Serious doubts about Church teaching on homosexuality

  • Thread starter Thread starter naomily
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
You are saying a different thing here. Making out within a relationship that also involves sex is different to being in a chaste friendship. As a married person of a long time, I know that couples can be intimate without that sexual intensity because that’s how it is when you are having regular sex.

When that sexual avenue is not part of the relationship… ‘making out’ arouses the desire for that joining of bodies naturally. That’s what nature meant it for.

You aren’t being honest with yourself.
 
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?
A married woman should not be hanging out alone with men that aren’t her husband. A nun should not be hanging out with male non-relatives alone. Such would be cheating on their spouse or the Church. A single person has no such commitment made, and they are more free to pursue emotional friendships without marital aims.
 
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.
sigh. then this is just not what you are claiming to be a pure act of friendship then? I am hanging my hat for the day. I will still reiterate that this is not ok and I have a hard time understanding why this would not be clear to everyone??? Good night smgs.
 
You are saying a different thing here. Making out within a relationship that also involves sex is different to being in a chaste friendship. As a married person of a long time, I know that couples can be intimate without that sexual intensity because that’s how it is when you are having regular sex.

When that sexual avenue is not part of the relationship… ‘making out’ arouses the desire for that joining of bodies naturally. That’s what nature meant it for.

You aren’t being honest with yourself.
I am being honest with myself. I had a girlfriend who never felt comfortable having sex, as I was her first girlfriend. I was okay with that from day 1 until the day she broke up with me. The making out, kissing, sleeping in the same bed, etc. still had no erotic or sexual overtones.
 
I am being honest with myself. I had a girlfriend who never felt comfortable having sex, as I was her first girlfriend. I was okay with that from day 1 until the day she broke up with me. The making out, kissing, sleeping in the same bed, etc. still had no erotic or sexual overtones.
Again, this is not the scenario you are proposing before. This is one where the other persons discomfit ruled sex out, not that that was type of relationship you had both chosen.

Even the article you posted on ‘romantic friendship’ admits this term is a recent one to describe someones interpretation of historical friendship. There are only two expression of love and they are normal disinterested love that cultivates the nonsexual bond… and interested love that cultivates physical communion of bodies. There is no history of a third way.
 
sigh. then this is just not what you are claiming to be a pure act of friendship then? I am hanging my hat for the day. I will still reiterate that this is not ok and I have a hard time understanding why this would not be clear to everyone??? Good night smgs.
What is clear is she is a new Catholic trying to reconcile her SSA with her Faith I believe Pnewton is right.She needs to work this out with her confessor.
 
Lastly smgs, before I go, I thought I’d leave this quote:

"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.
  • CCC # 2359
That’s as best as we can get to clear guidance from the church (you earlier talked about these not being taught by the magisterium). Is a romantic involvement between ssa couples and even one including making out sessions what the church means by “disinterested” friendships? I hope you consider this honestly. good night again.
 
…Is a romantic involvement between ssa couples and even one including making out sessions what the church means by “disinterested” friendships? I hope you consider this honestly. good night again.
Don’t you wish the Catechism included a definition of terms!?

Disinterested may refer to a disinterest in the thing that is intrinsically disordered - sexual acts. It is very hard for most of us to understand (believe) that a desire to kiss with passion, to hold the body of another close, are not signs of an attraction that, if continued, would like to achieve a sexual element. I for one cannot imagine engaging in such an activity with a woman without my body responding in an unambiguously (if unconscious) sexual way. My body recognises the direction and potential end-point and prepares, and that response drives forward the acts toward a sexual conclusion. It is up to my reason and will to decide how I should respond.

There seem to be two possible scenarios that could describe romantic, physical togetherness:
1). The persons engaged in the acts above (“making out”) actually do not experience a bodily sexual response from those acts; For them, such actions are divorced from, unconnected with, do not prompt, sexual acts. This is entirely foreign to me. It is as though there is no “sex drive”, or one that is not readily triggered, and that the inclination toward sex originates only in an intellectual choice, not from bodily responses.

2). The persons engaged in the acts may have the usual (as I understand it) sexual response, but apply their reason and will to set boundaries that do not extend to genital acts.

Which of these is licit in an opposite sex relationship? Which in a same sex relationship?
 
I leave the thread for a few hours, and it has become a referendum on the state of a person’s soul. Oy vey!

A principle: Strangers should never speak hard words to each other (unless they are protecting a third party). It’s like a surgeon going in to operate on a person without looking at the X-ray. You’re blind, and you’re as likely to do harm as good – even if you’re right about the diagnosis! Specks and motes, folks, specks and motes.
 
When we live a life of chastity, and I have experienced it, there is a profound peace and beauty.

I may say that it takes a long time for some of us, but it was a good trip.

I can happily recommend the beauty of chastity to my spouse and myself and our five children.

I could not recommend premarital, extramarital, post marital or any other kind of sex to any person that I love.
 
I leave the thread for a few hours, and it has become a referendum on the state of a person’s soul. Oy vey!

A principle: Strangers should never speak hard words to each other (unless they are protecting a third party). It’s like a surgeon going in to operate on a person without looking at the X-ray. You’re blind, and you’re as likely to do harm as good – even if you’re right about the diagnosis! Specks and motes, folks, specks and motes.
??? Making out is wrong…that’s judging a person’s soul?

Seems I cant sleep, lol.

@Rau, I have always understood disinterested to mean plain old friendship, no romantic or other exclusive notions as such. tht is disinterested is in reference to the person having no ‘special’ interest in the relationship.
 
??? Making out is wrong…that’s judging a person’s soul?

Seems I cant sleep, lol.

@Rau, I have always understood disinterested to mean plain old friendship, no romantic or other exclusive notions as such. tht is disinterested is in reference to the person having no ‘special’ interest in the relationship.
One point,

I don’t know about you, but I have always found that saying someone is doing something wrong – or is trying to justify doing something wrong – is experienced as attacking them. This is appropriate if (a) you are just trying to clarify the ethics of a situation, say it once, and then stop, (b) you aren’t discussing the person’s personal views, only discussing the general view in a larger environment, (c) you are trying to protect someone else who is in danger, or (d) you are their close friend, and you are trying to help them to stop sinning.

Oh, it’s also justified if someone is engaging in false teaching.

But aside from that, it’s just an attack, and it tends to drive people away from the Truth, not toward it.
 
One point,

I don’t know about you, but I have always found that saying someone is doing something wrong – or is trying to justify doing something wrong – is experienced as attacking them. This is appropriate if (a) you are just trying to clarify the ethics of a situation, say it once, and then stop, (b) you aren’t discussing the person’s personal views, only discussing the general view in a larger environment, (c) you are trying to protect someone else who is in danger, or (d) you are their close friend, and you are trying to help them to stop sinning.

Oh, it’s also justified if someone is engaging in false teaching.

But aside from that, it’s just an attack, and it tends to drive people away from the Truth, not toward it.
What if the other person continues to say it is good and right. Are we allowed to say it isn’t, two times at least?? Surely if someone is debating the rightness of their argument, there is no hard and fast rule that the opposing argument can only be stated once?
 
What if the other person continues to say it is good and right. Are we allowed to say it isn’t, two times at least?? Surely if someone is debating the rightness of their argument, there is no hard and fast rule that the opposing argument can only be stated once?
1 Cor. 6:12 – a good verse, and good chapter, for this whole conversation.

As for me, I assure you, I am not planning to say anything twice. 😉
 
??? Making out is wrong…that’s judging a person’s soul?

Seems I cant sleep, lol.

@Rau, I have always understood disinterested to mean plain old friendship, no romantic or other exclusive notions as such. tht is disinterested is in reference to the person having no ‘special’ interest in the relationship.
I too. It is clear that most probably understand the word that way. But on closer examination, my best friend and I can’t be said to be disinterested friends. There is a “degree” of interest. It does not extend to anything romantic, or anything physical. But I am inclined to think it must be measured against some sexual benchmark. The acceptable degree of interest may need to be discerned by the individual.

I’d be interest in your response to my earlier post re: scenarios.
 
I haven’t read through the entire thread, so I apologize if I’m rehashing anything, but the whole “Making out” topic that has come up does raise some interesting questions…

I have same sex attraction–although I am married to a woman.

Still, I can say that, for me, even before I ever met my wife, I would have considered it wrong for me to have made out with a male friend.

The way I measure it is this: If making out is in no way inherently reserved for a relationship oriented toward marriage, then hypothetically the only reason it should be wrong for me, a married man, to make out with a guy should be because my wife didn’t sign on for that when she married me OR because I felt that it would sexually arouse me or tempt me to do “more” with the man.

But what if my wife were to say to me, “Honey, as long as it doesn’t arouse you or tempt you to do more, you may make out with a guy if it’s just to show each other how much you care.”

Would that mean that it was okay for me to make out with guys, as long as it wasn’t a temptation to do “more” and it didn’t sexually arouse me? If not, the question is: “Why not?” If making out isn’t somehow inherently reserved for a relationship at least oriented toward marriage, then there is no reason that making out with a guy would inherently be “cheating” on my wife, anymore than hugging a guy should be considered cheating on my wife.

For me, personally, even if my wife DID say “have at it, honey,” and even IF I could somehow do this with no temptation to do “more” whatsoever, I just couldn’t convince myself that it was okay…

And thus, for me personally at least, my conclusion would be that it would be wrong for me to make out with a guy even if I was single, because the fact that I would consider it a type of unfaithfulness to my wife even IF she was okay with it and it wasn’t a near occasion of sex, says to me that there’s something special to me about that action, that means that it should be reserved for two people who are courting for marriage or already married.

So I can’t personally offer you any black and white answer, at least not without deeply researching every possible Church reference to the hypothetical “making out without being at all sexually aroused” scenario, which seems just specific enough that I’m not confident it’s occurred to any Church authority to write on it explicitly; I can only ask you this: If you WERE married (whether to a man or a woman–in a hypothetical world where it was okay to marry somebody of the same gender, just so that it can perhaps make it easier for you to imagine): Would you be able to feel okay making out with a close and dear friend other than your spouse IF your spouse gave you the go ahead and IF you weren’t sexually aroused by it? If so, then while I am still not comfortable telling you that makes it right, I admit you have a better case for arguing that it’s “just affection” and not something reserved for courting/marriage. Because, at least under safe circumstances where infidelity is guarded against and lust is not aroused, I sincerely believe it should be hypothetically possible for two friends who are married to other people to legitimately share any type of affection that two friends who are UNmarried (and not courting) could share, as long as their spouses are okay with it.

But if you would NOT feel okay in that scenario, I ask only that you consider that maybe that’s because somewhere inside you yourself feel that “making out” is something that goes beyond what two people who are just friends should do…

I hope you find your answers. By the way, you have my prayers, because my heart does go out to you. As someone who has SSA, I know it can be hard enough a cross to carry even IF one is able to get married to someone of the opposite gender–because just because I have a wife doesn’t make the SSA go away, nor does it mean that having a relationship with a woman can ever “be the same” as having a relationship with a man would have been. So I can imagine that it’s even harder if you are not able to marry a person of the opposite gender at all. May Christ help and comfort you, dear one.
 
I will try to respond as best I can to Boundless’s post, and hopefully that answers others’ questions too.

You ask me, Boundless, if I would be able to make out with a girl if I was married and got his permission. I say no for two reasons, neither of which I think invalidate my earlier points:

A) Guys typically, in my experience, will lie about whether something bothers them if it makes their girlfriend happy. I wouldn’t trust his “go ahead.” But let’s say that I had a husband who could never lie, ever. Then we go to point B:

B) Emotional intimacy in marriage is heavily restricted. For an example, let me give an example everyone would agree is benign. Let’s say a man in Europe meets a woman online in the US. Neither have any intention of marrying, but they enjoy each other’s company, and talk for hours every day for their whole life, single. Is this licit? Absolutely. And if it bothers you that this is a heterosexual example, I posit that it is just as licit for two unmarried women to do.

On the flip side, imagine a married man in Europe meeting a young woman, single or married, in the US online and proceeds to obtain the same hourly dedication to her online. Is this okay? Clearly not. He is doing it at the expense of his emotional intimacy with his wife. So the immorality is not found in the act itself, nor is the act uniquely allowed in marriage, but a married person must restrict themselves from such an act. I posit the same holds true for making out, when done for purely emotional reasons.

In other words, I would feel I was diverting emotional attention unfairly from my husband if making out with a girl while married. But when I’m single, there is no such person that deserves the vast majority of my emotional attention (unlike a spouse or the Church for the religious).

Does this make sense?

Also, to others, I take “disinterested” to mean “sexually disinterested” considering every single papal statement on homosexuality specifically references sexual acts and only sexual acts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top