"Chaste relationships" or sin?

[mitex]

I have two friends I went to school with. Both are Catholic; one is heterosexual and the other is homosexual (but is celibate like I am). Well anyway they were something like childhood best friends, and when my one friend sort of told his close friends and family he was a homosexual and struggling with celibacy my heterosexual friend ended up being his “accountability partner.”

It started off innocent enough, they would have weekly meetings on the issue outside of their time they spent as friends to keep accountability on the issue of celibacy. Well now its morphed into something I don’t know what to call it. My heterosexual friend broke off an engagement with his fiancee and announced he was also celibate (but still heterosexual) and next thing I know they moved into an apartment together.

I confronted them about it thinking they were in some kind of sexual relationship. But they denied it was sexual. My heterosexual friend said that he wanted to be his friend’s “life” companion and accountability partner.

Incidentally they sleep in separate bedrooms, and don’t do anything more affectionate than hugs. This is really confusing to me. As a protestant Evangelical I’m taught that any kind of close affectionate friendship between men is a homosexual temptation.

I couldn’t find a term for this so I did some searching (including the forums here) and best I could figure that this was some kind of “chaste” or “celibate” relationship for accountability and companionship. Is this still a friendship or is it crossing the line into some kind of gray area.

My one friends says since he’s completely heterosexual there’s no chance of their (for lack of a better term) arrangement becoming sexual.

In my Church I’m not supposed to get close to other men because it would be a temptation for homosexuality. Is this kind of “arrangement” wrong or sinful?

 

[dshix]

This is a very strange situation, but without more evidence for me to work with I’d say there’s no sin. Hugs between two people are not sinful unless done with the intention of sinning. Of course, I don’t know what ethnic group or culture this is (for Mexicans, hugs are exchanged anywhere and everywhere with family and friends, but for other cultures people are more reserved) so I can’t exactly give a solid decision.

 

[StJudeprayforme]

Fr. Serpa answered a question about this a long time ago, and I have linked to it
here
.

Catholicism asks that individuals avoid the near occasion of sin, and in fact willfully putting oneself in a near occasion of mortal sin without just cause is considered to be a mortal sin in itself. This determination is something that I believe should between an individual and his confessor, and not random people on the internet.

 

[mitex]

Fr. Serpa answered a question about this a long time ago, and I have linked to it
here
.

Catholicism asks that individuals avoid the near occasion of sin, and in fact willfully putting oneself in a near occasion of mortal sin without just cause is considered to be a mortal sin in itself. This determination is something that I believe should between an individual and his confessor, and not random people on the internet.

Okay that helps thanks. Near occasion of sin. I’ll have to remember that.

 

[michaelmas]

“with grace all things are possible”

 

[juno24]

Okay that helps thanks. Near occasion of sin. I’ll have to remember that.

Keep in mind that Fr. Serpa was talking about 2 men who had been sexual partners now living together chastely, NOT 2 men who had never had a sexual relationship (as you described).
As an aside, I find it quite sad that you belong to a community that forbids men from having deep, meaningful relationships with one another for fear of somehow contracting or acquiring homosexuality. If I misunderstood something there, please correct me.

 

[mitex]

Keep in mind that Fr. Serpa was talking about 2 men who had been sexual partners now living together chastely, NOT 2 men who had never had a sexual relationship (as you described).
As an aside, I find it quite sad that you belong to a community that forbids men from having deep, meaningful relationships with one another for fear of somehow contracting or acquiring homosexuality. If I misunderstood something there, please correct me.

No you understood it partially correctly.

They don’t want me acting on my orientation. So they don’t really want me being “intimate” with other men. They’re not afraid of “catching” homosexuality. They know the orientation is not a choice. They just have a lot of preconceived fears.

But getting back on the topic what’s the difference between the two scenarios? Two men who were sexual but still living together and two men who have never been sexual. They both seem to be the same thing. It’s a little confusing.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Lacking any additional info, it seems to me that during the course of your heterosexual friend’s giving counsel to your homosexual friend that he became convinced of a call to celibacy and committed his life accordingly. Or it could be that he loves your (homosexual) friend very much indeed and is willing to do (and sacrifice) quite a lot in order to help him remain celibate.

In my opinion and from what you say, the benefit of the doubt should be given to your heterosexual friend–i.e., he should be believed when he says that he does not believe that the relationship would become sexual. The relationship may seem odd to us because we can sometimes associate cohabitation between two people in a very intimate relationship with something sexual, but I don’t believe that that has always been the case and it needn’t be the case here. It may be odd to us, but odd does not necessarily equate to scandal. (Part of the difficulty/oddness may involve your friend’s choice of words “life” partner] which suggests a more sexual relationship…but that perhaps infelicitous word choice may in fact reflect a lack of readily available contemporary terminology and models for this sort of relationship.)

It could just be that your friends both have authentic calls to celibacy and are endeavoring to help each other remain true to their calls. However…I do have a nagging concern–I hope that your homosexual friend has stressed to your heterosexual friend that the sacrifices he is making are not necessary to the growth and development of their friendship, nor is it necessary for his (your homosexual friend’s) ongoing commitment to celibacy. While the example of your heterosexual friend’s own assumption of the mantle of celibacy may be supportive, encouraging and affirming, your homosexual friend may do well to make it clear that he would be himself heartbroken if your heterosexual friend were to abandon the possibility of having a wife and children some day should he in fact be called to such a life. I would imagine that this sort of relationship would only make sense if the people in it were truthfully and actually looking out for each others’ well-being, however personally painful that may prove to be. But if I’m honest, I fear that your homosexual friend may be smitten with your heterosexual friend and, in the joy of chaste companionship with his beloved, may not be able to appreciate what his beloved is actually doing…and may not be able to realize that he may need to discourage his beloved from doing it. I hope your two friends have had some sort of conversation along these lines, and I hope, too, that they’ve sought the counsel of a priest or pastor regarding discerning the call to celibacy and in the ordering of their common life together.

All that having been said: I think that if their calls to celibacy are authentic, if their friendship is true and marked by honesty, and if they both truly seek the well-being of the other, then I would have difficulty seeing what is problematic in the relationship.

Happy New Year, Mitex!

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[juno24]

No you understood it partially correctly.

They don’t want me acting on my orientation. So they don’t really want me being “intimate” with other men. They’re not afraid of “catching” homosexuality. They know the orientation is not a choice. They just have a lot of preconceived fears.

But getting back on the topic what’s the difference between the two scenarios? Two men who were sexual but still living together and two men who have never been sexual. They both seem to be the same thing. It’s a little confusing.

Ah, ok. I missed where you said you were homosexual. Yes, of course, it makes sense that you not put yourself in such a situation with another homosexual man. It does not make sense that distance yourself from all meaningful male friendships, though. I read a column recently about how men need such relationships, but the fear of being perceived as a romantic couple is now so strong that many men forgo this necessary aspect of life. I will see if I can find it, and if I do I will post it.
The difference, in my opinion, is that in the first scenario (2 homosexual men who had previously had a sexual relationship), the men are at a greater risk of falling back into a sinful relationship. I don’t see where that could happen in a scenario where one man has no homosexual inclinations. He won’t suddenly become gay because he is best friends with a gay man. Now, if the homosexual man is indeed attracted to the heterosexual man, it may not be a wise decision for them to live together (due to the emotional strain that might cause him). It would require great strength, lots of communication, and a strong spiritual life.

Edit: I found it; it is a long read, but well worth the time. “A Requiem for Friendship”.

 

[mitex]

Fr. Serpa does a good job on the near occasion of sin part that such a relationship would bring but he stills seems to imply that its possible on a technicality (My Church would simply say such an arrangement is sinful because its two men together either way). But it’s helpful you showed me that article that close but chaste male friendships have been “sexualized” and associated with homosexuality which seems to be interesting.

That article helped a lot. Thanks!