Scandal - A Hypothetical

[TStokes]

Really, men just tend to channel all their emotions into one emotion: anger. This is not healthy, though.

This is very true, but I just funnel my anger out chopping wood when I go camping,

 

[LongingSoul]

No, probably not hand-holding, and definitely not kissing or ostensibly romantic names for each other. But I’m not sure what your meaning of “manhugs” is. Sometimes I hug other men in a gentle and affirming way, not simply a side-hug or gruff and manly hug. This is the sort of thing these two men would feel perfectly comfortable doing. And they might even tell each other “I love you”, without it being some overly masculine showy “I love you, man”.

They would be openly tender to each other, I guess is what I’m saying. I don’t see any sexual overtones in such tenderness, but I suppose some people – if they’re not familiar with this sort of friendship – might only be able to interpret it as sexual.

My gut feeling is that there are red flags all over this scenario and the reasoning for legitimising it. There are certain taboos that chastity dictates naturally in order that we not ‘groom’ our desires or the desires of others towards an inappropriate relationship. Sure there are cultural lines that might make something appropriate to the culture set up to accomodate it and not appropriate for cultures not set up to accomodate it. For example, my in-laws are Italian. It’s not uncommon for the older men to kiss each other on the cheek in greeting and to hold each others upper arm or forearm whilst they have a conversation. But there is no hint of anything other than friendship. You seem to be hinting at the ‘special’ friend catagory that people have before slipping into adultery, or a man and child have before slipping into pedophilia. The Greeks for a time accomodated pederasty with the same reasoning. The ‘special’ friendship that is promoted as chaste and noble, but allows people who desire freedom from scrutiny, to indulge their disordered passions with the facade of legitimacy. Living chastely means not entertaining a ‘double life and duplicity in speech’.

There are no ‘special’ circumstances in human relationships that exist by denying the truth of our human nature. We are sexual beings and we have to respect that and strive for disinterested friendship in every relationship that is not ultimately marriageable.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

My gut feeling is that there are red flags all over this scenario and the reasoning for legitimising it. There are certain taboos that chastity dictates naturally in order that we not ‘groom’ our desires or the desires of others towards an inappropriate relationship. Sure there are cultural lines that might make something appropriate to the culture set up to accomodate it and not appropriate for cultures not set up to accomodate it. For example, my in-laws are Italian. It’s not uncommon for the older men to kiss each other on the cheek in greeting and to hold each others upper arm or forearm whilst they have a conversation. But there is no hint of anything other than friendship. You seem to be hinting at the ‘special’ friend catagory that people have before slipping into adultery, or a man and child have before slipping into pedophilia. The Greeks for a time accomodated pederasty with the same reasoning. The ‘special’ friendship that is promoted as chaste and noble, but allows people who desire freedom from scrutiny, to indulge their disordered passions with the facade of legitimacy. Living chastely means not entertaining a ‘double life and duplicity in speech’.

There are no ‘special’ circumstances in human relationships that exist by denying the truth of our human nature. We are sexual beings and we have to respect that and strive for disinterested friendship in every relationship that is not ultimately marriageable.

I don’t see how having non-marital relationships with real intimacy is duplicitous, but I respect your opinion that the relationship described treads too close to the line.

What you’re saying about the Greeks, though, is just false. Pederasty was explicitly sexual. There were regulations in place – for example, anal sex was certainly frowned upon. But the Greeks did not ever present these relationships as chaste in the sense that they were not sexual.

What would you say, I wonder, about the friendship between Frodo and Sam, in the Lord of the Rings? Or the friendship between David and Jonathan? I think David and Jonathan would have been thrilled to live together, not because of some sexual attraction, but because they *loved *each other, and loved being around each other. If the friendship of David and Jonathan would nowadays cause scandal, isn’t the problem with our assumptions about others, not about the behavior of the individual friends?

 

[universityprof]

Suppose that two men live in the same apartment and are clearly best friends. They are quite affectionate with each other, verbally and physically, but there does not appear to be any hint of sexual intention behind their affection. They go many places together, including church. If you get to know them, they will not hide the fact that they are gay, and pretty much everyone knows they live together. They call each other “friends”, and sometimes when they go out, they say that they are going on “dates”.

Are these two men committing the sin of scandal?

No I don’t believe they are committing the sin of scandal. We need to get over this and not be so judgmental. Let’s move on to real issues that matter, such as feeding and clothing the poor, ending war, advocating for a living wage for ordinary working folks, ending capital punishment and racism and the like. These are far more pressing concerns than two men in your hypothetical. We now have a Pope that is willing to tackle and speak up for pressing issues that matter. This places all Catholics in an advantageous position. Come to think of it, this would entail simply practicing the beatitudes.

 

[underacloud]

Suppose that two men live in the same apartment and are clearly best friends. They are quite affectionate with each other, verbally and physically, but there does not appear to be any hint of sexual intention behind their affection. They go many places together, including church. If you get to know them, they will not hide the fact that they are gay, and pretty much everyone knows they live together. They call each other “friends”, and sometimes when they go out, they say that they are going on “dates”.

Are these two men committing the sin of scandal?

I think the nature of this relationship depends somewhat on what you mean by “they will not hide the fact that they are gay”.

What does this mean exactly? As a Catholic/Christian, how does one identify as “gay”? One may have same-sex-attraction, which the Church would consider a disorder. But to identify as gay suggests something more accepting of this. Maybe I’m reading more into this than what you meant.

I’m generally inclined to agree with what ProdglArchitect has said.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

What does this mean exactly? As a Catholic/Christian, how does one identify as “gay”? One may have same-sex-attraction, which the Church would consider a disorder. But to identify as gay suggests something more accepting of this.

Is saying that someone has a disorder somehow not accepting of them?

Or, wait, I see, you mean that, when people call themselves “gay”, it means that they are proud of it? I just don’t think that’s true, and I don’t think it ever has been true. Sure, there are gay people who are proud of disordered attractions, but I don’t think the word “gay” in itself indicates pride.

But whatever. We can’t control what other people call themselves. Suppose these men call themselves gay.

 

[underacloud]

Is saying that someone has a disorder somehow not accepting of them?

Or, wait, I see, you mean that, when people call themselves “gay”, it means that they are proud of it? I just don’t think that’s true, and I don’t think it ever has been true. Sure, there are gay people who are proud of disordered attractions, but I don’t think the word “gay” in itself indicates pride.

But whatever. We can’t control what other people call themselves. Suppose these men call themselves gay.

I’m sure you’ve heard the term “Gay pride”?

The gay and lesbian community adopted the word “gay” to describe themselves towards the latter half of last century, as it was seen to not carry the pejorative connotations of other terms (queer etc). It is a word used to describe someone accepting of their sexuality, which I don’t think is appropriate in a Catholic context, since it is seen as being objectively disordered.

So I do have a problem with these men calling themselves “gay”, as opposed to merely being men who struggle with same-sex-attraction. Typically such a struggle, I think, should be kept as a relatively private matter. Or if it is acknowledged, one might talk about it as a challenge, in the way one might describe their challenge with any illness. Openly being gay, as a Catholic, is I think problematic.

 

[LongingSoul]

What you’re saying about the Greeks, though, is just false. Pederasty was explicitly sexual. There were regulations in place – for example, anal sex was certainly frowned upon. But the Greeks did not ever present these relationships as chaste in the sense that they were not sexual.

I should have put quotes around my use of ‘chaste’ to indicate that it was presented as a legitimate social institution of educational right of passage, when in retrospect it can be clearly seen to be a way of legitimising homosexual behaviour in society. That would be a very good example of double life/duplicitous speech happening.

What would you say, I wonder, about the friendship between Frodo and Sam, in the Lord of the Rings? Or the friendship between David and Jonathan? I think David and Jonathan would have been thrilled to live together, not because of some sexual attraction, but because they *loved *each other, and loved being around each other. If the friendship of David and Jonathan would nowadays cause scandal, isn’t the problem with our assumptions about others, not about the behavior of the individual friends?

I don’t know about Frodo and Sam as I haven’t followed that series of stories. But David and Jonathan were not gay. I know the gay lobby has tried to read that into it but David was married. Why would they have been thrilled to live together? They are never presented in the bible as anything more than heterosexual males striving (and failing at times as the Bathsheba incident showed) to do the will of God. They weren’t ‘chaste gay lovers’. It sure would be wrong for David to leave his wife and their marital intimacy to go and live with Jonathon in some sort of chaste exclusive relationship.

 

[LongingSoul]

I’m sure you’ve heard the term “Gay pride”?

The gay and lesbian community adopted the word “gay” to describe themselves towards the latter half of last century, as it was seen to not carry the pejorative connotations of other terms (queer etc). It is a word used to describe someone accepting of their sexuality, which I don’t think is appropriate in a Catholic context, since it is seen as being objectively disordered.

So I do have a problem with these men calling themselves “gay”, as opposed to merely being men who struggle with same-sex-attraction. Typically such a struggle, I think, should be kept as a relatively private matter. Or if it is acknowledged, one might talk about it as a challenge, in the way one might describe their challenge with any illness. Openly being gay, as a Catholic, is I think problematic.

I agree with this. When people come out as gay… the overwhelming evidence is that they do so as they have become ready to be open to the gay lifestyle. In fact, I’ve never heard of anyone coming out only to declare themselves chaste in Catholic obedience. That would be very pretentious and prideful I would think anyway.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I don’t know about Frodo and Sam as I haven’t followed that series of stories. But David and Jonathan were not gay. I know the gay lobby has tried to read that into it but David was married. Why would they have been thrilled to live together? They are never presented in the bible as anything more than heterosexual males striving (and failing at times as the Bathsheba incident showed) to do the will of God. They weren’t ‘chaste gay lovers’. It sure would be wrong for David to leave his wife and their marital intimacy to go and live with Jonathon in some sort of chaste exclusive relationship.

Your comment puzzles me. I didn’t say David and Jonathan were gay; I said they were close friends. Personally, I’d love to have my close friend live with me. I assure you I would not kick my wife out of the bedroom in order to do so.

You seem to think that really close relationships between men are always gay. But men NEED close relationships with other men. That either means that all men are gay, or that your view of friendship is off. I’m betting on the latter.

“They are never presented in the bible as anything more than heterosexual males striving to do the will of God.”

They are shown in the Bible making a covenant with each other. They liked each other. David said Jonathan’s love surpassed the love of women (likely because David was a womanizer, so women didn’t necessarily love so much as tolerate him).

Can you acknowledge that there was something really intimate in their relationship? And that intimacy between men is not necessarily gay?

 

[MJJean]

I don’t see how having non-marital relationships with real intimacy is duplicitous, but I respect your opinion that the relationship described treads too close to the line.

Imaging myself as a homosexual man who is also practicing Catholic I would imagine being very lonely. I couldn’t bring myself to marry a woman and I couldn’t live a life of sin as a practicing homosexual. What options are left, considering the human need for companionship, other than to find a like minded individual to share your chaste life with.

In fact, I would advocate the buddy system. I’d be willing to bet a lot of people genuinely trying to live chastely end up failing due to crushing loneliness. With a “buddy system” these people can help bolster each other in moments of weakness and provide companionship.

I’m sure you’ve heard the term “Gay pride”?

The gay and lesbian community adopted the word “gay” to describe themselves towards the latter half of last century, as it was seen to not carry the pejorative connotations of other terms (queer etc). It is a word used to describe someone accepting of their sexuality, which I don’t think is appropriate in a Catholic context, since it is seen as being objectively disordered.

So I do have a problem with these men calling themselves “gay”, as opposed to merely being men who struggle with same-sex-attraction. Typically such a struggle, I think, should be kept as a relatively private matter. Or if it is acknowledged, one might talk about it as a challenge, in the way one might describe their challenge with any illness. Openly being gay, as a Catholic, is I think problematic.

Yes, being gay is objectively disordered. But admitting openly and honestly to suffering from that disorder is actually a good thing. Come on out of the closet, get accepted by the community, get help and support from the community, and have a better chance of successfully living a chaste life.

Not to mention how badly catholic youth needs role models! A young Catholic suffering from SSA seems to see one of two options. 1) leave the church and go live a gay life or 2) deny your SSA entirely, live ashamed and embarrassed, and suffer alone and in silence. Having openly gay Catholics in the community that are living chastely and who are accepted as fully part of the Catholic community gives those young folks a better option.

I agree with this. When people come out as gay… the overwhelming evidence is that they do so as they have become ready to be open to the gay lifestyle. In fact, I’ve never heard of anyone coming out only to declare themselves chaste in Catholic obedience. That would be very pretentious and prideful I would think anyway.

I disagree. Openly admitting to carrying a cross isn’t prideful or pretentious.

The problem is that most Catholics who wish to continue being Catholics aren’t admitting to SSA. They aren’t saying “I’m gay and I am a practicing Catholic living a chaste life.” because they are afraid of being rejected by the community, rejected by their families, and always under suspicion of some sort of wrongdoing.

“They are never presented in the bible as anything more than heterosexual males striving to do the will of God.”

They are shown in the Bible making a covenant with each other. They liked each other. David said Jonathan’s love surpassed the love of women (likely because David was a womanizer, so women didn’t necessarily love so much as tolerate him).

Can you acknowledge that there was something really intimate in their relationship? And that intimacy between men is not necessarily gay?

Regarding friendships, I agree. I’m a woman, but I’ve seen how men need close friendships with other men and how women need close friendships with other women. Just because same sex friends share a close bond and are very comfortable and emotionally intimate with each other doesn’t mean displays of affection are actually displays of some kind of unrequited romantic love. If you’re single you need the closeness to feel like you’re not alone. If you’re married you need the closeness because no one can confuse, confound, and hurt your feelings like a spouse. So, the friendship is a safe zone.

As far as David and Jonathan, I figured David was a womanizer because he liked women…all of them… but none in particular. He, however, liked Johnathan more than the other men he knew. So, of course, his fraternal love with Johnathan surpassed what he felt with women.

 

[LongingSoul]

Your comment puzzles me. I didn’t say David and Jonathan were gay; I said they were close friends. Personally, I’d love to have my close friend live with me. I assure you I would not kick my wife out of the bedroom in order to do so.

You seem to think that really close relationships between men are always gay. But men NEED close relationships with other men. That either means that all men are gay, or that your view of friendship is off. I’m betting on the latter.

But it was you that introduced the hypothesis that an openly gay couple living together and acting affectionately beyond the gestures of ordinary friendship, should not really warrant discernment.

“They are never presented in the bible as anything more than heterosexual males striving to do the will of God.”

They are shown in the Bible making a covenant with each other. They liked each other. David said Jonathan’s love surpassed the love of women (likely because David was a womanizer, so women didn’t necessarily love so much as tolerate him).

But isn’t this the slant that the gay lobby has put to the David and Jonathon story in order to legitimise marriage covenants between gay people? David and Jonathons pact was family orientated more than anything. Saul offered David the rights and duties of a son in the light of his great deed and Jonathon in the spirit of brotherly recognition welcomed David sort of by adoption… not in any sense of lovers that marks marriage covenants.

Perhaps it’s because we live in a society where adoption has lost its awesome meaning as the truly loving and ontologically valuable making of an unrelated person, truly and really a son/daughter, brother/sister… that we have to find some other way of describing David and Jonathons pact?

Can you acknowledge that there was something really intimate in their relationship? And that intimacy between men is not necessarily gay?

The friendship between Jesus and John is one that we can all identify with as the ultimate model of truly loving disinterested friendship but from your approach to this thread and another thread, I’m getting that you are proposing this model for the ‘gay man/woman’. To me this is very irresponsible. For people suffering same sex attraction, the model should be one of Christlike celibacy first and foremost. Reaching out in friendship should be to engage the best in each other and to lead each other onwards and upwards. Not to put each other at risk of temptation and damnation. Jesus and Johns friendship was nurtured and grown by their shared love of God, not their value based love of each other. From the Cross, Jesus even gave John to Mary as her son in a way sealing His brotherly regard for His beloved friend.

I do not believe that my view of friendship is at all off. In every way, I want for my own children to have a good grasp of good friendship and true love and if they were to reveal to me that they suffered same sex attraction, I would guide them to Courage and a truly Catholic sexual morality rather than suggest they find another gay partner to live with as a couple… but just without the sex. I would consider myself worthy of a millstone around my neck and dropped in the sea to guide them in that way.

 

[Captain_America]

I’ve been fortunate to have, still, one very long-standing male friend. (Times change, people move, etc.).

I can’t imagine moving in and living with him.

What’s so wrong with having your own place? Much to be said for living in peace, and I challenge people who think that bachelorhood is impossible suffering, to actually try it! It’s not bad at all.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

But it was you that introduced the hypothesis that an openly gay couple living together and acting affectionately beyond the gestures of ordinary friendship, should not really warrant discernment.

What in my original description indicated that these two men were “acting affectionately beyond the gestures of ordinary friendship”?

But isn’t this the slant that the gay lobby has put to the David and Jonathon story in order to legitimise marriage covenants between gay people?

It’s not a slant. If some people use it to justify sin, that’s their reading and it’s not my problem.

David and Jonathons pact was family orientated more than anything. Saul offered David the rights and duties of a son in the light of his great deed and Jonathon in the spirit of brotherly recognition welcomed David sort of by adoption… not in any sense of lovers that marks marriage covenants.

It was obviously made out of a deep love for each other. I’m not saying that such love has to be sexual – are you?

The friendship between Jesus and John is one that we can all identify with as the ultimate model of truly loving disinterested friendship but from your approach to this thread and another thread, I’m getting that you are proposing this model for the ‘gay man/woman’.

1. Who is this gay man/woman? Sounds scary!
2. I’m not proposing a model. I’m asking if the situation looks like scandal. To me, it doesn’t, but I’m listening to the reasoning of those who disagree with me.

To me this is very irresponsible. For people suffering same sex attraction, the model should be one of Christlike celibacy first and foremost. Reaching out in friendship should be to engage the best in each other and to lead each other onwards and upwards. Not to put each other at risk of temptation and damnation.

Nothing in my original post suggested the risk of temptation, by my lights. Now if I added the detail that the one man found the other man devastatingly handsome, *that *would indicate to me that they shouldn’t be living together.

Jesus and Johns friendship was nurtured and grown by their shared love of God, not their value based love of each other.

I didn’t know that love of God and love of neighbor had to be in conflict.

I do not believe that my view of friendship is at all off. In every way, I want for my own children to have a good grasp of good friendship and true love and if they were to reveal to me that they suffered same sex attraction, I would guide them to Courage and a truly Catholic sexual morality rather than suggest they find another gay partner to live with as a couple… but just without the sex.

I have two women friends who live together, and have for dozens of years. No one else lives with them. They go places together all the time. They love each other’s company.

Minor detail: they are consecrated nuns.

The people described in my scenario are no more or less “a couple” than these nuns are. Are you saying that the nuns can live together, but gay people can’t? Who are gay people supposed to live with?

So far as I can tell, you give them three options: (1) Mom and Dad, (2) Straight men – unlikely, but possible, or (3) Nobody. Don’t you see that two of these options – #1 and #3 – are awfully depressing?

(Another way of putting this: do you think it is permissible for two monks with same-sex attraction to be in the same monastery? All your concerns about the near occasion of sin would seem to apply in that case, too. Or are you of the view that our monasteries should not allow their monks to talk to each other about their struggles with sexual temptation?)

 

[LongingSoul]

I have two women friends who live together, and have for dozens of years. No one else lives with them. They go places together all the time. They love each other’s company.

Minor detail: they are consecrated nuns.

The people described in my scenario are no more or less “a couple” than these nuns are. Are you saying that the nuns can live together, but gay people can’t? Who are gay people supposed to live with?

So far as I can tell, you give them three options: (1) Mom and Dad, (2) Straight men – unlikely, but possible, or (3) Nobody. Don’t you see that two of these options – #1 and #3 – are awfully depressing?

(Another way of putting this: do you think it is permissible for two monks with same-sex attraction to be in the same monastery? All your concerns about the near occasion of sin would seem to apply in that case, too. Or are you of the view that our monasteries should not allow their monks to talk to each other about their struggles with sexual temptation?)

And this is why I think you are being naive regarding the type of relationship you are describing. Pope John Paul II put much emphasis on the aspect of homosexual tendencies and same sex attraction in seminarians. He stressed how imperitive and vital it is to address the problems and strive for affective maturity. Many man are denied ordination because of affective immaturity with regards to these tendencies.

Men who reveal their same sex attractions and commit fully to the Church teachings on sexual morality are put on a program of counselling and treatment with the view to healing the childhood wounds and same sex attractions that plague them. This is essential for the Church since it is known that 80% of all reported abuse by Priests involved teenage boys and are a manifestation of homosexuality rather than pedophilia.

These documents will help you see how this problem is a huge trial to overcome but must be dealt with effectively in order to not engage the problem in their ministries and in there lives in the seminary.

zenit.org/en/articles/the-psychology-behind-homosexual-tendencies-part-1
zenit.org/en/articles/the-psychology-behind-homosexual-tendencies-part-2

To live a chaste life in relationship and community involves treatment and true acceptance of Church wisdom in this regard.

 

[mgoforth]

Suppose that two men live in the same apartment and are clearly best friends. They are quite affectionate with each other, verbally and physically, but there does not appear to be any hint of sexual intention behind their affection. They go many places together, including church. If you get to know them, they will not hide the fact that they are gay, and pretty much everyone knows they live together. They call each other “friends”, and sometimes when they go out, they say that they are going on “dates”.

Are these two men committing the sin of scandal?

Let’s try something. Rephrase the question as below and let me know what you think:

Suppose that -]two men/-] a man and woman live in the same apartment and are clearly best friends. They are quite affectionate with each other, verbally and physically, but there does not appear to be any hint of sexual intention behind their affection. They go many places together, including church. If you get to know them, they will not hide the fact that they are -]gay/-] straight, and pretty much everyone knows they live together. They call each other “friends”, and sometimes when they go out, they say that they are going on “dates”.

Are these two -]men/-] people committing the sin of scandal?

If I met those two people, I would wonder if something was going on in private. I think most people would wonder if the men in your scenario had something going on in private. I think that both situations can be scandalous.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Let’s try something. Rephrase the question as below and let me know what you think:

Suppose that -]two men/-] a man and woman live in the same apartment and are clearly best friends. They are quite affectionate with each other, verbally and physically, but there does not appear to be any hint of sexual intention behind their affection. They go many places together, including church. If you get to know them, they will not hide the fact that they are -]gay/-] straight, and pretty much everyone knows they live together. They call each other “friends”, and sometimes when they go out, they say that they are going on “dates”.

Are these two -]men/-] people committing the sin of scandal?

If I met those two people, I would wonder if something was going on in private. I think most people would wonder if the men in your scenario had something going on in private. I think that both situations can be scandalous.

There’s a difference. It is natural and in good order, normally, for men to live with other men. It’s not natural nor in good order, under ordinary circumstances, for single men to live with single women.

Question for you: I am attracted to both men and women. Are you saying that it was morally wrong for me to live in a group housing situation with other men, back when I was single?

 

[Rau]

So I do have a problem with these men calling themselves “gay”, as opposed to merely being men who struggle with same-sex-attraction. Typically such a struggle, I think, should be kept as a relatively private matter. Or if it is acknowledged, one might talk about it as a challenge, in the way one might describe their challenge with any illness. Openly being gay, as a Catholic, is I think problematic.

The meaning of words, and what individuals mean in using then is always problematic.

For some, Gay means SSA. For others it means to “go with” the SSA to where it “naturally” leads. So the two guys saying they are gay is enough to create at least confusion.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

To clarify, my goals in this thread were twofold: (1) to try and determine what constitutes scandal, and (2) to seek understanding on what sorts of living arrangements are permissible for those who are gay or bisexual.

For example…

If Church teaching says that bisexual individuals are only allowed to live with family members, or alone, then I have a problem with Church teaching. Now I think the Church has not spoken on this issue, but I am disturbed by the way that people seem to fill in this gap by assuming that avoiding the near occasion of sin is the thing of central importance.

Being lonely is the near occasion of sin too, for many people.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

The meaning of words, and what individuals mean in using then is always problematic.

For some, Gay means SSA. For others it means to “go with” the SSA to where it “naturally” leads. So the two guys saying they are gay is enough to create at least confusion.

There is an ever-growing group of celibate people who describe themselves as “gay”. So maybe this does confuse people, but we can’t control what other people call themselves – we should just try and be up to speed on what they mean.