Men Being Married to Christ?

[kapp19]

Hi there,

I don’t want to sexualize people. That’s why I don’t think “gays” need a specific spirituality. Men, sure. “Gays,” no. People are not their sexual attractions. People are, however, men and women.

It would be a terrible idea to do what you are suggesting, which was my 2nd point that you did not grasp. It would sexualize Christ in a way that would lead to deep confusion about the meaning of what it is to love the Incarnate Word - especially without addressing the deeply disordered nature of the desire which is forming the base. You are a man - not a “gay.”

I sincerely hope this helps. I will pray for you.

-K

 

[kurt1]

well it’s a good thing my main point is that men are as much the Bride of Christ as women are. I’m simply using that fact to then say we can help encourage gay men who feel outcast in the Church by showing this to them.

it’s not sexualizing Christ any more than St. Catherine did (and once more I’ll say, I’m not claiming St. Catherine had a sexual vision or was sexualizing it, but rather that gays won’t be sexualizing it either)

well, I’m not gay, so I’m not sure what you’ll be praying for, but hey, no prayer is wasted, God will probably redirect it to someone who needs that sort of prayer thanks

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

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.

Yes. Homosexual behavior is found in every culture and every time.
But the meaning attached to it shifts depending on the surrounding culture.
For instance in Greek times, a man had a wife for procreation and a male lover for companionship, but they didn’t seem to categorize people into to gay, straight, or bisexual.

 

[ReaderT]

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

No. Just no.

Exactly. It’s like saying Christ has a harem, because he has all those nun brides.

 

[kurt1]

not exactly, because we are one Body in Christ. I’m simply hoping to point out that men are also part of that Body and the Bride, and therefore it should include gay men as well.

 

[Mountie]

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’d agree, but I would also make a point to say that we can take things too far. I believe that your heart is in the right place. My previous comment was just to ensure that we’re using the best language and theology as possible when discussing this issue as society clearly misunderstands gender and sexuality.

viewing Christ as their future spouse will ease their pain of celibacy

I think that we should first recognize that if God gives someone the gift of celibacy, then living a celibate life will grant them great joy, much more than if they were not living a celibate life. I know that you are focused on the evangelizing part for those who are not living life in accord to God’s design.

The statement that one can endure celibacy in this life because they will become married to Christ in Heaven still sounds problematic to me. I think that the nature of this claim is still presenting celibacy in a negative light. If saying “just accept celibacy” is hot dog water, then your statement is merely adding sugar. It’s like saying “just accept celibacy because you’ll be married to Christ.” Also, it’s analogous to a gay wedding and portrays marriage in a distorted manner. I understand your point that men are part of the Church and the Church is Christ’s bride. Point taken. However, if we emphasize that over the fact that our sexuality being a gift from God and our bodies being entrusted to us by God, made for a proper end, then it can lead to furthering the gender ideology, which provides much harm to homosexual persons. I’m not saying this to discredit the faith of our homosexual brothers and sisters, but I don’t think our society is ordered in a way that allows for easy understanding of the Church’s theology.

I’m really not trying to warp any truth

I think I understand the move that you’re making. I wouldn’t accuse you of trying to reject what the Church teaches. You’re trying to understand what the Church teaches to use it to our advantage. However, I caution that approach given that society has a warped view of sexuality and marriage. I think that it’s possible for someone to hear that and use it to justify a distorted view of sexuality or marriage. And I believe that a homosexual person can hear that and have a mistaken view of the mystical marriage of Christ and the Church. I’ll use a likely flawed analogy. Scripture describes God as Mother. However, God is typically emphasized as Father. Is it wrong to view God as a nurturing Mother? Scripture describes God as such! But we have to remember that God has no gender and that Jesus called God “Father.” I guess what I’m trying to say is that while we can discus the mystical union of Christ and the Church, we cannot neglect to mention the whole of the teaching of the Church. It may be prudent to situate one part of teaching with the rest before using it as a standalone evangelization method.

 

[Maximian]

For one thing, the marriage analogy includes the analogy of consummation through which “the twain shall become one flesh.” Such an analogy in a homosexual context would be blasphemous.

 

[Maximian]

ue, but homosexuality has been present all around the world for thousands of years.

So what? So have greed, anger, and hatred, all of which lead people to sin.

 

[Dan_Defender]

The saint’s vision is an analogy. She is trying to convey what she experienced in the ecstatic state in earthly terms. The destiny of the soul is spiritual union with God, which has nothing to do with gender or sex.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

The saint’s vision is an analogy. She is trying to convey what she experienced in the ecstatic state in earthly terms. The destiny of the soul is spiritual union with God, which has nothing to do with gender or sex.

Exactly. Trying to genderize or sexualize this is blasphemous. It’s not some kind of awesome out-of-the-box thinking either. People have been trying to twist St. John of the Cross into a “queer saint” for years now on the basis that his expression of love for Christ is “homoerotic”. It’s frankly disgusting, and is equally disgusting and blasphemous when people try to twist St. Catherine of Siena or St. Margaret Mary Alacoque into having some sort of hetero-erotic sexual feelings for Christ.