Serious doubts about Church teaching on homosexuality

[SMGS127]

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.

No, their commitment is NOT why they are barred from getting married. In fact, a priest, in the future, could be given the power to marry, and they used to have that power. And a married person is not barred from getting married; they already ARE married.

Also, as people have mentioned, there is nothing barring a brother and sister from a romantic friendship, though, as Kamaduck pointed out, there are practical concerns. Why is it “special treatment” if the uncommitted, single, brother/sister can still do it? Making out has cultural significance, not inherent significance.

 

[One_point]

No, their commitment is NOT why they are barred from getting married. In fact, a priest, in the future, could be given the power to marry, and they used to have that power. And a married person is not barred from getting married; they already ARE married.

Also, as people have mentioned, there is nothing barring a brother and sister from a romantic friendship, though, as Kamaduck pointed out, there are practical concerns. Why is it “special treatment” if the uncommitted, single, brother/sister can still do it? Making out has cultural significance, not inherent significance.

What practical concerns would this be for the brother-sister? We are talking about a non-sexual thing (so the claim goes) remember? And it is you who unequivocally applied the standard to the brother-sister, everyone else has clearly struggled to admit this because probably all of us have siblings and parents and know that this is simply nothing anyone here would ever do, arguments not withstanding.

The claim that priests and married people are not barred from subsequent marriage makes little sense. They are not free to do so, just like you with your girlfriend. That is the simple meaning of barred.

 

[SMGS127]

What practical concerns would this be for the brother-sister? We are talking about a non-sexual thing (so the claim goes) remember? And it is you who unequivocally applied the standard to the brother-sister, everyone else has clearly struggled to admit this because probably all of us have siblings and parents and know that this is simply nothing anyone here would ever do, arguments not withstanding.

The claim that priests and married people are not barred from subsequent marriage makes little sense. They are not free to do so, just like you with your girlfriend. That is the simple meaning of barred.

Oh, I didn’t say they weren’t barred; I said the reason they were barred wasn’t because they were committed to the Church. In the past, priests used to be able to have both a marriage and be part of the Church. The reason they’re barred from marriage is because of Church discipline. However, the reason they are barred from a romantic friendship is because non-marital intimacy is not appropriate for a priest to engage in. It diverts his emotional attention from his commitment without good reason (as in, no kids to support, no procreation to be had). If he were allowed to be married in the future, at least societal good would come out of his diversion.

A married person is eligible for marriage, as they are in marriage. So they are not barred from marriage, since they are currently married, and thus their current marriage IS their marriage. You don’t get to be married to two people just to try to make some circular argument .

Any single homosexual would be eligible to enter into this arrangement with another single homosexual, just as any single heterosexual would with another single heterosexual. The only difference is that the potentiality of the same-sex relationship falls far short of the potentiality of the heterosexual one. A SS relationship will always be stuck at no sex, no lust. A heterosexual relationship can change from a romantic friendship to a marital courting.

Also, Rau agreed with me that brother/sister relationships would be eligible. Kamaduck also agreed with me, mentioning practical concerns (and since you asked, I’d say the fact that society will think you’re the grossest thing on the planet would be one of the top items on that list). But as long as they kept it private…I see no reason why they wouldn’t be eligible, if they weren’t grossed-out by it.

 

[One_point]

smgs, whenever I read a comment with that picture of rolling eyes I read it with the voice of a rude teenager in my head. could you please not do that?

the barred argument is really an unimportant one, lest not waste time on it. they are barred, you seem to agree. the reason is prior commitment. whether that is through a law of the church or the inherent nature is neither here no there.

I really do not remember rau making that claim and kamaduck posted here precisely to differenciate the incest thing from the ssa in response to the convo with rau. It is only after pressing him on the inconsistency of this differentiation that he admitted it, reluctanctly it seems to me (practical problems involved with brother and sister, which ones?), so it seems to me people do seem reluctant to say that making out is something brothers and sisters should do.

I also disagree that making out is purely cultural. I would be more open to it if there was even one culture that regarded this kind of thing as non-sexual. the wiki you posted yesterday said no such thing and reading around caf on the topic in previous discussions I still find no evidene that making out has ever been seen in other cultures the way it is presented here.

 

[CesarAugustus]

Demonstration that making out hasn’t an intrinsic signification and is only cultural.

Proof that in Victorian England making out between women was common.

• If true, what the Catholic Church, or moral theologians said about that? (or maybe, if it was something confined to England, it wasn’t touched upon).

Proof that romantic friendships between people of the same sex are okay.

Also, references in documents or Moral Theology manuals about these topics.

That would be in a few lines, the core of the current discussion.

 

[SMGS127]

smgs, whenever I read a comment with that picture of rolling eyes I read it with the voice of a rude teenager in my head. could you please not do that?

I apologize. I’m only 25, so I still have a bit of fun in my posts . If it bothers you, I will stop.

the barred argument is really an unimportant one, lest not waste time on it. they are barred, you seem to agree. the reason is prior commitment. whether that is through a law of the church or the inherent nature is neither here no there.

Well married people aren’t barred (it is impossible to be barred from something you are currently approved for), but yes, priests are barred, though due to completely different circumstances.

I really do not remember rau making that claim and kamaduck posted here precisely to differenciate the incest thing from the ssa in response to the convo with rau. It is only after pressing him on the inconsistency of this differentiation that he admitted it, reluctanctly it seems to me (practical problems involved with brother and sister, which ones?), so it seems to me people do seem reluctant to say that making out is something brothers and sisters should do.

Rau agreed in a different thread. As for Kamaduck, she still agreed that it was consistent to allow brothers and sisters (though I agree with her that parental relationships provide a paternal/maternal commitment that bars one from entering into this, as the dynamics are unequal).

I also disagree that making out is purely cultural. I would be more open to it if there was even one culture that regarded this kind of thing as non-sexual. the wiki you posted yesterday said no such thing and reading around caf on the topic in previous discussions I still find no evidene that making out has ever been seen in other cultures the way it is presented here.

amazon.com/Between-Women-Friendship-Marriage-Victorian/dp/0691128359

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_marriage

 

[Kamaduck]

I really do not remember rau making that claim and kamaduck posted here precisely to differenciate the incest thing from the ssa in response to the convo with rau. It is only after pressing him on the inconsistency of this differentiation that he admitted it, reluctanctly it seems to me (practical problems involved with brother and sister, which ones?), so it seems to me people do seem reluctant to say that making out is something brothers and sisters should do.

You said that if same-sex couples could make out, there should be nothing stopping parents from making out with their children. I posted to point out that the power differential in parent-child relationships makes something like that inappropriate, similar to how it would be inappropriate for a teacher to date a student. Those situations are not equivalent to a romantic friendship that does not involve a massive power imbalance.

The paragraph about siblings was just an add-on to that. I don’t think making out would be intrinsically immoral for siblings (IF we accept that making out can be non-sexual, which admittedly seems weird to me, but I’m rolling with it because it’s SMGS’s experience), but there are practical concerns when it comes to a romantic friendship. Apart from other people’s opinions and the biochemistry involved, I think that their previous social ties would make things difficult, but not necessarily impossible.

I apologize for any confusion I may have caused.

 

[One_point]

I am willing to concede that we have reached a stalement. This has been exhausting! Thank you for the engaging conversations and respectful disagreemnets. Enjoy a lovely day everybody. SMGS, I will keep you in my prayers whenever I remember this conversation.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I posted this in the other thread, but I’ll repost it here…

The question is what makes lust wrong. Call the lust-wrong-maker “L”. Once we find out what L is, then we can ask whether L applies to the sort of case SMGS is discussing.

We cannot say L is the Church’s saying so. The Church says lust is wrong because the Church *recognizes *lust is wrong. What characteristics of lust make it wrong? Do these characteristics apply to chastely making out? Or rather, is there conceptual space for the very concept of “chastely making out”?

These are the questions moral theologians would address, if they were answering S’s question. I don’t know how to answer them. I don’t think the rest of us do, either.

Perhaps we might make headway, if we just asked what makes lust wrong, to start with. Any theories?

 

[Kamaduck]

I posted this in the other thread, but I’ll repost it here…

The question is what makes lust wrong. Call the lust-wrong-maker “L”. Once we find out what L is, then we can ask whether L applies to the sort of case SMGS is discussing.

We cannot say L is the Church’s saying so. The Church says lust is wrong because the Church *recognizes *lust is wrong. What characteristics of lust make it wrong? Do these characteristics apply to chastely making out? Or rather, is there conceptual space for the very concept of “chastely making out”?

These are the questions moral theologians would address, if they were answering S’s question. I don’t know how to answer them. I don’t think the rest of us do, either.

Perhaps we might make headway, if we just asked what makes lust wrong, to start with. Any theories?

That’s a really good question, actually. I must have missed it on the other thread.

If we’re throwing out theories, we know that lust is disordered desire for sexual pleasure, and that it’s wrong to seek out sexual pleasure for itself. Sexual pleasure is supposed to be a side effect of the positive unitive and procreative aspects of sex.

So I guess one thing that might make that wrong is that you’re divorcing the act from its intended use and intended nature. An example of a parallel sin might be roman-style gluttony, where people would go to parties and try to enjoy food without getting nutritional value from it, vomiting it up so that they could eat more food. It’s not a perfect example, but it’s another way in which we can pervert the body’s natural processes for the sake of earthly pleasure.

I don’t know if that’s “L”, but it’s the first thing that comes to mind. But I don’t think it’s a very helpful “L”, since I don’t know what the natural purpose of making out is. That means I still couldn’t say whether doing it to increase an emotional bond is a misuse or not.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

That’s a really good question, actually. I must have missed it on the other thread.

If we’re throwing out theories, we know that lust is disordered desire for sexual pleasure, and that it’s wrong to seek out sexual pleasure for itself. Sexual pleasure is supposed to be a side effect of the positive unitive and procreative aspects of sex.

The question here is whether sexual pleasure is different from other kinds of pleasure, in this respect. Are there any pleasures that it is OK to seek for their own sake? Or is every pleasure, properly, just the side effect of some otherwise good action?

 

[SMGS127]

I am willing to concede that we have reached a stalement. This has been exhausting! Thank you for the engaging conversations and respectful disagreemnets. Enjoy a lovely day everybody. SMGS, I will keep you in my prayers whenever I remember this conversation.

You too.

Thank you for the prayers and have a wonderful day yourself!

 

[Prodigal_Son]

That’s a really good question, actually. I must have missed it on the other thread.

If we’re throwing out theories, we know that lust is disordered desire for sexual pleasure, and that it’s wrong to seek out sexual pleasure for itself. Sexual pleasure is supposed to be a side effect of the positive unitive and procreative aspects of sex.

The question here is whether sexual pleasure is different from other kinds of pleasure, in this respect. Are there any pleasures that it is OK to seek for their own sake? Or is every pleasure, properly, just the side effect of some otherwise good activity?

 

[SMGS127]

I don’t know if that’s “L”, but it’s the first thing that comes to mind. But I don’t think it’s a very helpful “L”, since I don’t know what the natural purpose of making out is. That means I still couldn’t say whether doing it to increase an emotional bond is a misuse or not.

I don’t think making out HAS a natural purpose, nor do I think even kissing does. I think we just kinda discovered that, since our lips and tongues are hyper-sensitive due to needing to be able to taste food properly, kissing and making out could stimulate them.

Although, again, I don’t really get pleasure per se from making out – it confuses me that people do. It’s not like I’m putting in “work” or something, not like sex with guys is for me, but I’m enjoying the activity because my girlfriend is happy and smiling and I can literally feel the bond between us strengthen with it. But there’s no erotic, sexual nature to it.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I don’t think making out HAS a natural purpose, nor do I think even kissing does. I think we just kinda discovered that, since our lips and tongues are hyper-sensitive due to needing to be able to taste food properly, kissing and making out could stimulate them.

Although, again, I don’t really get pleasure per se from making out – it confuses me that people do. It’s not like I’m putting in “work” or something, not like sex with guys is for me, but I’m enjoying the activity because my girlfriend is happy and smiling and I can literally feel the bond between us strengthen with it. But there’s no erotic, sexual nature to it.

Enjoyment and pleasure are usually not distinguished, in moral philosophy. It’s just that modern people have started to use pleasure as some sort of derogatory term – e.g. “pleasuring oneself”. Really, one could “pleasure oneself” by drinking a cup of coffee or watching the Muppets.

 

[Kamaduck]

The question here is whether sexual pleasure is different from other kinds of pleasure, in this respect. Are there any pleasures that it is OK to seek for their own sake? Or is every pleasure, properly, just the side effect of some otherwise good activity?

Well, I’m eating a chocolate bar right now, so my gut reaction is to say that no, that doesn’t make sense. If that were the case, there would be lots and lots of sins that none of us really think of as immoral (like eating chocolate for the taste, even though it’s not particularly healthy).

I guess you could argue that it’s better to seek out good things and only experience pleasure as a side-effect, but I don’t think we can argue that seeking pleasure is always in and of itself sinful.

So I guess either sexual pleasure is different (and I don’t know why it would be), or that isn’t really an aspect of L. Or maybe it’s OK to seek pleasure for itself unless perverting something from its original, intended purpose. I don’t know.

I don’t think making out HAS a natural purpose, nor do I think even kissing does. I think we just kinda discovered that, since our lips and tongues are hyper-sensitive due to needing to be able to taste food properly, kissing and making out could stimulate them.

Yeah, that’s what it seems like to me. So I don’t see why it would be a sinful perversion of something if it doesn’t necessarily have a natural purpose in the first place.

Although, again, I don’t really get pleasure per se from making out – it confuses me that people do. It’s not like I’m putting in “work” or something, not like sex with guys is for me, but I’m enjoying the activity because my girlfriend is happy and smiling and I can literally feel the bond between us strengthen with it. But there’s no erotic, sexual nature to it.

Yeah, I wasn’t implying that you did. I’m saying that if making out DID have some sort of natural, intended purpose, and you were partaking in it without fulfilling that natural purpose, then that would be wrong.

Or else my first thought has nothing to do with what makes lust wrong. Being wrong wouldn’t really surprise me, but I would have to think about what the correct answer is, then.

 

[SMGS127]

Well, I’m eating a chocolate bar right now, so my gut reaction is to say that no, that doesn’t make sense. If that were the case, there would be lots and lots of sins that none of us really think of as immoral (like eating chocolate for the taste, even though it’s not particularly healthy).

I guess you could argue that it’s better to seek out good things and only experience pleasure as a side-effect, but I don’t think we can argue that seeking pleasure is always in and of itself sinful.

So I guess either sexual pleasure is different (and I don’t know why it would be), or that isn’t really an aspect of L. Or maybe it’s OK to seek pleasure for itself unless perverting something from its original, intended purpose. I don’t know.

Yeah, that’s what it seems like to me. So I don’t see why it would be a sinful perversion of something if it doesn’t necessarily have a natural purpose in the first place.

Yeah, I wasn’t implying that you did. I’m saying that if making out DID have some sort of natural, intended purpose, and you were partaking in it without fulfilling that natural purpose, then that would be wrong.

Or else my first thought has nothing to do with what makes lust wrong. Being wrong wouldn’t really surprise me, but I would have to think about what the correct answer is, then.

I think sex is a unique species of morality in that it has a direct correlation with the continuation of our species as well as a direct order from God “go forth and multiply.” So I think that seeking such a sacred act for its pleasure only is what’s immoral. I think the sanctity of the act is what makes its perversion immoral. After all, kissing at all is a perversion of the good that is tasting, but no one would ever call it “immoral” because of it. But kissing (and, as well, making out) have no such sanctity that sex does. You cannot get pregnant from making out (thankfully!). It has no real God-given purpose. It only has the purpose society extends to it. Since it involves pleasure for most people, most people would likely theorize it part of the sexual act. But are they right? If the pleasure isn’t sexual pleasure, how can it be linked to the sexual act? And it does not share the sanctity of the sexual act either, unless done with such an act in mind, even if the act will not progress.

Interesting topic, but new question. If making out is taken out of the picture, is the basis of a romantic friendship absolutely licit? Can two girls call each other their girlfriends (to only close friends who know the details, so as to avoid scandal) if they do nothing more than date and [lightly] kiss? If so, then the making out matters. If not, it is irrelevant. However, I would argue that both the foundation and the making out are licit, if done for proper reasons and with a non-marital aim in mind.

 

[Kamaduck]

I think sex is a unique species of morality in that it has a direct correlation with the continuation of our species as well as a direct order from God “go forth and multiply.” So I think that seeking such a sacred act for its pleasure only is what’s immoral. I think the sanctity of the act is what makes its perversion immoral. After all, kissing at all is a perversion of the good that is tasting, but no one would ever call it “immoral” because of it. But kissing (and, as well, making out) have no such sanctity that sex does. You cannot get pregnant from making out (thankfully!). It has no real God-given purpose. It only has the purpose society extends to it. Since it involves pleasure for most people, most people would likely theorize it part of the sexual act. But are they right? If the pleasure isn’t sexual pleasure, how can it be linked to the sexual act? And it does not share the sanctity of the sexual act either, unless done with such an act in mind, even if the act will not progress.

Hm. I suppose it makes sense to say that sex is different because it is a sacred act, but I was under the impression that perverting any action from its natural purpose was sinful. But outside of sex, this does lead to some inconsistencies, so maybe I’m wrong about that.

If sex and sexual pleasure are special, then we’re back to the question of whether making out is inherently sexual. If it’s not, then I suppose it would be licit under some circumstances. Continuing with Prodigal_Son’s line of questioning, if L only applies to sexual actions, and making out is not sexual, then L would be largely irrelevant.

Interesting topic, but new question. If making out is taken out of the picture, is the basis of a romantic friendship absolutely licit? Can two girls call each other their girlfriends (to only close friends who know the details, so as to avoid scandal) if they do nothing more than date and [lightly] kiss? If so, then the making out matters. If not, it is irrelevant. However, I would argue that both the foundation and the making out are licit, if done for proper reasons and with a non-marital aim in mind.

I think what you’re describing is OK. I can’t cite any documents that say so, but I also can’t cite any documents that say it isn’t, so we’re sort of stuck on that front. But if there’s no reason to call something sinful (other than an emotional reaction, since those are unreliable), then I assume that things aren’t sinful until I have reason to believe otherwise.

I really can’t see any reason (other than scandal and the possible near occasion of sin) that calling each other “girlfriend”, going on dates, and kissing would be immoral. I obviously can’t give you the OK (and anyway, I’m sort of biased myself), but I’m really at a loss as to why it might be inherently immoral. Nothing involved in going on dates, kissing, or having a particular form of address need be exclusive to marriage or the process of discerning marriage, so I don’t see why those things would be wrong outside that context.

Again, that’s just where my understanding is right now. I’m not going to pretend to know what Church teaching is on the matter, if a relevant teaching even exists.

 

[Rau]

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.

I don’t understand this post. SMGS has provided insight - it just happens to come from her real world experience. The insights are not less noteworthy for that reason. They can’t be put aside, for they are the thing that gives rise to the debate.

A parent and a child already have a relationship of a kind which I would think excludes a romantic relationship.

 

[LongingSoul]

Rau, I’m baffled as to why you are encouraging smgs to play this game with her faith.

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.

smgs, I can see what you are doing because it is the age old rationalisation that many of us have experienced trying to avoid the hard road of chastity and sacrifice in life. You are trying to form a loophole by basing your argument on a completely unnatural premise. We are a human animal and made for physical intercourse at the core of our being. Our fertility, equipment and the natural force of sexual attraction, all come from the same creative capacity God gave us.

The examples you gave of you actually living this fanciful scenario are unnatural and unsustainable. Living with a girlfriend who was afraid of sex so stopped short of an orgasm does not demonstrate the experience of mutual sexless romance you were proposing. There are times in every marriage where a long period of abstinence may be required and married people learn pretty quickly not to start into the types of touchings and kissings that build the fire of desire. Of course everyone has different points where arousal is triggered, but when the end goal is the release of sexual buildup, those differeces don’t matter. Perhaps you do have the ability to utilise French kissing and the like for the purpose of ‘making your girlfriend smile’, but are you saying that your girlfriend is equally devoid of sexual arousal? Are you using your ability to engage in sexless romantic kissing and fondling to manipulate the desire of the other to your benefit? To live a life of doing this to someone always short of the normal sexual release nature intended, is unnatural and unsustainable.

The example of Victorian England and 19th century Massachusetts you’ve given of female relationships, are set in the most puritanical settings you could find. The Boston experience even more so as the Puritans who settled there were actually fleeing from the already strict Anglican mores surrounding relationships between men and women, believing them to be not strict enough! They were also not a demonstration of sexless romancing. The intimacy developed between women so removed from informal male/female interaction, was normal old friendship intensified by the conditions. Perhaps it is more true for males to practice homosexuality in that environment of separation as we know by prison folklore, but this Victorian experience is NOT a demonstration of a ‘third way’.

The Catholic way of addressing disordered desires is to cultivate selflessness in oneself through prayer, fasting and charity work. We are promised life in the spirit rather than life in the flesh by doing what is right and good with faith… not looking for loopholes and ways to ride the fence at the behest of the flesh. The second reading this Sunday was a good one to address this point.

Second Reading: Romans 8:9-13

But you are not in the flesh; you are in the Spirit, since the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. But if Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit that dwells in you. So then, brothers and sisters, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh- for if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.

You are doing yourself a great disservice by indulging this rationalisation process that is nothing more than navel gazing. Talk to some older faithful Catholics about this path you are proposing as workable for homosexuals. People who’ve lived their sexual lives by Catholic teaching will make you understand that what you are suggesting is dangerous to your soul and horribly painful to experience to your emotional and psychological wellbeing.