Homosexuality and devaluing singleness?

[TarkanAttila]

Paul also said that one should marry instead of burning, and that in order to avoid immorality everyone should have their own spouse (today’s “hookup” and “cohabitation” culture show how prophetic Paul’s words are for today). And Christ also said that not everyone can accept the teaching (regarding "eunuchs for the kingdom) and that everyone should accept it as they can.

Sad to say, on this point, it is the Protestants that have it correct - they actually are following Catholic teaching better than a good chunk of Catholics (even some on this very forum)!

No they are not because it is most of their kids who are doing to cohabitiating!

I definitely agree most people are probably called to marriage - for obvious reasons (to perpetuate the kingdom of God on Earth until the day He comes back, for example) and others. But not all people are. And that’s where Protestants get it wrong. A lump of dough requires a little leaven to become a loaf of bread. Otherwise, when you bake it, it just becomes a big cracker - or a tortilla. But it doesn’t take the shape it’s supposed to.

We do need at least a few people who do live their lives for God and only for Him. That has never been codified into Protestantism.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Something I’ve noticed about Christian culture in the U.S. There’s a very heavy emphasis in many places on marriage as needed for happiness. We acknowledge single life, but for everyone else there’s a big race to find the right person to marry.

Now imagine being a homosexual teen (I am talking about the orientation, not the lifestyle) in that setting. Imagine everyone expecting you to grow up and find a spouse. Maybe you check, but you don’t feel that you have a religious vocation. You’re getting the message, day in and day out, that you need to be married to be happy and fulfilled.

Is it any wonder under this that homosexuals feel so strongly about gay marriage? We hold out marriage as the path to fulfillment and then tell our own gay kids that they can’t have it. There’s almost no talk of or guidance about fulfillment in a secular single life.

Well, historically a lot of those teens would wind up in the clergy, after all if you have taken vows of celibacy there is absolutely no pressure to marry, it functioned as an excellent place to hide. There is a reason St. Peter Damian wrote the book Liber Gomorrhianus.

Now due to culture being a priest is kind of looked down upon due to the large Protestant pressure.

 

[ALLGIRLS]

But if being single isn’t a “permanant” vocation, what, then, should those with deep seated same sex atrraction do? The Church has made it clear that they aren’t to be admitted to the priesthood or religious life. Should they marry, even if they’re not remotely sexually attracted to their spouses? This also goes for the heterosexual “spinster” and “bachelor”. What if a person simply never finds a suitable spouse, and they’re not called to a religious vocation? It does make it sound like singles are in a second class “limbo” in the Church.

In Christ,

Ellen

 

[thewanderer]

But if being single isn’t a “permanant” vocation, what, then, should those with deep seated same sex atrraction do? The Church has made it clear that they aren’t to be admitted to the priesthood or religious life. Should they marry, even if they’re not remotely sexually attracted to their spouses? This also goes for the heterosexual “spinster” and “bachelor”. What if a person simply never finds a suitable spouse, and they’re not called to a religious vocation? It does make it sound like singles are in a second class “limbo” in the Church.

In Christ,

Ellen

The answer is that it most definately can be a permanent vocation. I think it depends what you mean by a vocation. Everyone is called to live a christian life of service to others, which is what the vocation in a single life is. Then, on top of that, some are called to live this out in a very particular structure, either through marriage or religious life. So if by a vocation you mean a specific vocation then I think its right to so that there are only 2 vocations. The problem is that it is often left out that there are 3 legitimate paths to live ones life, the vocation of christian self-giving, the vocation of christian self-giving in the context of marriage, and the vocation of christian self-giving in the context of religious life. Some people will never receive a call to live out their life through marriage or the religious life, and for these people it is very good that they remain single and celibate living a life of christian service to others. Saying that there are only 2 vocations doesn’t mean (as it is all too often taken to mean) that the 3rd way of living is bad, or to be looked down upon.

 

[Norseman82]

So what would you say to a homsexual teen? I’m suspicious that orientation can be completely changed - from what I’ve seen, it’s often possible to suppress homosexual desires, but it’s almost impossible to create heterosexual desire if it’s not there to begin with. The church calls these people to live single lives. But simultaneously the church is saying that most people need marriage for happiness. The message that comes across is “gay people aren’t allowed to be happy.” If we expect them to live single lives, we need to change that message and change our churches to support them.

But if being single isn’t a “permanant” vocation, what, then, should those with deep seated same sex atrraction do? The Church has made it clear that they aren’t to be admitted to the priesthood or religious life. Should they marry, even if they’re not remotely sexually attracted to their spouses? This also goes for the heterosexual “spinster” and “bachelor”. What if a person simply never finds a suitable spouse, and they’re not called to a religious vocation? It does make it sound like singles are in a second class “limbo” in the Church.

In Christ,

Ellen

I think we need to make a distinction between those who simply have not been able to find a spouse yet and those who have a canonical impediment to marriage, orders, or religious life.

Heterosexual “bachelors” or “spinsters” (or any unmarried person without a canonical impediment to marriage/orders/religious life) have no vows preventing them from being married, ordained, or religious (with exceptions for Eastern rites who will ordain married men). They are not “locked in” to their state of life for the rest of their lives or released from their vows like a married, ordained, or religious order person has. Those vows are considered a canonical impediment to another state of life.

People with same sex attraction, (if it is deep seated enough to prevent marriage or ordination or entering religious life) most likely can be considered to have a canonical impediment to marriage or ordination/religious life. These people are the exceptions rather than the rule, and it’s best to use that as the baseline rather than alter Church and biblical teaching on marriage.

 

[DarkLight]

The answer is that it most definately can be a permanent vocation. I think it depends what you mean by a vocation. Everyone is called to live a christian life of service to others, which is what the vocation in a single life is. Then, on top of that, some are called to live this out in a very particular structure, either through marriage or religious life. So if by a vocation you mean a specific vocation then I think its right to so that there are only 2 vocations. The problem is that it is often left out that there are 3 legitimate paths to live ones life, the vocation of christian self-giving, the vocation of christian self-giving in the context of marriage, and the vocation of christian self-giving in the context of religious life. Some people will never receive a call to live out their life through marriage or the religious life, and for these people it is very good that they remain single and celibate living a life of christian service to others. Saying that there are only 2 vocations doesn’t mean (as it is all too often taken to mean) that the 3rd way of living is bad, or to be looked down upon.

I think this is probably the best explanation. Marriage, priesthood, and religious orders are vocations in the sense that, in all of them, you are taking permanent or mostly-permanent vows. But I don’t find anything in Catholic teaching that says everyone has a vocation in that sense.

No one’s talking about changing church teaching. People are talking about changing church ministry and emphasis. What I see happening, even among heterosexual young adults, is that a lot of them essentially give up and figure, well if I need marriage to be happy but I can’t find a spouse, why bother? Why not just go out and get what I can by sleeping with someone, or finding someone that I shouldn’t marry and marrying them anyway?

The church in many places is failing to minister to single people. Whether it’s a temporary or permanent state, neither is an excuse to ignore these people.

 

[joshvanrad]

But if being single isn’t a “permanant” vocation, what, then, should those with deep seated same sex atrraction do? The Church has made it clear that they aren’t to be admitted to the priesthood or religious life. Should they marry, even if they’re not remotely sexually attracted to their spouses? This also goes for the heterosexual “spinster” and “bachelor”. What if a person simply never finds a suitable spouse, and they’re not called to a religious vocation? It does make it sound like singles are in a second class “limbo” in the Church.

In Christ,

Ellen

Charity is your spouse as a single person.

Joshua C.

 

[rebecca123]

To be honest, the Parish I attended, the priests presented being celibate as a bitter pill they needed to swallow in order to live out their vocation, often with comments such as “I’m only single because the Church asks it of me”. Always with the assumption that of course everyone was married or would be.

I never heard any mention of value present in remaining single for the Kingdom of God.

In fact, one Sunday , the readings were from 1 Cor. 7, where Paul speaks of being single, and I thought finally they would discuss it from his vantage point. But the priest said , that Paul changed his mind on those verses when he later realized that marriage was the norm for everyone.

It seems to me if one is called to live out a celibate vocation they should be able to discuss the benefits of that vocation.

I mean really, never any homilies on the benefits of remaining single for the Kingdom of God from celibate CAtholic priests? Just seems strange to me. Heard better sermons about it from the married protestant pastors.