times. It was always unrequited love and the pain was incredible, intolerable and inexpressible. Thirty seven years ago I had my last such love. In the meantime I discovered practical ways of pursuing a life leading to man’s possible immortality and followed them with dedication. I knew my sexuality was a stumbling block and longed to part from it. I could not. Then, three years ago by the grace of God the Holy Spirit gave me the gift of abstinence and chastity. The point I am trying to make is that I do not believe for one moment that we can decide to be abstinent. It is a gift. Gifts are not demanded, nor are they there to be plucked off trees. You fight, you struggle, you suffer, and perhaps after decades you are given the gift by the Holy Spirit (Galatians 2). I have heard over the years many stories told by people who believed they were “celibate” only to find a few years later that they were rutting like weasels. It is easy to con ourselves, I am afraid. I am not for one moment suggesting I am the only one to have been given the gift. I am sure others have, but it is not scattered around like confetti by the Holy Spirit. Now comes the hard part. Three years into my total abstinence and 37 years after my last great emotional love, I met a young seminarian. It was as though an arrow had gone through my heart and I was, for the first time in my whole life, smitten by love at first sight. He was 32 and I was 73. Ludicrous! Impossible! Obscene! In love with someone young enough to be my grandson! Disgusting! Whatever. I was, and am, in love. He is completely straight and the relationship has nowhere to go. I told him of my abstinence and I told him there was not the slightest genital thought in my mind in loving him. If he would consent (and he certainly won’t ) I would be prepared to spend he rest of my life with him, serving him as a menial, if necessary (I.e. as a housekeeper, for example). So what I am saying to you is that if you are certain you are chaste and abstinent, and if it has lasted without lustful thoughts of any kind whatever, you could have a successful life-long relationship. If you are not certain I’ll wager £1000 to a bale of hay that in time you will fall off the celibacy wagon.
How queer.
 
Sometimes I wish parishes would teach the entire CCC to people so that this whole forum would stop with the banal arguments.

Yes, if at least one of you has run the gantlet you can manage. The problem is what do you call someone when they are much dearer to you than a best friend, but not in a sexual way?

I wonder how people in ages past managed to survive that creeping intimacy.
If it isn’t sexual, what would be your motivation for needing to describe that person as “much dearer” than a friend? I’ll grant you that Facebook has rather exacerbated our culture’s pathetically shallow definition of the word, but if two people really are in a non-sexual, mature and secure bond of deep friendship they really don’t NEED a special label for it over and above that of ‘friend.’ No?

And I’m not sure if your opener is just agreeing with me or asserting that I’m in conflict with the CCC someplace. Could you clarify? Thanks!
 
1st half - not interested to know your preferences. 2nd half - may God bless you on your journey.
Um, very uncharitable. Her sexual preferences have everything to do with her question. It’s not like she said, “I’m a lesbian and a recent convert. Why do we pray the rosary?” She said, “I’m a lesbian and a recent convert. Is it okay to keep a friendship with a woman I was once romantic with?”
 
If it isn’t sexual, what would be your motivation for needing to describe that person as “much dearer” than a friend? I’ll grant you that Facebook has rather exacerbated our culture’s pathetically shallow definition of the word, but if two people really are in a non-sexual, mature and secure bond of deep friendship they really don’t NEED a special label for it over and above that of ‘friend.’ No?

And I’m not sure if your opener is just agreeing with me or asserting that I’m in conflict with the CCC someplace. Could you clarify? Thanks!
Like them dying can cause you to die of a broken heart (basically drained of the will to live and you are so depressed you forget to eat or drink).
 
Isn’t it simply scandalous how much theses people assume scandal everywhere?

Everything now is scandalous, but much isn’t technically scandal.

Society assumes scandal

Society assumes scandal

Society assumes scandal

Society assumes scandal

Only if you have accepted Jesus as your personal lord and savior.

Scandalous≠formal scandal.

Sometimes I wish parishes would teach the entire CCC to people so that this whole forum would stop with the banal arguments.

Yes, if at least one of you has run the gantlet you can manage. The problem is what do you call someone when they are much dearer to you than a best friend, but not in a sexual way?

I wonder how people in ages past managed to survive that creeping intimacy.

How queer.
 
Like them dying can cause you to die of a broken heart (basically drained of the will to live and you are so depressed you forget to eat or drink).
I’m sometimes a bit thick, so bear with me. Does it ease the pain to describe the beloved departed as a ‘partner’ instead of ‘best friend?’ I can’t see how, but I’m a guy and we sometimes miss things obvious to women…
 
I’m sometimes a bit thick, so bear with me. Does it ease the pain to describe the beloved departed as a ‘partner’ instead of ‘best friend?’ I can’t see how, but I’m a guy and we sometimes miss things obvious to women…
I don’t know and I’d like to point out they don’t have to be on the verge of being a gay couple for it to be extremely painful, just check out Newman over the death of Ambrose St. John.

Male culture has become rather anti-emotional over the last century and a half because of the Decadents, but it wasn’t always like this.
 
Grace & Peace!
If it isn’t sexual, what would be your motivation for needing to describe that person as “much dearer” than a friend? I’ll grant you that Facebook has rather exacerbated our culture’s pathetically shallow definition of the word, but if two people really are in a non-sexual, mature and secure bond of deep friendship they really don’t NEED a special label for it over and above that of ‘friend.’ No?
A couple comments on this.

First, it’s oft been said on these forums (and I agree, by the way) that when we love someone very deeply (“much dearer than a friend”) it does not follow that we must or should sexualize the relationship by committing sexual acts in order to “move the relationship to the next level.” A sexual act does not automatically make a relationship better or more intimate, more loving, or more deep. It does not follow, therefore, that only relationships in which sexual acts are committed are deeper or more valuable than any other relationship. But here you seem to be saying that sex makes all the difference as far as relationship growth and development is concerned. That’s just not true.

Second, some relationships are simply deeper than normal friendships, either because they are characterized by the participants being “in love” or for some other reason. While such relationships may be subsumed under an academic rubric or definition of “friendship” (such as the definition you give above), the word does not necessarily or in every context accurately denote the reality of the relationship so described. In an attempt to convey more of a sense of that reality, qualifiers or more nuanced words may be used. Why? Because conveying the reality of a thing as opposed to an academic definition of a thing represents a more accurate indication of what life in a specific instance or circumstance actually *is. *How could that possibly be very important? Because what is real has more value than what is merely theoretical or academic and our love of what is real should lead us to understand it on its own terms.

Particularly in instances in which the reality of a thing cannot be completely known by us (i.e., someone else’s self-understanding, or a relationship that does not include us), we can understand it better (i.e. more accurately) by consenting to call it by the name by which it wishes to be known. We may legitimately question the fundamental accuracy of such names, however, given our own understanding and experience of the real, but simple courtesy would suggest that we defer to calling a thing by the name by which it wishes to be known until a different understanding of the thing (which should better articulate its fundamental reality) can be agreed upon. (This is not, by the way, a form of relativistic thinking, but a way by which progressively more accurate understandings of the objective reality of a thing can be discerned.)

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
 
Mark, Good luck with THAT Tower of Babel principle. Call me unconvinced.

Dakota, I’m with you there. I believe men in our culture toay especially lack profound relationships with other men and are poorer for it. But I simply don’t believe David and Jonathan transplanted to our time and being roomates would call each other “partners” knowing its modern context. They were closer than most brothers and knew what they meant to each other and there is nothing to suggest there was anything remorely sexual about it. Such men need no special words to proclaim to the world their (nonsexual) intimacy. There’s simply no need for it. Again, maybe women are innately different some how, but if it’s not a sexual relationship, I can’t comprehend why anybody needs a different label than “best friend.”
 
Grace & Peace!
Mark, Good luck with THAT Tower of Babel principle. Call me unconvinced.
Manual, could you better explain your critique? I’m not following. Do you have a problem with the first point or the second?
…] I can’t comprehend why anybody needs a different label than “best friend.”
Part of my second point above is this: if what we’re trying to do (and I hope this is what we’re trying to do) is grasp the fundamental reality of what something is, it is our job to understand that something on its own terms, but it is not that something’s job to conform to our individual understanding of it. If I think a rhinoceros is a defective horse or that a rat is a twisted squirrel or a rose is a broken peony, I’m not really understanding very much about a rhinoceros or a rat or a rose. If I call a Roman Catholic an idolator because they pray to a saint, I don’t really understand much about what being a Roman Catholic actually is or means. Similarly, if I think two people in love are just friends and should be called as such, it’s safe to say I don’t really understand the depth of their feeling very accurately and, consequently, I cannot have very much constructive to say regarding the nature or reality of that relationship since I fundamentally misapprehend it.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
 
As someone who monitors cultural trends on an almost daily basis, allow me to offer a few observations. And no, none of us are perfect; I’m speaking generally.
  1. The internet has created an anti-intimate experience/reality for some. We have no idea who Bob6847 really is. He could be anybody. Most people are missing out on real human interaction and intimacy, meaning a lot us are living as individual, isolated units, not as communities, whether you’re a believer or not.
Throw in hours at work, hours in front of the TV or your computer, and what do you get? Improved social skills? Way too many internet forums are filled with people who put emotion above thinking, and think having “freedom” means cussing out and bringing the bad to the poster they disagree with. I’ve dumped a number of internet forums over the years because, obviously, a small group think it’s their personal place and if anyone dare bring up ideas contrary to what their tribe thinks, you’re immediately judged and even threatened with a ban.
  1. True intimacy regarding friendship involves a number of interactions in real life. I see the person in action. Is he nice, and friendly? Is he hot tempered? Does he treat others poorly? Of course, I will not automatically dismiss that person based on that. Who knows what may be going on in his personal life?
Real intimacy and trust begins with actual communication. If the other person is not interested or friendly but uninterested in your interests or you his, odds are a pleasant exchange of words on occasion will be the extent of your relationship. If, however, the other person is receptive to you and you have things in common, there is the basis for the next level - trust. Once you feel you can trust the other person and his and your personalities are mostly compatible, then you can be friends. You’ll spend time talking and doing things together. And I have been blessed with several close friends. Over time, the friendship continues to grow, and you’re there for the other person in bad times as well. And the other person is there for you.

That’s why some people don’t even date. They have sex, like going to the bathroom, and split up. This shallow form of human interaction is an offense against the closest form of human form of intimacy. Abortion ties into that as well. Instead of a bond between mother and child, it is used by too many as a form of birth control. The humanity of the baby growing in the womb is often measured against risks to the mother’s health in some cases (which can involve serious issues which the Church has thought through), but, too often, purely financial and time considerations, i.e. I don’t have the time or money to handle having a baby. Adoption is always a viable option.
  1. Intimacy means real sensitivity to the feelings, thoughts and concerns of the other. Friendship also requires effort. It is not something passive. I call two of my closest friends on a regular basis if I can’t visit them for some reason. By establishing real intimacy, real trust and real friendship, your odds of staying friends can continue for a long time. I said to one of my friends, “You will always be my friend.” That’s what a marriage can be as well. And yes, even with my friends, I put up with their occasional grouchy days, their frustrations and anger over something. Or we agree to not discuss certain things. In one case, it’s politics. But it was politely done. As in “I’d rather not discuss politics with you because it always gets me worked up.” I understand. No problem.
We need real friends in our lives. People we can talk to you on the phone and in person and do things with. We’d have a lot more successful marriages if people went through the steps of real intimacy - observing, introducing yourself if the other’s behavior looked good, talking, and, if you have things in common, more talking, while earning each other’s trust, which leads to real friendship. As opposed to one attractive woman I met whose marriage lasted nine months because she found out, after the ceremony, that her husband “was a nut.”

Unless we can truly understand intimacy and all that comes with it, we’ll just go from one shallow relationship to the next or just live together with no real bond except sex and the feeling that there’s “love” there, but based on what? Hotness? Real love means taking the good with the bad and real, honest communications to resolve issues. Not “Yeah, we were together for two years and she comes up to me one day and says, ‘I don’t want to do this anymore.’” So I said, “OK. Bye.”

I have one friend that is like a brother to me and I thank God for him. On the internet, I can help others but I’ve never gotten to know anybody. Human beings are meant to be publicly social.

Peace,
Ed
 
Alas I am a genuine 24 carat cynic and I always wonder whether words like celibacy mean what people think they mean. Celibacy is, by definition, the unmarried state. It does not mean someone who is sexually abstinent and chaste. Now what does it mean to be abstinent and chaste? It means no nocturnal emissions (commonly known as wet dreams), no involuntary movements resulting in emission or orgasm during the day, no masturbation, and no sex with anyone of either sex or with animal, vegetable, or mineral. it is almost as rare as dogs with gold teeth. For most of my life I was a sexual libertine, homosexual from the age of four, and an inveterate masturbator. I always longed for a lover and had a good few, but nothing that lasted. Unlike a great many homosexuals I never doubted that what I was doing was unacceptable to God and I longed for abstinence and chastity despite the evils of my ways. I tried everything conceivable to fight my lusts. I prayed, I sought counselling, I saw doctors, psychologist and psychiatrists. I tried every treatment in the book, including aversion therapy. Nothing whatever worked. At last I realised I was trying to fight the whole of nature and all her forces and I realised it was impossible. All the odds were on her side. I gave up trying. During all these years the physical encounters I had were not the important ones. It was love I wanted. I fell in love half a dozen times. It was always unrequited love and the pain was incredible, intolerable and inexpressible. Thirty seven years ago I had my last such love. In the meantime I discovered practical ways of pursuing a life leading to man’s possible immortality and followed them with dedication. I knew my sexuality was a stumbling block and longed to part from it. I could not. Then, three years ago by the grace of God the Holy Spirit gave me the gift of abstinence and chastity. The point I am trying to make is that I do not believe for one moment that we can decide to be abstinent. It is a gift. Gifts are not demanded, nor are they there to be plucked off trees. You fight, you struggle, you suffer, and perhaps after decades you are given the gift by the Holy Spirit (Galatians 2). I have heard over the years many stories told by people who believed they were “celibate” only to find a few years later that they were rutting like weasels. It is easy to con ourselves, I am afraid. I am not for one moment suggesting I am the only one to have been given the gift. I am sure others have, but it is not scattered around like confetti by the Holy Spirit. Now comes the hard part. Three years into my total abstinence and 37 years after my last great emotional love, I met a young seminarian. It was as though an arrow had gone through my heart and I was, for the first time in my whole life, smitten by love at first sight. He was 32 and I was 73. Ludicrous! Impossible! Obscene! In love with someone young enough to be my grandson! Disgusting! Whatever. I was, and am, in love. He is completely straight and the relationship has nowhere to go. I told him of my abstinence and I told him there was not the slightest genital thought in my mind in loving him. If he would consent (and he certainly won’t ) I would be prepared to spend he rest of my life with him, serving him as a menial, if necessary (I.e. as a housekeeper, for example). So what I am saying to you is that if you are certain you are chaste and abstinent, and if it has lasted without lustful thoughts of any kind whatever, you could have a successful life-long relationship. If you are not certain I’ll wager £1000 to a bale of hay that in time you will fall off the celibacy wagon.
…nocturnal emissions and involuntary movements have NOTHING to do with chastity, and I’m disgusted that you’ve said such a thing!!
 
AB Juney, I suggest you never read the writings of the Church Fathers on the subject. You will be oh so disgusted and indignant.
 
AB Juney, I suggest you never read the writings of the Church Fathers on the subject. You will be oh so disgusted and indignant.
I suggest YOU speak to a modern day traditional, orthodox priest. They thought a lot of wrong things about sex back in the old days. You’re a hateful person if you really think someone isn’t keeping chaste because of something that have ZERO control over.
 
AB Juney. Chastity is a gift of the Holy Spirit, and when it is given it means the the Spirit has complete control of your human nature. Your human nature is then dead and nothing whatever, no movement at all, can take place in the human part of your sex centre. The Holy Spirit has complete control over it and nothing voluntary or involuntary can occur. Perhaps you should think of staying out of conversations the content of which you are not able to understand,
 
Thank you Dakota Roberts. It looks as though Father Serpa needs a serious acquaintance with the Church Fathers too.
 
To the OP-I read this a few days ago and I’ve been thinking about it ever since. I understand the desire not to be alone, believe me- since committing to the Church 20 years ago I’ve thought a LOT about finding someone like you have. However, I know that I couldn’t handle it. Too much temptation for me to get near.

I wish you well, and I hope that it all works out for you. I admire what you’re doing and your commitment to the faith and to each other.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top