Parents of Gay Children, having "the talk"

[Demetra2]

sigh…

People with SSA have a heavy cross to carry, but acting out on their disordered desires is NOT going to make the cross any lighter. Yes, that’s exactly how the Church views Same-Sex attraction a disorder because of the original sin of our first parents [Adam and Eve].

I personally see the gay lifestyle as destructive and dangerous, and my conscience cannot tell anyone to live it.

Chasity is perfect happiness, for a long time, The Church has put Chasity actually above marriage because it imitates Christ.

Yes, good points. Everyone has their own cross to carry and Jesus will and does help us to carry our cross. We cannot encourage someone to embrace sin as suggested by the OP and BEL but we can help them to carry their cross whatever that may be. I think it would be a positive move for parishes to welcome all and especially those of us who feel out of the mainstream such as people with SSA and also straight adult singles. The church will never be performing gay weddings but we can work to make everyone understand sthat they are welcome in the Catholic church. and part of a family. And we need to help catechize these adults who really do not understand the value of being Catholic. Our purpose while we live is to know, love and serve God and to help our neighbor.

 

[Gwendolen]

Sin hurts the entire Christian community. There is no such thing as a “private” or “victimless” sin. Homosexual acts are contrary to natural law. Not even God can change or dispense from natural law. By their very nature, they are not, nor can they be, life-giving. Consequently one of the primary goods of marriage, by its very design, is defeated. (In the case of sterile heterosexual couples, the sterility is due to a design flaw, not the natural design of their bodies.) On top of that, I would question, what harm does it do to people with SSA NOT to be married or NOT to be in a relationship? Not having sex never killed anybody. Not being married doesn’t kill people, either. Marriage does not guarantee happiness, nor is it a requirement for happiness. LOTS of people are not able to get married, for a variety of reasons. Marriage is a privilege, it is not a “right”.

For the record: I AM married (to a man; I’m a woman) and I don’t see “gendered politics” in our marriage. In fact, I would say that same-sex marriages are harmful to children because they don’t see the complementarity of men and women played out through marriage and the raising of children. Consequently a child of a same-sex couple could, potentially, have trouble being married to a person of the opposite sex because he/she has NEVER lived with a heterosexual couple, or seen the day-to-day family dynamics of a heterosexual family. Gender exists; you cannot deny that. Men and women are not the same. They are different - for a reason. They are intended to complement each other. Trying to have a “gender-free” society is contrary to what God intended and can lead to serious issues because people may find that their innate desires go unfulfilled because they’re told “you can’t be a real woman or a real man; there’s no such thing”.

Here is how this attitude, no matter how loving or well intentioned, DID hurt someone

justbecausehebreathes.com/

I don’t know what I would do if one of my children was gay. Probably leave it up to them to, as this mother so eloquently put it “wrestle with God”, while offering my love and support.

 

[estesbob]

Here is how this attitude, no matter how loving or well intentioned, DID hurt someone

justbecausehebreathes.com/

I don’t know what I would do if one of my children was gay. Probably leave it up to them to, as this mother so eloquently put it “wrestle with God”, while offering my love and support.

So do we refrain from giving our children any moral guidance or is it only the sin of homosexuality that we refrain from giving guidance on?

 

[Gwendolen]

So do we refrain from giving our children any moral guidance or is it only the sin of homosexuality that we refrain from giving guidance on?

I guess you could extend that to issues where the “moral guidance” can lead a child to drugs and suicidal thoughts.

These parents tried to give the exact moral guidance many Christians, including Catholics give to homosexual persons. They told him they loved him, but if he wanted to walk with Christ, he could not “practice” homosexuality, because it is wrong. This is what happened. Maybe we should stop trying to “help” so much.

 

[GEddie]

These parents tried to give the exact moral guidance many Christians, including Catholics give to homosexual persons. They told him they loved him, but if he wanted to walk with Christ, he could not “practice” homosexuality, because it is wrong.

It would be unkinder to pretend that an action is ok vis-a-vis the teachings of Scripture when in fact it is not.

The same would be true of promiscuous “straight” sexuality.

We are all called to abstain sexually unless and until we find a spouse; homosexuals are not a special case.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[Gwendolen]

It would be unkinder to pretend that an action is ok vis-a-vis the teachings of Scripture when in fact it is not.

The same would be true of promiscuous “straight” sexuality.

We are all called to abstain sexually unless and until we find a spouse; homosexuals are not a special case.

ICXC NIKA.

The difference for homosexuals is that there is no way out. They are not just called to chastity, they are ordered to life long celibacy, whether they feel called to be celibate for life or not I cannot ignore the real psychological damage this seems to cause, not just a “cross to bear”, but something that seems more sinister. This person’s story I have quoted is not an isolated example. I know several people in real life that also sustained psychological damage from being told that their romantic love for someone of the same gender is evil/wrong/against God’s will, etc. Two simply lost their faith. Another tried to stay in his church, and change it from within, don’t know what happened. None of them were able to maintain celibacy.

Again, don’t know what the answer is, not advocating an “anything goes”, but it is not as straightforward as some here would make it seem.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

One would think, but that’s what everyone used to crack jokes about one poor guy in my former parish, I shan’t mention his name but he did die celibate; a thankless endeavor.Secular society does poke fun at celibates I agree, but not even close to the same level of venom religious can.

Catholics poking fun at people for being lay celibates is proof of how decayed our moral teaching is because celibacy, even lay celibacy is superior to marriage.

And we’re grateful for that, although this does point out a hole in Catholic teaching. Isn’t it a grave sin to support in any way acts that are morally evil and an attack upon the sanctity of Catholic marriage (i.e: Anal sex?).

I’m grateful I can no longer be prosecuted for being married to another man but this again runs contrary to Catholic social teaching, as espoused by Benedict XVI at least.

Refusing to support legal punishment for a sin is not the same as supporting a sin, see how many medieval theologians advocated prostitution being legal at the same time as condemning it and the johns as immoral. Regarding sodomy laws in England you also have to realize that the first ones were implemented after the founding of the Anglican Church by Henry VIII to go after monastics, when his daughter the Catholic Mary I came to the throne she removed the laws. From a Catholic standpoint the new antigay laws in Nigeria and Uganda (they are trying to repass it there) should be opposed as they are unjust in giving an utterly disproportionate punishment for the “crime”.

Agreed, at least when I was growing up I had the option of becoming a priest; had I remained in the church the only vocation on offer would have been to be the black sheep hate figure who sat on the back pew.

I would like to apologize on behalf of my fellow Catholics for how they have mistreated you.

I can tell you now, most LGBT will not accept this. They’ll leave like I did, sometimes in deep distress and with trauma depending how involved they were but they won’t hang around. Some with a great interest in Theology will convert as I did, but most will turn to Atheism.

I am trying to get my fellow Catholics to understand that a vocation of no is no vocation at all, but they seem to have such a shallow understanding of theology it isn’t going anywhere.

I am very happy to say that your understanding of vocation can be expanded!
[redacted]

We are called to holiness in what ever state of life we are living. The world needs Catholic doctors, lawyers, nurses, carpenters, mechanics, teachers! We are to be salt and light to the world, bringing Christ to our families, our neighborhoods, our workplaces. Shepherds do not make sheep, sheep make sheep. Shepherds take care of the flock given to them.

Amazing people do not have to be married or have children or be a priest to be amazing. Mother Teresa and her sisters are a wonderful example of Christ’s hands and feet. Jesus in the sacraments gave them strength and courage to follow a very difficult vocation. Please do not say any longer the Church is full of ‘no’s’. It takes faith and courage to say YES to God, step out of the boat and walk on water. You come to God with your fish and loaf and He feeds the five thousand. Stop saying that the Church is full of ‘no’s’. It’s looking for people to say yes!

Congratulations on totally misunderstanding my post, I said “many Catholics” not “the Catholic Church”. Not only do the teachings of the Catholic Church treat lay celibacy as a good thing, it has historically treated it as a higher calling than marriage.

So do we refrain from giving our children any moral guidance or is it only the sin of homosexuality that we refrain from giving guidance on?

It means we need to be more thoughtful in how we dispense moral guidance.

I guess you could extend that to issues where the “moral guidance” can lead a child to drugs and suicidal thoughts.

These parents tried to give the exact moral guidance many Christians, including Catholics give to homosexual persons. They told him they loved him, but if he wanted to walk with Christ, he could not “practice” homosexuality, because it is wrong. This is what happened. Maybe we should stop trying to “help” so much.

We need to be more thoughtful about what we say and do because actions can have consequences we don’t mean them to.

The difference for homosexuals is that there is no way out. They are not just called to chastity, they are ordered to life long celibacy, whether they feel called to be celibate for life or not I cannot ignore the real psychological damage this seems to cause, not just a “cross to bear”, but something that seems more sinister. This person’s story I have quoted is not an isolated example. I know several people in real life that also sustained psychological damage from being told that their romantic love for someone of the same gender is evil/wrong/against God’s will, etc. Two simply lost their faith. Another tried to stay in his church, and change it from within, don’t know what happened. None of them were able to maintain celibacy.

Again, don’t know what the answer is, not advocating an “anything goes”, but it is not as straightforward as some here would make it seem.

We do need to change how we teach what the Church teaches as some people teach things that the Church does not actually teach.

 

[Rau]

…
Never mind the question of “rights” for a minute and just look at the situation. If the person wants to be faithful but is also told that there is no vocation open to them, then what expectation ought we to have that they will remain faithful? IMO, it’s kinda like hiring someone for a job and then telling them that the job has no responsibilities, no pay and no benefits. That is not welcoming or encouraging. And I will stress that at least IMO there is a big difference between welcoming/encouraging homosexual behavior and welcoming/encouraging a faithful individual with SSA.

Generally speaking, the vocations open to a gay person (SSA) should be the same as open to a single person of equivalent moral character. The Church draws a distinction in respect of the priesthood, though I am not aware of the exact restriction, nor the rationale for that.

 

[Rau]

… I was taught that there were two vocations in school - marriage or religious life- and if you didn’t fit in one you were seen as a crazy outcast.

So you reckon in your school the teachers forgot that some people remain single? Really?

…
I would say the best word to describe most parishes are “toxic.”

This applies to everyone, but is hardest for those who don’t fit in the vocation box. Ever been to a Mass alone? Well, I regularly go to Mass alone and it is the hardest thing that I do every week. I feel like I must have people staring at me because I’m not with a family. Catholic parishes tend not to be warm and welcoming places so it is hard to attend Mass without a family.

Unless you have 2 heads, I can’t imagine why. Singles are commonplace. And warm and welcoming cuts both ways. Hey, I lived as a single in a foreign (non-English speaking) country and attended Mass alone for years. Presumably you must think I nearly died from the pain?

…
The Church is essentially asking gay people to forgo the support system of a family and isn’t providing them with any additional support. People need more than God to get through the bad times in their lives; they need other people following God’s commandments to love one’s neighbors. The Church essentially insists that gay people give up on family to be true to God, but is lousy at the part of loving one’s neighbors.

What people experience “on the ground” is one thing, and varies case to case. But your suggestion that the Church asks gay people to forego a support system and family is imagined fiction. The Church suggests no such thing. Gay people deserve no less love and attention from their family than anyone else, and should be no less active in cultivating friendships and support systems than anyone else. The Church does teach that all persons ought not engage in sexual relationships outside marriage. I readily agree that the knowledge that an intimate relationship and children is an unlikely prospect may be tough indeed, but it is not unbearable. And it is not a sentence to a friendless, solitary life.

 

[Rau]

…I have Gay friends and family. And according to the Catholic “law” I posted, they are called to chastity. And according to that “law”:

1. The Church will never recognize their Gay Marriage as natural, real, or beautiful. Instead, like their homosexuality, it’s intrinsically disordered.
2. If you express yourself through sexual intimacy and “make love” to your partner, you are committing a grave sin. Yet when straight people do it, it’s the most beautiful expression of love there is. (Hypocrisy supreme)
3. You can only have platonic friends.

Ok, this makes me really upset and it’s the reason I feel as passionately as I do. If I’m lucky and blessed enough to get into Heaven, I’d be happy to explain my case to God. Gay people and Straight people ARE THE SAME! Their LOVE is the SAME and they fall in LOVE the SAME way!

To suggest otherwise is to be oppressive and bigoted…because:

They, obviously, and many many more people gay and straight believe there is nothing wrong with being homosexual.

The only thing “intrinsically disordered” are the homosexual acts. The attraction, the yearning, is not intrinsically disordered. Attraction and yearning are quite good things when directed to an appropriate object or end. Regrettably, a person of the same sex is not the appropriate object for such attractions - as a quick inspection of the bodies of the 2 persons will reveal in an obvious and incontrovertible way. [For this reason, those attractions are called “objectively disordered”. This is not a condemnation of anyone.]

The remainder of your post quoted above confuses love and sex. Love as much as you like and whomever. Genital acts, despite an attraction to them, have a restricted place in our lives.

 

[Rau]

---

1. Homosexuality is a normal variant of adult sexuality; gay men and lesbians possess the same potential and desire for sustained loving and lasting relationships as heterosexuals, including loving and parenting children. This is supported by hard data, not just opinion.

The bolded bit begs the question of “what does ‘normal’ mean?”. Homosexuality likely has a cause. It is not likely part of the blueprint of human design. The Psychologists tend to call things “normal” when the condition does not itself cause grief to the subject and thus does not ‘require’ treatment. It’s not a biological assessment. The remainder of your statement may well be correct.

1. Discriminatory marriage laws deprive gay and lesbian couples of over 1000 federal rights and benefits

1. Deprivation of these benefits has demonstrable negative psychological and social impact on same sex couples, their children and families.

Those not eligible for marriage who seek these benefits should advocate for the appropriate law changes. In many jurisdictions, much of the same rights arising from marriage also arise in other defacto relationships.

1. Change and adaptation make for a stronger and psychologically richer society

1. Same sex couples can teach heterosexual couples how couples in relationships lacking gender based power dynamics often solve problems and make decisions with more respect and mutuality.

1. Ending discrimination enhances the human spirit and makes all our lives better

OK.

 

[Rau]

According to the Catholic Church…

I cannot marry: I can marry another woman certainly but how cruel would that be? Knowing, or even worse being deceived to think that I have any form of sexual desire for her when I really don’t. That’s not a loving relationship by any measure, it subjects the woman to the indignity of being a mere baby factory. Only a true supporter of patriarchy and one with an utter disregard for women would suggest that to me.

It might be inappropriate, but that’s for you to decide. Noone advocates an inappropriate course for you.

I cannot adopt: Since **I am the intrinsically disordered **and innately evil…

Hard to believe that you are an RE teacher, and spend time posting on threads about homosexuality, yet you’re unfamiliar with the Catechism on that very subject!!

Sex acts with a person of the same sex are “intrinsically disordered”. The Church calls no person “disordered”.

I cannot live with another man: Because this is an occasion of sin and scandal, like I am some sort of wild nymphomaniac who will pounce on and mate with anything in sight.

That is a matter for you to assess and decide upon. I can’t shack up with a woman either.

I cannot live with another woman: Again, also an occasion of sin and arguably an even bigger scandal. Perhaps people are frightened I may turn straight, who knows.

Ditto.

I cannot work with children: Because again, I’m a sexually depraved morally evil pervert apparently.

Does the Church say this? Where? I assume you are not a pedophile? Do you openly present views counter to Catholic teaching? That would be a problem, wouldn’t it?

I can have no opinion on theological matters: I noted on many occasions while I was studying my Masters in Biblical Scholarship that my opinion on the texts was worthless to many of the other students because I am homosexual. Being morally evil, how can I possibly do anything morally right without being hand led by “good Catholics”?

How your opinions are received are more likely to be a matter of your intelligence, sound reasoning and character and behaviour, not your attractions and temptations. If you regularly find fault with Catholic teaching because it contradicts your personal wishes regarding same sex relationships, well, maybe that’s going to be a problem for how biblical scholars / theologians view your opinions.

I cannot play sports, go swimming or use public changing rooms: Again, because I might pounce on and rape someone in the Church’s line of thinking.

Really, where did you read this?

 

[sttcatherinefan]

So you reckon in your school the teachers forgot that some people remain single? Really?

There was no discussion of a “single” vocation. In fact, I don’t even no what a “single” vocation is. I’ve heard of prayers and Masses said for religious people and I’ve heard of prayers and special Masses for marriages, but I’ve never heard of a Mass or discussion of single people. Single Catholics are generally treated as future married people. That seems to be the purpose of most young adults groups.

Unless you have 2 heads, I can’t imagine why. Singles are commonplace. And warm and welcoming cuts both ways. Hey, I lived as a single in a foreign (non-English speaking) country and attended Mass alone for years. Presumably you must think I nearly died from the pain?

I posted about my issues with the Catholic parishes on another thread so I don’t care to get into them in detail. A synopsis was that I was bullied in Catholic school to the point that it led to a nervous breakdown. Nothing was done to stop the bullies who were the children of prominent, supposedly good Catholics. There have been lots of issues and fights at the parishes that I’ve attended. Political backbiting seems to be much, much worse at most parishes.

And I recommend that you do an experiment by going to a Catholic parish and then a Protestant church and seeing the difference in atmosphere and welcome. Protestants, especially Evangelicals, are nicer to each other. I just feel out-of-place and unwanted when I attend Mass alone. And yes it is a miserable chore.

What people experience “on the ground” is one thing, and varies case to case. But your suggestion that the Church asks gay people to forego a support system and family is imagined fiction. The Church suggests no such thing. Gay people deserve no less love and attention from their family than anyone else, and should be no less active in cultivating friendships and support systems than anyone else. The Church does teach that all persons ought not engage in sexual relationships outside marriage. I readily agree that the knowledge that an intimate relationship and children is an unlikely prospect may be tough indeed, but it is not unbearable. And it is not a sentence to a friendless, solitary life.

I think that this is very dismissive of the importance of family. For many people, the only people that they have to rely on is their spouse and their children. And I’m relaying my own experiences being a single girl who hasn’t found a guy yet (and the prospects are truly awful out there.) The only support system I have in the world is my parents. I’m an only child and cannot imagine the prospect of having to care for them alone in old age or deal with their deaths alone. I cannot imagine having to get old myself and die alone. I have “friends” but they seem to drift away once they marry. I’m the third wheel and it is very awkward. I feel like I’m constantly giving but don’t receive any support from them. Which is okay because they have families of their own to care for. But they are very one-sided relationships.

That is just the way that the modern world works. People don’t have deep and significant connections outside nuclear families. That desire to love and be loved and have that warm sense of belonging is why gay people which to form families and why people remarry after divorce. Yet, the Church is denying such support to whole swaths of people, especially gays and divorcees, and isn’t providing any alternative support structures. As I said, there really isn’t a place in many parishes for Catholic singles; in fact, there aren’t warm atmosphere for most people at many Catholic parishes.

What I’d like is for the Church in general and individual Christians who argue against gay marriage to be more positive and open to gay people in particular as well as single people in general. I think that having positive singles ministries that aren’t glorified dating sites would be a huge start.

 

[sttcatherinefan]

It might be inappropriate, but that’s for you to decide. Noone advocates an inappropriate course for you.

Hard to believe that you are an RE teacher, and spend time posting on threads about homosexuality, yet you’re unfamiliar with the Catechism on that very subject!!

Sex acts with a person of the same sex are “intrinsically disordered”. The Church calls no person “disordered”.

That is a matter for you to assess and decide upon. I can’t shack up with a woman either.

Ditto.

Does the Church say this? Where? I assume you are not a pedophile? Do you openly present views counter to Catholic teaching? That would be a problem, wouldn’t it?

How your opinions are received are more likely to be a matter of your intelligence, sound reasoning and character and behaviour, not your attractions and temptations. If you regularly find fault with Catholic teaching because it contradicts your personal wishes regarding same sex relationships, well, maybe that’s going to be a problem for how biblical scholars / theologians view your opinions.

Really, where did you read this?

The catechism indeed says that gay people are objectively disordered. This isn’t about the act, but about people attracted to those of the same sex. I think that one thing that the Church can do is revise the section on homosexuality with language that doesn’t include the term “disordered.” And I’ve unfortunately heard many of the arguments that he’s made above not by the official Church teachings, but by opponents of gay marriage. As I said in my original post, I think that opponents of gay marriage should really stick to the official Church teaching rather than creating their own theories about these things.

And the poster in question isn’t teaching moral theology. It appears that he is teaching Biblical scholarship. His sexual orientation doesn’t diminish his ability to teach about the New Testament.

 

[Rau]

As for RL I work in a Catholic School My head of department and fellow RE teacher are all too fond of telling me how I am worthy of death and eternal torture forever for my crimes against nature. I’m rather relived that most of the staff and none of the students I have encountered share their fevour While this isn’t church teaching, Catholic institutions are generally as welcoming to homosexuals (especially married ones like myself) as a KKK rally is to Catholics.

So do you teach what the Church teaches, or what you believe? If the former, how is your teaching to be taken seriously when you live openly otherwise (I assume you mean “married” to person of the same sex as yourself). If the latter, how is it you are not fired for non-performance?

 

[Rau]

The catechism indeed says that gay people are objectively disordered. This isn’t about the act, but about people attracted to those of the same sex. I think that one thing that the Church can do is revise the section on homosexuality with language that doesn’t include the term “disordered.” And I’ve unfortunately heard many of the arguments that he’s made above not by the official Church teachings, but by opponents of gay marriage. As I said in my original post, I think that opponents of gay marriage should really stick to the official Church teaching rather than creating their own theories about these things.

And the poster in question isn’t teaching moral theology. It appears that he is teaching Biblical scholarship. His sexual orientation doesn’t diminish his ability to teach about the New Testament.

Good grief. The Catechism does NOT say any such thing. It describes the **attraction **to same sex acts as “objectively disordered”.

 

[Rau]

…
What I’d like is for the Church in general and individual Christians who argue against gay marriage to be more positive and open to gay people in particular as well as single people in general. I think that having positive singles ministries that aren’t glorified dating sites would be a huge start.

By all means!

What do you mean by “singles ministries”?

 

[Rau]

Have you ever been instructed at mass to pray for vocations to the priesthood and religious life? I have.

Have you ever been instructed at mass to pray for vocations to married life and for those discerning marriage? I have.

Have you ever been instructed at mass to pray for vocations to “other states in life”?

So suppose you are a young man or young woman and you’re told that you must pursue “other states in life.” Yes, “other states in life,” i.e., miscellaneous, we can’t be bothered to categorize this because there’s nothing else we can say about it besides “grow close to God!”

So, there’s something fundamentally wrong with you… but you’re welcome here. We don’t have a role for you to play in the life of the Church… but we love you. We’re gonna have to make some comparisons between you and pedophiles, but no, seriously, we really love you. Bahahaha!

I’m not an advocate for homosexual sex or homosexual marriage by any stretch, but it occurs to me that saying there is a place for SSA individuals within the Church is, as George Costanza might say, “just something you say.”

What is the place in the Church for married persons?

What is the place in the Church for single people?

I am of aware of no respect in which one is a less welcome or less worthy member than the other. The specific prayers you mention might leave some singles feeling the way you suggest. But I was single for far longer than married, and the thought never occurred to me. I can imagine some may see it the way you suggest. I note that most prayers in the liturgy and generally are quite universal.

 

[Rau]

…
This isn’t true, I was told that living with another hetrosexual man while I was at university (a good freind of mine) was an occasion of sin, promoted scandal and that I should find another place to live. I know of several other Catholics who were told the same.

That you were told something does not make it true.

It is for you to decide what is a near occasion of sin for you.

 

[RayLi1992]

Sorry if I’m going off-topic, but…I think that Catholics should attend gay pride festivals and hold up placards saying ‘God hates nobody’. The hatred I see sometimes is pretty shocking, and it’s giving a bad name to Christians in general. That doesn’t mean you have to support gay marriage, it just means that you tolerate it and you accept that God loves all of humanity, regardless of what they do. God hates nobody, not even the worst sinners.

Also, I’m pretty confused about the ‘gay people can’t adopt’ rule–what about if the gay person chooses to remain single? Can s/he still adopt a child? Just curious.

Lastly…I hope you treat gay people with the utmost care and love. John 13:34- ‘…As I have loved you, so you must love one another.’ Jesus ate with Zacchaeus even though he could’ve very well continued with his embezzling. Jesus didn’t go Rambo on Judas even though He knew Judas would betray Him. He accepted and loved all of His own. That’s what we should be trying to emulate–to love each other despite their flaws. If you perceive gay marriage to be wrong, then sure–just as long as you don’t perceive the gay person’s existence to be wrong. That would be a sin in itself.