Serious doubts about Church teaching on homosexuality

[Rau]

She might say so, but so might a husband who does it with his secretary, for him its “non-sexual”. When everything is reduced to subjectivity, it simply serves as a tool to curtail all discussion on the matter, in the sense that it’s true for me so society cant say nothing to me about reality.

Secenario 1) a non-starter for gay people? I think I have not understood your point there.

SMGS addressed the married person situation.

I said Scenario 2 is a non-starter (not licit) for homosexuals for the reasons I gave.

 

[One_point]

The separation of Romance and sex is asserted by SMGS as the reality for her. See her response to my question about the scenarios. So to the extent this is her personal experience, then yes I accept that as the premise.

I agree that what is or is not “sexual” is important. A parallel question is the one about the meaning of “disinterested” friends. The latter surely means friends that don’t engage in or seek the “intrinsically disordered” acts. [Is it more restrictive than that - I don’t know.]. The acts so described don’t include “making out” - they are homosexual acts, a closing of the sex act to life (etc, as per Catechism).

Even from smgs own descriptions from yesterday, this is is not a perse non-sexual thing even in her own experience as described. When I said I was hanging my hat for the night yesterday it was right after I had asked the question: Did you do it (make out) with your female heterosexual friends? The answer clearly showed that the making out SMGS described, even though she FELT no erotic arousal as such nevertheless had a MEANING and that meaning is that which I recognize as a sexual meaning and not a friendship one. To make my point further, like I asked smgs, do you Rau consider a romantic affair not involving sex to be licit between parents and children, siblings?

 

[Rau]

Even from smgs own descriptions from yesterday, this is is not a perse non-sexual thing even in her own experience as described. When I said I was hanging my hat for the night yesterday it was right after I had asked the question: Did you do it (make out) with your female heterosexual friends? The answer clearly showed that the making out SMGS described, even though she FELT no erotic arousal as such nevertheless had a MEANING and that meaning is that which I recognize as a sexual meaning and not a friendship one.

The other side has to be comfortable too. The homosexual orientation determines (apparently) the direction of romantic interest. SMGS asserts that romantic interest and sexual interest are or can be distinct and unconnected. I have no idea whether that is commonly so or not. Not common in heterosexual men I would suggest. But, judging by the catechism, it is the engaging in homosexual acts that the Church appears primarily to be concerned with, not smooching on the couch watching TV.

 

[One_point]

The other side has to be comfortable too. The homosexual orientation determines (apparently) the direction of romantic interest. SMGS asserts that romantic interest and sexual interest are or can be distinct and unconnected. I have no idea whether that is commonly so or not. Not common in heterosexual men I would suggest. But, judging by the catechism, it is the engaging in homosexual acts that the Church appears primarily to be concerned with, not smooching on the couch watching TV.

Rau, putting smgs personal feelings aside for one moment. How about discussing it from an objective standpoint?

Is the romantic interest objectively a non-sexual interest? What is the nature of this interest and what sets it apart from a regular friendship? What is the point of it? You said that the homosexual orientation only determines the direction of that interest, so let us put the orientation aside for one moment and discuss the romantic interest so directed. When it is properly directed (to its proper natural object) would you make that distinction from the sexual attraction or complementrity of male and female so attracted?

Like I asked before would you consider it ok for a good catholic father to be romantically involved with his son or daughter short of explicitly sexual acts? They could smooching on the couch watching TV is how you put it. I am certain the catechism does not explicitly forbid that either.

 

[frobert]

Rau, putting smgs personal feelings aside for one moment. How about discussing it from an objective standpoint?

Is the romantic interest objectively a non-sexual interest? What is the nature of this interest and what sets it apart from a regular friendship? What is the point of it? You said that the homosexual orientation determines the direction of that interest, so let us put the orientation aside for one moment and discuss the romantic interest so directed. When it is properly directed (to its proper natural object) would you make that distinction from the sexual attraction or complementrity of male and female so attracted?

Like I asked before would you consider it ok for a good catholic father to be romantically involved with his son or daughter short of explicitly sexual acts? I am certain the catechism does not explicitly forbid that either.

You appear to be coming from the premise that anything more than a handshake, a quick hug, or peck on the cheek has the potential to lead to a sexual act. This may be so for many people perhaps the majority but some might be able to handle it without going further in sexual thought or action. The human body is remarkable in its ability to adapt.

 

[One_point]

You appear to be coming from the premise that anything more than a handshake, a quick hug, or peck on the cheek has the potential to lead to a sexual act. This may be so for many people perhaps the majority but some might be able to handle it without going further in sexual thought or action. The human body is remarkable in its ability to adapt.

I am referring to French kissing and making out. And the meaning behind such.

 

[frobert]

I am referring to French kissing and making out. And the meaning behind such.

Meaning would be defined by the individuals who are making out. I think it would have sexual meaning for many people but I don’t think it is impossible that for some people it would not have the meaning you imply. Anyway it is not my to judge or do anything as long as they are not harming anyone else. When I read the spiritual acts of mercy I noticed the part that says admonish the wrong doer only when there is a expectation that the admonition will be heeded. I believe that was the basis of Pope Francis’s clear statement “Who am I to judge?”

 

[SMGS127]

Meaning would be defined by the individuals who are making out. I think it would have sexual meaning for many people but I don’t think it is impossible that for some people it would not have the meaning you imply. Anyway it is not my to judge or do anything as long as they are not harming anyone else. When I read the spiritual acts of mercy I noticed the part that says admonish the wrong doer only when there is a expectation that the admonition will be heeded. I believe that was the basis of Pope Francis’s clear statement “Who am I to judge?”

Frobert, you misunderstand me. I WANT to be admonished…if it is against Church teaching. This would be a wonderful solution for gays and lesbians in the Church to be able to enter into relationships of varying degrees of physical intimacy (depending on what can be handled without erotic gain, and certainly nothing sexual). But only if it is not condemned by the Church. I am at least glad to see that the Church has not condemned friendships that stop short of erotic delight, but if She had, I would’ve dropped the issue immediately.

If I didn’t care what the Church thought I would just go get a girlfriend and be sexually active, because I see no reason not to be other than it hurts Christ. I am trying to make life easier for gays and lesbians through licit means.

 

[Rau]

Rau, putting smgs personal feelings aside for one moment. How about discussing it from an objective standpoint?

Is the romantic interest objectively a non-sexual interest? What is the nature of this interest and what sets it apart from a regular friendship? What is the point of it? You said that the homosexual orientation only determines the direction of that interest, so let us put the orientation aside for one moment and discuss the romantic interest so directed. When it is properly directed (to its proper natural object) would you make that distinction from the sexual attraction or complementrity of male and female so attracted?

Like I asked before would you consider it ok for a good catholic father to be romantically involved with his son or daughter short of explicitly sexual acts? They could smooching on the couch watching TV is how you put it. I am certain the catechism does not explicitly forbid that either.

I think SMGS has at all times debated rationally, and objectively, not emotionally. So I’m not sure what you want to put aside.

Your suggestion to consider the issue objectively sounds entirely reasonable, but there is a catch. It may not be so easy to define behaviours, objectively, beyond those intrinsically disordered, which are illicit. It may be that what ultimately matters is the individual intent and individual circumstances. When I was dating, romance recognised a sexual element, and I can’t imagine it otherwise for me. But that is me. If they are unconnected for someone, implications may flow.

The point of the close relationship would seem to be human closeness, intimacy, companionship and mutual Joy. Perhaps love. These are all good things. The conjecture is that these things can be had with a person of the same sex, and absent sexual relations (that which is “intrinsically disordered”).

I would think that a romantic interest between parent and child would be inconsistent with the “parent child” relationship.

To be clear, I don’t claim to know the answer to the matter in debate.

 

[One_point]

I think SMGS has at all times debated rationally, and objectively, not emotionally. So I’m not sure what you want to put aside.

Your suggestion to consider the issue objectively sounds entirely reasonable, but there is a catch. It may not be so easy to define behaviours, objectively, beyond those intrinsically disordered, which are illicit. It may be that what ultimately matters is the individual intent and individual circumstances. When I was dating, romance recognised a sexual element, and I can’t imagine it otherwise for me. But that is me. If they are unconnected for someone, implications may flow.

The point of the close relationship would seem to be human closeness, intimacy, companionship and mutual Joy. Perhaps love. These are all good things. The conjecture is that these things can be had with a person of the same sex, and absent sexual relations (that which is “intrinsically disordered”).

I would think that a romantic interest between parent and child would be inconsistent with the “parent child” relationship.

To be clear, I don’t claim to know the answer to the matter in debate.

Rau, I have said nothing of whether smgs debated rationally. You made the discussion all about her purely subjective experience which serves only to take the matter out of discussion and nothing else. I said leave her personal experience alone for a moment. Let us just discuss this as if we were not talking specifically about a certain individual. I don’t understand how that can be misconstrued as a suggestion that smgs is iirational??? Is ‘subjective’ equivalent to irrational? Is it even equivalent to emotional??

Moving on

A romantic interest is inconsistent with parent-child… of course it is not clear just what about a romantic interest is inconsistent with parent child? Consistent with same sex but not incestuous couples. But why the first and not the latter…that’s where the confusion lays.

 

[Kamaduck]

A romantic interest is inconsistent with parent-child… of course it is not clear just what about a romantic interest is inconsistent with parent child? Consistent with same sex but not incestuous couples. But why the first and not the latter…that’s where the confusion lays.

What SMGS is describing seems to be a subset of friendship. I would think it would be very difficult to have a good friendship between a parent and their child, since it is at odds with the normal parent-child relationship. In a true friendship, the friends are equals. That will never be the case (in some ways) between a parent and a child. Since romantic relationships operate the same way- the two people involved are equals- I don’t think it’s inconsistent to say that a romantic relationship between a parent and a child would likely not be healthy, any more than it would be healthy for a parent to use their child in place of a best friend. Of course, a relationship that was in any sense “romantic” would be even worse, since romantic relationships imply a higher degree of intimacy than “mere” friendship.

Siblings are trikier, but I will say that I think of my brother differently than I think of unrelated friends. He’s my brother. I hang out with him a lot, but I wouldn’t call us “friends”, since we have a responsibility to each other. Unlike my friends, it doesn’t really matter how annoying or obnoxious he is- he’s my brother, and I can’t just stop talking or interacting with him. That in and of itself makes sibling relationships somewhat different from friendships, apart from the “ickiness” factor of certain displays of romantic affection.

 

[One_point]

What SMGS is describing seems to be a subset of friendship. I would think it would be very difficult to have a good friendship between a parent and their child, since it is at odds with the normal parent-child relationship. In a true friendship, the friends are equals. That will never be the case (in some ways) between a parent and a child. Since romantic relationships operate the same way- the two people involved are equals- I don’t think it’s inconsistent to say that a romantic relationship between a parent and a child would likely not be healthy, any more than it would be healthy for a parent to use their child in place of a best friend.

Siblings are trikier, but I will say that I think of my brother differently than I think of unrelated friends. He’s my brother. I hang out with him a lot, but I wouldn’t call us “friends”, since we have a responsibility to each other. Unlike my friends, it doesn’t really matter how annoying or obnoxious he is- he’s my brother, and I can’t just stop talking or interacting with him. That in and of itself makes sibling relationships somewhat different from friendships, apart from the “ickiness” factor of certain displays of romantic affection.

It is unclear to me how those differences in any way affect this aspect of the discussion. You consider your brothers differently in some ways from your friends so would not make out with them. Do you make out with your friends?

Seems to me there is just a double standard going on here. Homosexual affairs though we know they are not according to nature, are ‘special’. Every other relationship we can censure because they are “different” never mind these differences are not consequential in any way to the question of romantic propriety of these relationships vis-à-vis same sex ones. At the end of the day seems the realreason we are unwilling to be consistent with the claim standards (that making out and romantic affairs are ok for couples who are otherwise barred from forming sexual partnerships) is that we are willing to make accomodations for ssa probably for social reasons influenced by the present climate, but not for any truly consistent prnciples.

Yesterday it was, married people cant do it because they are committed, never mind that romantic interest is defined in the same discussion as something having nothing to do with sex and is part of I nnocent friendship. It was monks and priests cant do it because they are committed, but if this is just a non-sexual expression of friedship, why on earth would concencrated people be barred? Are they not allowed to form friendships, those priests of ours?? Today it is, parents cant do it with their children because they are in a position of authority. Adult children relationships with their parents are generally more friendly than authoritative even though with respect. So it is unclear why this would interfere with the parent-child dynamic unless of course we really are not talking about friendship at all, are we! Siblings are also special. We don’t treat them exactly like our friends so they are out too. My sister is my best friend, but never mind that. My other best friend, non relative, that’s ok to make out never mind no body actually behaves this way. So what is going on here really?

Bottom line, no body else make out who cant get married EXCEPT gay couples. The reasons for this special pleading are unclear. There seems to be an unacknowledged awareness of the truth that romantic relationships consist in dynamics that render all the above inappropriate but we will allow it for ssa. Looking at this from a non-western perspective and a culture that regards both ssa and incest as equally taboo, it honestly seems to me this is not objective at all. Is it just because we want it to be different for some of these couplings but are not ready to apply this standard consistently and extend it logically to others only because the discourse in our culture has made a distinction between them and decided that ssa are more acceptable than the brother-sister thing?

 

[SMGS127]

Homosexual affairs though we know they are not according to nature, are ‘special’.

To be fair, gays and lesbians are the only people who would not have any choice in being able to get married, so a special consideration wouldn’t necessarily be wrong. They would have an objectively lesser end to their relationship though. However, I think there is nothing barring a romantic friendship between heterosexuals, though they may not wish to enter into one vs. a marital relationship, so I see no special treatment.

Yesterday it was, married people cant do it because they are committed, never mind that romantic interest is defined in the same discussion as something having nothing to do with sex and is part of I nnocent friendship. It was monks and priests cant do it because they are committed, but if this is just a non-sexual expression of friedship, why on earth would concencrated people be barred? Are they not allowed to form friendships, those priests of ours??

No, they are not allowed to form intimate friendships. A spouse cannot spend half their day talking to someone online, at the expense of their spouse. A priest cannot divert his emotional attention talking on the phone 6 hours a day with a woman at the expense of the Church. Yet neither of these are immoral activities for a single person to do. This is an extremely consistent position, with so-called “romantic friendships” able to be taken by any person, heterosexual or homosexual, unbound by Sacramental vocations. The person can undergo any physical intimacy, as long as it does not beget erotic desire. If making out begets erotic desire for you, then your romantic friendship would be limited much more tightly than that. But there is nothing to suggest that making out MUST be erotic. It is entirely cultural, and as it is done in privacy, the cultural aspect is irrelevant.

 

[estesbob]

If I didn’t care what the Church thought I would just go get a girlfriend and be sexually active, because I see no reason not to be other than it hurts Christ. I am trying to make life easier for gays and lesbians through licit means.

I have a lot of empathy for you. When I realized my drinking was a problem rather than quit I started looking for ways I continue my lifestyle but “not drink as much”. So I decided well maybe I’ll just only drink in social settings or I’ll only have two beers or I’ll only drink on weekends. In AA we call that bargaining with on oneself Of course it did not work. Although I will not further comment on the morality of your idea that you can make out will someone of the same-sex as long as not erotic or sexual I can tell you from my experience is not going to work.

I look upon my experience much as Paul explains in first Corinthians 13:11

When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things.

When I was a drunk I spoke like a drunk, thought like a drunk, reasoned like a drunk. When I sobered up I did away with all things related to my drunken lifestyle.

My bargaining with myself was a drunk bargaining with a drunk. A formula for failure if ever there was one.

I think it is unfortunate that you have dismissed getting involved in “Courage”. I don’t think I could’ve sobered up without sitting down with a group of people on a regular basis that were going to the same thing I was I know you dislike Courage because you believe they promote conversion therapy but nobody can force you into that and from what I’ve read about it and from the people I’ve talked to this is not generally what is talked about the Courage meetings. They offer it as an option but the focus of Courage is how to be chaste while being afflicted with same-sex attraction.

I would recommend you go to a few meetings and if you find they are pushing conversion therapy you can graciously bow out. But I strongly believe you can find a lot more help there than you will in anonymous Internet forum debating with people who’ve not a clue as to what you’re going through.

 

[One_point]

To be fair, gays and lesbians are the only people who would not have any choice in being able to get married, so a special consideration wouldn’t necessarily be wrong. They would have an objectively lesser end to their relationship though. However, I think there is nothing barring a romantic friendship between heterosexuals, though they may not wish to enter into one vs. a marital relationship, so I see no special treatment.

No, they are not allowed to form intimate friendships. A spouse cannot spend half their day talking to someone online, at the expense of their spouse. A priest cannot divert his emotional attention talking on the phone 6 hours a day with a woman at the expense of the Church. Yet neither of these are immoral activities for a single person to do. This is an extremely consistent position, with so-called “romantic friendships” able to be taken by any person, heterosexual or homosexual, unbound by Sacramental vocations. The person can undergo any physical intimacy, as long as it does not beget erotic desire. If making out begets erotic desire for you, then your romantic friendship would be limited much more tightly than that. But there is nothing to suggest that making out MUST be erotic. It is entirely cultural, and as it is done in privacy, the cultural aspect is irrelevant.

smgs, it is special treatment because you are placing it in a category it does not fit and this obscures the fact that it is being accommodated or treated differently than others that belong in the same category: romantic relationships between people who are otherwise BARRED from a sexual/marital relationship. Heterosexuals single couples are never barred. You don’t know that the two singles you mention would not eventually get married, their intentions at the start notwithstanding.

 

[SMGS127]

I have a lot of empathy for you. When I realized my drinking was a problem rather than quit I started looking for ways I continue my lifestyle but “not drink as much”. So I decided well maybe I’ll just only drink in social settings or I’ll only have two beers or I’ll only drink on weekends. In AA we call that bargaining with on oneself Of course it did not work. Although I will not further comment on the morality of your idea that you can make out will someone of the same-sex as long as not erotic or sexual I can tell you from my experience is not going to work.

But I’ve already done it before, which is why I don’t understand when people tell me it won’t work . As I said, I had a girlfriend (my most recent one actually) who was not comfortable with sex. I had no idea if she’d EVER be comfortable with sex. She was so afraid of her attractions to girls that she couldn’t go all the way. That relationship alone involved no erotic desire on my part (outside the usual ups of my cycle). Part of the reason I’m confident in my theory is because I’ve lived it before. And I doubt I’m the only person who can.

I look upon my experience much as Paul explains in first Corinthians 13:11

When I was a drunk I spoke like a drunk, thought like a drunk, reasoned like a drunk. When I sobered up I did away with all things related to my drunken lifestyle.

My bargaining with myself was a drunk bargaining with a drunk. A formula for failure if ever there was one.

But I’ve been celibate (well…with girls anyway…long story involving my mid-conversion crisis) for like…almost 5 years. I haven’t had a girlfriend in 3.5. I’ve BEEN living my life without sex and without girls for longer than I even converted, if you don’t count casual dates or dancing at nightclubs. So I don’t see myself as biased. I see myself as taking my former relationship and applying it with a Catholic standard. If I failed, I would give up on it. But I don’t think I would. I have a very high degree of self control. My girlfriend would have to be committed to breaking me to get me to fail, and then what kind of girlfriend would she be?

I think it is unfortunate that you have dismissed getting involved in “Courage”. I don’t think I could’ve sobered up without sitting down with a group of people on a regular basis that were going to the same thing I was I know you dislike Courage because you believe they promote conversion therapy but nobody can force you into that and from what I’ve read about it and from the people I’ve talked to this is not generally what is talked about the Courage meetings. They offer it as an option but the focus of Courage is how to be chaste while being afflicted with same-sex attraction.

I have heard all sorts of horror stories about Courage. The conversion therapy push is merely the issue that puts them into the “crackpot” zone for me. But I’ve heard they’re snobbish, cliquey, etc. I’d much rather get involved with an LGBT Christian group at an LGBT center and be able to evangelize than say “woe is me” 50 times a day to a bunch of people who are so devastated that they’re gay that they can’t even accept themselves and love themselves as people, attractions and all. I don’t want to be that type of gay Catholic. I want to be the Catholic who shows people “hey, you’re gay, it’s okay, seriously. Your attractions don’t make you a bad person, seriously!”

I would recommend you go to a few meetings and if you find they are pushing conversion therapy you can graciously bow out. But I strongly believe you can find a lot more help there than you will in anonymous Internet forum debating with people who’ve not a clue as to what you’re going through.

I doubt it. If they’re pushing conversion therapy, I highly doubt they’d provide any support for someone trying to help people love themselves for all of their characteristics, sexual orientation included.

 

[SMGS127]

smgs, it is special treatment because you are placing it in a category it does not fit and this obscures the fact that it is being accommodated or treated differently than others that belong in the same category: romantic relationships between people who are otherwise BARRED from a sexual/marital relationship. Heterosexuals single couples are never barred. You don’t know that the two singles you mention would not eventually get married, their intentions at the start notwithstanding.

Okay, and?

Heterosexual couple:

Option A: Romantic Friendship with no lust or sex.

Option B: Marital Relationship

They are free to traverse from Option A → Option B.

Homosexual couple:

Option A: Romantic Friendship with no lust or sex.

They cannot move from Option A.

So…in reality, the heterosexual couple has all of the capabilities of the homosexual romantic friendship, but they have an additional step they can take. So gays get literally no special treatment .

Also, the full category is romantic friendships between people who cannot get married and have no current vocational commitments. You keep leaving that latter area out .

 

[Kamaduck]

It is unclear to me how those differences in any way affect this aspect of the discussion. You consider your brothers differently in some ways from your friends so would not make out with them. Do you make out with your friends?

No, but I can relate to SMGS’s assertion that romantic and sexual relationships are not always one and the same. For me, making out would seem to be sexual- so if I were in a “romantic” relationship that was not sexual and would not become sexual, I really cannot see why making out would be a part of it.

But again, that’s just me. It’s obvious that these actions mean different things to different people.

Bottom line, no body else make out who cant get married EXCEPT gay couples.

I was under the impression that SMGS thought this was OK for straight women, too. Apparently it was common practice in Victorian England, and too widespread to be limited to women with SSA.

Now, I don’t know whether she’s right or not, but I’m willing to discuss the possibility.

The reasons for this special pleading are unclear. There seems to be an unacknowledged awareness of the truth that romantic relationships consist in dynamics that render all the above inappropriate but we will allow it for ssa. Looking at this from a non-western perspective and a culture that regards both ssa and incest as equally taboo, it honestly seems to me this is not objective at all. Is it just because we want it to be different for some of these couplings but are not ready to apply this standard consistently and extend it logically to others only because the discourse in our culture has made a distinction between them and decided that ssa are more acceptable than the brother-sister thing?

The brother-sister thing was a possible, partial explanation for why such relationships are not common (in addition to childhood imprinting). If it’s OK for people with SSA, then I agree that there is probably no moral reason why an adult brother and sister would not be able to have a “romantic” relationship, although there may be practical concerns that make it unwise.

 

[SMGS127]

No, but I can relate to SMGS’s assertion that romantic and sexual relationships are not always one and the same. For me, making out would seem to be sexual- so if I were in a “romantic” relationship that was not sexual and would not become sexual, I really cannot see why making out would be a part of it.

But again, that’s just me. It’s obvious that these actions mean different things to different people.

I was under the impression that SMGS thought this was OK for straight women, too. Apparently it was common practice in Victorian England, and too widespread to be limited to women with SSA.

Now, I don’t know whether she’s right or not, but I’m willing to discuss the possibility.

The brother-sister thing was a possible, partial explanation for why such relationships are not common (in addition to childhood imprinting). If it’s OK for people with SSA, then I agree that there is probably no moral reason why an adult brother and sister would not be able to have a “romantic” relationship, although there may be practical concerns that make it unwise.

Nice post, Kamaduck. Summarized it perfectly.

 

[One_point]

Okay, and?

Heterosexual couple:

Option A: Romantic Friendship with no lust or sex.

Option B: Marital Relationship

They are free to traverse from Option A → Option B.

Homosexual couple:

Option A: Romantic Friendship with no lust or sex.

They cannot move from Option A.

So…in reality, the heterosexual couple has all of the capabilities of the homosexual romantic friendship, but they have an additional step they can take. So gays get literally no special treatment .

Also, the full category is romantic friendships between people who cannot get married and have no current vocational commitments. You keep leaving that latter area out .

No. that formula is redundant. BARRED includes those who are barred because of commitments. You are including the reasons for why they are barred, my formula is highlighting the fact that they are barred.

Special treatment I mean the brother-sister thing, the priest thing, the married thing. They have in common the fact that they are barred from from a sexual relatonship. They can have a romantic relationship but cant move it to B. People here are unwilling to apply this standard consistently to include them especially the incestuous coupling, which is why I spoke of special treatment.