Men Being Married to Christ?

[kurt1]

I was just reading about St. Catherine of Siena and more specifically about her visions of being Christ’s bride, and even claiming she was given His foreskin as a wedding ring. I am aware some saints have claimed similar visions of being made the bride of Christ, and of course, the Church is His bride, but would we view these visions differently if it were a male saint having such vivid descriptions of being Christ’s bride? have there been any male saints claiming such things? what are y’all’s opinions on the possibility of a male being given such a vision?

 

[Justin_Mary]

what are y’all’s opinions on the possibility of a male being given such a vision?

Male & female he created them in His image.

A man by himself is an incomplete image of the Trinity. A woman by herself is an incomplete image of the Trinity.

A female Saint is wedded to Christ completes that image. Similarly a Male Saint usually stands in persona of Christ, the Bridegroom wedded to the Church.

 

[kurt1]

but not all men and male saints are priests. many are in the laity, and are as much ‘the Church’ as their female counterparts, are they not? or are women alone ‘the Church’?

 

[Mountie]

The Church is the bride of Christ. All of us, male and female, are the Church. In that mystical sense, we can think of Christ as our groom. I don’t think men typically view Christ in this personal manner. It can be uncomfortable to think about.

I’m not aware of any male saint having a vision such as the scenario you described. It would certainly be interesting. But maybe in our modern age where our society buys into the gender ideology, it would likely be misunderstood and abused.

 

[Vico]

…

Saint Augustine:

He speaks in Isaiah, and says, As upon a Bridegroom he has bound upon me a mitre, and as a Bride he has clothed me with an ornament. Isaiah 61:10 A Bridegroom He has called Himself in the Head, a Bride in the Body. He is speaking therefore as One, let us hear Him, and in Him let us also speak. Let us be the members of Him, in order that this voice may possibly be ours also.

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1801075.htm

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Are you seriously suggesting we consider men as being gay spouses of Christ?

No. Just no.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

I was just reading about St. Catherine of Siena and more specifically about her visions of being Christ’s bride, and even claiming she was given His foreskin as a wedding ring.

Filed under “things that just absolutely have to be Googled”…

Yes. So it seems. Talk about truth being stranger than fiction. Deus vult.

I was actually thinking it could have the opposite effect if we thought of males as also being part of the bride of Christ in this age. with today’s large acceptance of the LGBT community in the West and growing acceptance in the East, it could perhaps attract that community to us, if they could view their singleness as only being temporal, and their sole spouse being Christ Himself, meanwhile heterosexuals have the “distraction” of an earthly spouse. it sort of reminds me of Paul’s words on celibacy in general. if we begin viewing homosexuality as a gift, in that it encourages singleness of certain people who can then more fully devote themselves to God, then we could perhaps reach out to their community in ways we haven’t previously. but I’m very interested in what others think about this idea

This is one of the more… interesting ideas I’ve read on CAF in I-don’t-know-when. I’m tempted to react as TBS did above, but I just don’t know.

Anything that can be used to reach out to gay people, without compromising the truth of the Catholic Faith, I’m all in favor of. Not gay myself, but supportive of any gay person who needs help coming to terms with what has to be, for the sake of the Gospel, undesired lifelong celibacy.

And I will leave it at that.

Sometimes I think of myself as, temperamentally, a “Catholic Unitarian” of sorts. It takes a lot to shock me. I’ve seen a lot. Things that make many people gasp, don’t even faze me. I have a 13-year-old son. Let’s just say he’s media-savvy and very hip. Some of the things he comes up with, many parents would bury their head in their hands and say “where did I go wrong?”. I just shrug my shoulders and say “that’s very interesting, son, you must have a very good reason for seeing it that way, what say we delve into that a little further and take a closer look at it?”. Again, takes a lot to rattle me.

 

[Mountie]

I think your suggestion is problematic for a number of reasons.

it could perhaps attract that community to us

We must evangelize in truth. We do not want to use Christ as a distraction for homosexual desires. And while Christ is the groom of the Church, it may actually do more harm than good for homosexual persons to internalize it in the manner you suggest as this could lead to a sort of warped relationship (post-reply edit).

if they could view their singleness as only being temporal

This statement seems to be disengenuine to the celibate lifestyle. Celibacy is modeled after Christ and life in Heaven. It should not be viewed as something that must be painfully endured. This move may not sit well in regards to evangelizing.

heterosexuals have the “distraction” of an earthly spouse.

This statement seems unfair to the married life. God calls men and women to become married. They aren’t distractions from a better way of living. The best life is the one that God is calling you to.’’

if we begin viewing homosexuality as a gift

Homosexuality is a disordered desire (CCC 2357). It isn’t something that is to be glorified and celebrated. Now with that being said, St. Augustine called heresy a gift and no I won’t satisfy anyone with the context :crazy_face:…Homosexuality can be used to grow closer with God in the same way that God allows someone to fall into addiction. I can’t image the suffering that homosexual persons go through. They can use that suffering to grow closer to God. But this language connotes a more positive tone than I think would be prudent to concede.

we could perhaps reach out to their community in ways we haven’t previously

This is forward thinking. It’s good to be thinking of effective ways to evangelize. However, I do not think that this idea is a good one, if I’m being brutally honest. It is true that the Church is the bride of Christ, but we have to understand this teaching in the context that it is used. It shouldn’t be used as a mere tool that would be easily misunderstood or manipulated. The Church is a gift and our lives are gifts.

 

[kurt1]

of course we must evangelize in truth. that’s why I’m asking if men are the Bride of Christ in the same way women are. if not, then it wouldn’t be evangelizing in truth, but if they are, this could be a great way to reach them. and we should be trying to reach all unbelievers. the Early Church often used different strategies such as story telling, use of secular writings, and philosophy to intrigue and persuade their audience. it isn’t wrong to take new approaches in new times and to new audiences, in fact, I’d say it’s a good thing to do so.

I’m actually saying quite the opposite: that viewing Christ as their future spouse will ease their pain of celibacy. the alternative seems to be they simply “have to accept celibacy” since that’s what the Church teaches and so it is so. that’s much harsher.

yes God does call some to married life, and yet Paul still calls it a gift to be single, and wishes that more would be single, and that all capable of it, should remain single. we often forget the treasure of celibacy, and homosexuals are literally required to be celibate, so why not use that as a way to encourage them? rather, we almost treat it as a punishment for how they happen to exist.

“disordered” it isn’t like the world’s definition of a “disorder” and homosexuality, as you say, can be used to grow closer to God, especially since practicing gay Catholics are basically required to remain celibate, which Paul teaches is a great gift. you said earlier that “celibacy should not be viewed as something that must be painfully endured” and yet now say you can’t imagine the suffering they must go through and that they should offer that suffering to God. why not instead try to help ease their suffering? we shouldn’t want our own members to suffer, for when one part of the Body suffers, all the Body suffers.

I’m really not trying to warp any truth, and I hope I’m not coming off too strong, I hope I’m emphasizing well enough that we absolutely must continue to teach what the Church has always taught about homosexuality, but I do think, where it’s possible, we need to have as soft a tone as possible, because gays have been absolutely crushed by the Church in the past, and especially with the sex abuse scandal and some of the Traditionalists reactions to it. without compromising what the Church teaches, I think we need to take as gentle an approach as possible, and I think this could really help them in their struggle to remain celibate, if they view their life as the engagement period to Christ, and the wedding as being in Heaven. the engagement period is one where the two become much closer and they anticipate excitedly becoming one.

thanks for your feedback and detailed response!

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

For men I think it serves more as symbol of the spiritual love between the soul and God and not as literally.

 

[kapp19]

This is pretty out there.

1 - While it is true that all souls are “feminine” in relation to God (which constitutes the Church, together with Christ the Head), we are talking here about men who are sexually attracted to other men. They want something very specific - don’t forget that.

2 - Given this, it is downright misleading and spiritually dangerous to tell gay men that they can put all of their “energy” into the thought of a “marriage” with Christ. See #1.

3 - Gay men do not need to be celibate/unmarried. They are free to find a woman who can tolerate and overcome and hopefully heal that disorder; they can also work on changing their attractions through therapy. Some heterosexual men do need to be celibate/unmarried - they are just hopeless with the ladies, or they are very ill, or whatever. So let’s keep the terms clear… Sexual attraction should not determine your relationship with God. (By the way, that is also one of the biggest fallacies of the gay rights movement - that homosexuals were “prevented” from marrying by law - rather, they just didn’t want to marry in the way that was legally available. They wanted a new legal construct altogether to suit their own desires.)

4 - The celibate state is superior to the married state (as declared in Scripture and defined dogmatically by Trent, Session 24, Canon 10) but only if it is a real sacrificial gift. (The point about subjective superiority is well-taken - Paul also indicates this, as does common sense.) Being a continent bachelor is inferior to the married state… It is not a gift to God simply to observe the 6th Commandment while unmarried.

 

[kurt1]

why would it be different for men than for women? I’d like to think that I’m just as much a part of the Church as women are

 

[kurt1]

1. would you give that same response to St. Catherine of Siena? I find that we as Catholics tend to oversexualize gays. they are more than sex objects, and they want more than just sex. I don’t think it’s fair to just say that gay men can’t view themselves as much a part of the Church in the form of the Bride of Christ simply because they are sexually attracted to men.
2. if you don’t like the term energy, you don’t have to use it. I don’t see the actual point here, apologies.
3. gay men are not gay if they are attracted to women. homosexuality is not a disorder and needs no healing. very little research has shown any benefits from gay conversion therapy, and much damage has been done from it.
4. sacrificing your own sexuality in order to become Catholic is far more sacrificial than I think you realize. that is a gift. and they are deciding, by becoming/staying a practicing Catholic, to give up that sexuality.

there is no need to disrespect homosexuals as you have done here.

 

[kapp19]

1 - No. But I am sure she is in agreement with my point.

2 - Ok.

3 - Here’s a problem.

4 - Many sacrifices are required of the true disciple.

It’s disrespectful to those with same sex attraction to gloss over the problem.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Gay men do not need to be celibate/unmarried. They are free to find a woman who can tolerate and overcome and hopefully heal that disorder; they can also work on changing their attractions through therapy.

I have to question how often this would work, and quite frankly, most likely it would have to involve engaging in heterosexual intercourse, which is mortally sinful outside the married state. It is very tempting to tell a gay man “go out and have a lot of heterosex, that’ll change your mind”. Even if it would work, it is still an immoral means to a good end, and that is never admissible.

Still, though, there are a lot of women with at least a bisexual “streak”, and some might be willing to help a gay man to “find his straight side” through a wholesome heterosexual relationship — they might even be seeking to find their own “straight side”. Or even if they’re not bisexual, they might wish to do this. A lot of straight and bisexual women are very fond of gay men in the first place — in my single days, a lady friend told me that she preferred the company of gay men “because they don’t pose a threat”. Apparently I did. To this day she’s still single, possibly by choice.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

I seem to remember reading St John of the Cross describing the soul as a bride and Jesus pursuing the soul like a lover (regardless of the sex of the owner of that soul).

But then again, the idea of homosexual as a “type” of person is only about 100 years old. Before Freud, homosexual actions were considered sins in and of themselves but didn’t change the person into any particular type.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but for instance, when Oscar Wilde went to jail for having relations with another man, people weren’t saying “that’s weird—he’s married”. The action was judged by itself without a wider context.

 

[kurt1]

1. I don’t think she’d appreciate you sexualizing her like that saying she wants something “very specific” since she’s heterosexual
2. it’s not a problem
3. indeed, and their sacrifice to be celibate is one that is greatly awarded as it does require a lot out of them, and is considered a wonderful gift by the Bible and the Church.

you seem to think the problem is them existing. or perhaps them existing inside the Church. and that’s your problem, not theirs. that being said, more gays would be in the Church if we all stopped treating them like they’re fundamentally sick, and we aren’t. I’m also not glossing over anything. I continue to emphasize they must remain celibate.

 

[kurt1]

interesting I’ll have to look into that!

true, but homosexuality has been present all around the world for thousands of years. it was even the encouraged sexuality in some parts of the Roman Empire for quite some time.

 

[kapp19]

1 - My friend, you are twisting my words, whether intentionally or not. I assure you, Caterina di Benincasa has nothing to do with your opinion, and she rejects it. Nor is her mystical experience - which came after years of extreme penance, closed up in her cell (which I have had the great pleasure to visit) - anything like what you are suggesting. Stop pretending that it is a “sexual thing” at all - it is not. It is an entirely spiritual thing which merely uses the Biblical language of marriage, made more appropriate by the actual femininity of the saint herself.

3 - Continence is required of all the unmarried. It is virtuous, sure.

I have concluded that you are more interested in this question either because you struggle with this yourself, or there is someone in your life you are trying to advocate for. I think both are important realities - but neither are helpful for seeing the truth. Your original suggestion is, as several people have pointed out, one of the stranger things seen on CAF… And I certainly never suggested anything like what you are implying about my position about persons with same-sex attraction and the Church. It is dishonest - or careless - to say so.

-K

 

[kurt1]

1. I’m quoting your words. you say a gay man who has visions or just thinks about them being in the place of St. Catherine, being the spouse of Christ is wrong because we have to remember that gays want something “very specific”. you’re oversexualizing them. we don’t say the same thing about St. Catherine, likely a heterosexual woman, so why would you stereotype all gays as simply wanting something “very specific” from Christ? I’m not suggesting that St. Catherine’s vision is sexual, but you’re suggesting all gays would sexualize it, and I’m saying stop that, St. Catherine didn’t sexualize, and many gays wouldn’t either, since they’re not that different.

apologies for asking strange questions that I believe will result in more conversions to the Church? many saints throughout history were also attacked for their views and their approaches, let’s not forget that. thinking outside the box is a good thing. I take it as a compliment that so many are shocked yet can’t give many actual points as to why we shouldn’t reach out to gays in this way.