Living as a gay Catholic man......

[Baelor]

The poster who wrote post 74 considers it unnecessary to state “identity” as “gay” if one is not acting on the attraction.

That distinction is one that should not be made, but that is another issue. The post to which I responded directly advocated stating that one was not attracted to females – I simply pointed out that this was misleading since there are several states that are all described by that statement.

That is why she made, in that post, the distinction (in dialoguing not with you but with the OP), that attraction is accurate enough to specify, as the attraction per se does not equate to identity, nor does it suggest acting on that attraction (necessarily). That is precisely the meaning of her post.

I think I understand the source of the misunderstanding. I use gay, homosexual, and SSA synonymously, as does everyone I have ever met ever. Whether I should is irrelevant at this point.

The poster argued for stating that one was not attracted to females instead of stating that one was attracted to males. I fail to see the justification for the policy.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…

Just understand that there are broader discussions occurring here as well. If, as a 17-year-old, you feel compelled to bare all to every other adolescent you chat with informally (about girls, guys, whatever), that’s your business. My point, and the point of some others (perhaps), is that within all ages generally, sharing private information is at the discretion of the person who owns that information, and that sharing it is not required in order to be “truthful.” It doesn’t mean that one is conducting a charade if you don’t make announcements to the world.

Exactly!

I hope the OP having clarified he is only 17 nevertheless keeps this valuable counsel as he matures.

This seeming compulsion in the young to bare all to the world as many do in FaceBook, for example, leads to a personal disadvantage later on, in my opinion, in ways that they do not yet see.

That distinction is one that should not be made, but that is another issue. The post to which I responded directly advocated stating that one was not attracted to females – I simply pointed out that this was misleading since there are several states that are all described by that statement.
…
I think I understand the source of the misunderstanding. I use gay, homosexual, and SSA synonymously, as does everyone I have. …

The poster argued for stating that one was not attracted to females instead of stating that one was attracted to males. I fail to see the justification for the policy.

If you re-read my post, I did not suggest it as a policy. In fact, I stated that the answer and decision to provide answers to questions on personal information depends on how the conversation comes up, and if the OP wishes to engage further in the course of continuing interaction with new friends.

The message that I am wishing the OP to take away is that words have power, and he need not settle for identifying terms that are inaccurate and disadvantage him.
,

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

As your post is long and in two major segments I have split it.

Grace & Peace!

Dakota, you make an excellent point, and it reveals just how complicated this issue can be. On the one hand, you’re absolutely correct regarding celibacy and love. On the other hand, how else are we to read the RCC’s recent teachings on the nature of marriage but that it is at the heart of our identities as men and women? Those teachings may not be dogmatically definitive (I’m not sure), but they’ve certainly been received as such; they’ve been received in such a way that suggests that marriage is the principle relationship toward which all human relationships tend. Granted, this may be too much for the institution of marriage to bear, proving problematic to your regular married couple who finds they have a hard time measuring up to the romantic and mystical ideal set forth, and who may conclude that their marriage lacks sufficient grace, or that they’re not doing it right.

It may be true that the reception these teachings have received is out of proportion to what was intended due to the turmoil in the public sphere regarding same sex marriage and other developments in the world, couple with an apocalyptic and defensive mindset people tend to develop when the world seems to be moving in strange or unusual ways. I’ve always thought this mindset represented a kind of low-level frequency throughout most of human history, but perhaps the recent explosion of media access and the entrenchment of the 24 hour news cycle has contributed to its heightened pitch and a general feeling that we’re all doomed and we need to hunker down and get back to basics or rediscover one thing or another or whatever. I don’t know. But there’s definitely a tension between what you point out, Dakota, and what the teaching on marriage is perceived to be. (Or maybe the distortion in perception regarding marriage that I’m noticing is just a function of me spending too much time on these forums!)

The theology of the body is not dogmatically defined, I’m not even sure if it is part of the Ordinary Magisterium. I’m waiting for the time when we forget this TOB stuff. Vivat Papa!

I think this articulates the fundamental RCC position very well!

This does bring up some issues, though.

It’s generally believed that two men in love, for instance, are not actually in love, but in lust, and therefore incapable of expressing true love (presumably true love refers to the love between a married man and woman, which love is impossible to be expressed between two men or two women…). So for two men who are in love and who love each other so much that they refuse to have sex with each other, does their love mean that they must be out of love or out of relationship in order to actually love each other, or can they continue to be in love and still be in a relationship? I.e., does true love for two men who love each other mean mutual alienation or a cordial friendship or can it be something like the love shared between two people in a Josephite marriage? Is it just the case that homosexuals can only ever actually love someone with whom they’re in love by removing themelves (either geographically or emotionally) from the life of the person with whom they’re in love, as if the love they may have to give, even when it is committed to chastity, is poisonous or diseased or something of which they should be ashamed? If a faithful and chaste homosexual falls in love, is the proper response to that love a concerted effort to repress it?

Perhaps the basic questions here are: how do we understand, honor, give and receive love in a way that contributes most to human flourishing (growth in love and grace)? What does that tell us about human relationships and our capacity to form them, and how does that relate to what we know about who we are meant to be in the light of God’s love for us?

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Mark, we come from two different eras psychologically, you from today and me from æons past, this is where we need to define our words to understand each other. When did I suggest they must be out of a relationship to love each other? There is a great deal of intimacy in confiding ones hopes and dreams, one’s sorrows and woes. For the other to be there in your trials of life. What is is to huddle by the fire next to someone, resting your weary head against their shoulder, for them to hold you as you sleep? What is it for you to hold hands and pray the rosary together as one? One does not need sex to be intimate, sex is a bunch of feel good hormones released that covers up cracks, instead of that you must actually deal with the cracks and be thoughtful when dealing with the other. The love is not poison, the desire for sex is.

I don’t see how they did, either (given what you state). He may be “gay,” but his current live-in relationship can best be described as committed friendship.

I see how Mark misinterpreted me in the second part

OK, well I forgot about the age. My bad.

Just understand that there are broader discussions occurring here as well. If, as a 17-year-old, you feel compelled to bare all to every other adolescent you chat with informally (about girls, guys, whatever), that’s your business. My point, and the point of some others (perhaps), is that within all ages generally, sharing private information is at the discretion of the person who owns that information, and that sharing it is not required in order to be “truthful.” It doesn’t mean that one is conducting a charade if you don’t make announcements to the world.

At this age and in this age it’d probably be worse for him to not say he’s gay than for him to admit it.

 

[PumpkinSeed]

You my friend misunderstand chastity.

Abstaining from sexual relations does not equal chastity

We are all called to chastity in marriage, in the priesthood, in consecrated life or in being single.

Sorry, I mean abstinence.

 

[iloveGod143]

Close your eyes for a moment and picture devout Catholic parents. Imagine telling those parents that you are gay (have “SSA”) but are struggling to remain chaste.

You think those parents will accept you? Even with “I’m struggling to remain chaste” included in that statement, I will give it a coin flip, at best.

Imagine all the pain that comes from parental rejection. When we are children, we learn that that parental rejection = death. Death in a literal, biological sense.

That doesn’t go away. It doesn’t get easier when you get older. Rejection from your parents is still equivalent to an emotional death when you are an adult.

Or imagine having to “grin and bear it” while your Catholic friends tell “queer” jokes.

Or imagine that the homily rails against your particular vice monthly.

How terrifying, what a painful cross to bear.

And add to that the fact that you will be rejected by many within the gay community for being a “traitor” for trying to live out your faith.

There was a recent project designed for homosexuals entitled “It Gets Better.” I fear that this may not be the truth, that it might not get better for individuals with this problem.

Oh Lord, with every ounce of might in my body I pray: please grant strength to those struggling with this issue. May You embrace them in Your love as they work to serve you.

This is so true. I don’t mean to be judgmental or anything, but I notice that majority of the gay community does not live a chaste life, so I agree that this must be a very difficult cross to bear. God Bless you SacredHeartFan. I also loved your post, and I admire you for your strength and courage.

I have a gay friend who is so kind, and it makes me sad to know he is not living a chaste life. I don’t talk to him about it, because he is not Catholic, and I know he would think I was being judgmental. He might not even want to be my friend knowing how I think.

It’s sad that people these days think if you talk about being chaste or living a faithful life, that you are being judgmental upon them or that we hate them.

 

[Holly3278]

I have same sex temptations but I am not a lesbian. I am actually bisexual. I have never acted on my same sex temptations and I never will. I intend to be chaste for my entire life. That said, I understand that living as a gay man or a lesbian and as a Catholic would be very difficult. However, we are all called to chastity and that includes those of us who have same sex temptations.

 

[PumpkinSeed]

I have same sex temptations but I am not a lesbian. I am actually bisexual. I have never acted on my same sex temptations and I never will. I intend to be chaste for my entire life. That said, I understand that living as a gay man or a lesbian and as a Catholic would be very difficult. However, we are all called to chastity and that includes those of us who have same sex temptations.

Are bisexual people unable to get married? You say that you will be chaste for the rest of your life, but if you’re bisexual that means you have no problem loving a man, so why would you have to stay chaste? Obviously you will have to be abstinent until marriage, but why are you unable to marry a man?

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Are bisexual people unable to get married? You say that you will be chaste for the rest of your life, but if you’re bisexual that means you have no problem loving a man, so why would you have to stay chaste? Obviously you will have to be abstinent until marriage, but why are you unable to marry a man?

She said chastity not celibacy.

 

[BListon]

It bothers me to the point of tears that Catholics today do not realize the truth and the joy contained in God’s word and in the holy teaching of the Church. There are two extremes that one can see on a daily basis in churches, politics, online forums, etc. There is the “all gays are going to hell and will feel the wrath of God Almighty, no matter their intentions.” Then there are the “being gay doesn’t change anything and we can have sex with whoever because God loves us no matter what!”
I am posting this to call upon God’s people!
To my heterosexual brothers and sisters: Please do not judge us. Many gay men and women, including myself, do not know where our desires and longings orginate from. We have no control over our sexual appetites and our lustful desires (although through the grace of God, we can try to right our wrongs and repent of our sins). We ask you to love us. We ask you to accept us! God gave us our crosses, just as he gave you yours. Please do not hate us and pass judgement on us when we bar our souls to the world and reveal what many of us have considered one of our deepest secrets. Do not throw us out into your streets, but accept us into your homes! Do not curse our kind, but look on us with the same love you would look on your other Christian brothers and sisters! Love us, this is all we ask!
To my homosexual brothers and sisters: Stop being misguided into the mistaken thought process that this world owes you something because you are different. We were delt cards, and we may not like them, or we may not like the rules by which this game is played, but we must accept it. Do not be fooled into believeing that God condones certain behaviors because they are socially acceptable. Be chaste! Be living examples of God’s holy will in your lives! God gave us our cross so that we may exemplify his love in our lives and in those lives around us!! Have courage and do not lose hope when people curse you or condemn you. We know the truths contained in God’s word!

After a bout of three years living the stereotypical “gay lifestyle”, I have found my faith and my God and reclaimed my life. I have begun living chastely in accordance with the teachings of the Church and the Word of God. I have kept contact with all my friends and aquantinces and have kept them dear to my heart. Many of my gay and lesbian friends have questioned this decision, but since have accepted and supported me. Many have also inquired into the new life that I live, and have begun the “baby steps” towards a chaste life in Christ. I just ask all this. That we live in peace with each other and learn to love, accept, forgive, and live.
Thank you for reading my rants.

It is not what you desire on the inside that makes it a sin. Its how you act on those thoughts and desires that determine wether or not it is a sin. I have a bisexual Catholic friend, but he does not act on the thoughts that attract him to other men. Yet he can still have a normal relationship, because he is also attracted to women too. I’m sure there are many devout celibate gay Catholics. They may just have to try a little harder to live their faith, given the circumstances. Also, I’m not gay or bisexual, but I do hate how people talk about gays being so immoral, but they never say anything about all that sex they had before marriage, or that abortion they got a few years ago.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

When did I suggest they must be out of a relationship to love each other?

Never! But there seems to be an understanding or conviction shared by many Roman Catholics that two folks of the same sex either should not or cannot be in a loving relationship, even if such a relationship eschews sex. Or if such a relationship is countenanced or conceded to be a possibility, its character, complexity and level of commitment will be elided over by labelling it just another sort of friendship (as you’ve discovered), in order to dismiss it as no more significant than any other friendship, even when it’s clear that such a relationship is much more significant than any other friendship. So I felt I needed to ask the questions I did so that (hopefully!) we could come to a better understanding of what it is we’re actually talking about.

What is is to huddle by the fire next to someone, resting your weary head against their shoulder, for them to hold you as you sleep? What is it for you to hold hands and pray the rosary together as one? One does not need sex to be intimate, sex is a bunch of feel good hormones released that covers up cracks, instead of that you must actually deal with the cracks and be thoughtful when dealing with the other. The love is not poison, the desire for sex is.

I see your point.

But it’s clear that the intimacy you describe is thought of as little more than an occasion of sin by many here. There are lots of folks who see the love two same-sex attracted people may have for each other as a species of lust, regardless of evidence in the relationship to the contrary. Such folks generally say that same-sex attracted people cannot actually love each other. But is such an understanding representative of a necessary conclusion to which RCC teaching in this matter naturally leads us?

It’s difficult to say, given the discussions on these forums. It seems that a same-sex attracted person is most accepted (and acceptable) here when their sexual orientation is experienced as a source of pain or suffering. Of course pain or suffering can be salutary, but they’re rarely salutary in themselves: pain can be the result of the salutary action of grace leading us away from illusion into reality, away from self-love to love of others, away from acquisition to giving. God does not desire pain for us. He’s not a sadist. That pain results from the action of grace is a function of our own sinfulness, not God’s will. So is it necessary for Roman Catholic same-sex attracted people to be in pain on account of their orientation in order to be living a life of grace and in order to be accepted by other faithful believers? If so, how does that follow from the teaching that such attractions are not sin?

Well, some might say*, having same-sex attraction is a cross that people so afflicted must bear.*
But (and leaving aside the fact that the cross we’re asked to bear is loving self-giving on behalf of others or suffering* in the* place of another following the the model of Christ and* not a way of describing things we have to do but don’t like doing or want to do but shouldn’t*) is same-sex attraction a burden because the teachings lead us to this conclusion, or is it so because of a variety of cultural expectations or assumptions?

Well, same-sex attracted people are called to a very great burden of sacrifice.
Really? What are they called to sacrifice beyond what anyone else is called to sacrifice?

Well, they can’t have sex.
Um…if a sacrifice is the act of giving up something good and useful (such as an unblemished sheep) for the sake of and love of the good, and if same-sex sexual activity is understood to be intrinsically wrong, how is it that an evil thing suddenly constitutes a proper sacrifice, or how can we understand refraining from evil to be anything more than merely fulfilling our duty to avoid vice?

Well then, they can’t be in relationship with someone with whom they’ve fallen in love, and that’s a burden.
They shouldn’t have sex according to the teaching, but what makes one believe that they can’t be in a relationship with someone with whom they’re in love?

*Well, it’s wrong to use such words as “in love” to describe such a relationship. *
Why? How?

Well, because same-sex attracted people can’t be “in love.”
Really? Where is this in the teaching?

Well, because it’s really about lust, isn’t it.
Even when it’s chaste? How is it possible for other, not same-sex attracted people to love and be in love while avoiding lust but not same-sex attracted folks? Aren’t you making same-sex attracted folks out to be especially different?

Well, you’re probably misunderstanding something, because they’re no different from anyone else.
Okay. So what’s being misunderstood?

Same-sex attraction is a real cross to bear.

One could on and on with this. But what it all comes down to, for me, is some version of this question: Is it possible for a same-sex attracted faithful Roman Catholic man or woman, committed to chastity, to live and fall in love and be in relationship with the person with whom they’ve fallen in love and do so without pain, guilt or shame?

I think I know where you stand, Dakota, and I think I understand the reasoning behind your position and how it arises out of and is faithful to the RCC teaching in this matter. But does not the opposing view also arise out of the RCC teaching? Which is more reflective of the actual teaching?

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Grace & Peace!

Never! But there seems to be an understanding or conviction shared by many Roman Catholics that two folks of the same sex either should not or cannot be in a loving relationship, even if such a relationship eschews sex. Or if such a relationship is countenanced or conceded to be a possibility, its character, complexity and level of commitment will be elided over by labelling it just another sort of friendship (as you’ve discovered), in order to dismiss it as no more significant than any other friendship, even when it’s clear that such a relationship is much more significant than any other friendship. So I felt I needed to ask the questions I did so that (hopefully!) we could come to a better understanding of what it is we’re actually talking about.

I see your point.

But it’s clear that the intimacy you describe is thought of as little more than an occasion of sin by many here. There are lots of folks who see the love two same-sex attracted people may have for each other as a species of lust, regardless of evidence in the relationship to the contrary. Such folks generally say that same-sex attracted people cannot actually love each other. But is such an understanding representative of a necessary conclusion to which RCC teaching in this matter naturally leads us?

It’s difficult to say, given the discussions on these forums. It seems that a same-sex attracted person is most accepted (and acceptable) here when their sexual orientation is experienced as a source of pain or suffering. Of course pain or suffering can be salutary, but they’re rarely salutary in themselves: pain can be the result of the salutary action of grace leading us away from illusion into reality, away from self-love to love of others, away from acquisition to giving. God does not desire pain for us. He’s not a sadist. That pain results from the action of grace is a function of our own sinfulness, not God’s will. So is it necessary for Roman Catholic same-sex attracted people to be in pain on account of their orientation in order to be living a life of grace and in order to be accepted by other faithful believers? If so, how does that follow from the teaching that such attractions are not sin?

Well, some might say*, having same-sex attraction is a cross that people so afflicted must bear.*
But (and leaving aside the fact that the cross we’re asked to bear is loving self-giving on behalf of others or suffering* in the* place of another following the the model of Christ and* not a way of describing things we have to do but don’t like doing or want to do but shouldn’t*) is same-sex attraction a burden because the teachings lead us to this conclusion, or is it so because of a variety of cultural expectations or assumptions?

Well, same-sex attracted people are called to a very great burden of sacrifice.
Really? What are they called to sacrifice beyond what anyone else is called to sacrifice?

Well, they can’t have sex.
Um…if a sacrifice is the act of giving up something good and useful (such as an unblemished sheep) for the sake of and love of the good, and if same-sex sexual activity is understood to be intrinsically wrong, how is it that an evil thing suddenly constitutes a proper sacrifice, or how can we understand refraining from evil to be anything more than merely fulfilling our duty to avoid vice?

Well then, they can’t be in relationship with someone with whom they’ve fallen in love, and that’s a burden.
They shouldn’t have sex according to the teaching, but what makes one believe that they can’t be in a relationship with someone with whom they’re in love?

*Well, it’s wrong to use such words as “in love” to describe such a relationship. *
Why? How?

Well, because same-sex attracted people can’t be “in love.”
Really? Where is this in the teaching?

Well, because it’s really about lust, isn’t it.
Even when it’s chaste? How is it possible for other, not same-sex attracted people to love and be in love while avoiding lust but not same-sex attracted folks? Aren’t you making same-sex attracted folks out to be especially different?

Well, you’re probably misunderstanding something, because they’re no different from anyone else.
Okay. So what’s being misunderstood?

Same-sex attraction is a real cross to bear.

One could on and on with this. But what it all comes down to, for me, is some version of this question: Is it possible for a same-sex attracted faithful Roman Catholic man or woman, committed to chastity, to live and fall in love and be in relationship with the person with whom they’ve fallen in love and do so without pain, guilt or shame?

I think I know where you stand, Dakota, and I think I understand the reasoning behind your position and how it arises out of and is faithful to the RCC teaching in this matter. But does not the opposing view also arise out of the RCC teaching? Which is more reflective of the actual teaching?

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

The Church is full of many people who have much to learn, I have much to learn too.

For those who have been improperly catechized that is a common conclusion

God does not desire pain for us as an end

It is a sacrifice in that it is not doing something that one desires.

Is it possible? Yes. Is it currently possible? Probably not because they’d get bashed by some Catholics for what you’ve said above and by others in society for not engaging in sex to show that you really love the person. Was it ever possible? Definitely. Will it be possible again? If catechesis improves and society becomes more Catholic.

The opposing view arises out of catechesis over the past half century being almost uniformly bad