Can homosexual attraction be true 'Love'?

[Newbie2]

There’s some really muddled thinking and emoting above. Lots of words and opinions but few clear thoughts.

**- There aren’t “sorts of love”. **

• True love is, according to Catholic teaching, willing the ultimate - the final - good of another.
• Homosexual relations are disordered in contrast to God’s design.
• Attraction isn’t love.

No opining, emoting, jaw-boning, beard-twisting will lead to clarity or truth, or in the end real holiness or happiness.

**Just because someone makes up a question, and people opine on it, doesn’t mean there’s truth or goodness to be gained by it. **

Sorry.

And by the same token, such doesn’t necessarily mean that there’s not truth or goodness to be gained by it, right?

Regarding “sorts” of love, I think our modern language is deficient in being able to define the expressions or perhaps “modes” of love that the Greek language, particularly in Scripture, is much better able to define. Agape, Eros. We don’t have such an understanding, which could very possible suit this particular discussion.

 

[Edward_H]

And by the same token, such doesn’t necessarily mean that there’s not truth or goodness to be gained by it, right?

Regarding “sorts” of love, I think our modern language is deficient in being able to define the expressions or perhaps “modes” of love that the Greek language, particularly in Scripture, is much better able to define. Agape, Eros. We don’t have such an understanding, which could very possible suit this particular discussion.

I think the Church has quite concretely and authoritatively - in full light and benefit of what the great Greek philosophers teased out about love - defined precisely what love is and what it is not.

It is true that our modern language fall shorts in describing what love is, because God is Love. But the Church’s language on love is the most precise, consistent, unchanging - it always points to total union with God, in will, in our thoughts, mind, soul, with all of our strength.

Elsewhere someone else posted on the proliferation of such postings in CAF. The threads and postings arise endlessly, and quickly veer off into the clouded language of our modern day, which no longer recognizes truth, authority; doesn’t understand what has been learned about love, the difference between will and emotions (and their ordering). And for the most part are led around by their noses with their feelings telling them what is real, what is true, what is right, what leads to true happiness.

In some important way, these threads represent what had happened and what has quickened with the field of psychology. Forums and many threads like these are a reflection of that field.

Psychologists have in essence leveraged human weaknesses (our pride, vanity, our sensuality) and have created a whole strange new world, concepts, methods, goals not capable of leading us to God. In fact, Christians need to take back the whole field of psychology and re-integrate the soul, God, and truth back into the equation of man, if it is to be helpful in our world. A world without God is a world without man. I think this is something that maybe CS Lewis has said…or maybe someone else…not trying to present this last thought as my own. But it’s true and appropriate.

 

[zdon011]

Just because someone makes up a question, and people opine on it, doesn’t mean there’s truth or goodness to be gained by it.

:blush:Yes, Edward: I posited my question not as a thesis to be defended or refuted, but to start a discussion, in the hope of gaining some ‘truth or goodness’, d.v.

 

[zdon011]

Having been in a gay relationship for three years now, I of course would say that what my partner and I share is true love. It certainly fits every good description of love I have ever known. In addition to this, I have to say that our relationship is more healthy and more stable than many straight relationships I have seen. I understand that, to those who believe that my partner and I are condemning each other to hell, it may seem we are not acting in a very loving way towards each other.

Dear Kevin, and fellow posters,

I suggest you read this:
nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html

And a comment piece on the same article:
ncregister.com/blog/ny_times_exposes_the_gay_marriage_myth?utm_source=NCRegister.com&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=43dbda6768-RSS_DAILY_EMAIL#When:23:20:18Z

I was also surprised to find (and I do not mean this at all facetiously) that Judge Vaugn Walker is himself gay. And yes, if any of you post messages asking ‘So what?’, I WILL IGNORE YOU:
sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/02/07/BACF1BT7ON.DTL

God bless you all,
zdon

 

[zdon011]

I don’t have to like it, but I don’t have to impose myself into their situation any more than I might not like the pictures my neighbour has put up on his walls, but then again I don’t need to force my way into his house to look at them. I may find eating prawns offensive (indeed, the thought nauseates me) but it’s utterly of no interest to me whether anyone else eats them and I am not harmed if they do. The Jews think some foods (prawns again!) are ‘unclean’ and therefore sinful and would not associate with the people who did eat ‘unclean’ foods. Christians have got past that. I suggest that we might need to get past the idea that same-sex chaste relationships are similarly sinful or invalid.

Dear Dex,

A gay, lapsed Catholic friend of mine once said something very similar. He suggested that those Christians who could not accept ‘gay marriage blessings’ were analogous to the strict Jewish Christians who refused food that was ‘unclean’ under the Mosaic Law (Romans 14). He equated those who accept gay marriage to Jewish Christians in St Paul’s time who had a ‘stronger’ faith, and were able to accept ritually ‘unclean’ food. To which I was tempted to say: St Paul was speaking of food, not poison.

I would suggest that two persons of the same gender can have a loving relationship (notwithstanding the Church’s rules on genital activity) because they can act within that relationship in ways that express that mutual love, care and affection AND harm nobody else in the process.

A same-sex, non-sexual relationship is NOT homosexuality, it is filial love or friendship. Such a relationship is perfectly acceptable. Witness the pure love between David and Jonathan, or between Our Lord and the Beloved Disciple.

Joe has very helpfully posted a link to this book, which John has also recommended:
Defending a Higher Law
The chapter beginning on page 77 is especially relevant to this topic.

God bless,
zdon

 

[zdon011]

Regarding “sorts” of love, I think our modern language is deficient in being able to define the expressions or perhaps “modes” of love that the Greek language, particularly in Scripture, is much better able to define. Agape, Eros. We don’t have such an understanding, which could very possible suit this particular discussion.

Yes, I was tempted to mention Eros and Agape (or even Charitas, ‘supernatural love’), but decided it would probably just complicate/confuse matters.
The Holy Father wrote an encyclical on those ‘sorts of love’ (pace Edward) not too long ago, IIRC.

 

[zdon011]

I think the Church has quite concretely and authoritatively…defined precisely what love is and what it is not.

…And for the most part are led around by their noses with their feelings telling them what is real, what is true, what is right, what leads to true happiness.

In some important way, these threads represent what had happened and what has quickened with the field of psychology…In fact, Christians need to take back the whole field of psychology and re-integrate the soul, God, and truth back into the equation of man, if it is to be helpful in our world.

I agree. But, speaking for myself, I would plead that my intent in starting this thread was sincere. I wish to clear up some uncertainties I have about homosexual attraction. Whatever answers I receive, I still wish, in the end, to adhere to what the Church has always taught on this subject.

 

[DexUK]

A same-sex, non-sexual relationship is NOT homosexuality, it is filial love or friendship. Such a relationship is perfectly acceptable. Witness the pure love between David and Jonathan, or between Our Lord and the Beloved Disciple.

That is an excellent and beautiful description of the type of relationship that I was talking about. I’m kicking myself that I didn’t think of it in those terms!

I just wonder why the Church doesn’t ask people of homosexual inclination to emulate such purity. Given the way in which the Church is always being represented as against stuff by hostile parties, it would be the perfect retort in that it would allow the Church to point to something inherently positive in scripture to encourage those with homosexual desires to act in a way that doesn’t displease God or the Church but still allows them the human comfort of companionship and supportive and enriching love while breaking no rules.

 

[Edward_H]

That is an excellent and beautiful description of the type of relationship that I was talking about. I’m kicking myself that I didn’t think of it in those terms!

I just wonder why the Church doesn’t ask people of homosexual inclination to emulate such purity. Given the way in which the Church is always being represented as against stuff by hostile parties, it would be the perfect retort in that it would allow the Church to point to something inherently positive in scripture to encourage those with homosexual desires to act in a way that doesn’t displease God or the Church but still allows them the human comfort of companionship and supportive and enriching love while breaking no rules.

More simply, it means living as brothers or sisters, part of the Catholic family. We are ALL adopted sons and daughters. A clear guidepost in such male-male or female-female cases would be to live as brothers and sisters.

The Church absolutely DOES teach such an approach.

 

[DexUK]

And yet we’re constantly exhorted not to do something or give such appearances as might cause scandal and therefore two persons of the same gender living together is frowned upon, especially if they’re both homosexual or thought to be such.

We hear nothing about the ideal of David and Jonathan, and everything of the condemnation of homosexual activity. I think we (all) would make far more headway with the world if we concentrated less on condemnation and rather promoted more the positive and the good.

 

[Edward_H]

And yet we’re constantly exhorted not to do something or give such appearances as might cause scandal and therefore two persons of the same gender living together is frowned upon, especially if they’re both homosexual or thought to be such.

We hear nothing about the ideal of David and Jonathan, and everything of the condemnation of homosexual activity. I think we (all) would make far more headway with the world if we concentrated less on condemnation and rather promoted more the positive and the good.

I love grossly generalizing, broad brushed, un-pointed claims like this. “we’re constantly exhorted”…“we hear nothing”, “if we concentrated less”. etc etc. who what where, when. P(name removed by moderator)oint, substantiate.

I think the Church is instead trying to make headway with the world by spreading the Gospel of Jesus, fully, faithfully, charitably and to help us humble ourselves in corresponding our will to His will in all parts of our lives, without relativizing, defining down, re-interpreting the Church’s clear teaching on these matters, based on our own beliefs, inclinations, desires, wants, etc.

But that’s just where I think the Church is trying to make headway. I could be wrong.

 

[DexUK]

I have experienced many individual occasions where prominent clergy talk about the evil of homosexuality (I’ve heard it with my own ears, in church) and don’t talk about the positive ways of living as an alternative. I’ve heard and read plenty of people claiming to be apologists for the faith denounce homosexuality as sinful and making no distinctions between acts and inclination. I’ve read plenty on this site that makes me wonder whether people have ever read the words “judge not lest you yourselves be judged” or “let those amongst you without sin cast the first stone”. The lack of charity towards people who only seek companionship and love is shocking.

I prefer to live my life with charity in my heart towards others, assuming that people try to be honest about their own feelings. I don’t see any evidence that vast numbers of homosexual people are trying to pull the wool over my or anyone else’s eyes when they claim to feel love for their particular partners. Who am I to judge their truthfulness? Can I or anyone else see into their hearts? How dare anyone tell these people that what they consider ‘love’ isn’t actually love and that they’re either neurotic, ill or deluded? Why is it not possible for a homosexual person to accept that sexual acts are ordered for procreative purposes only and still to be able to live in a wholesome, loving and committed chaste relationship with another person. Maybe not committed in the same way that a man and woman commit to each other, since that commitment is ordered towards different or additional outcomes, but committed it may still be, nonetheless, even if it isn’t marriage.

Whether or not the Church speaks in condemnatory tones or whether it is simply portrayed as such, it still needs to change the perception of itself as being condemnatory since that perception is at odds with the love that is supposed to be at the heart of the Church. If we’re perceived wrongly then we need to try harder to correct. And we’re not. And by not doing so we’re doing a disservice to people who need us and to our faith.

 

[Edward_H]

I have experienced many individual occasions where prominent clergy talk about the evil of homosexuality (I’ve heard it with my own ears, in church) and don’t talk about the positive ways of living as an alternative. I’ve heard and read plenty of people claiming to be apologists for the faith denounce homosexuality as sinful and making no distinctions between acts and inclination. I’ve read plenty on this site that makes me wonder whether people have ever read the words “judge not lest you yourselves be judged” or “let those amongst you without sin cast the first stone”. The lack of charity towards people who only seek companionship and love is shocking.

I prefer to live my life with charity in my heart towards others, assuming that people try to be honest about their own feelings. I don’t see any evidence that vast numbers of homosexual people are trying to pull the wool over my or anyone else’s eyes when they claim to feel love for their particular partners. Who am I to judge their truthfulness? Can I or anyone else see into their hearts? How dare anyone tell these people that what they consider ‘love’ isn’t actually love and that they’re either neurotic, ill or deluded? Why is it not possible for a homosexual person to accept that sexual acts are ordered for procreative purposes only and still to be able to live in a wholesome, loving and committed chaste relationship with another person. Maybe not committed in the same way that a man and woman commit to each other, since that commitment is ordered towards different or additional outcomes, but committed it may still be, nonetheless, even if it isn’t marriage.

Whether or not the Church speaks in condemnatory tones or whether it is simply portrayed as such, it still needs to change the perception of itself as being condemnatory since that perception is at odds with the love that is supposed to be at the heart of the Church. If we’re perceived wrongly then we need to try harder to correct. And we’re not. And by not doing so we’re doing a disservice to people who need us and to our faith.

We’ll just disagree. I think some of the cautious and conservative language used by the Church on this matter was probably in retrospect a mistake with respect to the distinction drawn between attraction and actions…this has led predictably to a debated middle ground that serves no purpose, and won’t likely resolve much if anything.

I think the Church was just naturally being conservative, since no one (scientists, philosophers, etc.) can at this point definitively explain human behavior. So the Church properly and with good basis drew the line at homosexual acts. But this of course gives some the impression that there’s additional ground to take. The presence of SO MANY postings and threads in CAF is a pretty good indication of this goal.

Why are some people apparently attracted to little kids, both sexes, animals, and other fetishes and perversions too many to elaborate. Why the addiction to porn. Is it ok to be attracted to porn, so long as one doesn’t view it.

Why not the strange middle ground here. I thought our Lord talked about intent, what was in our heart…lusting in our heart was just as bad.

So how will the Church handle other “attractions” that quite frankly seem to be diversifying each year. Are these all genetic as well? Is it ok for someone to be attracted to little kids, as long as the dwellers of these thoughts don’t act? That’s ludicrous. That’s not right, healthy, holy, in line with God’s plan.

I especially disagree with your point " it still needs to change the perception of itself as being condemnatory since that perception is at odds with the love that is supposed to be at the heart of the Church. "

The Church can’t change the perception like some marketing organization. Many people treat the Church as an organization…with a CEO and a board of directors. It’s a community, a family. Its documents on this subject are enormously charitable and they ring true with what what true love is.

True love is the willing of the ultimate good of another. If there’s anything useful the Church needs to do it is to re-remind people what true love is and what it is not. We seem to be poorly formed on this point.

Love isn’t the mollifying and perception handling of people who want to re-interpret truth.

There are just way too many overly sensitive, frankly disobedient, overly-articulate, and prideful people who want to sub-brand the Catholic Church. Not going to happen.