Serious doubts about Church teaching on homosexuality

[CesarAugustus]

…

While there may not be any temporal or Earthly reason to not have lesbian sex, the very fact that it hurts Christ and endangers your soul should be reason enough not to engage in it or encourage someone else to engage in it.

Yes, there is a temporal, or earthly reason to avoid that:

No procreation.

 

[SMGS127]

Well, I don’t think we’ve got the theoretical basis to address SMGS’s claim yet. Addressing your point, though, I do not believe that she said one way or the other whether it was easy to moderate the sort of activity she’s talking about. It’s easy to keep it from going to the “next level”, but that’s not moderation. I might make video games an idol, even if I never play violent or pornographic games.

Well it’s easy for me. I know for a fact it’s easy for asexuals. However, I do keep in mind pnewton’s light admonishment of me for generalizing my experiences, and so I will not do so. It may be hard for most people, and as I said, these people need to know where their safety zone is, both from a sexual and a lustful perspective, and stay far inside it.

When I have a relationship, my girlfriend is not my idol. She may be the second-highest focus in my life (after Christ, of course ), and non-sexual physical intimacy may transport us to another world entirely made up of only the two of us, but I do not desire such intimacy for its own sake. I desire it to achieve the moral good of a stronger emotional bond with her. The joy I get at seeing my girlfriend laugh and smile during it is merely a beautiful side effect. When it is not present, I do not desire it as an idol; it is not something I need to have. But it does bring about wonderful results in the connection of the two people involved, when one engages in it from a pure, non-lustful view. I wish more people could experience what I experience when I make out with a girl. It is so much more long-lasting than scarfing each other’s face trying to have sex the quickest. But in all of this, I seek to love God most of all with my actions. I wish to achieve moral goods that please Him. I do not seek inordinate sexual pleasure, as it hurts Him.

While I will not imply which side of the fence has the majority, and certainly acknowledge that it could be the making out = sex crowd due to our culture, I do not believe that those who can engage in making out from a pure standpoint make as small a percentage as people think.

Either way, I think that the idea of romantic friendships in general can be licit; it is merely the extent to which they conclude that is up for debate. Are we in agreement there?

 

[LongingSoul]

Originally Posted by LongingSoul
What is being proposed here is a way for homosexual people to live intimately in the way of a married couple, making out and using sexual affection in a sexless way and just not ending with sexual release.

The Church specifically stresses disinterested friendship to avoid these blurred lines that people are proposing between friendship and romance. ‘Disinterested’ describes a mutual independence in the relationship that distinguishes it from the ‘interested’ investment of romance and marriage. The need for physical communion to meet the specific longing we are addressing by homosexuality, requires an ‘interested’ investment in the other person to meet it. In normal friendship, we are not meeting that need. We need no commitment or expectation of a friend in that way. Friendship thrives on lack of expectation of that sort.

 

[SMGS127]

Yes, there is a temporal, or earthly reason to avoid that:

No procreation.

That is not an Earthly reason. An Earthly reason necessarily takes God out of the picture and only looks at Earthly consequences. A lack of procreation is only saddening when looked at through the prism of our creation and purpose. When looking through a humanist prism, there are actually advantages to the lack of procreation, and the low STD transmission rate further supports lesbian sex.

However, God’s moral law overrides all of this and is more important than any secular advantage lesbians have for society (reducing overpopulation, reducing STD transmission, etc.)

 

[Rau]

It seems a major large percentage of Catholics and people of all faiths are having serious doubts about Church teachings on homosexuality.

When a religion has a zero acceptance/tolerance policy against homosexuality, this drives a direct wedge between logic and love.

Based on what does it seem so? Certainly not this thread.

The only aspect of homosexuality that is not acceptable is sexual relations. Why do YOU find fault with that? Why do you believe love and sex are the same?

 

[SMGS127]

The Church specifically stresses disinterested friendship to avoid these blurred lines that people are proposing between friendship and romance. ‘Disinterested’ describes a mutual independence in the relationship that distinguishes it from the ‘interested’ investment of romance and marriage. The need for physical communion to meet the specific longing we are addressing by homosexuality, requires an ‘interested’ investment in the other person to meet it. In normal friendship, we are not meeting that need. We need no commitment or expectation of a friend in that way. Friendship thrives on lack of expectation of that sort.

Actually, when the Church discusses homosexuality, whether in papal statements or in the Catechism, they refer specifically to sexual acts. I believe there is strong reason to believe “disinterested” means “sexually disinterested.” Two individuals in a disinterested friendship could thus engage in non-sexual physical intimacy, provided it did not lead them to lust, was not borne out of lust, and did not lead them to sex. It would only be a relationship insofar as our current society has completely warped the meaning of the word “relationship” to mean any two unrelated people committed to taking care of each other. But from a Catholic point of view, it would be a disinterested friendship, albeit a very close one.

 

[CesarAugustus]

That is not an Earthly reason. An Earthly reason necessarily takes God out of the picture and only looks at Earthly consequences. A lack of procreation is only saddening when looked at through the prism of our creation and purpose. When looking through a humanist prism, there are actually advantages to the lack of procreation, and the low STD transmission rate further supports lesbian sex.

However, God’s moral law overrides all of this and is more important than any secular advantage lesbians have for society (reducing overpopulation, reducing STD transmission, etc.)

I was thinking about Natural Law.

But, humanity needs to perpetuate. Overpopulation? hmmm, no. As there are people that argues about overpopulation, there are people that say that we haven’t that. But, that’s another topic that I don’t want to discuss now.

 

[LongingSoul]

Actually, when the Church discusses homosexuality, whether in papal statements or in the Catechism, they refer specifically to sexual acts. I believe there is strong reason to believe “disinterested” means “sexually disinterested.” Two individuals in a disinterested friendship could thus engage in non-sexual physical intimacy, provided it did not lead them to lust, was not borne out of lust, and did not lead them to sex.

Romance is not ‘disinterested’. If the arousal hasn’t happened for one party or the parties have detached enough to avoid their arousal, romance still implies an investment that goes beyond ‘disinterested’.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Well it’s easy for me. I know for a fact it’s easy for asexuals. However, I do keep in mind pnewton’s light admonishment of me for generalizing my experiences, and so I will not do so. It may be hard for most people, and as I said, these people need to know where their safety zone is, both from a sexual and a lustful perspective, and stay far inside it.

When I have a relationship, my girlfriend is not my idol. She may be the second-highest focus in my life (after Christ, of course ), and non-sexual physical intimacy may transport us to another world entirely made up of only the two of us, but I do not desire such intimacy for its own sake. I desire it to achieve the moral good of a stronger emotional bond with her. The joy I get at seeing my girlfriend laugh and smile during it is merely a beautiful side effect. When it is not present, I do not desire it as an idol; it is not something I need to have. But it does bring about wonderful results in the connection of the two people involved, when one engages in it from a pure, non-lustful view. I wish more people could experience what I experience when I make out with a girl. It is so much more long-lasting than scarfing each other’s face trying to have sex the quickest. But in all of this, I seek to love God most of all with my actions. I wish to achieve moral goods that please Him. I do not seek inordinate sexual pleasure, as it hurts Him.

While I will not imply which side of the fence has the majority, and certainly acknowledge that it could be the making out = sex crowd due to our culture, I do not believe that those who can engage in making out from a pure standpoint make as small a percentage as people think.

Either way, I think that the idea of romantic friendships in general can be licit; it is merely the extent to which they conclude that is up for debate. Are we in agreement there?

The word “romantic” is a bugaboo, for me, honestly. I don’t know why it’s being used, in this context. I’m fine with “romantic friendships” in the old sense of “romance”, meaning something like “passionate” or “emotional” or “life-changing”. I think all those terms apply to many clearly healthy Christian friendships. But the modern meaning of “romance” is a shallow thing, mostly an “aura” surrounding sexuality and sexual desire.

And by “sexual” I don’t mean “genital”. I mean the desire to possess and be possessed, in some sort of complete way. The feeling behind “My lover is mine and I am his”, the feeling behind “Your body is a wonderland” – to mix a sublime and a ridiculous example.

I am, honestly, much more likely to be convinced that God does not oppose same-sex sexuality (and the Church is dead wrong) than I am to be convinced that Catholicism can be reconciled with the view that that sort of romantic sexuality is appropriate between people of the same sex.

But I’m not getting that this is what you mean by “romance”. I’m actually not sure what you mean by it.

 

[SMGS127]

Romance is not ‘disinterested’. If the arousal hasn’t happened for one party or the parties have detached enough to avoid their arousal, romance still implies an investment that goes beyond ‘disinterested’.

But that is simply your interpretation of the Catechism’s paragraph. Romance has no sexual component to it. That is a clear philosophical error taught by Rousseau. Romance and marriage are not interconnected. For most of human history, marriage was a contract that was entered into, and the two parties worked hard together to make a nice living situation for their upcoming family. There was no “romance” necessarily, nor is romantic love even required in order to get married in the Church in the first place! It was more accurately described as a partnership. Romance, on the other hand, was fairly common among friends.

Once again, it is a clear sign of the fallen state of the modern era that romance is seen as inherently tied to marriage and every physical act one can possibly do is seen as erotic. Neither of these are true, the former built off philosophical errors and the latter a result of Puritan culture.

As such, I believe it is clear that the Catechism is referring to sexual interest, not romantic interest. One can have romantic interest in another while having no sexual interest; this would easily be described as a disinterested friendship by the Church.

 

[LongingSoul]

But that is simply your interpretation of the Catechism’s paragraph. Romance has no sexual component to it. That is a clear philosophical error taught by Rousseau. Romance and marriage are not interconnected. For most of human history, marriage was a contract that was entered into, and the two parties worked hard together to make a nice living situation for their upcoming family. There was no “romance” necessarily, nor is romantic love even required in order to get married in the Church in the first place! It was more accurately described as a partnership. Romance, on the other hand, was fairly common among friends.

Once again, it is a clear sign of the fallen state of the modern era that romance is seen as inherently tied to marriage and every physical act one can possibly do is seen as erotic. Neither of these are true, the former built off philosophical errors and the latter a result of Puritan culture.

As such, I believe it is clear that the Catechism is referring to sexual interest, not romantic interest. One can have romantic interest in another while having no sexual interest; this would easily be described as a disinterested friendship by the Church.

So much of what you say is just wrong, smgs and sounds like nothing more than the regurgitated propoganda that the gay lobbyists sprout mindlessly.

The Psalms are said to for the most part, love songs written for marrying couples or laments at love lost or sacrificed to virtue.

If you feel you can’t live Catholicims without re writing the Catechism out of all relevance, you are carving a meaningless, faithless illusion of being Catholic for yourself.

 

[SMGS127]

The word “romantic” is a bugaboo, for me, honestly. I don’t know why it’s being used, in this context. I’m fine with “romantic friendships” in the old sense of “romance”, meaning something like “passionate” or “emotional” or “life-changing”. I think all those terms apply to many clearly healthy Christian friendships. But the modern meaning of “romance” is a shallow thing, mostly an “aura” surrounding sexuality and sexual desire.

Sure, I agree with this.

And by “sexual” I don’t mean “genital”. I mean the desire to possess and be possessed, in some sort of complete way. The feeling behind “My lover is mine and I am his”, the feeling behind “Your body is a wonderland” – to mix a sublime and a ridiculous example.

Umm…in a way yes, in a way no. Naturally, if you commit yourself to take care of another person in life, even in a sexually disinterested way, that person is going to be upset if you divert significant attention to another person. In that sense, healthy jealousy may still arise in a romantic friendship. But the desire would not go so far as to desire a sexual possession, where you view their body as yours and your body as theirs; such is a desire unique to marital relations, for sure.

I am, honestly, much more likely to be convinced that God does not oppose same-sex sexuality (and the Church is dead wrong) than I am to be convinced that Catholicism can be reconciled with the view that that sort of romantic sexuality is appropriate between people of the same sex.

I don’t think anyone here is arguing for romantic sexuality. Romantic physical intimacy, yes. Romantic sexuality, no. There is a clear difference.

But I’m not getting that this is what you mean by “romance”. I’m actually not sure what you mean by it.

Umm…expressing your love for someone is the best definition I can think of for romance. Licit romance would be an expression of love for someone within the confines of Catholicism. But love is not unique to marital relations, nor is it necessarily sinful to express love to a single person if you, yourself are single. The exact expression of love, and how you intend said expression, is a much stronger determinant of the moral licitness of that love than banning romance with a broad sweep.

 

[SMGS127]

So much of what you say is just wrong, smgs and sounds like nothing more than the regurgitated propoganda that the gay lobbyists sprout mindlessly.

Gee, thanks .

The Psalms are said to for the most part, love songs written for marrying couples or laments at love lost or sacrificed to virtue.

How is this relevant?

If you feel you can’t live Catholicims without re writing the Catechism out of all relevance, you are carving a meaningless, faithless illusion of being Catholic for yourself.

Completely uncalled for, especially since I have a strong desire to follow Catholicism to its fullest. I just do not hold myself to unstated rules that conservatives come up with. There is a reason I started a thread specifically to see what Magisterial evidence conservatives would give me. If it existed, I knew it would be posted very quickly. If it didn’t, I knew I’d get a lot of conjecture. My litmus test worked exactly as planned. I found out that making out for erotic purposes is illicit (which I would not have assumed, and I thank CesarAugustus for straightening me out on that issue), but that the Magisterium never condemned the romantic friendships common throughout the history of the Church.

I seek firstly to follow Church rules to the letter. Only once that is performed do I question how one can solve issues in that context. I do not seek to conform the Catechism to myself but rather myself to the Catechism. I believe what I am proposing follows the Catechism guidelines to a T.

 

[CesarAugustus]

Gee, thanks .

How is this relevant?

Completely uncalled for, especially since I have a strong desire to follow Catholicism to its fullest. I just do not hold myself to unstated rules that conservatives come up with. There is a reason I started a thread specifically to see what Magisterial evidence conservatives would give me. If it existed, I knew it would be posted very quickly. If it didn’t, I knew I’d get a lot of conjecture. My litmus test worked exactly as planned. I found out that making out for erotic purposes is illicit (which I would not have assumed, and I thank CesarAugustus for straightening me out on that issue), but that the Magisterium never condemned the romantic friendships common throughout the history of the Church.

I seek firstly to follow Church rules to the letter. Only once that is performed do I question how one can solve issues in that context. I do not seek to conform the Catechism to myself but rather myself to the Catechism. I believe what I am proposing follows the Catechism guidelines to a T.

You’re welcome.

But remember, there are various of Moral Theology manuals, most of these haven’t been consulted yet.

And is possible that there are teachings concerning that. Maybe are not widely known. After all, what you call conservatives are not the non plus ultra regarding Orthodoxy, Orthopraxis and Doctrine.

 

[Kamaduck]

Well, the question isn’t whether you would find it boring after a while – that’s the case with any activity, and the case with the case I gave. My point is that you wouldn’t ever want THAT PARTICULAR PLEASURE to cease – you wouldn’t want the way it makes you feel to cease. So suppose I love doing playing video games, for example. If I play long enough, I won’t experience the same pleasure; I’ll get bored. But if I found a “perfect half hour” of playing video games, and I wanted (and was willing) to stay in that half hour forever, this would be idolatry. It would be something I was not willing to moderate.

I suppose, but I don’t think I experience that, either. There are things that I find hard to moderate, but mostly because they become habits. Eating snacks is actually a pretty good example. If there are snacks in the pantry (actually, even if there aren’t), I’ll probably migrate over there every hour or so, and have to put conscious effort into not eating twelve brownies in one day. But that’s not because eating brownies gives me some incredible, otherworldly enjoyment, and it’s nowhere near impossible to moderate (although it’d probably be a good thing if the number of snacks available was limited ). It’s just a bad habit.

I’m not sure that I actually experience what you’re describing. Again, the closest thing I can think of is a self-destructive desire to do absolutely nothing, but in that case, different feelings are involved. I just think it would be pretty weird for L to be completely outside some people’s experiences.

EDIT: Maybe a movie or book? There might occasionally be a movie or book, one with a vast world to explore and think about, that I want to keep coming back to over and over again, that I don’t really want to end. But those are activities that, by their nature, do eventually end, and I don’t think that partaking in them is in any way destructive. In fact, it’s more like what you said earlier- a really good book makes me want to live more- as soon as I finish it, I want to do other things and have new experiences.

Sorry, I guess that’s not the same thing, either.

The Church specifically stresses disinterested friendship to avoid these blurred lines that people are proposing between friendship and romance. ‘Disinterested’ describes a mutual independence in the relationship that distinguishes it from the ‘interested’ investment of romance and marriage. The need for physical communion to meet the specific longing we are addressing by homosexuality, requires an ‘interested’ investment in the other person to meet it. In normal friendship, we are not meeting that need. We need no commitment or expectation of a friend in that way. Friendship thrives on lack of expectation of that sort.

I’m afraid I don’t understand how you’re using the word “disinterested”. I know that SMGS is using it to refer to relationships that do not involve a sexual interest- ones that will not lead to sex.

I would not say that I am completely independent of my friends. I have relied on them for various things at various times- transportation, advice, comfort, the chance to talk about things, etc. Nor would I say that I am not “interested” in them in any sense. In most cases, I chose to become friends with them precisely because they interested me. I wanted to learn about them and spend time with them. I wouldn’t say that we aren’t invested in each other, either- we put effort into our relationships, we help each other, and we don’t always do things for our own benefit. These are definitely mere friendships, but I still think that they’re very important relationships in my life.

The main differences I see between SMGS’s “romantic friendship” and my totally ordinary “friendships”, as far as I can tell, are these:

1. The romantic friendship would be a “primary” relationship. She will have many friends, I presume, but only one “girlfriend” at a given time. (Not that that’s completely different, since while I have lots of friends, I’ve only got one “best friend”.)
2. The romantic friendship would have a degree of exclusivity- there would be certain things that these friends would agree to do only with each other. (Again, I don’t know how different that is, since there are certain things I only do or talk about with my best friend, and it’d be weird to do them with anyone else. I wouldn’t consider it “cheating”, though.)
3. The romantic friendship would preferably involve touching, kissing, and making out. However, she’s also talked about a possible romantic friendship that does not involve this element, so it isn’t essential to the concept.

Those are pretty much the only differences I’m seeing. When kissing is taken out of the equation, to me it looks pretty similar to a friendship, only somewhat more intimate and committed. If the above are unacceptable because they resemble a romantic relationship that exists to aid in discernment of marriage, then I think a lot of friendships will have the same problem. It looks like a continuum to me, not a situation where relationships fit neatly into boxes marked “interested” and “disinterested”. So to me, I think the line is always going to be sort of blurry. The difference is not intuitive.

 

[SMGS127]

You’re welcome.

But remember, there are various of Moral Theology manuals, most of these haven’t been consulted yet.

And is possible that there are teachings concerning that. Maybe are not widely known. After all, what you call conservatives are not the non plus ultra regarding Orthodoxy, Orthopraxis and Doctrine.

Keep in mind, when I say conservatives, I do not mean politically. I follow the following steps in discerning someone’s argument:

A) Is he/she orthodox or heterodox? Does he/she follow Catholic teaching? Is this person interested in teaching Catholic teaching or interested in helping me feel “free” from the burdens of Catholic teaching?

If A = orthodox, I continue:

B) Are they conservative, neutral, or lax? That is to say, do they attempt to bind people to stronger rules than Catholicism teaches (conservative), attempt to “get around” Catholic doctrine in ways that are dressed up pretty (lax), or attempt to present Magisterial teaching objectively with sourcing? There are several issues on CAF where conservatives well outnumber those in the neutral camp, and so I intentionally request Magisterial (or Doctoral) teaching in order to discern the rationale behind one’s actions. If a person is of the conservative mindset, they will be unable to do so. And I typically do not put much faith in the stock of a Catholic who cannot source their claims.

Back in Christ’s time, they had the same issue. There were the heterodox, the conservatives (the Pharisees), and the lax. He admonished all three groups, but saved His harshest criticism for the Pharisees. Likewise, while I put more stock in their opinions than the lax or heterodox, I find myself unable to be convinced by those with conservative positions on issues.

However, I more than welcome any moral theology citations that can be brought to my attention. I do seek to follow Christ above all else. I just will not subject myself to rules instituted falsely by the laity, nor will I keep myself from advising what I believe to be a good course of action to other gays & lesbians, just because someone random opposes it without sourcing.

 

[SMGS127]

The main differences I see between SMGS’s “romantic friendship” and my totally ordinary “friendships”, as far as I can tell, are these:

1. The romantic friendship would be a “primary” relationship. She will have many friends, I presume, but only one “girlfriend” at a given time. (Not that that’s completely different, since while I have lots of friends, I’ve only got one “best friend”.)
2. The romantic friendship would have a degree of exclusivity- there would be certain things that these friends would agree to do only with each other. (Again, I don’t know how different that is, since there are certain things I only do or talk about with my best friend, and it’d be weird to do them with anyone else. I wouldn’t consider it “cheating”, though.)
3. The romantic friendship would preferably involve touching, kissing, and making out. However, she’s also talked about a possible romantic friendship that does not involve this element, so it isn’t essential to the concept.

Those are pretty much the only differences I’m seeing. When kissing is taken out of the equation, to me it looks pretty similar to a friendship, only somewhat more intimate and committed. If the above are unacceptable because they resemble a romantic relationship that exists to aid in discernment of marriage, then I think a lot of friendships will have the same problem. It looks like a continuum to me, not a situation where relationships fit neatly into boxes marked “interested” and “disinterested”. So to me, I think the line is always going to be sort of blurry. The difference is not intuitive.

I would add to your list the fact that this romantic friendship, due to its close ties, would have the possibility of leading to a state where both people committed to each other in stronger ways, such as legal/medical authority, joint banking, etc. I don’t know if you’d ever consider that with your best friend. And while married people do this too, I see no reason it is exclusive to marriage. I think it is exclusive to a maximized trust level, more than anything, which is not unique to marriage either.

 

[LongingSoul]

Originally Posted by LongingSoul
The Psalms are said to for the most part, love songs written for marrying couples or laments at love lost or sacrificed to virtue.

You said that for most of history, romance was not involved with marriage. That is simply wrong. You are in a desperate panic to justify a behaviour that does not coincide with the spirit of chastity and purity that the Church teaches is godly.

Completely uncalled for, especially since I have a strong desire to follow Catholicism to its fullest. I just do not hold myself to unstated rules that conservatives come up with. There is a reason I started a thread specifically to see what Magisterial evidence conservatives would give me. If it existed, I knew it would be posted very quickly. If it didn’t, I knew I’d get a lot of conjecture. My litmus test worked exactly as planned. I found out that making out for erotic purposes is illicit (which I would not have assumed, and I thank CesarAugustus for straightening me out on that issue), but that the Magisterium never condemned the romantic friendships common throughout the history of the Church.

I seek firstly to follow Church rules to the letter. Only once that is performed do I question how one can solve issues in that context. I do not seek to conform the Catechism to myself but rather myself to the Catechism. I believe what I am proposing follows the Catechism guidelines to a T.

I think it is a shame that your rationalisations have been indulged so much on this Catholic thread. It isn’t doing you any service or your faith. How many of us know from long years of living, how trying to rationalise and justify our disordered desires is the curse of fallen man to be acknowledged and prayed over.

Same sex attraction just like any other disordered desire, can be indulged and fed to compound the intensity… or it can be turned down to a little background niggle by reaching out to God for healing. What you are trying to propose to appease this disordered desire is only going to poison your spirit.

 

[LongingSoul]

I would add to your list the fact that this romantic friendship, due to its close ties, would have the possibility of leading to a state where both people committed to each other in stronger ways, such as legal/medical authority, joint banking, etc. I don’t know if you’d ever consider that with your best friend. And while married people do this too, I see no reason it is exclusive to marriage. I think it is exclusive to a maximized trust level, more than anything, which is not unique to marriage either.

That is the very opposite of a ‘disinterested’ friendship.

 

[SMGS127]

You said that for most of history, romance was not involved with marriage. That is simply wrong. You are in a desperate panic to justify a behaviour that does not coincide with the spirit of chastity and purity that the Church teaches is godly.

Are you in a race with yourself to find the most insulting thing to say to me? Seriously.

I think it is a shame that your rationalisations have been indulged so much on this Catholic thread. It isn’t doing you any service or your faith. How many of us know from long years of living, how trying to rationalise and justify our disordered desires is the curse of fallen man to be acknowledged and prayed over.

Same sex attraction just like any other disordered desire, can be indulged and fed to compound the intensity… or it can be turned down to a little background niggle by reaching out to God for healing. What you are trying to propose to appease this disordered desire is only going to poison your spirit.

My “rationalizations” have been “indulged” because they are good, Catholic arguments. This is a Catholic forum, after all. I am not at risk of poisoning my spirit at all.

Also, same-sex desire is only disordered insofar as it is aimed at a sexual object. This is why it is objectively disordered, not intrinsically disordered. Turning same-sex attractions into a moral good by altering their object to a moral good has never been criticized by the Church, as far as I’ve seen, and the Church has stated that SSAs are explicitly disordered only in their object, not in and of themselves.

That is the very opposite of a ‘disinterested’ friendship.

There is no sexual activity or lust involved in having joint banking or legal/medical authority or hospital visitation rights. It is pretty much the definition of disinterested.