How to approach the issue of homosexuality

[LotusCarsLtd]

It is commonly said that gay people cannot help their attractions and it often seems that this is used as a justification for the gay lifestyle. But I also realize that this IS NOT a justification for engaging in immoral lifestyles and understand that those with homosexual attractions are called by the Church to celibacy.

Needless to say I can understand that some are opposed to such a notion on the grounds that never being able to “love” someone is a depressing and sad thing (I put “love” in quotes because I would question how two people of the same sex love each other by engaging in a spiritually dangerous lifestyle). As a person who’s been unhappily single for nearly six years I could understand the pain involved in not having romantic companionship.

But nonetheless we as Catholics realize that the “gay lifestyle” must be avoided by Catholics with homosexual attractions like poison. And it is understandable that never being able to foster romantic relationships with those you are attracted to is no easy feat (but can be done by the Grace of God).

So here’s what I am wondering: How do we approach the issue of homosexual attractions and celibacy?

The common phrase used to attack our stance is that it “promotes hatred towards gays”. I recall reading comments on an article in an online newspaper that went as follows:

“I think homosexuality is morally wrong. No one’s going to change my mind. That said, I have family and friends who are gay. I love them dearly. I think we all do things that are morally wrong. I think that gay marriage is an affirmation of immoral acts. Again, while we all do immoral things, we don’t and shouldn’t expect them to be affirmed.”

To which another person responded:

“No, you don’t. Loving someone means accepting them for who they are. Homosexuality is not a behavior (choice) any more than being black is a behavior (choice). In both cases you either are or are not born that way. Anyone who can’t accept the way another person was born cannot love that person. Bigotry, on the other hand, is a behavior - a choice. So even though you chose to commit the sin of bigotry, I love you anyway as Jesus commands.”

The second person’s statement is clearly wrong - especially when we consider that although someone may be attracted to a person of the same sex they ultimately have control over whether or not to act upon such attractions. But I feel it is an excellent representation of the attitude behind the push for things such as gay “marriage”, adoption, etc.

So how do we counter the attitude as expressed by the 2nd commenter? It is, I think, the underlying attitude that people have for pushing for “gay rights” in the first place.

Pax Tecum.

 

[bpbasilphx]

\It is commonly said that gay people cannot help their attractions and it often seems that this is used as a justification for the gay lifestyle.\

**There’s no such thing as “the gay lifestyle.”

To say that is to assume that all gay people live the same way. They don’t.

No one can deny that Elizabeth Taylor appears to be heterosexual. But can anyone really say she lives “the heterosexual lifestyle?”**

 

[LotusCarsLtd]

\It is commonly said that gay people cannot help their attractions and it often seems that this is used as a justification for the gay lifestyle.\

**There’s no such thing as “the gay lifestyle.”

To say that is to assume that all gay people live the same way. They don’t.

No one can deny that Elizabeth Taylor appears to be heterosexual. But can anyone really say she lives “the heterosexual lifestyle?”**

When I say “gay lifestyle” I refer to the philosophy that states that it is “morally acceptable” for those with homosexual attractions to act upon and live-out those attractions. The concept of there being a “gay” but not a “hetero” lifestyle is based upon the notion that heterosexuality is the norm for humans and that anything that deviates from it - homosexuality, pedophilia, etc. - is just that, a deviation from a norm.

And no, not all gay people do. Some choose to live-out their attractions but others do not. This is mainly meant for those groups of people who have the attraction but act upon it rather than striving with help from God to remain celibate.

 

[chrysostim83]

How do we approach the issue of homosexual attractions and celibacy?

This is a tricky question which is hardly ever addressed, at least in the popular Catholic literature on homosexuality. Most authors are content to say that homosexuality ( = acts) is wrong and that the true way of happiness for anyone involves chastity. For most young people with a “homosexual inclination,” this will be taken to mean that God is calling them to remain forever single and unconsecrated. To the extent this outcome seems cruel and even inhuman, faithful Catholics have been tempted to buy into the pseudo-scientific claims of NARTH: for if people with a “homosexual inclination” can “change,” then they will be in a condition to accept the more usual callings that God gives the rest of us. However, the problem remains for us because gay activists will not accept this cheap solution. In order to come into the Church, they need to know how they can be happier by accepting the vocation to which God calls them here and now, with their sexual orientation as it is. This is what makes the question so difficult. For the Church demands that gay people reject any close, sexual association with a partner in order freely to embrace the “abnormal” life of celibacy and loneliness (anyone who says celibacy in not lonely is lying to you).

Now the OP’s question is: is it possible to show that this abnormal way of life is not only good but good for gay people themselves? Stated flat out like that, the answer is clearly “no.” For on the whole, gay people are just as healthy and adjusted as the rest of us, and so since loneliness is not good for most of us, it is not good for most of them. Clearly, then, something has gone wrong in our feeling that gay people are called to a lonely sort of existence. The problem seems to be that gay people are not called to any other known way of life: after considering marriage, priesthood, and religious life, one rejects all of them as suitable for gay Catholics, and all that remains is lonely, unconsecrated celibacy. Since this last way of life is not good for them either, we need to find an alternative to it.

This search for an alternative is hindered by silly assumptions and bad terminology. Several such assumptions emerged in the OP: the idea of “the gay lifestyle” (there is no such thing); the idea that gay couples don’t really love each other; the idea that gay couples love each other by engaging in a “lifestyle” (why not assume that gay couple use sex to express love and not create it?). It would be easy to add to this list, but the point should already be clear. We Catholics tend to make a lot of assumptions about gayness which make it harder to propose the faith to our gay brothers and sisters. The solution, of course, is to give up making assumptions and to go by the book: about homosexuality, the only thing the Church teaches is that it is intrinsically evil. All the other stuff about “objective disorder,” “non-discrimination,” and “homosexual unions” merely re-expresses what the Church teaches about “homosexual acts.”

Of course, there isn’t room here to prove that last claim, but my point is that with this minimalist view, it becomes easier to see how a gay person might be helped to stay in or enter the Church. We could simply tell them: “All that we Catholics know is that no one should ever have unnatural sex of any kind. That’s it. So we can’t tell you what your life will be like, and we don’t know whether you will ever be happy in this world. Perhaps if you stay in the Church, you’ll be able to break new ground and show us all a new way of life that is not only good, but good for you and other gay people.”

 

[LCMS_No_More]

How do we approach the issue of homosexual attractions and celibacy?

This is a tricky question which is hardly ever addressed, at least in the popular Catholic literature on homosexuality. Most authors are content to say that homosexuality ( = acts) is wrong and that the true way of happiness for anyone involves chastity.

Which for the most part is true…

For most young people with a “homosexual inclination,” this will be taken to mean that God is calling them to remain forever single and unconsecrated.

And THIS is where it becomes difficult.

To the extent this outcome seems cruel and even inhuman, faithful Catholics have been tempted to buy into the pseudo-scientific claims of NARTH: for if people with a “homosexual inclination” can “change,” then they will be in a condition to accept the more usual callings that God gives the rest of us. However, the problem remains for us because gay activists will not accept this cheap solution. In order to come into the Church, they need to know how they can be happier by accepting the vocation to which God calls them here and now, with their sexual orientation as it is. This is what makes the question so difficult. For the Church demands that gay people reject any close, sexual association with a partner in order freely to embrace the “abnormal” life of celibacy and loneliness (anyone who says celibacy in not lonely is lying to you).

And the question becomes…what POSSIBLE vocation could a person with same-sex attractions (SSA) have?

Priesthood: No
Marriage: No

Now the OP’s question is: is it possible to show that this abnormal way of life is not only good but good for gay people themselves? Stated flat out like that, the answer is clearly “no.” For on the whole, gay people are just as healthy and adjusted as the rest of us, and so since loneliness is not good for most of us, it is not good for most of them.

Speaking from experience here as a person afflicted with this damnable SSA (that’s the nicest thing I can say about this condition), I can tell you that depression and a deep feeling of loneliness and rejection are part and parcel of SSA…I would go so far as to say that they are at the root of SSA. Those are not “healthy and adjusted” things. I defy anyone to check out gay personal ads and tell me that what people are asking for (aside from vanilla “gay sex”) is healthy (I’m talking about the more extreme, wacko stuff involving more than just genital stimulation).

Clearly, then, something has gone wrong in our feeling that gay people are called to a lonely sort of existence. The problem seems to be that gay people are not called to any other known way of life: after considering marriage, priesthood, and religious life, one rejects all of them as suitable for gay Catholics, and all that remains is lonely, unconsecrated celibacy. Since this last way of life is not good for them either, we need to find an alternative to it.

AGREED!

Courage is helpful in this, but it also, IMO doesn’t go far enough. A support group is a good thing, but I’ve found that a good friendship with an OSA person of the same sex where full disclosure is possible (which I, fortunately, have, Deo gratias!) can be extremely helpful in healing a lot of the issues involving SSA.

This search for an alternative is hindered by silly assumptions and bad terminology. Several such assumptions emerged in the OP: the idea of “the gay lifestyle” (there is no such thing); the idea that gay couples don’t really love each other;

Which simply isn’t true. Actually, there are cases where the friendship has become so strong that the “need” for sexual expression is no longer present…just the friendship.

and the idea that gay couples love each other by engaging in a “lifestyle” (why not assume that gay couple use sex to express love and not create it?). It would be easy to add to this list, but the point should already be clear. We Catholics tend to make a lot of assumptions about gayness which make it harder to propose the faith to our gay brothers and sisters.

Agreed!

The solution, of course, is to give up making assumptions and to go by the book: about homosexuality, the only thing the Church teaches is that it is intrinsically evil. All the other stuff about “objective disorder,” “non-discrimination,” and “homosexual unions” merely re-expresses what the Church teaches about “homosexual acts.”

Of course, there isn’t room here to prove that last claim, but my point is that with this minimalist view, it becomes easier to see how a gay person might be helped to stay in or enter the Church. We could simply tell them: “All that we Catholics know is that no one should ever have unnatural sex of any kind. That’s it. So we can’t tell you what your life will be like, and we don’t know whether you will ever be happy in this world. Perhaps if you stay in the Church, you’ll be able to break new ground and show us all a new way of life that is not only good, but good for you and other gay people.”

Well said!

 

[Aboveallbereal]

My concern is that is normalising the notion that homosexuality is “normal” the dominant culture is doing homosexually inclined people a grave disservice.

it is very possible, I think likely, that the disorder is not natural at all and is in fact a deep psychic pathology finding expression through the narcissism and SSA - two barren sexual behaviour patterns. Such people probably need caring treatment dealing with whatev er trauma arrested their development into healthy heterosexually attracted adults and will not get that help in our society.