Same Sex Celibate Couples

[Havard]

How could someone cause someone they love to mortally sin? Causing someone you love to mortally sin seems like the opposite of love.

Quite easily?

Just take a loot at this forum. There was recently just a thread about a husband who wanted his wife to have anal sex with him. And another about a wife who wanted her husband to use artificial birth control. And that’s just recent threads off the top of my head…

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Quite easily?

Just take a loot at this forum. There was recently just a thread about a husband who wanted his wife to have anal sex with him. And another about a wife who wanted her husband to use artificial birth control. And that’s just recent threads off the top of my head…

In the former case all he cares is himself, in the latter she is only caring about herself. The do not do it out of love, they do it out of selfishness.

 

[Havard]

In the former case all he cares is himself, in the latter she is only caring about herself. The do not do it out of love, they do it out of selfishness.

You’ve defined two couples’ feelings toward each other based on one fact about them apiece. That’s quite judgmental. I agree the facts themselves are not indicative of wholesome, marital love, but the couples may indeed love each other, very much.

Loving someone else doesn’t make you sin-proof with respect to them… it doesn’t create some bubble of sinlessness within our overall fallen nature. The fact is, people who love each other can, and often do, cause each other to sin. Gay people are no exception.

 

[DexUK]

To get back to the original suggestion and the ‘occasion of sin’ thing.

If the two homosexual persons are living together and are capable of living chastely without being tempted to do otherwise - and only they can know if this is the case - then I don’t see why they should be forced to live apart.

The near occasion of sin is only that if there is actually a risk that they will sin.

To take a different example, if I wanted to, I could walk into my local store and steal items from the shelves. That would be a sin. Does the fact that it’s technically possible for me to do such a thing mean that I should now avoid the store, just in case I might be tempted to commit an act of theft? The answer is no, because I know perfectly well that I won’t be tempted to do it. If I suffered a compulsion of kleptomania though, then entering the store would be a near occasion of sin, since I would be placing myself in temptation’s path.

So it really comes down to whether the two homosexual persons are sufficiently capable of living celibately. If they are, then there’s no near occasion of sin in being alone in each other’s presence.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

You’ve defined two couples’ feelings toward each other based on one fact about them apiece. That’s quite judgmental. I agree the facts themselves are not indicative of wholesome, marital love, but the couples may indeed love each other, very much.

Loving someone else doesn’t make you sin-proof with respect to them… it doesn’t create some bubble of sinlessness within our overall fallen nature. The fact is, people who love each other can, and often do, cause each other to sin. Gay people are no exception.

To use your spouse for your own sexual gratification is unloving.

 

[UnlikelyHomeDad]

They should talk to their priest. Placing themselves in a situation that is a temptation to sin is not something they should do. The fact that they consider themselves a “couple” indicates they need counsel from their priest.

Furthering this, the fact that they have same sex attraction issues and somehow, miraculous, the pastor did not advise them to separate would no doubt create the scandl that the Church condones such behavior. No, an unmarried man and woman should also avoid living together. No difference.

 

[UnlikelyHomeDad]

This is no law against love, kindness, mutual supportiveness. On the contrary, we are commanded by Jesus Christ to do these things.

It is also, according to the Church, no sin to have a homosexual orientation.

So, my reasoning (fallible) is that if there is no sexual activity, there is no sin, even if other people condemn them and stigmatize them. If there is no sex, they are not a gay couple. They are just roommates and friends.

Then why would they go out of their way to live with each other. To hold hands, to kiss, to hold each other, without sin? I think you better go back to the drawing board with this inappropriate behavior that violates Church teaching. One is to avoid the near occasion of sin. Get too close to someone far to often and unchaperoned you are most likely going to sin. That’s why courting was and is done the way it’s done.

 

[ConstantineTG]

If two persons of the same sex loved each other, and agreed to live together in a celibate way, would they still be considered a Gay couple? Would the Roman Catholic teachings be upheld? Would they be able to receive Holy Communion?

I think the fact that they see themselves as a couple is a huge issue here.

 

[Skybench]

The teaching of the church is very clear on gay and same sex union.Simply, The Church forbids this.However, The church shows love to all irrespective of orientation.
Pls,Can Someone else throw more light on this issue.
Thanks

 

[StJudePray4Me]

This is no law against love, kindness, mutual supportiveness. On the contrary, we are commanded by Jesus Christ to do these things.

It is also, according to the Church, no sin to have a homosexual orientation.

So, my reasoning (fallible) is that if there is no sexual activity, there is no sin, even if other people condemn them and stigmatize them. If there is no sex, they are not a gay couple. They are just roommates and friends.

But we are specifically addressing the OP, in which he or she says that the two people involved “love each other”… we are reading that as romantic love, not friendship.

I believe we would give the same answer to a young woman who wanted to move in with her boyfriend, and said that they would have separate bedrooms, promise not to engage in sex, etc. We would advise her that it is still a near occasion of sin, and causing scandal. The same goes for a homosexual couple.

If the girl said the man was a friend, for whom she had no romantic feelings, some might advise that it’s still potentially scandalous, but it would not necessarily be a near occasion of sin. Same for someone who is gay.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

The Church says no to homosexual acts (sex) as they are intrinsically closed to life. The Church has said nothing on two people of the same sex loving and caring for each other. Indeed two people of the same sex loving and caring for each other was substantially more common two hundred years ago or more. There were no sexual connotation to it, they simply loved each other. Bl. Cardinal Newman is perhaps the last person we can see of that kind of friendship, if you read his letters you can see he loved Ambrose St. John without there being a sexual relationship. People these days have forgotten that there are a number of types of love and not just eros (romantic love), venus (sexuality) doesn’t even need to be in eros. In the past what people knew was that a man engaging in sex with a man was bad and a woman engaging in sex with a woman was bad.

 

[michelleds]

If two persons of the same sex loved each other, and agreed to live together in a celibate way, would they still be considered a Gay couple? Would the Roman Catholic teachings be upheld? Would they be able to receive Holy Communion?

Many posters are confusing the question. Many posters have said that the two persons in OP’s question consider themselves a couple, but in fact the question posed is “would they be considered a gay couple”?

IF the two people involved are (1) not presenting themselves as a gay couple or otherwise holding themselves out as engaging in behavior contrary to church teachings, and (2) not involved in a situation of near occasions of sin, then this type of living arrangement could be approved. I personally know of one priest and Bishop who have given approval to such a living arrangement.

And I have read, here and elsewhere, of others receiving approval. I think this is a very special circumstance tho, dependent on the personal maturity, spiritual maturity, and other factors which can only be sufficiently dealt with in consultation with a priest or SD with whom one is perfectly open and honest.

the people involved should be living as brothers or sisters in Christ. if they are not or cannot, then this is not a good solution.

I would also think that the two people should both be willing to immediately correct any scandalous misperceptions on the part of others that they become aware of. for instance, if someone says to Person A that their “life partner” is a very nice person, Person A should say, I assume you are referring to Person B. She is very nice, but we’re not life partners, she’s just a friend. or whatever language is comfortable, but that will mitigate any potential scandal.

people make this sort of living arrangement for a variety of reasons, but the most frequent reasoning i’ve seen is that the living arrangements were already in place (house purchased, etc) BEFORE a conversion or reversion on the part of the persons.

similar thread on CAF from 2010: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=464394

 

[Havard]

The Church says no to homosexual acts (sex) as they are intrinsically closed to life. The Church has said nothing on two people of the same sex loving and caring for each other. Indeed two people of the same sex loving and caring for each other was substantially more common two hundred years ago or more. There were no sexual connotation to it, they simply loved each other. Bl. Cardinal Newman is perhaps the last person we can see of that kind of friendship, if you read his letters you can see he loved Ambrose St. John without there being a sexual relationship. People these days have forgotten that there are a number of types of love and not just eros (romantic love), venus (sexuality) doesn’t even need to be in eros. In the past what people knew was that a man engaging in sex with a man was bad and a woman engaging in sex with a woman was bad.

That does not appear at all to me to be what the OP was talking about.

I know platonic love well… I am a single man. My best friend is a single man. Every time we meet, we embrace. We have told each other that we love each other on numerous occasions. We continually offer up thanks to God over our friendship. Needless to say, we are not “too macho” to express out love for each other.

The OP’s example is very different than this… the OP clearly states that the couple “agrees to celibacy”. There has never, ever, ever, EVER, been a time that my friend and I ever needed to “agree to celibacy”. Simply put, platonic love does not desire sex!

Therefore, until the OP comes back and says otherwise, it seems only reasonable to me to assume that the OP is not referring to a platonic love.

 

[ThyKingdomCome]

The homosexual inclination is a disordered inclination. While it is obvious that homosexual sexual acts are wrong, it is also disordered to carry on a romantic relationship with a person of the same sex. For two reasons - one simply because it is the encouragement of a disordered inclination. And second because it is clear that romantic relationships exist for the purpose of leading to marriage, sexual union, and procreation (or at least the possibility of such). To have a romantic relationship that could not possibly end with any of those things is disordered in itself.

See what the Catechism says about this (emphasis in red added by me):

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

(beliefnet.com/Faiths/Catholic/2002/01/The-Roman-Catholic-Churchs-Official-Teaching-On-Homosexuality.aspx#ixzz1luBrcYFO)

Note that the Catechism bothers to put the adjective “disinterested” in front of the word “friendship.” Without even saying romantic relationships were ok, they could have left the word “friendship” alone. But they made the point to add the word “disinterested,” making the point that romantic relationships are NOT included in the list of ways homosexually inclined people can approach Christian perfection.

 

[michelleds]

The homosexual inclination is a disordered inclination. While it is obvious that homosexual sexual acts are wrong, it is also disordered to carry on a romantic relationship with a person of the same sex. For two reasons - one simply because it is the encouragement of a disordered inclination. And second because it is clear that romantic relationships exist for the purpose of leading to marriage, sexual union, and procreation (or at least the possibility of such). To have a romantic relationship that could not possibly end with any of those things is disordered in itself.

See what the Catechism says about this (emphasis in red added by me):

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

(beliefnet.com/Faiths/Catholic/2002/01/The-Roman-Catholic-Churchs-Official-Teaching-On-Homosexuality.aspx#ixzz1luBrcYFO)

Note that the Catechism bothers to put the adjective “disinterested” in front of the word “friendship.” Without even saying romantic relationships were ok, they could have left the word “friendship” alone. But they made the point to add the word “disinterested,” making the point that romantic relationships are NOT included in the list of ways homosexually inclined people can approach Christian perfection.

yes, pursuing a “romantic relationship” would be in error.

I think it’s abundantly clear that the OP was somewhat unclear and that there are a number of permutations–some of which would be clearly immoral. anyone is such a situation would be well-advised to seek a faithful priest’s guidance.

 

[ThyKingdomCome]

The word, “couple” implies a romantic relationship, not a platonic friendship.

 

[michelleds]

The word, “couple” implies a romantic relationship, not a platonic friendship.

Yes but if you’ll read my first post on this thread you’ll see that I found the op vague and why. It doesn’t say the two ppl consider themselves a couple

Edited to add that I just re- read the Title of the thread and it does clearly say couple. My bad

 

[manualman]

Uh, having a roommate is a great way to save a LOT of money when you are single. Granted, I was never sexually attracted to any of my roomates, but I had several who were commited believers so we did indeed love each other in Christ.

I have a hard time calling it sin if you take my former situation and add in mutual sexual attraction successfully restrained and chaste.

So my vote is: sin? No. Bad idea? Yes.

It wouldn’t technically be a sin for a hetero guy to rent an apartment with holes in the floor located above a strip club either. But I’d give him the same advice: Bad idea, dude.

Saints will tell you that the prudent way to avoid sin is to see it coming and cross to the other side of the street.

 

[SteveGC]

Edited to add that I just re- read the Title of the thread and it does clearly say couple. My bad

Your oversight notwithstanding Michelle, I still think this previous post of yours was spot on, and essentially provides the overall complete answer to the thread topic:

michelleds:

IF the two people involved are (1) not presenting themselves as a gay couple or otherwise holding themselves out as engaging in behavior contrary to church teachings, and (2) not involved in a situation of near occasions of sin, then this type of living arrangement could be approved. I personally know of one priest and Bishop who have given approval to such a living arrangement.

And I have read, here and elsewhere, of others receiving approval. I think this is a very special circumstance tho, dependent on the personal maturity, spiritual maturity, and other factors which can only be sufficiently dealt with in consultation with a priest or SD with whom one is perfectly open and honest.

the people involved should be living as brothers or sisters in Christ. if they are not or cannot, then this is not a good solution.

I would also think that the two people should both be willing to immediately correct any scandalous misperceptions on the part of others that they become aware of. for instance, if someone says to Person A that their “life partner” is a very nice person, Person A should say, I assume you are referring to Person B. She is very nice, but we’re not life partners, she’s just a friend. or whatever language is comfortable, but that will mitigate any potential scandal.

people make this sort of living arrangement for a variety of reasons, but the most frequent reasoning i’ve seen is that the living arrangements were already in place (house purchased, etc) BEFORE a conversion or reversion on the part of the persons.

It indeed boils down to ensuring that both near occasion of sin AND public scandal are perpetually avoided.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Uh, having a roommate is a great way to save a LOT of money when you are single. Granted, I was never sexually attracted to any of my roomates, but I had several who were commited believers so we did indeed love each other in Christ.

I have a hard time calling it sin if you take my former situation and add in mutual sexual attraction successfully restrained and chaste.

So my vote is: sin? No. Bad idea? Yes.

It wouldn’t technically be a sin for a hetero guy to rent an apartment with holes in the floor located above a strip club either. But I’d give him the same advice: Bad idea, dude.

Saints will tell you that the prudent way to avoid sin is to see it coming and cross to the other side of the street.

The OP didn’t say they are sexually attracted to each other, the OP said they loved each other. There are several types of love.