Homosexuals and celibacy

[Hadrianus]

It’s not about whom you love but how you express your love. If you truly love someone you care about their soul. If your actions are contrary to the commandments of God then for the benefit of the other person’s soul and their eternal welfare (as well as your own) you must not act upon them.

This is a test of our love for God (The 1st commandment), and it is a cross that we must carry for Christ. This goes for every person regardless of their sexuality so contrary to popular belief heterosexuals are not exempt from this call to celibacy.

Well said.

 

[elvisman]

So I have spent some time reading these posts and I just want to clear some things up.

First off, I am gay and I am Catholic. I realized I had attractions to men at the age of twelve (I am now 18) and I used to pray to God every single night for years to “change” me. Luckily, within the past year or so, God has helped me realize that there is nothing I need to change. He created me this way, I don’t care what anyone else believes on here, but God, yes the same God you believe in, created me this way.

There are no therapies that “work” to help gay people become straight because there is no need for such therapies. People who claim that they have changed are extremely messed up in their brains and sadly are living a lie, even if they aren’t aware of it.

In regards to the celibacy issue - gays technically aren’t even having “sex” as it is defined by the Church - so how could the possibly be celibate if they were having anal “sex?”

What saddens me the most about reading these posts is that there is a kid out there, if not hundreds or thousands of kids out there, who read these posts and hate who they are because of them. They are twelve, thirteen and even eighteen years old and literally think about ending their lives on a daily basis. Sadly, many of them do kill themselves because of the ignorance echoed on message boards like these. Instead of preaching hate towards gays (and I know many of you claim that you aren’t preaching hate, but I’m sorry, I’m gay and I feel hated), you should all realize that we believe in the same God that loves everyone no matter what. Before you cast your judgment upon those who do not even need to be judged, take a moment and examine your life. Do your actual sins outweigh the “sins” that gay people who are truly in love are “committing?” So please, before another kid decides to hang himself with his belt in his closet, stop preaching such intolerable hate on boards like these and in real life.

This is simply an exercise in** rationalization****. It almost reads like it was written by Bill Clinton with its *****relativist ***view of sexual conduct. The fact is that sexual activity between people of the same gender IS sex – regardless of whether you want to pretend it isn’t.

**Secondly, calling a religious belief that homosexuality is morally wrong, *“intolerable hate” *****is as intolerant as the charge itself. If you believe that God approves of homosexual behavior – you simply have a different God than the God of Christianity and Judaism. That’s it in a nutshell. The Scriptures clearly speak against the sin of homosexual behavior - as they do fornication, murder, stealing, lust and every other sin. **

---

You don’t get a pass just because you disagree with God - and those who do not agree with your lifestyle are not homophobic or hateful. They are simply striving to live faithful lives.

**We can’t make God acquiesce to our terms. His word is his word - your rejections notwithstanding.

 

[larkin31]

You don’t get a pass just because you disagree with God - and those who do not agree with your lifestyle are not homophobic or hateful. They are simply striving to live faithful lives.

One is rarely called a bigot simply for being religious and thinking that certain forms of sex are sinful. The charge usually comes from a vitriolic tone (beyond the loving tone of the CC when it discusses the subject) or when the argument given against homosexuality tries to find justification for the ethic and really only portrays prejudice and ill-will. Then, the “bigot” flingers have a field day. Including me!

 

[Joshua85]

Just stumbled across this thread, and wanted to say what a joy it was to see some gay people who embrace both their sexualities and scriptural teaching.

We are so very few. As gays, we are a minority. As gay Catholics, we are a minority within a minority. As gay Catholics committed to Church teaching on sexuality, we are a minority within a minority within a minority. And as gay Catholic committed to Church teaching on sexuality and finding ways to live positively not despite being gay, but precisely because we are gay, we are a minority within a minority within a minority within a minority.

Kolbe, you express very well how there is so much more to homosexuality than just being attracted to the same sex (though of course that is a significant part of it). For me, at any rate, it is primarily a sense of having a different make-up than most people. Particular attractions are not the central part of it, and when attractions do arise, lust very rarely plays into them. There is so much more to being gay that can be lived positively, within the context of Catholic teaching on sexuality.

 

[runwaymodel]

Just stumbled across this thread, and wanted to say what a joy it was to see some gay people who embrace both their sexualities and scriptural teaching.

We are so very few. As gays, we are a minority. As gay Catholics, we are a minority within a minority. As gay Catholics committed to Church teaching on sexuality, we are a minority within a minority within a minority.

I have many close friends who are gay and practicing Catholics (But I live in California). We attend Mass together, go to Confession, read the Bible…Of course, there are times when my good friends stumble and fall but we all do. We all sin because we are not perfect. We repent. We confess. We do better.
You are not as alone as you think, my dear Joshua.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Again, at the very core of our beings (including our sexuality), is the desire for love. And God is love. God is at the center of it all, even our sexualities. As the Catechism says (2332), “Sexuality affects ALL aspects of the human person in unity of his body and soul.” ALL aspects, including our desire for God. Because our desire for God surpasses sex doesn’t mean God is or should be absent from our sexuality.

You conveniently took 2332 out of context. Be very clear that the Roman Catholic Church does not consider homosexual attraction as a legitimate aspect of a comprehensive (homoerotic) “sexuality.” This was also mentioned on EWTN’s Women of Grace last week. The CC considers that the entire concept of a separate “sexuality” that is homoerotic in nature and that supposedly permeates the being in the same way that heterosexuality does, to be an artifice, and a modern one.

Nor does the CC speak of homosexual persons per se. “Homosexuality” is not fundamental to personhood. The Church speaks of homosexual behavior and homosexual attraction. You have hijacked paragraph 2332 to apply to your own subjective theory of a sexuality which you are assigning equal validity as heterosexuality has. In no way does the Catechism, or any document issuing from the magisterium, assert that homo"sexuality" is parallel to heterosexuality.

As for the other, I apologize if I misunderstood your point about attraction and Jesus; it seemed to be provocative and intending to be so. I was not trying to insult you. Our proper relationship(s) with Jesus, in its theology & spirituality, is not erotic in its origins or culmination. What the Church has always asserted, though, is that our individual relationship with Him is unique and inviolable, and that our personalities absolutely come into play with regard to that. But personality is more encompassing than sexuality. Our individual relationship with Jesus is all about personhood – his and ours.

The Church would say that your essential sexuality is heterosexual (objectively speaking), and misdirected.

 

[chrysostim83]

The Church would say that your essential sexuality is heterosexual (objectively speaking), and misdirected.

I guess it depends on what the meaning of “is” is! (Sorry, I couldn’t resist.)

For the rest, while I can’t really speak for Kolbe, it seems like the two of you come to different conclusions because you start at different sides of sexuality. Your starting point is sexual attraction and it’s purpose: men and women have sexualities which are primarily expressed through attractions; these attractions are for getting married; and even if the attractions lead toward something else (same-sex relationships) their purpose remains the same; so that’s how it makes sense to talk about heterosexuals with misdirected attractions. Kolbe’s theory, on the other hand, looks more like this: people start out with a thing (call it an X) which has a profound influence on their relationships with those around them; an important clue to figuring out what X is is the sex of the persons to whom one is attracted; but X, though the attractions might be its most obvious side effect, is not fundamentally about nor reducible to those attractions; so, in particular, even if the attractions in question are bad or disordered or whatever, there’s no reason to think that X is bad or disordered.

It seems like there’s room for the two theories to co-exist, provided X is not called “sexuality,” and so far as I can tell, both are compatible with the Church’s teachings.

 

[elvisman]

One is rarely called a bigot simply for being religious and thinking that certain forms of sex are sinful. The charge usually comes from a vitriolic tone (beyond the loving tone of the CC when it discusses the subject) or when the argument given against homosexuality tries to find justification for the ethic and really only portrays prejudice and ill-will. Then, the “bigot” flingers have a field day. Including me!

The general attitude on this forum towards homosexuality is not handled in a vitriolic way. There are, of course, a few who do espouse a bigoted tone. My problem is with those who lash out against everybody who, for whatever reason, do not embrace the homosexual lifestyle.

Being a homosexual and having same sex attraction is not a sin - just as being heterosexual and being attracted to members of the opposite sex not a sin. The sin comes in the practice and the rejection of the word of God on the issue. That is precisely what I was arguing against.

The falsehood that God embraces homosexual behavior is as preposterous as claiming that he also embraces fornication between heterosexuals. John 3:16 tells us that God loved the WORLD and sent his son to save those who believe in him. 1 Tim. 2:4 tells us that he wills the salvation of ALL people. However - in both cases - the choice is ours.

Anybody who says that God hates homosexuals doesn’t know the Word of God.
By the same token - those who say that God is happy with those who practice the homosexual lifestyle are dead wrong and do not*know the word of God.*

 

[Elizabeth502]

I guess it depends on what the meaning of “is” is! (Sorry, I couldn’t resist.)

No. The Church doesn’t espouse Bill Clinton’s or anyone else’s relativism.

It seems like there’s room for the two theories to co-exist, provided X is not called “sexuality,” and so far as I can tell, both are compatible with the Church’s teachings.

No. I’m sorry. You’re wrong. No theologian or clergyman who both understands the Church’s teaching on sexual behavior and is faithful to it, would agree with the kind of “co-existence” you suggest.

 

[chrysostim83]

Hi Elizabeth502,

That was a rather surprising response, so I think I must not have explained the second theory very well.

Here it is again: there is a facet of personality (which Kolbe calls “sexuality” but which need not be explicitly named) which causes the further trait of having same-sex attractions but is not fundamentally about nor reducible to the trait or the attractions it produces. This facet of personality affects, both by itself and through the attractions it produces, how people interact with each other and the world around them. So far the theory is compatible with Church teaching since, in principle, the existence of such a facet of personality is a psychological question and not a theological or moral one.

So the issue must be allowing the possibility that the facet of personality in question is not bad or disordered even though the attractions it produces are. But the logic here is perfectly straight-forward. A good artist can produce a bad painting, a good deed can have nasty consequences, every drug, both good and bad, produces side effects, and even something as wonderfully good as having a child can result in death. In general, the mistake of saying “X is bad/disordered because X causes Y and Y is bad/disordered” is known as the genetic fallacy, and, in the case at hand, what we can say is that even though same-sex attractions are disordered, that doesn’t imply that the personality trait that causes them (if the theory of the first paragraph is correct) is disordered.

 

[Elizabeth502]

in the case at hand, what we can say is that even though same-sex attractions are disordered, that doesn’t imply that the personality trait that causes them (if the theory of the first paragraph is correct) is disordered.

The Catholic Church does not teach that personality traits, per se, “cause” (definitively) or “produce” SSA. Like the wider secular psychological realm, the Church understands the origins, dynamics, and manifestations of sexuality to be complex – not limited to a particular “cause” (such as genetics), nor a single personality trait (such as sensitivity, receptivity, or the aesthetic capacity). But most importantly, with regard to the particulars I mentioned but in addition with regard to the entire complex of dynamics, the Church does not find that one’s sexual attractions are ‘deterministic,’ – fixed, inevitable, and completely out of the individual’s control. This is a simplistic (but convenient) theory of sexuality that does not hold up to credibility in scientific circles.

 

[chrysostim83]

First, that the Church does not teach X does not mean X is not so.

Second, in my discussion, “cause” should not be taken as excluding all other “causes.” For instance, the personality trait which produces the further trait of experiencing attractions for the same-sex might itself be cause by genes, environments, and other personality traits. Or, to open another possibility, it might only cause its effect when other factors are present.

Third, I never said sexual attractions were completely outside of anyone’s control. But object is only one factor in attraction, so it is possible to maintain that object is always or typically fixed while the other factors, such as strength or frequency, are free to vary.

Fourth, NARTH/Nicolosi/Moberly/etc don’t count as scientific circles. Lisa Diamond might count, but she has found that change in sexual orientation is not voluntary, i.e., that it’s usually beyond anyone’s control.

 

[Joshua85]

The Catholic Church does not teach that personality traits, per se, “cause” (definitively) or “produce” SSA.

One should think not, since the Church explicitly adopts an agnostic stance on the psychological genesis of homosexuality, and rightly so, since it is not a theological question.

However, it should be noted that the Church distinguishes between transitory or situational homosexuality, and homosexuality which is caused by “some kind of innate instinct or a pathological constitution judged to be incurable.”

The language of constitution is clearly talking about what is referred to above as “X.”

But most importantly, with regard to the particulars I mentioned but in addition with regard to the entire complex of dynamics, the Church does not find that one’s sexual attractions are ‘deterministic,’ – fixed, inevitable, and completely out of the individual’s control. This is a simplistic (but convenient) theory of sexuality that does not hold up to credibility in scientific circles.

Again, nor does the Church reject such a notion.

 

[Elizabeth502]

One should think not, since the Church explicitly adopts an agnostic stance on the psychological genesis of homosexuality, and rightly so, since it is not a theological question.

But that’s not the point, from the Church’s perspective. The Church’s point of view is that sexuality overall is indeed a theological question, thus derivatively homosexual aberrations form that ordered and integrated sexuality have theological ramifications as well.

However, it should be noted that the Church distinguishes between transitory or situational homosexuality, and homosexuality which is caused by “some kind of innate instinct or a pathological constitution judged to be incurable.”

Conveniently eliminated, the paragraphs following, in this document from the year 1975 state:

In regard to this second category of subjects, some people conclude that their tendency is so natural that it justifies in their case homosexual relations within a sincere communion of life and love analogous to marriage, in so far as such homosexuals feel incapable of enduring a solitary life.
In the pastoral field, these homosexuals must certainly be treated with understanding and sustained in the hope of overcoming their personal difficulties and their inability to fit into society. Their culpability will be judged with prudence. But … according to the objective moral order, homosexual relations are acts which lack an essential and indispensable finality. … [H]omosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and can in no case be approved of. …

 

[Hadrianus]

I think everyone is agreed that the Church teaches and has always taught that homosexual acts are gravely sinful, as are all sexual acts which are not at least potentially procreative in nature. The Church exists to proclaim truths of Faith and Morals for the salvation of souls, not to engage in scientific or psychological discussions of what may or may not be true medically speaking.

For those who correspond with divine grace God uses the consequences of the Fall for their benefit, further debate on this or that aspect of ‘sexuality’ may have some academic value, though I think that doubtful, but theologically speaking it is irrelevant.

 

[Joshua85]

Perhaps you missed my earlier post, in which I stated that I was committed to Church teaching, including the teaching that homogenital acts are immoral. That is where the theological ramifications come in, and I wholly affirm that. Origin narratives are irrelevant to that basic immorality, which is precisely why the Church adopts an agnostic stance as to the origins of homosexuality.

Since I have already affirmed Church teaching, I do not feel that it is necessary to re-affirm it at every turn. The way my mind works is that, once something is settled as a given, I do not constantly re-visit it, but move on to “what’s next.” I omitted that section, not because I disagree with it (I do not), but because it was not relevant to my point.

What would be convenient about omitting it, since I had already affirmed Church teaching on homogenital acts?

But that’s not the point, from the Church’s perspective. The Church’s point of view is that sexuality overall is indeed a theological question, thus derivatively homosexual aberrations form that ordered and integrated sexuality have theological ramifications as well.

Conveniently eliminated, the paragraphs following, in this document from the year 1975 state:

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Since priests can’t be sexual, should their sexuality even matter? They can’t have sex with women so why worry if they’re hetero? They can’t have sex with other men so why worry if they’re homosexual? They can’t have sex with both so why worry if they’re bisexual? They’re no sexual men, period.

Lustful thoughts are always sinful. Our Lord tells us that to think about sex with a woman (and presumably a man!) is like committing adultery in reality so why are so many folks perfectly ok with dirty thoughts but not dirty acts? In this Catholic call to holiness, isn’t the way we think and feel part of that equation? Why are we so quick to say one can have dirty thoughts and desires as long as one doesn’t act on them? Doesn’t sound like Our Lord’s admonitions. Sounds legalistic?

 

[Elizabeth502]

Joshua, you stated that homosexuality is not a theological question. The quote you provided seemed to be placed in your post as support for such an assertion. However, reading further, (and knowing what I do about the way the Church views sexuality), it is clear that homosexuality, both in its behavior and in its condition of attraction, is not atheological (what you call “agnostic”). It is a deviation from ordered sexuality, and the Church is always concerned with restoring order to the soul, to society, to the world. That is at the heart of her theology.

You’re right, the origins of homosexuality are in a sense “less” important. But note that the 1975 document does not begin to tell the story of acquired perspective on the Church’s part regarding better studies on the dynamics of sexual attraction & choice of behaviors.

 

[Hadrianus]

A much larger question would arise were we to consider in what way sexuality itself was a theological question. But to do that we would first need a very rigorous definitin of sexuality; something which heretofore has been lacking…

 

[Reepicheep]

There are a lot of other things I think we might be better off praying for. Things like a cure for cancer, for alzheimers, and various other diseases. For world peace. For the poor, the sick, the homeless, the hungry.

Why can’t we pray for all these things, and for a cure for Same Sex Attraction, too?