Serious doubts about Church teaching on homosexuality

[SMGS127]

In fact, come to think of it, this is NOT benign at all. This is a public gesture that has a certain meaning. In itself it is simple but no gesture is free of the meaning culture gives it. A boyfriend would be jealous of his girl walking holding hands with another male. why? because it announces a certain relationship. this shows much more that it is these non-benign gestures or activities that make it improper and possibly sinful to do with another man’s wife because it causes scandal announces a romantic involvement. So it is not at all benign but full of hidden meaning even though this mening comes from the cultue and not the action itself. Likewise making out would not be “innocent” but a form of adultery.

If someone was making out in public, sure. What someone does in private has no relevance to the culture they live in. And it would be wrong for a married man to spend time alone with a woman, let alone hold her hand in private. Yet it’s perfectly fine for single people to do.

 

[One_point]

At the sake of repeating myself for the gazillionth time…Victorian England.

Your saying so isn’t proof. that Wikipedia said nothing of making out, I can read English!

 

[pnewton]

I understand what the Church teaches, but I am torn here. If we treat homosexuality as other areas of sin and temptation, as I am wont to do if you check my earlier posts, then there should be leeway for a person trying to abide by the Church’s teaching to live in accordance with their own conscience, and with the advice of their priest as needed, and even with the understanding that sin is what we all do. On this kissing issue, I do not think any of us are competent to judge the situation. We can talk of principles, like avoiding near occasion of sin, but only the person on the spot can make the actual moral choices and only God can determine sin in these ambiguous cases.

I do not like that this has become about a person and not doctrine or morality. I think this is a good time for the papal interjection, “Who am I to judge?”

 

[One_point]

Rau, holding hands is only ok beteween women because the culture does not assign it a different meaning than disinterested friendship. Holding hands itself is simple but gestures carry the meaning cultures give them and no one wants to be “saying” or announcing something in public that they do not intend.

 

[One_point]

If someone was making out in public, sure. What someone does in private has no relevance to the culture they live in. And it would be wrong for a married man to spend time alone with a woman, let alone hold her hand in private. Yet it’s perfectly fine for single people to do.

I would say it is wrong for two gay persons who are attracted to each other to likewise spend prolonged time alone let alone make out. If that is not near occasion of sin I don’t know what is. If a parish priest did that with an unattached woman in his parish he was attracted to we would similarly consider it an occasion of sin because that kind of “friendship” is not open to them from the get go.

 

[SMGS127]

I understand what the Church teaches, but I am torn here. If we treat homosexuality as other areas of sin and temptation, as I am wont to do if you check my earlier posts, then there should be leeway for a person trying to abide by the Church’s teaching to live in accordance with their own conscience, and with the advice of their priest as needed, and even with the understanding that sin is what we all do. On this kissing issue, I do not think any of us are competent to judge the situation. We can talk of principles, like avoiding near occasion of sin, but only the person on the spot can make the actual moral choices and only God can determine sin in these ambiguous cases.

I do not like that this has become about a person and not doctrine or morality. I think this is a good time for the papal interjection, “Who am I to judge?”

Seriously, I would honestly completely drop the issue if someone can name any Magisterial teaching that opposes these types of friendships, period. I posted an entire thread hoping that, if such teaching existed, it would be brought to my attention. What I came away with is a realization that no such teaching exists, as no one is able to bring forth such evidence, and thus it is a matter of conscience, to be decided within the context of overall Church teachings. And I have discerned it in prayer and found nothing wrong with it, as opposed to God kicking my butt every time I’m like “but lesbian sex…” in a depressed state.

So unless there’s Church teaching on an issue that’s existed for the entirety of the Church until recently, I will follow my well-formed conscience.

 

[SMGS127]

I would say it is wrong for two gay persons who are attracted to each other to likewise spend prolonged time alone let alone make out. If that is not near occasion of sin I don’t know what is. If a parish priest did that with an unattached woman in his parish he was attracted to we would similarly consider it an occasion of sin because that kind of “friendship” is not open to them from the get go.

A priest, like a married person, has already placed themselves under heavy restriction. A single person has no such restrictions. You must use an example between two single people not in religious vocations or your analogy is false.

 

[estesbob]

I understand what the Church teaches, but I am torn here. If we treat homosexuality as other areas of sin and temptation, as I am wont to do if you check my earlier posts, then there should be leeway for a person trying to abide by the Church’s teaching to live in accordance with their own conscience, and with the advice of their priest as needed, and even with the understanding that sin is what we all do. On this kissing issue, I do not think any of us are competent to judge the situation. We can talk of principles, like avoiding near occasion of sin, but only the person on the spot can make the actual moral choices and only God can determine sin in these ambiguous cases.

I do not like that this has become about a person and not doctrine or morality. I think this is a good time for the papal interjection, “Who am I to judge?”

I think that is good advice.

 

[One_point]

Seriously, I would honestly completely drop the issue if someone can name any Magisterial teaching that opposes these types of friendships, period. I posted an entire thread hoping that, if such teaching existed, it would be brought to my attention. What I came away with is a realization that no such teaching exists, as no one is able to bring forth such evidence, and thus it is a matter of conscience, to be decided within the context of overall Church teachings. And I have discerned it in prayer and found nothing wrong with it, as opposed to God kicking my butt every time I’m like “but lesbian sex…” in a depressed state.

So unless there’s Church teaching on an issue that’s existed for the entirety of the Church until recently, I will follow my well-formed conscience.

A well formed conscience that says its ok to do French kissing with other women you like??? I bet there is no magisterial teaching that says you should not caress the bossom of a woman either but you are not waiting for that to know it is wrong? Pnewton is wrong to encourage you here.

 

[LongingSoul]

French no petting

For further clarification… does this french kissing arouse sexual feeling? I’ve not made out that much in my life but my experience is that it always arouses a degree of sexual desire.

 

[One_point]

A priest, like a married person, has already placed themselves under heavy restriction. A single person has no such restrictions. You must use an example between two single people not in religious vocations or your analogy is false.

The only other “single people” are a heteresxual couple which is not comparable and would be a false analogy. Lasty, you are wrong to say there are no restrictions. Certainly as regards same sex people there are. as regards opposite sex there are depending on whether they are free or not. So it is proper for a gay woman in a relationship with an unattached MAN I suppose, but not a female certainly not one she is already attracted to.

 

[SMGS127]

For further clarification… does this french kissing arouse sexual feeling? I’ve not made out that much in my life but my experience is that it always arouses a degree of sexual desire.

Really?

I just do it because I like seeing her smile. Sex and making out are so vastly different in my mind. Making out helps bring me emotionally closer to a girl and helps me keep her happy. That’s all I care about.

I’ve never understood the people who say it’s a sexual thing or physically pleasurable. It’s not…at least not to me. People need to take a purer look at it. Look at it as making someone, that person you’re with, smile. You’ll stop objectifying them with it.

 

[SMGS127]

The only other “single people” are a heteresxual couple which is not comparable and would be a false analogy.

Or a heterosexual romantic friendship between two people without marital aims. Which is a completely true analogy.

 

[One_point]

Or a heterosexual romantic friendship between two people without marital aims. Which is a completely true analogy.

It is not true because a heterosexual romantic involvement by DESIGN is open or tending toard “marital aims” whether or not it actually ends there is different matter but such is not the case with a same sex romantic involvement. These why people who are not free (married/concentrated) cannot be romantically involved…there is no good aim to those relationships.

 

[LongingSoul]

Really?

I just do it because I like seeing her smile. Sex and making out are so vastly different in my mind. Making out helps bring me emotionally closer to a girl and helps me keep her happy. That’s all I care about.

I’ve never understood the people who say it’s a sexual thing or physically pleasurable. It’s not…at least not to me. People need to take a purer look at it. Look at it as making someone, that person you’re with, smile. You’ll stop objectifying them with it.

So is this a common experience in your relationship? Making out but no sexual component to the relationship at all? Just a normal friendship but with making out?

 

[SMGS127]

So is this a common experience in your relationship? Making out but no sexual component to the relationship at all? Just a normal friendship but with making out?

Well I’m not in a relationship at the moment.

In my past (sexual) relationships with women from before I was Catholic, making out was non-sexual for me, though, yes. All I care about is seeing that smile on her face. And while I had sex in the relationship, it wasn’t a necessity. It was just a separate manner in which to make her happy. I understand that sex is immoral and accept it. I see no evidence to suggest making out is when not done for its erotic delight.

 

[SMGS127]

It is not true because a heterosexual romantic involvement by DESIGN is open or tending toard “marital aims” whether or not it actually ends there is different matter but such is not the case with a same sex romantic involvement. These why people who are not free (married/concentrated) cannot be romantically involved…there is no good aim to those relationships.

No they can’t be romantically involved because they’re already romantically involved. The married to their spouse, the religious to the Church or Christ. A heterosexual romantic friendship between two single individuals with no marital aim is the exact same as the same-sex equivalent and has the same restrictions. A heterosexual relationship aimed at marriage is different.

 

[One_point]

Well I’m not in a relationship at the moment.

In my past (sexual) relationships with women from before I was Catholic, making out was non-sexual for me, though, yes. All I care about is seeing that smile on her face.

smgs, did you make out with your heterosexual female friends?

 

[One_point]

No they can’t be romantically involved because they’re already romantically involved. The married to their spouse, the religious to the Church or Christ. A heterosexual romantic friendship between two single individuals with no marital aim is the exact same as the same-sex equivalent and has the same restrictions. A heterosexual relationship aimed at marriage is different.

This where I am lost. ALL heteresxual romantic relationships by DESIGN are aimed at marriage! If they were not there would be no conflict between a celibate priesthood and one…surely you see that?

 

[SMGS127]

smgs, did you make out with your heterosexual female friends?

No. Why would I? . That’s just playing with my emotions. She does it for the erotic delight, I do it for her, then she jumps the next day to a male ship. Not my idea of a healthy activity. If both people do it for good reasons, though, good things result.