Redeeming Qualities in Same-Sex Relationships

[Kurisu35712]

For a church that adheres to the traditional view of homosexuality as sinful, this could mean a number of things:

• Better understand what a person is going through
  Yes.
• Appreciate the difficulties present in the person’s conscience and understanding of the Church’s teaching
  Yes.
• Make known Christ’s love and understanding
  Yes.
• Evaluate what is good in the situation; for example, see what good can come out of the relationship

The problem is still with the last bullet point. Whether the relationship is based on homosexual sex or if it is just present in the relationship, if present, no good can ultimately come of the relationship. It may be beneficial right now in terms of material and emotional security, but the relationship is damaging for the eternal souls of the two individuals, and as a result, cannot be seen as a good thing. No good can come out of leading people down an objectively immoral path, regardless of one’s knowledge or intentions. If one does not view homosexual acts as potentially mortal sins, they will be very unlikely to conform their lives to the teachings of the Church, and will likely decide to leave, rather than compromise their desire for sexual activity. Conversely, if the couple decides to live in accordance with the teachings of the Church, they will cease sexual activity and live in chastity, which would then mean that their relationship is not a homosexual one, but just a friendship.

 

[edwest2]

The symbolism of the rainbow is interesting. It can convey a good meaning, yet it is also associated with demands for SSM. I recall some years ago when several persons (self-admitted activists) draped themselves in the rainbow colors and then approached the priest for communion. What is the Priest to do in the face of such an overt statement?

Nothing can be assumed. In order to get a proper answer to this question, the context needs to be known and contact should be made directly with St. Matthew’s, and the Archdiocese of Los Angeles.

Ed

 

[Rau]

Nothing can be assumed. In order to get a proper answer to this question, the context needs to be known and contact should be made directly with St. Matthew’s, and the Archdiocese of Los Angeles.
Ed

Indeed. I have no knowledge of what that particular Church intends by its use of the rainbow colours - though I am pretty sure what it does not intend - but I can clearly see how it might be perceived, or used, by persons coming from various perspectives.

The event I was describing was not in the U.S.

 

[edwest2]

But there were incidents in the US.

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/20040601.htm

Ed

 

[ComplineSanFran]

Fortunately, most Catholics don’t have this attitude. As I pointed out above in my post about the program at the Archdiocese of Los Angeles called “Catholic Ministry with Lesbian and Gay Persons” (CMLGP), some Catholics have chosen “to follow a prudent pastoral course, accepting people where they are in their discipleship with Jesus Christ [and] their membership in the Church” instead of suggesting that they can’t be Catholic and should leave.

I am not Roman Catholic, but have many colleagues and close friends who are. And quite honestly, most stay within the Church, find communities and parishes that are supportive and like-minded, and work within that community. Many are gay, many are women, most quite liberal. There are gay priests who are out and working in groups similar to the Archdiocese of LA. There are other groups too.

It may seem to many here that this is not a valid way to be Catholic. I understand that.

 

[JimG]

Deacon Jim Russell has a unique take which is nearly the opposite of looking for redeeming qualities, in his article here.

 

[catholic1seeks]

I find this confusing. In this and other posts you have used the word “Church” which I assume means the Catholic Church. You also use the word “churches” which I assume to mean other denominations.

It would help me if you could clear this up.

In this post, churches as in the local churches.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Move forward to where (“no matter what”)? What terms do those persons set for participation in the Church? “No matter what” would seem to offer considerable lattitude. To where did Thor’s church move? It was to determine there is no wrong in SSM, and that is central (IMHO) to why Thor participated in that Church.

For these churches, move forward to the end goal of getting as close to traditional teaching on the morality of homosexuality.

 

[catholic1seeks]

First 3 bullets are excellent. They build an understanding of the person and include elements of ministering. What is the objective of the last point? It sounds like the intent is to look for reasons to promote the continuation of the sexual relationship.

It would mean embracing the person where is he is at, if he also happens to be in a relationship. Such a person may be wanting to be involved in the Church and have a Christian life, yet he still may be deeply in love with his partner – or already civilly married – or has adopted children with his spouse. Etc. The local church, pastor, and others at this point could at least see how such a person could be incorporated into the Church. Acknowledging the good that is present is a good step.

 

[catholic1seeks]

The problem is still with the last bullet point. Whether the relationship is based on homosexual sex or if it is just present in the relationship, if present, no good can ultimately come of the relationship. It may be beneficial right now in terms of material and emotional security, but the relationship is damaging for the eternal souls of the two individuals, and as a result, cannot be seen as a good thing.

I disagree. Getting a couple to stop engaging in sexual acts could be a gradual goal. But by all means, goodness in the relationship should be promoted. Just because a sex act is deemed sinful by the Church does not mean that good fruits can come from the shared love between two people.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Deacon Jim Russell has a unique take which is nearly the opposite of looking for redeeming qualities, in his article here.

Nearly the opposite indeed:

Stop feeding the SSA tapeworm, even with the tiniest gratification, and focus *exclusively *on fighting it and shrinking it down as much as possible.

This kind of attitude can be very damaging to an individual. Some people can fight and fight their homosexual orientation and then they end up in mental hospitals. (Just an example I recently ran across – the actor who played the original blue Power Ranger was gay but tried to fight in and was bullied on set and wound up having an emotional breakdown and was admitted to a hospital.

Homosexuality is not just a result of “concupiscence” as the good deacon says. Homosexuality is part of a natural, biological world. Animals never committed original sin, but homosexual behavior is present there, too.

 

[Thorolfr]

This kind of attitude can be very damaging to an individual. Some people can fight and fight their homosexual orientation and then they end up in mental hospitals. (Just an example I recently ran across – the actor who played the original blue Power Ranger was gay but tried to fight in and was bullied on set and wound up having an emotional breakdown and was admitted to a hospital.

Homosexuality is not just a result of “concupiscence” as the good deacon says. Homosexuality is part of a natural, biological world. Animals never committed original sin, but homosexual behavior is present there, too.

Deacon Russell, in my opinion, doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Coming out for LGBT people is a part of being honest and authentic instead of keeping secrets and hiding who we are. It is far better to be in the light than to hide in the darkness. And thank goodness that lots of LGBT people have been coming out. This has done more than anything else to change public opinion as straight people have discovered that they have friends, coworkers, fellow church members, nephews, nieces, cousins, etc. who are gay or lesbian or transgender.

 

[Corki]

I disagree. Getting a couple to stop engaging in sexual acts could be a gradual goal. But by all means, goodness in the relationship should be promoted. Just because a sex act is deemed sinful by the Church does not mean that good fruits can come from the shared love between two people.

How would that “look” like, on a practical level? How does a regular Catholic parish treat a homosexual couple as representing “goodness” without ignoring or watering down the truth about the immorality of their actions and lifestyle? It sounds good in broad, general terms but it is not something that is workable in most parishes, IMHO.

 

[JimG]

Deacon Russell, in my opinion, doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Coming out for LGBT people is a part of being honest and authentic instead of keeping secrets and hiding who we are. It is far better to be in the light than to hide in the darkness. And thank goodness that lots of LGBT people have been coming out. This has done more than anything else to change public opinion as straight people have discovered that they have friends, coworkers, fellow church members, nephews, nieces, cousins, etc. who are gay or lesbian or transgender.

Or, instead of being “honest and authentic,” maybe it only has the effect of making children think about the social construct of “orientation” at far too early an age. And once they view themselves as a particular “orientation,” they are stuck with it. Society makes them think about sex way too early anyway, forcing them to choose an “orientation” is a disservice that fails to treat them as simply human beings.

“I find the separation of sexuality into those two camps to be a rather insidious trap that’s been foisted on society, especially for young people.”

The Straight / Not-Straight Trap

 

[at9009]

How would that “look” like, on a practical level? How does a regular Catholic parish treat a homosexual couple as representing “goodness” without ignoring or watering down the truth about the immorality of their actions and lifestyle? It sounds good in broad, general terms but it is not something that is workable in most parishes, IMHO.

I feel like the pastoral approach would be similar to how one would address a divorce and remarried couple (who don’t qualify for an annulment). I don’t know the actual method of the approach but it’s a similar situation.

 

[Rau]

I feel like the pastoral approach would be similar to how one would address a divorce and remarried couple (who don’t qualify for an annulment). I don’t know the actual method of the approach but it’s a similar situation.

The couple you describe have the advantage of not advertising their situation. Who is to know about a prior marriage or the absence of an annulment? Two men who care for a child are also free to attend mass.

 

[at9009]

The couple you describe have the advantage of not advertising their situation. Who is to know about a prior marriage or the absence of an annulment? Two men who care for a child are also free to attend mass.

Yeah, not a perfect example. But from a pastoral sense both relationships are sinful and not in accordance with Church teaching. I figured the Church has more experience dealing with the prior marriage case and I think much of the pastoral care and approach would be similar.

Both couples are welcome to attend mass (I hope it didn’t seem that I implied otherwise), and hopefully would be respectful enough to try to avoid causing scandal. I was just trying to offer a view of how the Church could address the situation with the couple ( if they were open to talking about Church teaching).

 

[Rau]

Yeah, not a perfect example. But from a pastoral sense both relationships are sinful and not in accordance with Church teaching. I figured the Church has more experience dealing with the prior marriage case and I think much of the pastoral care and approach would be similar.

Both couples are welcome to attend mass (I hope it didn’t seem that I implied otherwise), and hopefully would be respectful enough to try to avoid causing scandal. I was just trying to offer a view of how the Church could address the situation with the couple ( if they were open to talking about Church teaching).

The remarried couple, desirous of involvement in the Church, would likely approach their priest to discuss their situation. He would help them understand their situation and how it aligns with or differs from the teaching of the Church. He would canvass annulment and subsequent Church blessing. He would canvass living together as ‘siblings’. He would confirm that they are welcome to attend Mass, and he would explain their duty with respect to the Eucharist.

Annulment and Church blessing are not relevant for 2 men in a sexual relationship, but the remainder would seem pretty much applicable.

 

[catholic1seeks]

How would that “look” like, on a practical level? How does a regular Catholic parish treat a homosexual couple as representing “goodness” without ignoring or watering down the truth about the immorality of their actions and lifestyle? It sounds good in broad, general terms but it is not something that is workable in most parishes, IMHO.

I don’t mean to sound rude. At all. But honestly, it wouldn’t be that hard.
A church can maintain that what the couple is doing/has done is wrong yet also be willing to accept aspects that have come up from the couple’s situation. Perhaps the couple has adopted children. The church should be able to embrace the self-sacrifice and responsibility embraced by the couple to give and share a life of love for the children.

 

[Kurisu35712]

Deacon Russell, in my opinion, doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Coming out for LGBT people is a part of being honest and authentic instead of keeping secrets and hiding who we are. It is far better to be in the light than to hide in the darkness. And thank goodness that lots of LGBT people have been coming out. This has done more than anything else to change public opinion as straight people have discovered that they have friends, coworkers, fellow church members, nephews, nieces, cousins, etc. who are gay or lesbian or transgender.

I disagree with both viewpoints to be completely honest. I think that, in some cases and even many, “coming out” can be a psychologically therapeutic decision, as believing oneself to be entirely homosexual, while trying to hide it, eats away at one’s self-image in the same way a lie does. That being said, I also do not think this is the best solution for everyone. Part of the issue is due to the stigma and expectations attached to publicly coming out. If someone who is gay were to come out, acknowledging their SSA, yet intend to live a chaste life, instead of people talking about their sexual orientation behind their back, people now almost expect that, not only will they be sexually active and treat them accordingly, will also expect them to take a very liberal and secular opinion on any issue regarding sexuality. All this, regardless of whether or not it is actually true. Hiding your orientation from yourself is damaging, but I do not personally consider it necessary to then declare it publicly. It isn’t their business.

I agree more with JimG on this. I don’t think it’s necessary, and is in fact dangerous for children and young teenagers, to define themselves so strictly based on sexual orientation. Whether you believe that sexual orientation is fluid or not, the mental and hormonal development of a teenager is not set. I don’t think they should be encouraged to essentially pick a side regarding their orientation when they aren’t even fully developed. I struggled a lot with this question in high school myself. And speaking now, as an “adult” who still isn’t fully grown into one, what would society have had me define myself as? Am I asexual, because I didn’t and don’t have sex? Heterosexual because I have a long-term girlfriend and have never had a boyfriend? Homosexual because I experience SSA? Bisexual because I experience both? Pansexual? I still don’t presume to answer those questions with a concrete answer, and don’t feel a need to. I choose to live in accordance with my faith, regardless of the attractions I experience.

But I digress. I’m starting to get off-topic.