Is romantic attraction and expression sexual in nature?

[One_point]

There is a very long thread that has gone on to over 600 that has raised questions that require a resolution to this simple question.

There are some catholics who are claiming essentially that romantic attraction is not inherently sexual. They therefore encourage it in a same sex couple (or siblings) who desire to indulge it but say they can keep it from turning explicitly sexual.

The disinterested friendship of the catechism recommended for SSA people is taken by this same view/philosophy to mean disinterested in sexual ACTS, and not the more obvious (judging by what many take it to mean at first glance,) meaning of lacking special self-interests in the relationship.

There is therefore out of all those issues raised, this one question: what is the nature of romantic interest?

Let me start by defining what I mean by romantic interest so that this discussion is not misdirected into discussing “cultural” notions of romance. I don’t care about the particular way in which men and women have expressed their particular love for each other in any different culture or time. whether that is buying flowers, reading petry or whatever. That’s not the romance I mean to discuss.

This is the thing I am discussing which has not been addressed yet: There is a particular attraction to the opposite sex as such that arises in most healthy humans at puberty and stays with us to our deaths. We realize that the opposite sex is different from us in a desirable way. This is both physical attractiveness and emotional/psychological attractiveness. This is the thing that makes us pursue each other in high school. Since there is no better word for it, I can only refer to it as “romantic” because it is clearly different from the attraction we feel for our friends right from childhood, we like the same things, we play well together, enjoy each others company and so forth. This romantic attraction pulls us toward the *other *sex specifically and causes us to desire to be with them in an exclusive fashion. Certainly it does not always involve an explicit desire for sex especially for the girls. But it is certainly a desire for a particular joining or intimacy with a member of the opposite sex that is different from our regular friendships or family. We ALL know what I mean apart from maybe natural eunachs.

Now for gay people, they experience this attraction for members of their own gender and this is how they (and others) knows that they are gay.

There is a suggestion that this attraction unless it becomes sexually explicit is well ordered or ok or compatible with Christian chastity when it arises for sexually-incompatible couples such as gay couples or siblings and can therefore be fostered and nurtured in committed relationships.

my main issue is in the subject of this thread: What is sexuality? Is it sex itself or more? How does our theology view sexuality? Why would the natural attraction between the sexes not be considered “sexual” by Catholics? Have we come to reductionist view of our sexuality or am I assuming too broad a view of sexuality?

f people have access to moral theologians and their writings, this would be helpful. I have a feeling that John Paul II may have had some nuggets we can use.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Its not about lust and sex, and the thinking isn’t confined to Christians. Its not about reducing an individual to simple objectification which is rampant today. The love and long term relationship channel. Its a different book, its “another” story. But the love story is an art of practice and fundamental execution This is rooted in childhood and requires self honesty, and self respect, social structure which then places others in the same respect realm as the self. Trials to gain control of the human mating signals and dance are seen through puberty middle school etc. Its about placing relationships in perspective, which is to actually get to know someone from which love grows out of mutual respect and like thinking, common bonds, goals etc. Without sex, these qualities if carefully observed last. The sex has little meaning and the actual quality and meaning of the act won’t carry you through a week. Thats why people wake in the morning and don’t even know the others name. There was only one reason they were there and that was for sex which is objectification. Can’t imagine how one continues to believe they should be proud of these conquests.

Its a work in progress through youth for many as they are greatly tempted. The hardest aspect of all this is the obedience to the Church.

The real question is can you love someone just as much with sex as without sex, and I think you’ll find the resounding answer is yes indeed. In fact I would venture to say the depth of love exceeds the physical realm in this manner.

 

[Rau]

Some reference data:

Sexuality = capacity for sexual feelings.
Sexual activity = sexual intercourse.

Catechism states: “tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered” because "they are "contrary to the natural law"and “they close the sexual act to the gift of life”. [This is the only element of homosexuality, or associated behaviour, that is declared intrinsically disordered. Which begs the question whether only these acts, or also other signs of a “romantic” interest that might arise between two persons of the same sex, (kissing, cuddle, etc) also fall foul of the 6th commandment.]

 

[Rau]

Thread should probably be in Moral Theology forum.

 

[One_point]

Its not about lust and sex, and the thinking isn’t confined to Christians. Its not about reducing an individual to simple objectification which is rampant today. The love and long term relationship channel. Its a different book, its “another” story. But the love story is an art of practice and fundamental execution This is rooted in childhood and requires self honesty, and self respect, social structure which then places others in the same respect realm as the self. Trials to gain control of the human mating signals and dance are seen through puberty middle school etc. Its about placing relationships in perspective, which is to actually get to know someone from which love grows out of mutual respect and like thinking, common bonds, goals etc. Without sex, these qualities if carefully observed last. The sex has little meaning and the actual quality and meaning of the act won’t carry you through a week. Thats why people wake in the morning and don’t even know the others name. There was only one reason they were there and that was for sex which is objectification. Can’t imagine how one continues to believe they should be proud of these conquests.

Its a work in progress through youth for many as they are greatly tempted. The hardest aspect of all this is the obedience to the Church.

The real question is can you love someone just as much with sex as without sex, and I think you’ll find the resounding answer is yes indeed. In fact I would venture to say the depth of love exceeds the physical realm in this manner.

Thank you. I think you have not really understood my question (my fault). I am not really asking about whether men and women can love each other without objectifying each other. Sure they can! Our faith demands this of us unequivocally in our dealings with the opposite sex from friendship to dating to marriage, we can never reduce other people to mere objects for our satisfaction.

My question is really very specific and if you read the other thread: It is many many pages long but you can start from around page 30 to understand the context of this particular discussion as there were many other matters discussed before: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=891665&page=32

In short, is sexuality just what we do with our genitalia for pleasuable or procreative purposes and the accompanying desires and feelings that go with that or is it (as I had assumed) the broader attraction and complementarity between feminity and masculinity. That is, that manner of relating in which we approach each other specifically AS male and female and not just as people, brothers and so on. In common language, we do not refer to this as sexual because we use the word for sex and erotic experience only but philosophically, it seems to me that this complementarity and relating as male and female (as different) is what is properly sexual as it places the sexes at centre stage. That is sexuality is also psychological and emotional complementarity not just physical. This sexuality finds its pefect fulfilment in marriage and in the nuptial embrace where the husband and wife completely give each other in their bodies.

The confusion and debate among catholics here is whether this attraction (I have given it the moniker ‘romantic’ for lack of a better word) is proper and ok to nurture when it is experienced between couples who should not by design be experiencing each other in this primarily complementary fashion, as male and female, but for whom a different way of relating should be primary, say as siblings or as group-mates if you will, like friends or whatever other natural human communion.

I hope that clears it up.

 

[One_point]

Some reference data:

Sexuality = capacity for sexual feelings.
Sexual activity = sexual intercourse.

Catechism states: “tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered” because "they are "contrary to the natural law"and “they close the sexual act to the gift of life”. [This is the only element of homosexuality, or associated behaviour, that is declared intrinsically disordered. Which begs the question whether only these acts, or also other signs of a “romantic” interest that might arise between two persons of the same sex, (kissing, cuddle, etc) also fall foul of the 6th commandment.]

More reference data:

13. “As an incarnate spirit, that is, a soul which expresses itself in a body and a body informed by an immortal spirit, man is called to love in his unified totality. Love includes the human body, and the body is made a sharer in spiritual love”. The meaning of sexuality itself is to be understood in the light of Christian Revelation: "Sexuality characterizes man and woman not only on the physical level, but also on the psychological and spiritual, making its mark on each of their expressions. Such diversity, linked to the complementarity of the two sexes, allows thorough response to the design of God according to the vocation to which each one is called".

It’s from the Vatican website the pontifical council on the care of the family, subject human sexuality :vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_08121995_human-sexuality_en.html

As to your second bit about sodomic physical acts being the ONLY homosexual acts declared “intrinsically disorderd” I am beginning to wonder whether this is true or merely presumed.

Consider the catechism says: 2357 ***Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women *who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

The catechism does not reduce homosexuality to erotic acts when it defines it, and then says homosexual acts are acts of grave depravity and so forth. Among the reasons is “they close the sexual act to the gift of life” but this is not the only reason given. So I wonder why homosexual acts in light of the catechisms definition of homosexuality, could not also include acts that foster those relations and meet any one of the reasons given in the catechism for why homosexual acts (plural) are acts of grave depravity. Is this what the catechism is saying actualy or is it presumed? It seems to me the affective (emotional) component of sexuality is just as important as the physical. I am just asking, I could be wrong.

 

[Rau]

More reference data:

13. “As an incarnate spirit, that is, a soul which expresses itself in a body and a body informed by an immortal spirit, man is called to love in his unified totality. Love includes the human body, and the body is made a sharer in spiritual love”. The meaning of sexuality itself is to be understood in the light of Christian Revelation: "Sexuality characterizes man and woman not only on the physical level, but also on the psychological and spiritual, making its mark on each of their expressions. Such diversity, linked to the complementarity of the two sexes, allows thorough response to the design of God according to the vocation to which each one is called".

It’s from the Vatican website the pontifical council on the care of the family, subject human sexuality :vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_08121995_human-sexuality_en.html

As to your second bit about sodomic physical acts being the ONLY homosexual acts declared “intrinsically disorderd” I am beginning to wonder whether this is true or merely presumed.

Consider the catechism says: 2357 ***Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women ***who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

The catechism does not reduce homosexuality to erotic acts when it defines it, and then says homosexual acts are acts of grave depravity and so forth. Among the reasons is “they close the sexual act to the gift of life” but this is not the only reason given. So I wonder why homosexual acts in light of the catechisms definition of homosexuality, could not also include acts that foster those relations and meet any one of the reasons given in the catechism for why homosexual acts (plural) are acts of grave depravity. Is this what the catechism is saying actualy or is it presumed? It seems to me the affective (emotional) component of sexuality is just as important as the physical. I am just asking, I could be wrong.

Agree with all that, except I’ve not referred to Sodomy at all. Sodomy is anal intercourse, one specific homosexual act. It is morally repugnant, and is included in the catechism reference to “intrinsically disordered” acts.

Note that:
1). I assume the relations in “Homosexuality refers to relations between men”, etc. to mean sexual relations/activities. If it meant all interpersonal type relations (linked to the attraction), I don’t think anything changes, because it is only the sexual acts that are noted to be “intrinsically disordered” (see next point), not the broader set of “relations”.

2). My reading is that all the descriptors in the catechism, including “acts of depravity”, “not proceeding from genuine affectivity”, etc all refer explicitly to “homosexual acts”. These acts “close the sexual act to the gift of life”. I can’t read this as a reference to anything but sexual acts akin to mutual masturbation (and yes, sodomy).

 

[GaryTaylor]

In short, is sexuality just what we do with our genitalia for pleasuable or procreative purposes

What other purpose does it have if not pro-creation. Its not required to be in love as men and women are in love with Christ. Or would you think this love isn’t correctly ordered without sex?

and the accompanying desires and feelings that go with that or is it (as I had assumed) the broader attraction and complementarity between feminity and masculinity.

The accompanying desires are unknown since the basis of the relationship is unknown. What does it matter if you have two males, two females and so forth. There is still the proper order of understanding within the relationship, and natural selection is still in play. So the people who adjust to proper order of pro-creation enacted play an important role in the communion of saints. Its not about the self centered love but the love of God first, which all else follows in order.

That is, that manner of relating in which we approach each other specifically AS male and female and not just as people, brothers and so on. In common language, we do not refer to this as sexual because we use the word for sex and erotic experience only but philosophically, it seems to me that this complementarity and relating as male and female (as different) is what is properly sexual as it places the sexes at centre stage.

I thought so initially also. Still though if I reflect on a conviction by the Holy Spirit, then I have to accept males love God and may rationalize this as God is spirit not male or female. Still though we as individuals are relating to the person and human nature of Christ.

That is sexuality is also psychological and emotional complementarity not just physical. This sexuality finds its pefect fulfilment in marriage and in the nuptial embrace where the husband and wife completely give each other in their bodies…

This imho remains true also and by natural order this is where the same sex encounters break down as the only outcome is individually as a couple, self serving.

The confusion and debate among catholics here is whether this attraction (I have given it the moniker ‘romantic’ for lack of a better word) is proper and ok to nurture when it is experienced between couples who should not by design be experiencing each other in this primarily complementary fashion, as male and female, but for whom a different way of relating should be primary, say as siblings or as group-mates if you will, like friends or whatever other natural human communion.

I hope that clears it up.

I don’t disagree here, I too think that confusion sets in through emotion which leads to permission. Isn’t it a matter of perspective. I think its true males or females can encounter the same order of love as strict male and female relationships. However, the outcome of sex cannot produce life which promotes the communion of Saints and in a word builds Gods kingdom.

Even here Christians differ in the understanding of sex and pleasure. While sex is understood as pleasurable, non productive sex which cannot result in pro-life is nothing more than pleasure for the sake of pleasure. …even with male-female.

Realistic in thinking what is the difference of self sex which is self gratification, or if one wants to please the self or another for some ideal of acting in ones own best interest. That is if your gratifying another or yourself. You are still acting on your own selfish interest.

You please another because it pleases you and your self interest to do so. Why else would one do this? If there is no chance of pro creation than of what value is sex?

 

[Kamaduck]

I have a question for the OP- are you looking for subjective experiences here, or objective teachings? I don’t have anything objective to offer, but I can of course tell you about my own limited experiences. I will gladly offer that (name removed by moderator)ut if it is within the scope of the thread, but I won’t bother if you’re not looking for personal experience in the first place.

The short version is that I experience “romantic attraction” without sexual attraction, and that’s why I’m so interested in these threads. Whether that’s due to youth, being female, or some strange personal quirk, I can’t say. I just know that for me, the two are not connected.

 

[One_point]

I have a question for the OP- are you looking for subjective experiences here, or objective teachings? I don’t have anything objective to offer, but I can of course tell you about my own limited experiences. I will gladly offer that (name removed by moderator)ut if it is within the scope of the thread, but I won’t bother if you’re not looking for personal experience in the first place.

The short version is that I experience “romantic attraction” without sexual attraction, and that’s why I’m so interested in these threads. Whether that’s due to youth, being female, or some strange personal quirk, I can’t say. I just know that for me, the two are not connected.

I am not talking about subjective experiences because we know we are fallen so not everything we experience is correctly ordered necessarily. When you say for you they are not connected, I take that to mean simply, I am romantically attracted but I do not indulge in explicitly sexual acts or thoughts leading to them. I accept this to be true as you describe it so I do not debate your personal experience.

However, that does not mean that romantic interest is not by design a part of our sexuality. To help with what I mean, I would be curious how you would define that romantic interest I described above in a manner that ultimately does not include sex in terms of its meaning. How do you differentiate it from a regular friendship or how do you know it is “romantic”? See what I mean? I hope that helps.

 

[Kamaduck]

I am not talking about subjective experiences because we know we are fallen so not everything we experience is correctly ordered necessarily. When you say for you they are not connected, I take that to mean simply, I am romantically attracted but I do not indulge in explicitly sexual acts or thoughts leading to them. I accept this to be true as you describe it so I do not debate your personal experience.

No, I mean that I don’t have any desire to engage in sexual thoughts or actions in the first place. But yes, if that’s not what you’re interested in, I have very little to contribute to the conversation.

However, that does not mean that romantic interest is not by design a part of our sexuality.

OK. I wish you well in finding a teaching that covers romance- I was never able to, but I suppose I didn’t know where to look. I’ll be watching the thread to see what you come up with.

To help with what I mean, I would be curious how you would define that romantic interest I described above in a manner that ultimately does not include sex in terms of its meaning. How do you differentiate it from a regular friendship or how do you know it is “romantic”? See what I mean? I hope that helps.

Well, that’s the issue. I don’t think it’s fundamentally different from a desire for friendship, more like a specialized sub-category. It’s a form of love, I think. Eros doesn’t have to involve sex to be distinct from philia.

The practical answer is that the two are difficult to tell apart, but romantic interest does have a somewhat different quality to it than the simple desire to be friends.

 

[One_point]

Agree with all that, except I’ve not referred to Sodomy at all. Sodomy is anal intercourse, one specific homosexual act. It is morally repugnant, and is included in the catechism reference to “intrinsically disordered” acts.

Note that:
1). I assume the relations in “Homosexuality refers to relations between men”, etc. to mean sexual relations/activities. If it meant all interpersonal type relations (linked to the attraction), I don’t think anything changes, because it is only the sexual acts that are noted to be “intrinsically disordered” (see next point), not the broader set of “relations”.

2). My reading is that all the descriptors in the catechism, including “acts of depravity”, “not proceeding from genuine affectivity”, etc all refer explicitly to “homosexual acts”. These acts “close the sexual act to the gift of life”. I can’t read this as a reference to anything but sexual acts akin to mutual masturbation (and yes, sodomy).

I am sure I have not imagined that catholics do speak of sodomy as basically all inherently sterile sex, including even use of contraceptives. So by your definition of ‘homosexual acts’, you are actually talking about sodomy and the acts or thoughts that encourage it.

1. Clearly it is not all relations but neither does it say sexual relations. I think that is certainly important considering how many people protest that their gay relationships are not just about sex and think the church think it is.

I don’t see how we can say nothing changes if it means all the relations linked to the attraction because this would influence just what we think is “disinterested” as far as these relations go, and the context in which homosexuals are recommended disinterested friendships along wit sacraments. Also, it influences how we read the church’s words and not reduce them to the acts of sodomy only. Considering the church’s view of sexuality as something more than we do or want to do with our genitalia, I indeed see it as very significant.

2)I understand but I see nothing from the text itself that excludes acts that can be defined by the homosexual relations defined earlier in that section. The acts are many and there is nothing to say (it seems to me, but I’m open to correction) that only those directly simulating procreation are prohibited. For example, the catechism says, they do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity, what would be the significance of acts that proceed from both an affective complementarity as far as this goes or how in your view do you read this statement and its importance?

 

[One_point]

No, I mean that I don’t have any desire to engage in sexual thoughts or actions in the first place. But yes, if that’s not what you’re interested in, I have very little to contribute to the conversation.

Yes, that’s what I understood. that in your experience, desire for sexual thoughts and actions are missing entirely. So maybe to help, you can describe (if not define) this attraction, because I am beginning to wonder if at the end of the day we are actually not talking about the same thing at all? Maybe a description (not a definition). I withdraw my comment about subjective experienes not being included because clearly they underlie what YOU mean when you write and we may end up miscommunicating otherwise.

Well, that’s the issue. I don’t think it’s fundamentally different from a desire for friendship, more like a specialized sub-category. It’s a form of love, I think. Eros doesn’t have to involve sex to be distinct from philia.

The practical answer is that the two are difficult to tell apart, but romantic interest does have a somewhat different quality to it than the simple desire to be friends.

It is that quality I am interested in.

 

[GaryTaylor]

It is that quality I am interested in.

This quality we would have to admit is no different from male-male, female-female, or male female.

In our mind for example say heterosexual I can undervalue the relationship of deep respect and love of these other relationships. But I can’t deny the deep bonds exist from my own experience. In many case’s by divine providence I have been ordered to these relationships. So the order by God is just as important in the realm of love. However, in oneness of man and women and the sacrament of the Church this is for sure different. Love ascends differently because of pro-creation and further through the sacraments. But love of God and love of brother or sister is still love.

 

[Kamaduck]

Yes, that’s what I understood. that in your experience, desire for sexual thoughts and actions are missing entirely. So maybe to help, you can describe (if not define) this attraction, because I am beginning to wonder if at the end of the day we are actually not talking about the same thing at all? Maybe a description (not a definition). I withdraw my comment about subjective experienes not being included because clearly they underlie what YOU mean when you write and we may end up miscommunicating otherwise.

It is that quality I am interested in.

OK, then I’ll try my best. The thing that I call romantic attraction is a desire to be in a romantic relationship with someone- not a “mere” friendship, exactly, but something similar. I can really only describe it in terms of how it differs from a desire for friendship, so that’s what I’ll do.

When I want to be friends with someone, I will seek them out when we’re in the same room. I’ll think about them occasionally and worry about them when I have reason to. I’ll look for excuses to get to know them better, but I won’t spend a lot of time agonizing over it while they’re not around.

When I have “romantic” interest in someone, I’ll think about them whether they’re there or not, sometimes for quite a long time. If I’m in the same room as them I can’t help but pay attention to what they’re doing- it’s like everything they do is an action that my brain marks as important, so it’ll give me an alert whenever they move. Everything they do is sort of fascinating. The world kind of shifts focus and centers on them in some ways, instead of on me.

There’s also this strong desire to be liked in return, whether romantically or in a lesser sense. If I want to be friends with someone, I might get a little nervous around them, but not to this extent. Romantic interest causes both excitement and nervousness.

Ultimately, there’s a desire to spend time with them, talk to them, and be with them. Obviously this is present for friends, too, but with romance it’s less that I want to visit them and more that I want to just consistently exist alongside them, all the time. That’s how a romantic relationship would be different than a friendship, I think- it’s like a constant tie, and there’s a desire to avoid being separated. Of course, friendships can be like that, too, which is why I don’t think there’s necessarily a clear line between this and friendship.

So. I don’t know if any of that is relevant to this thread, but that’s what I experience. That, whatever it is, is not directly linked to sexual attraction, in the sense that people can and do have one feeling without the other. Whether we’re supposed to feel it without also experiencing sexual attraction isn’t something I can say, and I look forward to whatever you uncover on that front.

 

[GaryTaylor]

OK, then I’ll try my best. The thing that I call romantic attraction is a desire to be in a romantic relationship with someone- not a “mere” friendship, exactly, but something similar. I can really only describe it in terms of how it differs from a desire for friendship, so that’s what I’ll do.

When I want to be friends with someone, I will seek them out when we’re in the same room. I’ll think about them occasionally and worry about them when I have reason to. I’ll look for excuses to get to know them better, but I won’t spend a lot of time agonizing over it while they’re not around.

When I have “romantic” interest in someone, I’ll think about them whether they’re there or not, sometimes for quite a long time. If I’m in the same room as them I can’t help but pay attention to what they’re doing- it’s like everything they do is an action that my brain marks as important, so it’ll give me an alert whenever they move. Everything they do is sort of fascinating. The world kind of shifts focus and centers on them in some ways, instead of on me.

There’s also this strong desire to be liked in return, whether romantically or in a lesser sense. If I want to be friends with someone, I might get a little nervous around them, but not to this extent. Romantic interest causes both excitement and nervousness.

Ultimately, there’s a desire to spend time with them, talk to them, and be with them. Obviously this is present for friends, too, but with romance it’s less that I want to visit them and more that I want to just consistently exist alongside them, all the time. That’s how a romantic relationship would be different than a friendship, I think- it’s like a constant tie, and there’s a desire to avoid being separated. Of course, friendships can be like that, too, which is why I don’t think there’s necessarily a clear line between this and friendship.

So. I don’t know if any of that is relevant to this thread, but that’s what I experience. That, whatever it is, is not directly linked to sexual attraction, in the sense that people can and do have one feeling without the other. Whether we’re supposed to feel it without also experiencing sexual attraction isn’t something I can say, and I look forward to whatever you uncover on that front.

This is interesting, so this romantic soul attraction, what happens at this point to draw you to an individual, what are your thoughts of this soul in these moments, you do not know?

 

[Kamaduck]

This is interesting, so this romantic soul attraction, what happens at this point to draw you to an individual, what are your thoughts of this soul in these moments, you do not know?

I’m not sure I understand what you’re asking. I think I’m basically drawn to people based on their minds (perhaps it has to do with their souls, I don’t know), but it hasn’t happened frequently enough for me to tell anything beyond that. It’s not a conscious decision that someone interests me, it’s just that they say or do something that reveals an aspect of who they are. And from then on, they’re a person of interest, and I’ll automatically consider them whenever they’re remotely involved in something.

I don’t really know whether that’s what other people mean when they say they “like” someone, but that’s the closest I’ve come to it.

 

[Rau]

I am sure I have not imagined that catholics do speak of sodomy as basically all inherently sterile sex, including even use of contraceptives. So by your definition of ‘homosexual acts’, you are actually talking about sodomy and the acts or thoughts that encourage it.

1. Clearly it is not all relations but neither does it say sexual relations. I think that is certainly important considering how many people protest that their gay relationships are not just about sex and think the church think it is.

I don’t see how we can say nothing changes if it means all the relations linked to the attraction because this would influence just what we think is “disinterested” as far as these relations go, and the context in which homosexuals are recommended disinterested friendships along wit sacraments. Also, it influences how we read the church’s words and not reduce them to the acts of sodomy only. Considering the church’s view of sexuality as something more than we do or want to do with our genitalia, I indeed see it as very significant.

2)I understand but I see nothing from the text itself that excludes acts that can be defined by the homosexual relations defined earlier in that section. The acts are many and there is nothing to say (it seems to me, but I’m open to correction) that only those directly simulating procreation are prohibited. For example, the catechism says, they do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity, what would be the significance of acts that proceed from both an affective complementarity as far as this goes or how in your view do you read this statement and its importance?

I understand sodomy to be an act of anal sex, and only that act, whereas the acts declared “intrinsically disordered” by the Catechism in this area is a wider set of “homosexual acts”. By their further description, it seems clear to me that they involve the sexual faculty, eg. things such as mutual masturbation and the like. Note: I’m not crafting a definition of homosexual acts - I’m deducing what I think the Catechism refers to given the descriptions there, viz:

*Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” **They **are contrary to the natural law. **They **close the sexual act to the gift of life. **They **do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can **they *be approved The “They” that I’ve bolded refers to the “homosexual acts” (described as “intrinsically disordered”), and I think you have to view each ‘they’ as referring to the set of acts, not some unspecified subset. The statement: “They close the sexual act to the gift of life” causes you to conclude that kissing, cuddling and such are not part of the “homosexual acts” to which the Catechism refers.

As to the meaning of “relations” in Catechism 2357, the options would seem to be:

a) Sexual Relations;
b) The interpersonal relations between homosexual persons (but presumably limited to that set that arise from attraction beyond what might be called everyday friends).

Which of these is the case does not affect the meaning of “homosexual acts” - and these are the (only) things which are forbidden - If you concur with the reasoning above.

As to the matter of disinterested friends - it seems this could refer to either:

1. “Friends” other than those who seek what is forbidden;
2. “Friends” who are not “attracted” - ie. what we might call everyday friends.

The Catechism says:
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection. I can well imagine that (2) is what is meant, on the grounds that, **in general **- friends where attraction exists, even if not explicitly seeking sexual contact (forbidden acts etc.), may present a “risk” to chastity. If you are going to seek assistance from friends, it seems sound to seek it from the “everyday friends” category.

But the bottom line is that the Catechism doesn’t tell you to stay away from anyone in particular or any group. It tells you what is intrinsically disordered, ie. unacceptable. And it tells you (elsewhere) to avoid the near occasion of sin.

 

[SMGS127]

I understand sodomy to be an act of anal sex, and only that act, whereas the acts declared “intrinsically disordered” by the Catechism in this area is a wider set of “homosexual acts”.

Well it is becoming more common for theologians to interpret any inherently infertile sexual act between two people as sodomy. So this would include contraceptive usage as contraception, oral/anal sex, intentional ejaculation outside one’s wife, etc.

As for the OP:

I defined romance in another thread as “an expression of one’s [non-filial] love for another.” This can mean an expression of erotic love (romantic sex), an expression of agape love (treating someone to a romantic date, for example), or an expression of storge love (a romantic commitment to another).

When discussing the issue of heterosexual vs. homosexual love, we must consider this trichotomy of romance, and how individual acts are meant. One would assume the Church would frown upon expressions of erotic love (e.g. erotic romance) in homosexuals/unmarried people in all circumstances. And indeed, the Church does consider it grave matter to make out with anyone that you are not married to for the purpose of erotic expression/delight.

So then the question becomes, what are the bounds wherewithin an act that is not inherently immoral can fall under agape romance or storge romance, and when are these two types of romance licit under the Church for those of the same sex to engage in. I would argue that storge romance is absolutely licit for any two people unbound by prior commitments to engage in, as the vow of commitment to another need not be a marital vow, although marital vows are the strongest act one can make of storge romance.

Which leaves us with only agape romance. So the ultimate two questions of these threads are:

• “Is agape romance licit in the Church for any two unbound people to engage in?” and:
• “Where does agape romance end and where does erotic romance begin?”

Personally, I believe that the answer is yes to the first question. There’s not really much I can expound on with that answer though, so I will instead direct myself to Question 2:

I think agape romance and erotic romance have a murky divider; I think that divider is higher or lower for any individual person, and a mutual romance is defined by whoever has the lowest barrier for erotic romance. As long as a couple’s acts are not inherently immoral (e.g. extramarital sex, even if done for agape reasons, is inherently immoral), I see no reason to bar them as long as they remain within the confines of a mutual agape romance. I think everyone can agree that a mutual erotic romance, defined by the lower threshold of the two partners, is off-limits in an extramarital friendship/relationship.

In addition, the storge romance is what underlies the commitment two people make to each other. Whereas marital vows undertake acts of both storge and erotic romance [consummation], and are thus the highest act of storge romance, there is no reason to believe two people could not engage in storge romance with each other in a non-erotic way; that is to say, two people could commit to each other with no intentions of ever engaging in erotic romance. And a relationship, at its deepest core, is first and foremost a storge romance, right?

Anyways, I hope I helped explain my position from a philosophical view. I am very interested to see if anyone can find any Church discussion of this issue; so far I have been unable.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I’m not sure I understand what you’re asking. I think I’m basically drawn to people based on their minds (perhaps it has to do with their souls, I don’t know), but it hasn’t happened frequently enough for me to tell anything beyond that. It’s not a conscious decision that someone interests me, it’s just that they say or do something that reveals an aspect of who they are. And from then on, they’re a person of interest, and I’ll automatically consider them whenever they’re remotely involved in something.

I don’t really know whether that’s what other people mean when they say they “like” someone, but that’s the closest I’ve come to it.

So you would say there’s a non verbal, non physical communication between souls or minds, or it has to do more with contingent likes and dislikes? Why does physical matter, and how much of it is nothing but superficial vanity?