Homoromantic but not exactly homosexual?

[strngrnrth]

So, in the asexual/aromantic world apparently there are many men, women and young people who consider themselves asexual but homoromantic (in or wanting a romantic-type relationship with someone of the same sex). If romanc without the possibility of marriage and sex is OK (is it? Is there an official Church stance on that? Still confused). There would be no sex involved. I know homosexual acts are wrong. But what about a virginal romance? Is that a sin as well? This would be for people who do not experience sexual attractions, so I don’t see how it could be lustful. Is it disordered? Is it just like a friendship? I mean, dating, Valentines, pet names, keeping house, even holdinghands, maybe a peck on the forehead or something after work, I don’t know.That would be all. This is serious to me because it helps me figure out what sexual morality is actually based on and what that means to the rest of life. I’m not in one of these relationships myself. Aside from scandal, is it wrong?
I read Theology of the body kind of fast a while ago but I don’t remember everything and I guess I really don’t understand it.

 

[Ruthie]

“Is it disordered? Is it just like a friendship? I mean, dating, Valentines, pet names, keeping house, even holdinghands, maybe a peck on the forehead or something after work, I don’t know.That would be all.”

Dating? Valentines? Romance?

Even if the intent is to remain asexual, this sounds like same-sex attraction to me. And SSA is intrinsically disordered, so acting on it may be sinful, even if not strictly sexual.

Of course, there once was a time when it was socially acceptable for mere friends to walk with their arms across each others’ shoulders without being accused of homosexuality…

But, really, romance and Valentines are for love interests, not for best friends.

Or… could you be having scruples, and confusing your natural love for a best friend (or having a “crush” on a new friend) with romance?

Please talk this over with your spiritual adviser!

Ruthie

 

[LilyM]

“Is it disordered? Is it just like a friendship? I mean, dating, Valentines, pet names, keeping house, even holdinghands, maybe a peck on the forehead or something after work, I don’t know.That would be all.”

Dating? Valentines? Romance?

Even if the intent is to remain asexual, this sounds like same-sex attraction to me. And SSA is intrinsically disordered, so acting on it may be sinful, even if not strictly sexual.

Of course, there once was a time when it was socially acceptable for mere friends to walk with their arms across each others’ shoulders without being accused of homosexuality…

But, really, romance and Valentines are for love interests, not for best friends.

Or… could you be having scruples, and confusing your natural love for a best friend (or having a “crush” on a new friend) with romance?

Please talk this over with your spiritual adviser!

Ruthie

No SSA may be disordered, but not in and of itself sinful unless acted upon.

However, acting on it in less than a sexual capacity is still sinful.

If you were married, for example, you certainly would not tolerate your spouse dating or sending valentines to or God forbid ‘keeping house with’ others than yourself. These are behaviours that belong within the context of either a married relationship or a relationship tending towards marriage, which puts them out of bounds between two persons of the same gender.

 

[strngrnrth]

No SSA may be disordered, but not in and of itself sinful unless acted upon.

However, acting on it in less than a sexual capacity is still sinful.

If you were married, for example, you certainly would not tolerate your spouse dating or sending valentines to or God forbid ‘keeping house with’ others than yourself. These are behaviours that belong within the context of either a married relationship or a relationship tending towards marriage, which puts them out of bounds between two persons of the same gender.

OK then.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

No SSA may be disordered, but not in and of itself sinful unless acted upon.

However, acting on it in less than a sexual capacity is still sinful.

If you were married, for example, you certainly would not tolerate your spouse dating or sending valentines to or God forbid ‘keeping house with’ others than yourself. These are behaviours that belong within the context of either a married relationship or a relationship tending towards marriage, which puts them out of bounds between two persons of the same gender.

LilyM, can you help me out here by explaining what really is analogous between marital infidelity and a non-sexual homo-social relationship?

You write, for instance, that keeping house with someone belongs within the bonds of a married relationship–do you have a problem with room-mate situations generally, in which both room-mates take joint responsibility for the maintenance of the home they share?

Perhaps we need to define various degrees or levels of affection. That’s the question it seems the OP is really asking–what degree of affection can two people of the same gender show each other without falling into sin? Using your standard, LilyM, articulated in your last paragraph, any sort of affection between two men or two women (including friendship, it would seem) is dangerous, and should be entirely anathema amongst homosexual people. And that seems more than slightly ridiculous to me. It is as if you are saying that love can only be expressed in sexual terms, regardless of whether or not the expression is overly sexual.

Perhaps the question should be rephrased and made more general: What is the morality involved in strictly platonic relationships? And the followup question would be: Is a platonic relationship only morally permissible between a man and woman? Why or why not? (I am not sure, but I do not think the catechism has anything in particular to say on the issue of platonic relationships.)

It might be helpful in all of this to look into defining when a homosexual orientation (non-sinful according to Rome) becomes a homosexual act (sinful according to Rome). Is the idea of being attracted to a specific person of the same gender sinful (as it is an expression of a “disordered” sexuality), or does sin lie in the decision to pursue a chaste friendship with the object of affection? Are chaste friendships impossible when one or both of the friends have the potential to be attracted to each other?

LilyM, I’m afraid your concluding paragraph seems to be a little too rote or un-thought-through.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[strngrnrth]

I’m taking it to Ask an Apologist.

 

[LilyM]

Grace & Peace!

LilyM, can you help me out here by explaining what really is analogous between marital infidelity and a non-sexual homo-social relationship?

You write, for instance, that keeping house with someone belongs within the bonds of a married relationship–do you have a problem with room-mate situations generally, in which both room-mates take joint responsibility for the maintenance of the home they share?

Perhaps we need to define various degrees or levels of affection. That’s the question it seems the OP is really asking–what degree of affection can two people of the same gender show each other without falling into sin? Using your standard, LilyM, articulated in your last paragraph, any sort of affection between two men or two women (including friendship, it would seem) is dangerous, and should be entirely anathema amongst homosexual people. And that seems more than slightly ridiculous to me. It is as if you are saying that love can only be expressed in sexual terms, regardless of whether or not the expression is overly sexual.

Perhaps the question should be rephrased and made more general: What is the morality involved in strictly platonic relationships? And the followup question would be: Is a platonic relationship only morally permissible between a man and woman? Why or why not? (I am not sure, but I do not think the catechism has anything in particular to say on the issue of platonic relationships.)

It might be helpful in all of this to look into defining when a homosexual orientation (non-sinful according to Rome) becomes a homosexual act (sinful according to Rome). Is the idea of being attracted to a specific person of the same gender sinful (as it is an expression of a “disordered” sexuality), or does sin lie in the decision to pursue a chaste friendship with the object of affection? Are chaste friendships impossible when one or both of the friends have the potential to be attracted to each other?

LilyM, I’m afraid your concluding paragraph seems to be a little too rote or un-thought-through.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

I’ve thought it through very well, thank you.

Point is this isn’t just an utterly platonic friendship such as housemates frequently enjoy without any question of romance being involved. These are two people who are attracted to each other in a romantic way, it’s a romantic relationship as the title says in so many words. It’s not as innocent as you want to paint it.

Everything I’ve said applies perfectly - IN the context of a romantic relationship.

A heterosexual couple who are pursuing a romantic relationship with each other, no matter how chaste, should never move in together if it’s possible to avoid it - not until they’re married. It’s putting themselves in an occasion of sin for them to do so. Same with a couple who are of the same gender.

The rest applies as I said - most of the behaviours mentioned are reserved either for within marriage or relationships that are tending towards marriage, which same sex relationships never can be. With possible exceptions, like the handholding (depending upon the circumstances).

 

[KingAlfred]

So, in the asexual/aromantic world apparently there are many men, women and young people who consider themselves asexual but homoromantic (in or wanting a romantic-type relationship with someone of the same sex). If romanc without the possibility of marriage and sex is OK (is it? Is there an official Church stance on that? Still confused). There would be no sex involved. I know homosexual acts are wrong. But what about a virginal romance? Is that a sin as well? This would be for people who do not experience sexual attractions, so I don’t see how it could be lustful. Is it disordered? Is it just like a friendship? I mean, dating, Valentines, pet names, keeping house, even holdinghands, maybe a peck on the forehead or something after work, I don’t know.That would be all. This is serious to me because it helps me figure out what sexual morality is actually based on and what that means to the rest of life. I’m not in one of these relationships myself. Aside from scandal, is it wrong?
I read Theology of the body kind of fast a while ago but I don’t remember everything and I guess I really don’t understand it.

No…all things homosexual should be resisted, within the conscience and self-discipline of the believer afflicted with such desires.

 

[Nepenthe]

I would argue that there’s always (or nearly always) an element of ‘romance’ in any close friendship. The level of openness and trust involved is romantic in itself, often in the very best sense of the word. And classically, in the highest worldwide Heroic (and Christian, even monastic!) traditions, that is considered perhaps the greatest human love, and much of the time sex has little or nothing to do with it, the same way all too many people have sexual relationships (whether same or other sex) without the romance, openness and trust. And that is indeed a sad and shameful thing, since we are capable of so much better.

And when you have that sort of love in a marriage or lifelong partnership - I can think of nothing more wonderful in life. Perhaps I can try to put it in the parlance of many people here by saying that such friendships may be key to building the kingdom of heaven on this earth.

 

[LilyM]

I would argue that there’s always (or nearly always) an element of ‘romance’ in any close friendship. The level of openness and trust involved is romantic in itself, often in the very best sense of the word. And classically, in the highest worldwide Heroic (and Christian, even monastic!) traditions, that is considered perhaps the greatest human love, and much of the time sex has little or nothing to do with it, the same way all too many people have sexual relationships (whether same or other sex) without the romance, openness and trust. And that is indeed a sad and shameful thing, since we are capable of so much better.

And when you have that sort of love in a marriage or lifelong partnership - I can think of nothing more wonderful in life. Perhaps I can try to put it in the parlance of many people here by saying that such friendships may be key to building the kingdom of heaven on this earth.

There’s a world of difference between the sort of close friendships you’re discussing and the type of relationship that involves Valentines cards and constant handholding and kissing (even if it’s not on the lips).

Monastic superiors, in most rules of monastic life, are actually told to be on guard that their monks or nuns DON’T form excessively close attachments to other individual monks or nuns for precisely this reason, that it can easily go well beyond the bounds of what is appropriate and healthy within a chaste friendship.

Not to mention that for two people who don’t just both have SSA but specifically have a pre-existing attraction to each OTHER already, the idea of something like living together is what we would call a ‘near occasion of sin’.

 

[Nepenthe]

Oh, LilyM, I do understand you, but I’m not sure I agree. I’m always really happy when close friends of either sex either send me a valentine or call me on that day to reaffirm our ties and crack jokes! And if a friend would like someone to hold their hand, I am more than honored to do so.

As for monastically, what of the Kiss of Peace upon greeting and taking leave? It wasn’t so long ago that it was considered insincere and upsetting if it was not on the lips, though it later became on the cheek. I think we fear closeness too much, both psychologically and physically these days - it surely need not be remotely a ‘near occasion of sin’, nor necessarily is sleeping close for warmth and reassurance, although caution is advised - but it beats freezing to death, both in body and soul.

One thing I learned in my distant youth was how to give others ‘mental privacy’, and I simply do not notice nudity unless someone is clearly trying to get attention, which can be a bit coarse…but still not shocking. I simply see the individual, and I might ask them if they’d like a towel or if the water’s too chilly.

 

[LilyM]

Oh, LilyM, I do understand you, but I’m not sure I agree. I’m always really happy when close friends of either sex either send me a valentine or call me on that day to reaffirm our ties and crack jokes! And if a friend would like someone to hold their hand, I am more than honored to do so.

As for monastically, what of the Kiss of Peace upon greeting and taking leave? It wasn’t so long ago that it was considered insincere and upsetting if it was not on the lips, though it later became on the cheek. I think we fear closeness too much, both psychologically and physically these days - it surely need not be remotely a ‘near occasion of sin’, nor necessarily is sleeping close for warmth and reassurance, although caution is advised - but it beats freezing to death, both in body and soul.

Time was when family members not infrequently used to kiss on the lips as well, and when people lived two or three to a room basically because they had to, etc etc.

Times change, behaviour changes and context changes. Maybe for the worse, but definitely changes, and a wise person takes at least some account of it. Nowadays, in most of Western society, extensive handholding and constant kissing tends to have a more-than-friendly subtext attached, like it or not, intentional or not.

I have good, warm, loving relationships with family and friends with plenty of hugging and the occasonal peck on the cheek or forehead involved but nothing more than that. I don’t think I’m at any risk of freezing to death (literally or figuratively speaking) any time soon

 

[Nepenthe]

That is good! And I think we understand each other, yes. I agree, context is important, and so is engineering said context for both great warmth and great decency - by which we may not mean precisely the same thing culturally, yet it remains similar.

My family, and many of my friends still do kiss on the lips, and I have often lived in situations where 2-3 to a room was the norm. Even hypothermia has been an issue several times, and sometimes cold isn’t just physical. Where I grew up, communal bathing was deemed a fine thing, and in no way a thing to worry over (or at least rarely so, and if anyone did make a problem, then it was they who were in the wrong). So that’s part of my context, but I also try never to really offend, if someone is unaccustomed to such things.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Nepenthe articulated well what I could not.

When I mentioned platonic relationships, I wasn’t thinking of basic friendship but of the old Ladder of Love and the ancient troubador tradition, for instance. I was thinking of the chaste and holy romance of Dante and Beatrice, or better yet, of Our Lady and St. Joseph. Or perhaps more to the point, of David and Jonathan, Saints Sergius and Bacchus, or Our Lord and the Beloved Disciple. I don’t see how any of these relationships admit any sort of scandal or sin or base lust–they are completely holy, completely chaste, completely given over to the all-consuming love of the Lover of All Souls.

It is my contention that two men or two women, regardless of sexuality, can have such a relationship. Indeed, we should all strive to have such a relationship!

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[LilyM]

Grace & Peace!

Nepenthe articulated well what I could not.

When I mentioned platonic relationships, I wasn’t thinking of basic friendship but of the old Ladder of Love and the ancient troubador tradition, for instance. I was thinking of the chaste and holy romance of Dante and Beatrice, or better yet, of Our Lady and St. Joseph. Or perhaps more to the point, of David and Jonathan, Saints Sergius and Bacchus, or Our Lord and the Beloved Disciple. I don’t see how any of these relationships admit any sort of scandal or sin or base lust–they are completely holy, completely chaste, completely given over to the all-consuming love of the Lover of All Souls.

It is my contention that two men or two women, regardless of sexuality, can have such a relationship. Indeed, we should all strive to have such a relationship!

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

There’s no indication that David and Jonothan, Sts Sergius and Bacchus or Our Lord and St John suffered from SSA though. Of course it’s possible for me as a female to have deep and loving friendships with others - I’d say a) it’s possible precisely BECAUSE, as a heterosexual female, there’s absolutely not the slightest risk involved in forming friendships with other heterosexual females, and b) it works because I DON’T do things like lengthy handholding, kissing on the lips or sending Valentines.

On which subject - why should platonic friends be sending each other expressions of romantic love in the form of Valentine’s Day cards? I seriously think that Valentine’s Day should be entirely about married, engaged or at least nearly-engaged couples, and that to make it more general sends a terrible and scandalous message to those involved, especially in this day and age of raging sexual promiscuity.

Now I have no wish to deny that it’s possible for those experiencing SSA to maintain chastity in romantic relationships, as it is possible for alcoholics, in the right circumstances, to abstain from alcohol. Doesn’t mean that in each case one isn’t (likely sinfully so) courting disaster ‘putting one’s mouth in the jaws of the lion’, to coin a phrase.

And on the other side of the coin you’ve presented we have many such examples as Richard the Lionheart and King Philip of France who had the sort of romantic friendship you extol. It quite likely was chaste, but gave rise to an enormous amount of scandal in their time, and the resulting scandalous perception of Richard as actively homosexual hasn’t died down to this day. Causing scandal is in itself a sin, remember, so there is little doubt they acted sinfully by acting in such a way to give rise to these rumours.

 

[cpayne]

There would be no sex involved.

The discussion is in better hands than mine, and I am actually not trying to sound sarcastic, but: Wanna bet?

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

There’s no indication that David and Jonothan, Sts Sergius and Bacchus or Our Lord and St John suffered from SSA though. Of course it’s possible for me as a female to have deep and loving friendships with others - I’d say a) it’s possible precisely BECAUSE, as a heterosexual female, there’s absolutely not the slightest risk involved in forming friendships with other heterosexual females, and b) it works because I DON’T do things like lengthy handholding, kissing on the lips or sending Valentines.

LilyM, I don’t think sexual orientation has anything to do with it. Whether or not anyone I mentioned was homosexual does not change the fact that their relationships clearly seemed to reflect a sadly uncommon intensity of love. They weren’t just good pals. They were Lovers in the highest, most holy sense of that word, a sense to which we should aspire in all of our loving relationships, and not simply our “romantic” ones.

It is my contention that two homosexual men or women, a heterosexual man and woman, a homosexual man and heterosexual man, etc. can experience this sort of relationship without sin, without lust, and regardless of whether or not they are married (though sacramental marriage is a great help). This sort of a relationship is a window onto Divine Love, and includes all facets of the person: body, mind, soul, spirit. Do you think the Beloved Disciple did not yearn for the Christ with his whole being? I believe he did–but that does not mean that I believe his desire was not chaste. Was Joseph just an official friend to the Blessed Virgin? No–he was her lover, too. What tenderness and beauty, sacrifice and passion must have been their love! Simply because their desire was chaste does not mean that it was namby pamby or somehow lacking the sexual component–it was that sexual component that was sacrificed to God through their chastity! In a similar way do I believe Sergius and Bacchus loved each other. Whether they were homosexual or heterosexual has nothing to do with anything except the nature of sexual temptation to which either a heterosexual or homosexual is exposed.

Or let’s look at this another way–when St. John of the Cross uses such gorgeous sensual imagery to describe his love for Jesus and Jesus’ love for him, does his sexual orientation have anything to do with it? No! Or if it does, it is only insofar as his sexuality allows him to understand, appreciate, and deploy the images he uses. But is John’s desire tainted by lust? Not at all! John of the Cross understands that God’s love for us and ours for him does indeed have an erotic element–God totally, absolutely and unreservedly desires us for himself. And we must likewise desire him with all our heart, soul and mind. Deep calls on deep, as the Psalmist says–God calls on the soul, the Lover calls to the Beloved, the Beloved calls to the Lover. Because I am a man and Jesus is a man, does that mean that my love for my Lord, the King of my heart, should not include the love I would give a spouse as that would mean it was disordered? It would be ridiculous to say that. When the Kingdom of Heaven is described in the Apocalypse as a great wedding feast, who do you think is getting married? If it is not Jesus and the Church (which means Jesus and you, and Jesus and me, and Jesus and the rest of the New Creation), then what’s the point? Jesus did not call us to be pals; He called us to partake in a great, mysterious, daunting, painful, ecstatically blissful, deep and holy love affair! Laudate Deum!

On which subject - why should platonic friends be sending each other expressions of romantic love in the form of Valentine’s Day cards? I seriously think that Valentine’s Day should be entirely about married, engaged or at least nearly-engaged couples, and that to make it more general sends a terrible and scandalous message to those involved, especially in this day and age of raging sexual promiscuity.

Personally, I find the whole Valentine’s Day card thing a bit tawdry. I wouldn’t expect a depth of love to be expressed therein. In grade school, everyone gave valentine’s day cards to everyone else–and it meant very little. But an expression of deep love and commitment that is personal, individual, unique, shared with a Lover to his or her Beloved doesn’t need to wait for a single day on the calendar to be expressed and is far more meaningful and far more powerful than Valentine’s Day card silliness.

Now I have no wish to deny that it’s possible for those experiencing SSA to maintain chastity in romantic relationships, as it is possible for alcoholics, in the right circumstances, to abstain from alcohol. Doesn’t mean that in each case one isn’t (likely sinfully so) courting disaster ‘putting one’s mouth in the jaws of the lion’, to coin a phrase.

I believe that such a risk is worth it. Our Lord says, “Seek and ye shall find,” but if we are unwilling to risk something in the seeking, if we are unwilling to lose ourselves for love, how can we expect to find either ourselves or love? In the words of the old Tom Waits song. “You must risk something that matters.” Or better yet, in the words of Our Lord and Lover, we must lose ourselves to gain ourselves. To what do we lose ourselves? Our Lord! Love Himself! Where do we find ourselves? In the arms of Our Lover! What do we find ourselves being? Beloved! And what have we become? One with Our Lover, one with Love!

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[Matariel]

I think I can relate to the OP. Although this may be unusual for most people on this forum, my best friend and I (both male) who happens to be my 2nd cousin often do things that most people would lead to conclude that we must be homosexually-oriented. I know this sounds weird to most people, but when we’re among friends and family (certainly not in public) we often show signs of affection, and even kiss every now and then. We sleep together, side by side, in the same bed whenever we’re on a trip. We often say “I love you” and show a lot more physical contact than most males in our culture. We even lay on each other when watching movies together or TV. We did this even when he was going out with a girlfriend, as I did.

I remember reading that this was a standard thing in medieval Europe, and that often male aristocrat bachelors would choose a “life friend” that they basically make a pact of friendship, much more deeper than regular male-to-male friendship. But it wasn’t sinful.

But it was never considered sinful, and I think I recall that David and Jonathan were as such, as well as some saints.

 

[Dan86]

I think that romance has to do with relationships, dating, and love. People always want to have romantic relationships with those to whom they are attracted, so being homoromantic would necessarily follow from being homosexual.

 

[BennyBoy89]

There was a time in history when deep, loving friendships were actually encouraged, as they were seen as more “spiritual” than other loves. Look at David and Jonathan. Many people during this time looked to them as an example. These sort of friendships were called “romantic friendships” and were distinguished from homosexual relationships. Homosexuality was considered a sin like any other, and anyone, not just a subset of the population, was capable of it.

As far as affection goes, it is a highly cultural thing, and many things considered “morally” taboo are only considered taboo or even sexual in our culture. It’s common for men to hold hands, kiss, and hug other men that they care about in other cultures, but these men would never consider it to be a display of sexual attraction, but of love for one another.

Few people realize that much of what they ascribe to faith is actually a product of our own arbitrary, American mindset about sex and relationships. Many saints have regarded friendship as a great form of love, and some of the saints when talking about each other could easily be interpreted as “romantic” by a modern reader.