Is same-sex romantic attraction sinful?

[ILoveTheLordGod]

I have a friend who is kinda paranoid about himself. He said he’s a heterosexual, but has this inside feeling toward another guy. He thinks it might be romance; he claims that he has a special love and care for him. He’s not “turned on” by the other guy (there’s nothing sexual), but still has this breath-taking affection toward him.

You know what I mean. He’s not lusting, however, and he wouldn’t want a relationship nor would he even want a kiss or holding-hands session.

 

[Dee_S]

So much depends on the age of your friend. If he is young (under or around 21), attachments of the heart and affections are still developing and being adjusted within a person.

This sounds very much like a chaste affection, and if it is based on the good qualities of the other person, is only the admiration and attraction of a sensitive person to the goodness seen in the other.

If none of these is present, I would say, be wary. One can be tempted in bizarre ways, but prayer, especially to Our Lady in her Immaculate Conception, will solve that in short time.

*“O Mary Conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.”*said 3 times and 3 Hail Mary’s every day.

The only real danger that is going to be encountered (especially on a public forum) is that it will attract lots of attention from those with SSA and reformed & practicing homosexuals, who sometimes have their own agenda to promote (perhaps unintentionally). Often under the guise of sympathy, a person is led to believe that they are ‘experiencing’ SSA and are drawn into this murky pond by steps.

Hope this helps. Take a look too at the writings of Padre Pio on the subject of temptation, lots to learn there how to discern. We are all human, therefore, none of us is above committing the worst sin, if not for the grace of God. Where all should place their trust.

 

[thistle]

I have a friend who is kinda paranoid about himself. He said he’s a heterosexual, but has this inside feeling toward another guy. He thinks it might be romance; he claims that he has a special love and care for him. He’s not “turned on” by the other guy (there’s nothing sexual), but still has this breath-taking affection toward him.

You know what I mean. He’s not lusting, however, and he wouldn’t want a relationship nor would he even want a kiss or holding-hands session.

Same sex attraction/tendency (no sexual relationship) = disordered but not a sin
Active homosexual (sexual relationship) = gravely disordered and a sin of grave matter

 

[michelleds]

I have a friend who is kinda paranoid about himself. He said he’s a heterosexual, but has this inside feeling toward another guy. He thinks it might be romance; he claims that he has a special love and care for him. He’s not “turned on” by the other guy (there’s nothing sexual), but still has this breath-taking affection toward him.

You know what I mean. He’s not lusting, however, and he wouldn’t want a relationship nor would he even want a kiss or holding-hands session.

Sounds like what is popularly known as a “bromance”. This isn’t an issue of same sex attraction the way that term is used. It’s just one guy who cares deeply about his friend.

 

[Seatuck]

Why isn’t this feeling called close friendship?

 

[Melinda_Selmys]

I would say that probably a same-sex romantic attraction has the potential to become a same-sex erotic attraction – the relationship between different types of attraction is complicated, but generally if you’re attracted to someone on one level there will be some capacity for other dimensions of attraction to arise. How likely this is is going to depend on how “straight” your friend is.
To give an example from my experience, albeit a sort of backwards one, there was a period of about eight months during which I would have said that I was romantically but not sexually attracted to the man who is now my husband (I IDed as lesbian at the time). This was true. If my husband had only been interested in a Platonic friendship my feelings would never have developed into anything erotic – the erotic dimension emerged out of the relationship, and out of his desire for it to go in that direction.
If the man that your friend is attached to is also straight, I would say that there’s probably not even a slippery slope that needs watching. If the beloved friend is gay/bi…well, that could be a different situation.
All of that said, in no situation is it sinful for two men to have a close, loving, non-sexual friendship. Take a look at the example of David and Johnathan, or read some of St. Anselm’s frankly rather drippy letters to male friends. So long as the relationship is chaste, it’s an example of human love, which is what we were made for.

 

[Melinda_Selmys]

The only real danger that is going to be encountered (especially on a public forum) is that it will attract lots of attention from those with SSA and reformed & practicing homosexuals, who sometimes have their own agenda to promote (perhaps unintentionally).

Dee, I know many of the people on this forum who have SSA, and so far as I know almost all of us are devoted to the authentic teaching of the Church. Speaking for myself, the only agenda that I have to promote is that laid out in the Vatican’s document on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons:

“It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church’s pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law.”

I find that there is often a tendency on the part of “straight” Catholics to focus on the immorality of homosexual acts, without a corresponding focus on the dignity of the homosexual person. Catholics with SSA speak out about this, because we’ve experienced it, and because we have a deeper understanding of what SSA is, of how people living with it can freely choose to live in accord with the will of the God and the teaching of the Magisterium, and of the real difficulties which must be acknowledged if we are to provide useful pastoral care and guidance to those who are trying to achieve chastity. This may look like an “unintentional agenda,” but in fact it’s just that we actually know that of which we speak, which means that we say things that are more grounded in reality and experience, and less grounded in abstract speculation.

 

[Nelka]

You know what I mean. He’s not lusting, however, and he wouldn’t want a relationship nor would he even want a kiss or holding-hands session.

I remember feeling this way many years ago about a friend of the opposite sex. It wasn’t that long before I was becoming romantically involved with her.

Be careful, it could lead to a terrible sin.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

All of that said, in no situation is it sinful for two men to have a close, loving, non-sexual friendship. Take a look at the example of David and Johnathan, or read some of St. Anselm’s frankly rather drippy letters to male friends. So long as the relationship is chaste, it’s an example of human love, which is what we were made for.

Unfortunately, one adverse effect of the increased visibility of homosexuals has been the tendency for people to sexualize every single close relationship between two adults. As you probably know, many who claim to be both Christian and gay or gay-friendly point to the friendship between David and Johnathan and claim that it was a homosexual relationship, and use the words of David about J’s love for him being sweeter than the love of women, to mean that David actually preferred men and only had sex with women for procreative purposes, or (such as in the case of Bathsheba) if the women were especially physically attractive. (As opposed to the way I’ve always seen it, that David was saying chaste brotherly friendship between equals was superior to sexual relationships with females, who in that era were not viewed as equals.) Some point to the way the apostle John calls himself “the disciple who Jesus loved” and claim there must have been a sexual relationship there. I’ve also seen gay activists try to “out” all sorts of historical figures; Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, Napoleon, even Washington and Lincoln. I suppose some of these claims are more reliable than others.

That being said, I understand the reasons why those who identify as homosexual would want the LGBTQ community to be more visible. It’s just that it seems some activists are happy to twist the facts in order to promote their version of the truth. It’s ironic that activists on both sides of the debate like to blur the distinction between orientation and acting on it. The gay friendly side pretty much claim that if the attraction is okay, then acting on it is okay too. While the seriously anti-gay people insist on equating the attraction to the action, and imply anyone with same-sex attractions is sinning just by having them, and all doomed to burn in hell.

 

[Eugenius]

I have an interest in the 19th century and it was not uncommon for members of the same sex to declare love and affection or one another. This does not mean they were in a sexual relationship. The cultural norms were different and words had different meanings. Unfortunately our modern culture places a stigma on these friendships and is suspicious of them. I often wonder how many homosexual relationships begin with this type of emotional affection and become sexual because our culture hasn’t taught them non-sexual ways to express this love.

As an example, here are two excerpts from letters written by Edwin Stanton to Salmon Chase. Stanton served as the U.S. Attorney General under President Buchanan and Secretary of War in Lincoln’s cabinet. Chase served as the Governor of Ohio, Secretary of the Treasury under Lincoln and later Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

“Since our pleasant intercourse together last summer, no living person has been oftener in my mind; waking or sleeping, for more than once I have dreamed of being with you. The strength of my regard and affection for you, I can, thus, tell more freely than we are face to face.”

“Allow me my dear friend again this evening to enter your study, you know I like it better than the parlor even without fire, but the fire is blazing there, let me take you by the hand throw my arm around you, say I love you, & bid you farewell.”

 

[Dee_S]

Dee, I know many of the people on this forum who have SSA, and so far as I know almost all of us are devoted to the authentic teaching of the Church. Speaking for myself, the only agenda that I have to promote is that laid out in the Vatican’s document on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons:

Sorry Melinda, as yet, I have seen no evidence of this! So far only lots of ‘Catholic bashing’ …

“15. We encourage the Bishops, then, to provide pastoral care in full accord with the teaching of the Church for homosexual persons of their dioceses.** No authentic pastoral programme will include organizations in which homosexual persons associate with each other without clearly stating that homosexual activity is immoral.**”

…and continual attempts to put fellow Catholics on a guilt trip, as well as cast blame on them for the relapses of homosexuals.
Is what ‘straight’ Catholics/people are accused of repeatedly, justly claimed?

Does this uncharitable rejection occur mostly when the homosexuals present as a couple in society or to the individual person? There is a notable distinction here! The Church states that “no social acceptance be given to homosexual relationships”.

**"An authentic pastoral programme will assist homosexual persons at all levels of the spiritual life: **through the sacraments, and in particular through the frequent and sincere use of the sacrament of Reconciliation, through prayer, witness, counsel and individual care. In such a way, the entire Christian community can come to recognize its own call to assist its brothers and sisters, without deluding them or isolating them.

Catholics with SSA speak out about this, because we’ve experienced it, and because we have a deeper understanding of what SSA is, of how people living with it can freely choose to live in accord with the will of the God and the teaching of the Magisterium, and of the real difficulties which must be acknowledged if we are to provide useful pastoral care and guidance to those who are trying to achieve chastity. This may look like an “unintentional agenda,”

Nowhere does the Church recommend taking on a ‘lone mission’ to evangelise homosexual persons.In fact, quite the opposite.

Are you a Minister on one of these programmes? If not, perhaps seriously consider it, as I fully agree that your experience and deeper understanding would greatly assist those you are keen to help, within the context of an authentic, guided programme.

“The human person, made in the image and likeness of God, can hardly be adequately described by a reductionist reference to his or her sexual orientation. Every one living on the face of the earth has personal problems and difficulties, but challenges to growth, strengths, talents and gifts as well. Today,** the Church provides a badly needed context for the care of the human person when she refuses to consider the person as a “heterosexual” or a “homosexual” and insists that every person has a fundamental Identity: the creature of God, and by grace, his child and heir to eternal life.**”

You are a lady of great energy and commitment, perhaps you would consider the Church’s invitation to Minister on one of these authentic programmes, if not already doing so.

All quotes are from CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
ON THE PASTORAL CARE OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html

 

[mdgspencer]

The “Catechism of the Catholic Church” says that homosexual acts are acts of grave depravity and in no way are to accepted. However homosexual tendencies are disordered and a great trial for those who have them, and they are called to chastity(sections 2357-8). From this, simply having homosexaul tendencies is not sinful, but homosexual acts are sinful. From what the opening poster said, there is no reason for saying he is guilty of sin.
This is not to dismiss those on this thread who say these may not be homosexual tendencies at all. However, even if does in fact feel a homosexual attraction, this need not be sinful at all. The important thing would be living a life of chastity in this.

 

[Bezant]

Sounds like what is popularly known as a “bromance”. This isn’t an issue of same sex attraction the way that term is used. It’s just one guy who cares deeply about his friend.

Also known as, Jonathan and David.

 

[Dee_S]

The “Catechism of the Catholic Church” says that homosexual acts are acts of grave depravity and in no way are to accepted. However homosexual tendencies are disordered and a great trial for those who have them, and they are called to chastity(sections 2357-8). From this, simply having homosexaul tendencies is not sinful, but homosexual acts are sinful. From what the opening poster said, there is no reason for saying he is guilty of sin.
This is not to dismiss those on this thread who say these may not be homosexual tendencies at all. However, even if does in fact feel a homosexual attraction, this need not be sinful at all. The important thing would be living a life of chastity in this.

"Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder."

"Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be directed toward those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not."

The above quotes are extracts from
CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
ON THE PASTORAL CARE OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html

 

[Dee_S]

Also known as, Jonathan and David.

 

[Melinda_Selmys]

Sorry Melinda, as yet, I have seen no evidence of this! So far only lots of ‘Catholic bashing’ …

“15. We encourage the Bishops, then, to provide pastoral care in full accord with the teaching of the Church for homosexual persons of their dioceses.** No authentic pastoral programme will include organizations in which homosexual persons associate with each other without clearly stating that homosexual activity is immoral.**”

…and continual attempts to put fellow Catholics on a guilt trip, as well as cast blame on them for the relapses of homosexuals.
Is what ‘straight’ Catholics/people are accused of repeatedly, justly claimed?

Does this uncharitable rejection occur mostly when the homosexuals present as a couple in society or to the individual person? There is a notable distinction here! The Church states that “no social acceptance be given to homosexual relationships”.

Hey Dee,

I think that there are two separate but related kinds of rejection that homosexual people face. One is the knee-jerk rejection of people who just don’t understand – this is the kind of rejection that you get when people look at an effeminate man, turn up their noses and whisper “fruit” under their breath. I know about that kind of rejection from both sides, because most of my friends are male and straight, and I’ve seen them do that kind of thing. There’s also a way that straight women alienate and ostracize queer chicks, but that one I only know about from one side – I know what it feels like to be the one who is cold-shouldered and pushed out of the social sphere, but women tend to feel that they’re being polite by keeping their reasons to themselves and by maintaining a sort of civil coldness. I’ve never been sufficiently inside a group of other women to know what gets said, or how they feel about lesbians, so I can’t really deconstruct it.
The second kind is the rejection of homosexuals as couples. This is usually motivated by a combination of ideological integrity (good) and fear (bad), which is why it’s much more subtle and difficult to address. I think that a lot of very well-meaning Catholics don’t realize that when they snub gay couples on ideological grounds, they’re dredging up all of the hurt associated with the first kind of rejection, which is unjust, and which usually begins in childhood long before sexual feelings emerge. This causes LGBTQ people to feel that they’re being rejected as persons by the Church, and it also serves as a significant barrier to helping them come back into the fold. Everyone from Courage and the reparative therapy movement to PFLAG agrees that gays and lesbians need to have close, supportive friendships in order to achieve the kind of psychological equilibrium that is a foundation for true moral freedom.

 

[Melinda_Selmys]

Dee,

With regards to “authentic pastoral programmes,” I think that it’s silly to assume that just because there has to be an organized pastoral outreach, which is what the document you quoted describes, that we should therefore assume that all other forms of outreach are forbidden or discouraged by the Church. On the contrary…it would be sort of silly if Christians were told not to engage in evangelization efforts without first getting the rubber stamp from their Bishop. However, as it happens, I do have a letter of good standing from my Bishop allowing me to speak in this area, and I am in contact with the Courage leadership.

 

[michelleds]

The second kind is the rejection of homosexuals as couples.

This is usually motivated by a combination of ideological integrity (good) and fear (bad), which is why it’s much more subtle and difficult to address.

I think that a lot of very well-meaning Catholics don’t realize that when they snub gay couples on ideological grounds, they’re dredging up all of the hurt associated with the first kind of rejection, which is unjust, and which usually begins in childhood long before sexual feelings emerge.

This causes LGBTQ people to feel that they’re being rejected as persons by the Church, and it also serves as a significant barrier to helping them come back into the fold. .

Melinda, this paragraph bothers me for the following reasons, and perhaps you can help me parse out what you intend vs how I’m reading it. I’m not sure why you’ve chosen the term “snub gay couples” as that seems fairly judgmental in and of itself as I don’t think anyone can positively snub someone.

Now, see these conversations always leave certain things unsaid, just as the notorious Thanksgiving day dinner thread. For instance, the circumstances and behaviors of all parties should be analyzed, not just the Catholic’s. the worshipers whose Mass was interrupted by the queer invaders of St. Pat’s Cathedral in NYC on more than one occasion could certainly be understood if their reaction was one of horror and disapproval. On the other extreme is the nice lady who sits next to you in church. if you were to just immediate assume that she’s a lesbian because she’s wearing patchouli, well, that would definitely be uncharitable and unChristian.

But let’s assume for a minute that you are at a church function, a picnic maybe. (we do those here in kansas). and a man that you’ve greeted at church is sitting next to you. you’re talking to him. things are fine and then another man comes up and the first man introduces the second man as his life partner. there is no physical contact between the men and tho you are taken aback, you just say, “nice to meet you” and return to your prior conversation and eventually move on to visit with others.

Is that snubbing the gay couple?

Okay, same situation, except this time, after the introductions, the first man says, how do you feel about that?

would it be snubbing to tell him since he asked? or is he purposely punking you by asking such a loaded question at a church picnic?

Thirdly, why is it the Catholic’s fault if their rejection of homosexual actions causes the active homosexual discomfort based in old wounds? does the homosexual bear any responsibility?

Everyone from Courage and the reparative therapy movement to PFLAG agrees that gays and lesbians need to have close, supportive friendships in order to achieve the kind of psychological equilibrium that is a foundation for true moral freedom.

Of course homosexuals need non-sexual friendships, we all do. We all need healthy, safe friendships that will bring us closer to God.

I will say that the people who brought me back into the fold were not the ones who kept their beliefs to themselves. they weren’t the hellfire and brimstone, all gays are going to die, kind either—but I much preferred the ones who told me to my face (like my mom and dad) we don’t accept your behavior, but you will always be our daughter or friend or whatever. my mom allowed me to bring whoever I was dating/living with at the time to come to dinner or events, but there was no way we would spend the night under her roof in the same bed. it was a clear line, very bright.

 

[John21652]

I have a friend who is kinda paranoid about himself. He said he’s a heterosexual, but has this inside feeling toward another guy. He thinks it might be romance; he claims that he has a special love and care for him. He’s not “turned on” by the other guy (there’s nothing sexual), but still has this breath-taking affection toward him.

You know what I mean. He’s not lusting, however, and he wouldn’t want a relationship nor would he even want a kiss or holding-hands session.

That just about sums up how I feel about my three brothers. I love them deeply; seek out their company as often as I can and would do anything for them. I’d probably even lay down my life for them.

Do I find them attractive in any way? Yes. Firstly as people. They are fine, loyal, people. Secondly, as men. They possess what I call ‘manly qualities’. They are loyal, independent, proud, persistent about achieving their goals, respectful of other people and absolutely dedicated to their own families. I admire them.

Your friend needs to stop worrying about what he thinks and feels about another man. He can even worship the ground another man walks on, but that doesn’t make him a homosexual.

 

[Melinda_Selmys]

Hey Michelleds,

I would agree – I don’t think that Catholics need to pretend that they agree with same-sex sexual behaviour, and my mom wouldn’t let my gf and I spend the night in her house either. When I talk about people snubbing LGBTQ types, I’m talking about those situations where you tell someone that you’re gay or lesbian, and then all of a sudden they have a million excuses for why they don’t want to hang out with you. I’ve even had people behave that way when I’ve told them that I used to be a practicing lesbian. It’s a really noticeable/palpable form of discomfort. From what I’ve heard from the men, it’s even worse for gay guys…
I certainly agree that Catholics should tell the truth about homosexuality to their LGBTQ friends, but I really think that friends is the operative word. If you already have a relationship with someone (either friendship, or close family ties) then it becomes possible to tell the truth in a way that is effective, and that manifests convincing love.