"Chaste" same-sex dating ok with Church?

[ToeInTheWater]

I have read some posts (both on CAF and elsewhere) suggesting that if same-sex lovers decide to be chaste and refrain from sexual activity, that they are not required to “break up”. I have even seen posts from people who themselves claim to be in this type of same-sex relationship, even sleeping in the same bed at times, but not doing anything sexual. So it seems the same-sex equivalent of an invalidly married heterosexual couple “living as brother and sister” is ok? Or is it?

I understand that the Church teaches that same-sex attraction by itself is not sinful, but sexual acts between those of the same sex are not only sinful, but are mortally so. However, does that mean that it is ok for people with SSA to “date” as long as they remain chaste? How chaste would they have to be? Obviously nothing involving genitals, but would the Church consider it a sin for same-sex couples to kiss, or embrace? Or to present themselves as a “couple” at all?

 

[TheQuestioner]

Same-sex couples are not allowed to date or do anything that those who date would normally do, like kiss.

This is because dating is done to discern marriage. Since same sex couples cannot be married they cannot date (or court).

 

[Alexander_Smith]

I have read some posts (both on CAF and elsewhere) suggesting that if same-sex lovers decide to be chaste and refrain from sexual activity, that they are not required to “break up”. I have even seen posts from people who themselves claim to be in this type of same-sex relationship, even sleeping in the same bed at times, but not doing anything sexual. So it seems the same-sex equivalent of an invalidly married heterosexual couple “living as brother and sister” is ok? Or is it?

I understand that the Church teaches that same-sex attraction by itself is not sinful, but sexual acts between those of the same sex are not only sinful, but are mortally so. However, does that mean that it is ok for people with SSA to “date” as long as they remain chaste? How chaste would they have to be? Obviously nothing involving genitals, but would the Church consider it a sin for same-sex couples to kiss, or embrace? Or to present themselves as a “couple” at all?

No this is not quite the full picture. I don’t have much time, but if anyone says such couples are not required to break up, or are allowed to sleep in the same bed, they are VERY much mistaken, and ignorant of the reality of ordered and disordered relationships.

 

[1ke]

I have read some posts (both on CAF and elsewhere) suggesting that if same-sex lovers decide to be chaste and refrain from sexual activity, that they are not required to “break up”. I have even seen posts from people who themselves claim to be in this type of same-sex relationship, even sleeping in the same bed at times, but not doing anything sexual. So it seems the same-sex equivalent of an invalidly married heterosexual couple “living as brother and sister” is ok? Or is it?

This is completely incorrect.

I understand that the Church teaches that same-sex attraction by itself is not sinful, but sexual acts between those of the same sex are not only sinful, but are mortally so. However, does that mean that it is ok for people with SSA to “date” as long as they remain chaste?

No.

Obviously nothing involving genitals, but would the Church consider it a sin for same-sex couples to kiss, or embrace? Or to present themselves as a “couple” at all?

Yes, it would.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I think 2 homosexuals can be friends and do activities that friends would do…like go to dinner or coffee.

They need to remain chaste, but friendship could be a possibility.

 

[Philology]

I have SSA, am 15, and will be Catholic within a year. I have much of the same questions about what relationships are tolerated and which are inherently wrong. I refuse to consider myself gay, because people who are “gay” embrace the lifestyle which comes with the word; I instead prefer “SSA” when I refer to my condition.

I am dealing with the biggest crush I have ever had for someone in my life (I suppose I might say “madly in love”, but I don’t like using the phrase), and this person who I love is a boy my age. Just last night I experienced a hug from a different boy, and am wondering if what I did was a sin, and/or whether or not me hugging the boy I have a crush on would be a sin. I genuinely care about this boy, and infact I think about him every hour of the day. I cannot stand being away from him; even if I’m only away from him for an hour. I want to spend the rest of mt life with him, though I know this notion is complete nonsense.

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

If a married man can have a chaste relationship with another woman than his wife then what “Toe in the Water” suggests is fine. But the married man cannot do this because it is not just about sex but it is about intimacy. This is part of the deeper spiritual level we nurture by our external actions. Something that is not bad “in an of itself” still may not be the “good” that we are called to seek and to do in union with God and to merit by those actions, heaven. This is the storing up of treasures we are to do.

An intimate relationship with a member of the same sex, even without sexual stimulation, is spiritual and this is not the complementary help we need nor have been called to nurture for ourselves. Friendship does not rise to this level of intimacy and seems to me to be where we are to keep same sex relationships, separating ourselves from even this if we cannot avoid falling into levels of intimacy with them.

Women complement men in deeply spiritual levels and help make him who, in his nature made by God, is supposed to be.

 

[challam2010]

So, let me get this straight (no pun intended) –

The Church considers homosexuality gravely disordered and demands that homosexuals remain celibate, as it does all other unmarried heterosexuals.

Yet, this thread claims that two homosexuals who are attracted to one another cannot go to a movie together, to dinner together, to a party together, travel together, or any other “fun” activity that can be considered “dating” events, even if they remain 100% chaste at all times and have NO intention to ever be involved sexually… and even if they are celibate, practicing, committed Catholics.

We are told that we are always to “love the sinner but hate the sin” but in this case, we are proposing that homosexuals are not allowed to participate in close friendships of the same sex. That precludes any kind of non-genital intimacy with people who share the same burden and with whom they would find the most acceptance, understanding and empathy.

– or maybe all their intimate friends should be heterosexuals?

What logic am I missing here – or is there any logic? Is there never anything but condemnation and harsh rules and conventions for people who have not chosen this “disordered personality”? How on earth are homosexuals ever to experience any normal relationships or the love that friendships have to offer if you block off every possible open avenue?

There is another current thread about homosexual candidates for seminaries where celibacy has been discussed at some length. A single person today in the Church is required to be celibate – how then is a friendship between two heterosexuals that involve the above “dating” activities any different than a friendship between two homosexuals? Or is that forbidden, too?

Celibacy is a choice and a commitment – you don’t un-choose celibacy because of an attraction to a person of the same or opposite sex. You honor the commitment – but for pete’s sake – you can go get a sandwich together without having sex - or even wanting to have sex.

How limited and close-minded can people possibly be? What options do you offer for homosexuals to have friendships if they can’t DO anything together?

I’m not gay – and after seeing this particular thread, I’m darned glad I’m not a gay Catholic – there just seems to be no hope whatever for any kind of fellowship according to the “rules” people on this thread think exist.

According to this thinking, Catholicism is absolutely the religion of exclusion – not exactly what Jesus had in mind.

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

We are told that we are always to “love the sinner but hate the sin” but in this case, we are proposing that homosexuals are not allowed to participate in close friendships of the same sex. That precludes any kind of non-genital intimacy with people who share the same burden and with whom they would find the most acceptance, understanding and empathy.

– or maybe all their intimate friends should be heterosexuals?

What logic am I missing here – or is there any logic? Is there never anything but condemnation and harsh rules and conventions for people who have not chosen this “disordered personality”? How on earth are homosexuals ever to experience any normal relationships or the love that friendships have to offer if you block off every possible open avenue?

In reality, it is for our benefit that we make ourselves open to union with God through His Spirit and to avoid turning away from Him. The rules of the Church are here for this purpose. When we fail, the rules concerning confession help us here too. These both come from the same loving God and confusion about this is where the exasperation toward the Church and Her rules comes from.

The intimacy of friendship is different than the intimacy of dating. It should be obvious that these differing levels is what we need to discern. Being too intimate with those of the same sex is just as uncomplimentary in relationships as in sexual matters. It is the level of intimacy that is the primary problem and sexual intercourse is only a part of this deeper intimacy. It is a mistake to make sexual contact the only problem concerning intimacy.

 

[Adeodatus]

According to this thinking, Catholicism is absolutely the religion of exclusion – not exactly what Jesus had in mind.

Oh for Pete’s sake.

Dating is a series of actions meant to engender romance. Can a married man licitly have romance with a woman other than his wife? No. Why not? Because it is ordered toward union. That union is called marriage.

If two people court and then break up, one might remark that “it never went anywhere”. Well, where does it actually go? Marriage and sex is where it is supposed to go.

I’m sure it’s a tough personal problem to suffer from SSA. It’s tough as a heterosexual male to have lust issues. Maybe you don’t “choose it” or “ask for it” (or maybe you do… let’s set that aside because it doesn’t matter). The fact is, it is our responsibility to choose rightly.

If two individuals experience SSA, especially if they experience it for one another, they should refrain from physical contact beyond what would be the norm for two heterosexual male friends. No holding hands, no backrubs, no kissing. No foot massages, right?

It’s not merely our responsbility to avoid performative sins, it’s also our responsibility to avoid near occasions of sin. It can be a difficult journey sometimes. But we all know what the destination is, and what happens in the event of failure. If we want to show our love for God, we need to keep His commandments. One of the main things that takes is trust. Trying to skirt around the rules implies a lack of trust.

If you’re drawn to something that you know is sinful, don’t put yourself in that situation. Avoid it, do something else.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

I have read some posts (both on CAF and elsewhere) suggesting that if same-sex lovers decide to be chaste and refrain from sexual activity, that they are not required to “break up”. I have even seen posts from people who themselves claim to be in this type of same-sex relationship, even sleeping in the same bed at times, but not doing anything sexual. So it seems the same-sex equivalent of an invalidly married heterosexual couple “living as brother and sister” is ok? Or is it?

If you say “break up” as in agree to new boundaries in the friendship and a change in living situation, then yes. If you say “break up” as in cut the other person off from your life completely, then no, unless the other person refuses to agree to boundaries or to respect your choice to live a chaste life.

I understand that the Church teaches that same-sex attraction by itself is not sinful, but sexual acts between those of the same sex are not only sinful, but are mortally so. However, does that mean that it is ok for people with SSA to “date” as long as they remain chaste? How chaste would they have to be? Obviously nothing involving genitals, but would the Church consider it a sin for same-sex couples to kiss, or embrace? Or to present themselves as a “couple” at all?

I wouldn’t say date because that implies a romantic relationship. It is possible for people who used to be “lovers” to evolve their friendship beyond romance into a chaste friendship. Sometimes, these friendships are some of the most beneficial because of the struggles they share. I’m in a similar situation myself and we get along quite well without a need for sexual expression.

I wouldn’t recommend a person with SSA having a lot of friends who also have SSA, faithful to the Church or not, simply because after a while, it becomes all about having SSA and the “struggle” connected thereto. In my case, I experienced a great deal of healing when I made friends with a regular “straight” dude. He knows all about my struggle and life and he’s a friend to me anyway. I’m starting to see other men as I see my friend…he’s a dude (I’m a Californian, deal with it! ), nothing more, nothing less. I still have quite a struggle, but it’s not about the sex anymore, it’s different and deeper, more philosophical and spiritual, I guess you could say.

 

[Alexander_Smith]

Yet, this thread claims that two homosexuals who are attracted to one another cannot go to a movie together, to dinner together, to a party together, travel together, or any other “fun” activity that can be considered “dating” events, even if they remain 100% chaste at all times and have NO intention to ever be involved sexually… and even if they are celibate, practicing, committed Catholics.

I have many friends. Most of them are guys like me. I don’t have SSA. I would never even dream of taking them out to movies, or dinner, or anything like that.

Two homosexuals who are attracted to each other have a bigger problem them the issue of homosexual sex. Their problem is that they are feeding their disorder by behaving in that manner.

Oh for Pete’s sake.

Dating is a series of actions meant to engender romance. Can a married man licitly have romance with a woman other than his wife? No. Why not? Because it is ordered toward union. That union is called marriage.

If two people court and then break up, one might remark that “it never went anywhere”. Well, where does it actually go? Marriage and sex is where it is supposed to go.

I’m sure it’s a tough personal problem to suffer from SSA. It’s tough as a heterosexual male to have lust issues. Maybe you don’t “choose it” or “ask for it” (or maybe you do… let’s set that aside because it doesn’t matter). The fact is, it is our responsibility to choose rightly.

If two individuals experience SSA, especially if they experience it for one another, they should refrain from physical contact beyond what would be the norm for two heterosexual male friends. No holding hands, no backrubs, no kissing. No foot massages, right?

It’s not merely our responsbility to avoid performative sins, it’s also our responsibility to avoid near occasions of sin. It can be a difficult journey sometimes. But we all know what the destination is, and what happens in the event of failure. If we want to show our love for God, we need to keep His commandments. One of the main things that takes is trust. Trying to skirt around the rules implies a lack of trust.

If you’re drawn to something that you know is sinful, don’t put yourself in that situation. Avoid it, do something else.

Perfect response. Thank you.

 

[bkayw]

I have read some posts (both on CAF and elsewhere) suggesting that if same-sex lovers decide to be chaste and refrain from sexual activity, that they are not required to “break up”.

Please consult with Courage, a celibate SSA apostolate:

couragerc.net/

email: NYCourage@aol.com.

"Courage, an apostolate of the Roman Catholic Church, ministers to those with same-sex attractions and their loved ones. We have been endorsed by the Pontifical Council for the Family and our beloved John Paul II said of this ministry, “COURAGE is doing the work of God!” We also have an outreach called Encourage which ministers to relatives and friends of persons with same-sex attractions.

From our website you will learn about homosexuality and chastity. By developing an interior life of chastity, which is the universal call to all Christians, one can move beyond the confines of the homosexual identity to a more complete one in Christ.

In Courage you will get to know men and women who share in your concerns, meeting them online through our Listservs, or in person at Chapter Meetings, Conferences, Days of Recollection, and Retreats."

couragerc.net/WWCStatesM-N.html

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I have many friends. Most of them are guys like me. I don’t have SSA. I would never even dream of taking them out to movies, or dinner, or anything like that.

Two homosexuals who are attracted to each other have a bigger problem them the issue of homosexual sex. Their problem is that they are feeding their disorder by behaving in that manner.

Perfect response. Thank you.

Please humor me (in all charity) but 2 guys going out for dinner is odd in some way? Or to the movies? Does it need to be a group of 3 or more…otherwise it’s weird?

I’ve gone out with just one female friend…it was not a “date” but an outing.

I think 2 adults should be able to foster a sincere friendship, despite their SSA. They cannot be friends?

 

[Holly3278]

No, it is wrong. Not only is it a near occasion of sin, it is also wrong for same-sex couples to even exist. The reason is because homosexuality is objectively disordered. Therefore, it would not only cause scandal in the Church if a same-sex couple were to come to church together regardless of whether they were chaste or not but it would also be denying the fact that the Church teaches that homosexuality is objectively disordered. I mean, if you think about it, what would your parish’s members think if they saw an obviously homosexual couple walk through the door? They would more than likely assume that they were not chaste, right? Therefore, it would cause scandal to date someone of the same sex regardless of whether they are chaste or not.

 

[challam2010]

No, it is wrong. Not only is it a near occasion of sin, it is also wrong for same-sex couples to even exist. The reason is because homosexuality is objectively disordered. Therefore, it would not only cause scandal in the Church if a same-sex couple were to come to church together regardless of whether they were chaste or not but it would also be denying the fact that the Church teaches that homosexuality is objectively disordered. I mean, if you think about it, what would your parish’s members think if they saw an obviously homosexual couple walk through the door? They would more than likely assume that they were not chaste, right? Therefore, it would cause scandal to date someone of the same sex regardless of whether they are chaste or not.

Yet…the Church encourages homosexuals to love the Catholic Church, to be obedient to its precepts and dogmas, to cherish celibacy, to accept with humility the fact that their sexual orientation (which they did not choose) is “intrinsically disordered” and their personal cross to bear – but they can’t be seen coming to church with a friend because it might cause scandal?

So – we’ve eliminated a same-sex sexual relationship of any kind, we’ve eliminated “dating” – we’re certainly uncomfortable with the prospect of gay priests in our church – we’re asking all homosexual single people to remain celibate (as all heterosexual people are asked to do) – *but even when they comply with all of that, they now must come to church alone – because someone will assume they are not celibate.
*

I hope you’re not planning a trip to California any time soon – can you believe there are churches here who actually value, respect, honor, love and minister to gay communities?

If a homosexual person complies with everything the Church demands, they should be welcomed at the front door of every Catholic church in the world with or without their friends. In fact, even if they don’t comply with any of the demands, they are our brothers and sisters in Christ and should be welcomed as such. The state of their souls is between them and God alone.

Do you realize that these are real, breathing, living people we’re talking about here – that this isn’t a cold, abstract premise to be quantified and codified?

I can’t begin to tell you, as a straight, faithful, cradle-Catholic grandmother (with no homosexuals in the family that I’m aware of), how disgusting I find this particular discrimination – and there’s no other word for it.

I’m amazed that the Church has even ONE homosexual member if this thread is typical of Catholic thinking.

 

[illmatic]

I am sick to death of reading heterosexual, middle class, white mails from suburban America try to legislate on behalf of the Church about homosexuality. Read the Bible. Read the teachings of Pope John Paul II on the theology of the body and try to draw your own conclusions (think, read, pray). If you do that and ignore the hate spouting on the internet, I think the conclusion you reach will be quite different from a lot of the hatred (it plain is) spouted on forums like this.
Also, I don’t think that the conclusions reached by these boys are necessarily the continuation of the Catechism’s teachings on it.

 

[Adeodatus]

Read the Bible.

Hey… good book. Yes, let’s read it:
The Bible:

    * Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." 
    * Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them" 
    * 1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God." 
    * Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."

Hmm.

Or were you talking about like the Upanishads or something?

 

[ConstantineTG]

If a divorced woman or man is not allowed to date, why can same-sex couples?

Also, can priests date even though they will remain chaste and won’t pursue marriage?

The answer is right there

 

[Holly3278]

Yet…the Church encourages homosexuals to love the Catholic Church, to be obedient to its precepts and dogmas, to cherish celibacy, to accept with humility the fact that their sexual orientation (which they did not choose) is “intrinsically disordered” and their personal cross to bear – but they can’t be seen coming to church with a friend because it might cause scandal?

So – we’ve eliminated a same-sex sexual relationship of any kind, we’ve eliminated “dating” – we’re certainly uncomfortable with the prospect of gay priests in our church – we’re asking all homosexual single people to remain celibate (as all heterosexual people are asked to do) – *but even when they comply with all of that, they now must come to church alone – because someone will assume they are not celibate.
*

I hope you’re not planning a trip to California any time soon – can you believe there are churches here who actually value, respect, honor, love and minister to gay communities?

If a homosexual person complies with everything the Church demands, they should be welcomed at the front door of every Catholic church in the world with or without their friends. In fact, even if they don’t comply with any of the demands, they are our brothers and sisters in Christ and should be welcomed as such. The state of their souls is between them and God alone.

Do you realize that these are real, breathing, living people we’re talking about here – that this isn’t a cold, abstract premise to be quantified and codified?

I can’t begin to tell you, as a straight, faithful, cradle-Catholic grandmother (with no homosexuals in the family that I’m aware of), how disgusting I find this particular discrimination – and there’s no other word for it.

I’m amazed that the Church has even ONE homosexual member if this thread is typical of Catholic thinking.

I did not say that they couldn’t be seen coming to church with a friend. I said they couldn’t be seen coming to church with a boyfriend or girlfriend of the same sex. The differences would be obvious. I mean, if they’re holding hands or just simply acting “lovey dovey” around each other then yeah, they’re more than likely homosexual and that would cause a scandal.