C
Cracker_Mom
Guest
Good suggestion!
Thanks and God bless!
- Status
Thanks and God bless!
J
JRKH
Guest
If you will note, the Title of this thread says “Practicing Catholic”. If one is a practicing Catholic, that indicates they are trying their best to live the Catholic Life, uphold Catholic teaching etc. A person who is practicing homesexuality and thinking it is OK is not practicing Catholicism. They may claim truthfully that they are Catholic by baptism, but not practicing Catholics.
Two people with “same sex attraction” who live together and introduce each other as “Life Partners” are, at the very least placing themselves unnecessarily in “Near Occasion of Sin”, and their fellow catholics have a right to be concerned for the souls of their brothers.
Which Part? The Church teaches clearly that Homosexual acts cannot be condoned under any circumstances. The Bible also condemns homosexual acts.
That is not personal opinion.
As to the rest, yes you could say that I am expressing my personal opinion about those who run around claiming to be catholic and then acting in clearly uncatholic ways, running down church teching, openly defying the pope and magisterium etc. To me it’s a matter of honor. If you claim to be something, then BE IT. Do not say one thing and do another.
Yes a person remains catholic if they are baptized and confirmed catholic. This is true. Perhaps I should have said they should not claim to be “practicing Catholics” and mis-represent the faith.
I think this is a much better way of looking at the issue.
Yes I think this is a good way to look at it as well. I know that my posts can read as kind of hard. I’m sorry if tehy do. I try to be clear that it is not the person who I am running down. It is the sin, and also those ides that try to justify the sin.
We all have our crosses to bear. It serves no good purpose to tell someone thei cross is not a cross. Thus to say that being actively homosexual is OK, or “No big deal”, as the parish in the OP seemed to think, is not helping these brothers or sisters in Christ to achieve salvation.
Peace
James
J
JRKH
Guest
Agreed. So long as that pastoral care Lovingly upholds the teachings of the Church. It serves no good purpose to condone sinful behavior in anyone. The recent abuse scandal should teach us this if nothing else.
Certainly in the case of the Priest abuses the Church tried to act in good pastoral care, sending the sinful priests on retreats, getting them councilling and other measures. What they did not do was to permenently remove them from the “near occasion of sin” which they could have done.
In the case of the people in the OP lets consider a scenerio.
Lets say these two people are truly trying to live a chaste live - a celibate one. Of course living together makes that more difficult.
Each goes to confession monthly and does so face to face with their confessor. Each time they must confess to having failed one or more times that month.
Their confessor, knowing the situation, tries to give good council but after a year their confessions have not changed. They fail once or twice a month.
Would you not agree that the confessor at this point would need to insist that they move apart? That they stop refering to themselves (name removed by moderator)ublic as “Life Partners”? In other words, they have tried everything else, now it is time to remove the “Near occasion” of sin.
This should be accepted by the two people, not as punishment, but as an act of True Love for the other. By moving apart they demostrate that they care more for the others immortal soul than they do for any finite physical pleasure derived from the sin.
True. But a problem comes in when we try to justify our failures and even more when we fail to take steps to remove the tempations where possible and building up Godly Love.
The only reason that homosexuals are “singled out” here is becaus that is the question put forth in this thread.
Also I’d say that homosexuality has been “singled out” simply because of the politcal and social changes recently which have brought it to the fore.
The same things could be applied to many different sinful behavior from regularly missing mass to gossiping, to child abuse, and across the board.
Peace
James
J
JRKH
Guest
I will quote for you what our Lord told us to do:
We do have an obligation to help our Bretheren.
Peace
James
N
Newbie2
Guest
PeaceIf you will note, the Title of this thread says “Practicing Catholic”. If one is a practicing Catholic, that indicates they are trying their best to live the Catholic Life, uphold Catholic teaching etc. A person who is practicing homesexuality and thinking it is OK is not practicing Catholicism. They may claim truthfully that they are Catholic by baptism, but not practicing Catholics.
Two people with “same sex attraction” who live together and introduce each other as “Life Partners” are, at the very least placing themselves unnecessarily in “Near Occasion of Sin”, and their fellow catholics have a right to be concerned for the souls of their brothers.
No doubt.
Which Part? The Church teaches clearly that Homosexual acts cannot be condoned under any circumstances. The Bible also condemns homosexual acts.
That is not personal opinion.
I agree.
As to the rest, yes you could say that I am expressing my personal opinion about those who run around claiming to be catholic and then acting in clearly uncatholic ways, running down church teching, openly defying the pope and magisterium etc. To me it’s a matter of honor. If you claim to be something, then BE IT. Do not say one thing and do another.
OK, that answers my question.
Yes a person remains catholic if they are baptized and confirmed catholic. This is true. Perhaps I should have said they should not claim to be “practicing Catholics” and mis-represent the faith.
Yes, I would totally agree with you there.
James
O
OraLabora
Guest
So far the only “proof” of sin that we have in this case, is concerning the sin of creating the appearance of scandal.
There is no proof of homosexual activity.
Going beyond the sin of scandal, which is visible to all, to try to determine if the sin of homosexual activity has been committed, would be an invasion of privacy. What private sins the couple did or didn’t commit remains locked behind the seal of the confessional.
Interestingly nowhere is their age mentioned. Sometimes older men lose interest in sex as their libidos wane or illness interferes with their abilities. Is there a possibility that this is the case here? I’m assuming they’re men but that isn’t mentioned either.
There is no proof of homosexual activity.
Going beyond the sin of scandal, which is visible to all, to try to determine if the sin of homosexual activity has been committed, would be an invasion of privacy. What private sins the couple did or didn’t commit remains locked behind the seal of the confessional.
Interestingly nowhere is their age mentioned. Sometimes older men lose interest in sex as their libidos wane or illness interferes with their abilities. Is there a possibility that this is the case here? I’m assuming they’re men but that isn’t mentioned either.
N
Newbie2
Guest
Doesn’t the sin which is “presumed” under scandal…well, isn’t it presumed in order to be scandalous? What I mean is that two dudes just living in the same house isn’t a big deal, but when one person describes another person of the same sex as their “Life partner”…so what is scandalous is the presumption of sin, no?
A
AndyF
Guest
Cracker Mom:
A proclamation through indiscreet lifestyle or vocally that one is obstinately and irreversibly determined to sin mortally will normally prevent any person from participating in the Church community. A priest is mandated to reject them and their offering while in this state of their souls, as he would know it benefits the giver nothing and he should tell them.
All these behaviors are symptomatic of secular influences of a world that decides it can do without God, and define normalcy by the general behavior of the community, and not based on God’s moral law. Those who would otherwise stop to quietly reflect on God’s desires have been swayed to accept these influences. The mindset is an aberration of the concept of common good, where it is mistakenly believed that because they are acts done in common, they can only be synonymous with good.
What I am going to say is even less difficult to accept. Every, EVERY good they do is not accepted as a credit to them while in the state of severed friendship with God. It will become for them an exercise in futility. In other words while they have not sought to remedy this mortal act through the instruments the Church provides through it’s Sacraments, they will receive no recognition for them.
The Church directs us in charity to pray for them and not become a deterrent for them in their endeavors to become once again a friend of God. We are not to cave into the deception they choose to enslave themselves with, and to remain discreet of their acts, even when they themselves care little about it. We need to remember that they are victims of a ruse, a cunning and devious temptation of it’s own classification that uses for it’s tools the sexual drive that God gave man to be directed for the use of the creative purpose only. We are to avoid the identity transfer that they wish us to adopt, in that they have become this way and it is their permanent state. They are not “anything” but in a temporary state that needs to be addressed through remedies. This affliction has a cure.
There is no way out other than through the Church, who is Christ manifested in Wisdom here on earth. Christ in his mercy provided a means to restore that friendship through the Sacrament of Penance, and those who refuse to avail themselves of it risk being lost.
Sadly I have seen cases where parents in anticipation find it trivial and even humorous that one day they may be presented with this wrong choice made by their children. They find it cute. They already have the mindset to permit free choice in this matter. They should see it has a storm on the horizon bent on destroying family values and prepare themselves for the onslaught by the prince of this world.
With the reception of this news the correct attitude and expression is one of shock, just as it would be if they found their children accepted theft or murder or any other mortal sin. They are to be stern and unwavering in their stance and immediately show that it is not tolerated behavior. These parents will for sure be sending these children out in a hostile world that will react with resistance. They therefore should also be told how to be careful and how to handle such situations and not to become teachers themselves, but to withdraw or at least not be swayed by these influences depending on the situation. The parents should read the book of Sirach and with the children describe the meaning of the topics that deal with social interaction and avoidance and what to look for in a peoples of God. Leviticus and Corinthians and Romans are excellent platforms as well.
This world has come so far from God the Catholic children will be faced with an even more difficult and less welcome environment. It will be one not too dissimilar to the plight of the Hebrews of ancient times, and they will be rejected because of their beliefs. We have become the new Hebrews of these times. But now as then we need to instill tradition firstly and from this we obtain for our community our cohesion to remain steadfast with the Church at the helm. From this platform we are then ready to become the model and inspiration for the world, and to accept from God the tasks He prepares for us.
Andy
A proclamation through indiscreet lifestyle or vocally that one is obstinately and irreversibly determined to sin mortally will normally prevent any person from participating in the Church community. A priest is mandated to reject them and their offering while in this state of their souls, as he would know it benefits the giver nothing and he should tell them.
All these behaviors are symptomatic of secular influences of a world that decides it can do without God, and define normalcy by the general behavior of the community, and not based on God’s moral law. Those who would otherwise stop to quietly reflect on God’s desires have been swayed to accept these influences. The mindset is an aberration of the concept of common good, where it is mistakenly believed that because they are acts done in common, they can only be synonymous with good.
What I am going to say is even less difficult to accept. Every, EVERY good they do is not accepted as a credit to them while in the state of severed friendship with God. It will become for them an exercise in futility. In other words while they have not sought to remedy this mortal act through the instruments the Church provides through it’s Sacraments, they will receive no recognition for them.
The Church directs us in charity to pray for them and not become a deterrent for them in their endeavors to become once again a friend of God. We are not to cave into the deception they choose to enslave themselves with, and to remain discreet of their acts, even when they themselves care little about it. We need to remember that they are victims of a ruse, a cunning and devious temptation of it’s own classification that uses for it’s tools the sexual drive that God gave man to be directed for the use of the creative purpose only. We are to avoid the identity transfer that they wish us to adopt, in that they have become this way and it is their permanent state. They are not “anything” but in a temporary state that needs to be addressed through remedies. This affliction has a cure.
There is no way out other than through the Church, who is Christ manifested in Wisdom here on earth. Christ in his mercy provided a means to restore that friendship through the Sacrament of Penance, and those who refuse to avail themselves of it risk being lost.
Sadly I have seen cases where parents in anticipation find it trivial and even humorous that one day they may be presented with this wrong choice made by their children. They find it cute. They already have the mindset to permit free choice in this matter. They should see it has a storm on the horizon bent on destroying family values and prepare themselves for the onslaught by the prince of this world.
With the reception of this news the correct attitude and expression is one of shock, just as it would be if they found their children accepted theft or murder or any other mortal sin. They are to be stern and unwavering in their stance and immediately show that it is not tolerated behavior. These parents will for sure be sending these children out in a hostile world that will react with resistance. They therefore should also be told how to be careful and how to handle such situations and not to become teachers themselves, but to withdraw or at least not be swayed by these influences depending on the situation. The parents should read the book of Sirach and with the children describe the meaning of the topics that deal with social interaction and avoidance and what to look for in a peoples of God. Leviticus and Corinthians and Romans are excellent platforms as well.
This world has come so far from God the Catholic children will be faced with an even more difficult and less welcome environment. It will be one not too dissimilar to the plight of the Hebrews of ancient times, and they will be rejected because of their beliefs. We have become the new Hebrews of these times. But now as then we need to instill tradition firstly and from this we obtain for our community our cohesion to remain steadfast with the Church at the helm. From this platform we are then ready to become the model and inspiration for the world, and to accept from God the tasks He prepares for us.
Andy
J
JRKH
Guest
Andy,
This is absolutely the best thing I’ve seen on the subject.
Well written, charitable and to the point.
Peace
James
A
AndyF
Guest
Thanks James!
Andy
Andy
J
Jermosh
Guest
Would you have the same feelings of a couple who remarried and living in adultry? What if they were a publically known drunk? Being Gay is not the only sin.
F
Feanor2
Guest
Good question.
What about a couple who were constantly angryj?
What about a couple who were always vocally envious of others’ things or aptitudes? This is explicitly called a mortal sin in the CCC.
What about a couple who were constantly angryj?
What about a couple who were always vocally envious of others’ things or aptitudes? This is explicitly called a mortal sin in the CCC.
E
Exalt
Guest
It’s certainly well-written and it’s absolutely to the point. But is it charitable? Well, perhaps only in the narrow interpretation of that word by certain members of the Catholic Church. On the other hand, when you look at the accepted meaning of the word generally, Andy’s post is certainly not charitable. Is his perspective kind? Is it understanding?
I suppose his perspective can only be considered “kind” when you take in mind Andy’s very narrow (and nearly completely incorrect) apparent understanding of homosexuality and the belief that homosexual activity would send a person straight to a lake of never-ending fire and torment forever and ever by a supposedly loving God. Though it astounds me - and billions of other human beings - that a God who his supposed followers calls merciful and understanding would do such a thing, Andy absolutely believes in that reality, and so perhaps his recommendation that this couple be obstinately “rejected” is kind, technically speaking.
But it is certainly not understanding, and here’s why: First of all, no one knows what this couple is doing in the bedroom. And frankly, it’s none of your business. You could guess. You could gossip. You could create scandal. (Which, by the way, the latter of two also being called “grave” sins by the Catholic Church, including homosexuality.) But you don’t know what’s going on, so it’s really not your place to create tension unnecessarily.
(Continued)
E
Exalt
Guest
(Continued from above)
Second of all, speaking of homosexuality in general, your narrow focus on the sexual aspect of homosexual relationships is laughable. Perhaps that’s what will eventually send a gay couple to hell for all eternity by a “loving” God, but it’s not what gay people care about most. Gay relationships are just as complex as straight relationships. They’re primarily about companionship, romance, sharing, building a family and a life together. The actual sex is a very small, relatively unimportant part of that. And sex is the ONLY thing explicitly condemned about homosexuality in the Catholic Church. Don’t be fooled by your perception of homosexuality, misinformed as it is. If anything, the couple in question should be a teaching moment of what a healthy gay relationship could look like.
Third, having been a child whose parents DID react in the manner you suggest, it’s not only ineffective but it’s dangerous to the child, the parents, and the relationship in general. You say, when speaking of homosexual children coming out their parents, that the “correct attitude and expression is one of shock, just as it would be if they found their children accepted theft or murder or any other mortal sin.” (I’ll completely ignore the wrong-headed and offensive comparison to theft and murder, to your surprise I’m sure.) You recommend that after the parents react “in shock,” that they should “immediately show that it is not tolerated behavior.” In my case, I was 15, and my parents reacted exactly as you recommended. They completely restricted my access to friends during non-school time and disallowed me the privilege of using the telephone or computer for two years. The restrictions were only slowly released after I expressed - and had completely proven - that I was a complete believer again and believed that homosexuality was wrong.
And it actually worked! For a while, at least. In college, in the middle of pursuing a college degree in Religious Studies and actively working to become a priest, my mind came back to me. By my junior year, I had declared myself an atheist and discontinued my work in the Church, and had come out as gay. My parents once again reacted in the same way you recommended, and cut me off completely. I found a job to support myself while continuing to pursue my BA degree - which I did finish on time - though my grades dropped quite a bit. But at least I was free, so I consider this second coming out better than the first.
Now, many years later, my parents wholly regret their actions. First, it was simply ineffective. When intellectually stifled and emotionally blackmailed, it’s easy to trick a human mind into believing something it wouldn’t otherwise believe. But given enough intellectual freedom again, the mind returns to free thought - but this time, it remembers the harm of the belief forced upon him and is not positively inclined to believe it again. Odds are, I would have a more positive regard towards Christianity had my parents reacted in a more kind manner.
Second, they regret their actions towards me simply because they were unkind, mean spirited, stifling - and very nearly destroyed both of us. It’s not easy to treat another human being badly, and especially so when that human being is your own offspring. And on my end, it’s not easy to be treated in such a harmful manner, especially by your own parents. I still struggle with have trouble forming trusting relationships because of those incidents - after all, the very people I trusted most in the world completely betrayed me. I won’t say suicidal ideation was not an issue, and had I been a weaker child, I might have simply not survived. And as I’m sure you know, the suicide rate among gay teenagers is staggering.
So, before you wholly recommend a shock and awe campaign against gay kids, remember that first of all, odds are it won’t work, unless you can keep them stifled their whole lives. Second, it’s very dangerous - emotionally and physically.
There are many more misunderstandings in your post - calling homosexuality an “affliction” that can be “cured”, for example - but I’ll stop there for now.
Second of all, speaking of homosexuality in general, your narrow focus on the sexual aspect of homosexual relationships is laughable. Perhaps that’s what will eventually send a gay couple to hell for all eternity by a “loving” God, but it’s not what gay people care about most. Gay relationships are just as complex as straight relationships. They’re primarily about companionship, romance, sharing, building a family and a life together. The actual sex is a very small, relatively unimportant part of that. And sex is the ONLY thing explicitly condemned about homosexuality in the Catholic Church. Don’t be fooled by your perception of homosexuality, misinformed as it is. If anything, the couple in question should be a teaching moment of what a healthy gay relationship could look like.
Third, having been a child whose parents DID react in the manner you suggest, it’s not only ineffective but it’s dangerous to the child, the parents, and the relationship in general. You say, when speaking of homosexual children coming out their parents, that the “correct attitude and expression is one of shock, just as it would be if they found their children accepted theft or murder or any other mortal sin.” (I’ll completely ignore the wrong-headed and offensive comparison to theft and murder, to your surprise I’m sure.) You recommend that after the parents react “in shock,” that they should “immediately show that it is not tolerated behavior.” In my case, I was 15, and my parents reacted exactly as you recommended. They completely restricted my access to friends during non-school time and disallowed me the privilege of using the telephone or computer for two years. The restrictions were only slowly released after I expressed - and had completely proven - that I was a complete believer again and believed that homosexuality was wrong.
And it actually worked! For a while, at least. In college, in the middle of pursuing a college degree in Religious Studies and actively working to become a priest, my mind came back to me. By my junior year, I had declared myself an atheist and discontinued my work in the Church, and had come out as gay. My parents once again reacted in the same way you recommended, and cut me off completely. I found a job to support myself while continuing to pursue my BA degree - which I did finish on time - though my grades dropped quite a bit. But at least I was free, so I consider this second coming out better than the first.
Now, many years later, my parents wholly regret their actions. First, it was simply ineffective. When intellectually stifled and emotionally blackmailed, it’s easy to trick a human mind into believing something it wouldn’t otherwise believe. But given enough intellectual freedom again, the mind returns to free thought - but this time, it remembers the harm of the belief forced upon him and is not positively inclined to believe it again. Odds are, I would have a more positive regard towards Christianity had my parents reacted in a more kind manner.
Second, they regret their actions towards me simply because they were unkind, mean spirited, stifling - and very nearly destroyed both of us. It’s not easy to treat another human being badly, and especially so when that human being is your own offspring. And on my end, it’s not easy to be treated in such a harmful manner, especially by your own parents. I still struggle with have trouble forming trusting relationships because of those incidents - after all, the very people I trusted most in the world completely betrayed me. I won’t say suicidal ideation was not an issue, and had I been a weaker child, I might have simply not survived. And as I’m sure you know, the suicide rate among gay teenagers is staggering.
So, before you wholly recommend a shock and awe campaign against gay kids, remember that first of all, odds are it won’t work, unless you can keep them stifled their whole lives. Second, it’s very dangerous - emotionally and physically.
There are many more misunderstandings in your post - calling homosexuality an “affliction” that can be “cured”, for example - but I’ll stop there for now.
P
pablo_rafael
Guest
Exalt, I appreciated hearing your thoughts and your story.
Countless gay people have been hurt by family friends and churches that sent a message of condemnation. To condemn someone because of what they ARE and always will be is a form of abuse in my opinion. To try and change a gay person from being gay to straight is almost always harmful to that person, and it almost never works.
What do we do with a gay couple in our midst? We love them as God loved us through Christ. As Jesus welcomed those on the margins of society, we welcome all into the family of God. As Paul said, “While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” Each of us sin and are in constant need of that love.
The Church teaches that celibacy is one of the spiritual gifts. Those who choose the vacation of the priesthood have that gift, but it is not given to everyone. If it is a gift, how can we impose it on a group of people. A gift is a gift; it cannot be mandated.
If God has brought two gay men or women together in a loving, committed, monogamous relationship, I rejoice in that, and I am pretty sure that God does as well.
Countless gay people have been hurt by family friends and churches that sent a message of condemnation. To condemn someone because of what they ARE and always will be is a form of abuse in my opinion. To try and change a gay person from being gay to straight is almost always harmful to that person, and it almost never works.
What do we do with a gay couple in our midst? We love them as God loved us through Christ. As Jesus welcomed those on the margins of society, we welcome all into the family of God. As Paul said, “While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” Each of us sin and are in constant need of that love.
The Church teaches that celibacy is one of the spiritual gifts. Those who choose the vacation of the priesthood have that gift, but it is not given to everyone. If it is a gift, how can we impose it on a group of people. A gift is a gift; it cannot be mandated.
If God has brought two gay men or women together in a loving, committed, monogamous relationship, I rejoice in that, and I am pretty sure that God does as well.
O
onthenarrowpath
Guest
If I may, I’d like to interject a thought here…and I’ll ask forgiveness ahead of time if this has been mentioned, because I haven’t read through all the posts:
I don’t know that it’s really a matter of judgment, so much as it’s one of perhaps causing weaker brothers to stumble in their faith. If a gay couple is presenting themselves as “life partners”, the implication is that they are not living a chaste life. Otherwise, they would refer to themselves as “companions”. As a man struggling against SSA myself, I assure you the first thing I would think, upon hearing a male/male couple referred to as “life partners”, would be that they are attempting to live as a “married” couple in every way…including sexually. If a weaker brother, who happens to be struggling with SSA, observes this couple presenting themselves in a way which is unchallenged by the church (congregation, priest, bishop) and unclear to everyone who observes them, it could conceivably cause that weaker brother to assume it was okay for him to likewise engage in that kind of relationship with another man. That would be wrong.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
^ True, but even then, one has to be careful of terminology. One common thing that Hollywood used to do is to describe a SS boyfriend/girlfriend as the actor’s “long-time companion.” (This has often appeared in a storied obituary.) Sounded innocent on its face, but in fact everybody knew what was being meant; it was, rather, a euphemism for a long-term sexual/romantic relationship. The euphemism was kept (as well it should be, i.m.o.) and not revealed until death out of respect for the actor’s privacy, assuming he/she had never officially “come out,” but chose discretion.
To me, the best way to describe a heartfelt friend of the same sex is simply to call him or her “my friend,” “my close friend,” “my best friend,” etc. Those terms can be completely asexual and thus no cause for scandal.
To me, the best way to describe a heartfelt friend of the same sex is simply to call him or her “my friend,” “my close friend,” “my best friend,” etc. Those terms can be completely asexual and thus no cause for scandal.
O
onthenarrowpath
Guest
Hello, Elizabeth! Yes, I suppose what you said is very true. I never realized the word “companion” held that connotation long ago. To me, it has always simply meant the same thing as “friend”. I think much of the problem lies with people unjustifiably making assumptions about others. So if someone were to introduce me to his/her “partner” as simply their “companion” - and I* didn’t know *they were in a sexual relationship - then I would have no right to assume they were in such a relationship.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
^True, you wouldn’t have the “right,” but I just remind you of the connotation/tradition of the word, that’s all. So personally, were I in that situation, I would not use the loaded word “companion,” but again, use ‘good friend,’ ‘dear friend,’ ‘close friend,’ etc. (That is, if I wanted to reduce the ambiguity.)
“companion,” when introduced directly, by oneself, is kind of a formal term in the context of a relationship. If it is not in the sense of close relationship, it connotes accompanying someone, such as “my companion here who came to the dinner with me,” or “my traveling companion.” When paired with “long-time,” it (again) implies a sexual/romantic relationship. It was a formal, polite, discreet way of stating something about a discreet couple. (Sometimes it also referred to cohabitating straight couples! In earlier times, the press didn’t refer to someone’s unmarried “lover” directly, even in a straight relationship.)
If I felt so heartfelt about someone of the same sex or different sex, but wasn’t sleeping with that person, I would refer to them with a sense of more intimate emotion; they would truly be a close friend.
“companion,” when introduced directly, by oneself, is kind of a formal term in the context of a relationship. If it is not in the sense of close relationship, it connotes accompanying someone, such as “my companion here who came to the dinner with me,” or “my traveling companion.” When paired with “long-time,” it (again) implies a sexual/romantic relationship. It was a formal, polite, discreet way of stating something about a discreet couple. (Sometimes it also referred to cohabitating straight couples! In earlier times, the press didn’t refer to someone’s unmarried “lover” directly, even in a straight relationship.)
If I felt so heartfelt about someone of the same sex or different sex, but wasn’t sleeping with that person, I would refer to them with a sense of more intimate emotion; they would truly be a close friend.
E
elts1956
Guest
I don’t think you are confused at all. Just the fact they are “out of the closet” with all that implies gives scandal. I would be suspicious of just how “conservative” this parish really is.
Here’s something I just don’t get: 2 professionals who attend Mass,they’re involved in the parish & hold positions of great responsibility in the deeply Catholic community, well respected & each previously married with several kids.
The trouble is that they live together & describe each other in public as their " life partner."
Noone’s assuming they live chastely together, but I suppose that’s an option to consider in charity.
This is in a relative’s diocese & they claim that homosexual behavior is not seen as a grave issue there. I’m confused, but a little suspicious that it may also be this wealthy couple’s professional skills,& generous donations to the Church & community that makes their acceptance into an otherwise conservative Catholic environment possible.
I truly believe in charity & believing the best of folks. Maybe you can live chastely yet still publicly proclaim yourselves a gay couple? Still sounds like an occasion of scandal…I’m confused.
- Status