Serious doubts about Church teaching on homosexuality

[LongingSoul]

Maybe for you this is true, and maybe not. People have different tolerance levels for heat, for cold, for pain and a great many of things. What if someone else who’s reading this thread who has homosexual leanings doesn’t have your level of self control as you claim you have? Then what? You, who are pushing so hard this bull theory of yours, may in fact be leading someone to fall into sin! Did you ever stop and think about that? How many people reading this are lurkers, who are not members here, and decide to put your “theory” into practice, but find they simply just can’t stop after “making out” and “cuddling” like you claim that you can do? You’ll be responsible in a tangible way. I mentioned to you in an earlier post that one of the priests in the Apologetics section here would make quick work here of dismissing your “theories” but you ignored it. Someone else suggested a few pages back about talking to a priest and you brushed that aside as well. You suggested that you have it all figured out. How long have you been Catholic? And you’ve got it all figured out? I’ve been Catholic my whole life and still haven’t got it all figured out. SMGS127, don’t misinterpret my post here. This is not at all a judgment on you, as some have suggested here. Rather, I’m very, very concerned for those who may take your suggestions and run with them. And how this can put their very soul in serious, serious jeopardy. These “experiments” of yours are dangerous. I think this thread should be shut down and deleted!

Peace, Mark

I agree with you, Mark. I said a little prayer that this and other threads will somehow be healed by holy and authoritive means. I have every confidence that those who strive to conform themselves to the Church teaching will soar above the flesh and its loud demands and live by the spirit in true beatitude. I feel revolted by the forces that endlessly manipulate teachings even to the point of distorting language to achieve it. It’s strange or maybe meaningful that I have a sense of being transported to the side of St Paul penning his strong missive to the Romans regarding the nature of sinful man, because it is the very missive that enrages the gay lobbyists to their core.

God’s Wrath Against Sinful Humanity

***The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.***

What more can you do but speak, pray and shake the dust off your feet and walk away.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

I agree with you, Mark. I said a little prayer that this and other threads will somehow be healed by holy and authoritive means. I have every confidence that those who strive to conform themselves to the Church teaching will soar above the flesh and its loud demands and live by the spirit in true beatitude. I feel revolted by the forces that endlessly manipulate teachings even to the point of distorting language to achieve it. It’s strange or maybe meaningful that I have a sense of being transported to the side of St Paul penning his strong missive to the Romans regarding the nature of sinful man, because it is the very missive that enrages the gay lobbyists to their core.

God’s Wrath Against Sinful Humanity

***The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.***

What more can you do but speak, pray and shake the dust off your feet and walk away.

I think it’s more that by the fifth time some stranger comes up and spouts this clobber passages that gay people get sick of hearing it and just want these people to get the hell off their lawn. When the vast majority of your interactions with Christians involve pretentious pricks who think they know you but don’t come up and trying “to save you” it does the oppose of bringing you to the faith.

 

[LongingSoul]

Coming to a Catholic site to insult and demean those that try to put forward the teachings of the Church and then calling them ‘pricks’ and telling them this is their lawn and to get the hell out, speaks very clearly of what’s going on.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

To win hearts you have to show them that you genuinely care about them, This means bringing them into your life and heart. When they are sick, take care of them, when they need a shoulder to cry on off them yours, when they need companionship be there. If they are hurting from a break up don’t lecture them on how gay relationships are bad, instead tell them that there will always be people who care about them and love them.

In the past couple centuries Christians have really failed, we’ve placed marriage on a pedestal and degraded celibacy. When celibacy looks like a bad thing it is very difficult thing to make someone want it. The reality is that celibacy is a finer thing than marriage, but I have a hard enough time convincing supposedly orthodox Catholics even with a half dozen sources ranging from encyclicals to councils and writings of Doctors of the Church.

 

[One_point]

I’m not calling you or anyone on these forums those things, that is simply why in real life many gay people get annoyed when they have random people spout those passages at them.

I’m sure you mean well when you say it, but when you say it to people you barely know who have been seriously by other spouting the same passages they simply don’t want to talk to you.

To win hearts you have to show them that you genuinely care about them, This means bringing them into your life and heart. When they are sick, take care of them, when they need a shoulder to cry on off them yours, when they need companionship be there. If they are hurting from a break up don’t lecture them on how gay relationships are bad, instead tell them that there will always be people who care about them and love them.

In the past couple centuries Christians have really failed, we’ve placed marriage on a pedestal and degraded celibacy. When celibacy looks like a bad thing it is very difficult thing to make someone want it. The reality is that celibacy is a finer thing than marriage, but I have a hard enough time convincing supposedly orthodox Catholics even with a half dozen sources ranging from encyclicals to councils and writings of Doctors of the Church.

You have a point about celibacy. and that reflects the crisis of vocations. but that is not the fault of the church. till recently many young people in catholic societies wanted to be nuns and priests. if you read books from the early 2oth entury you will see many catholic families had, quite proudly, at least a priest or nun in the family. this attitude is the result of the sexual revolution and its cultural upheaval not Christians of the past few centuries. the same reason we are debating today whether two gay people in the church can be making out is the same reason celibacy is looked down upon IMO.

 

[SMGS127]

…

Okay well then perhaps I should explain exactly why I came to the conclusion I did.

In coming to these forums, I sought (and seek) Catholic teaching on every issue in my life. And yes, that includes homosexuality. Interestingly enough though, I have observed something in my year on these forums. And that something is that heterosexuals are really, really afraid of homosexuality. Not in a “oh those gays are going to get me” way, but in a “look at how uncontrollable homosexuality is; I need to personally, singlehandedly put a stop to it no matter what means I need to do.” way. And in this fear comes an obstinate refusal to actually consider Church teaching.

The worst posters and IRL Catholics on the issue are those who neglect Church teaching on compassion and respect. I have not dealt with many of that extreme on these forums, but these people are the most frustrating of the bunch, calling gays pedophiles and yelling at the top of their lungs about AIDS, etc.

The second group of people are those who pick apart Catholic quotes to find the “hidden meaning” that everyone should somehow see. This includes posters on this thread who have quoted Merriam Webster to “defend” Ratzinger against two countries’ Bishops, instead of looking at the big picture about how all the teaching integrates with itself. This includes those who obstinately refuse to source their personal beliefs on the subject. This includes those who hang up on a singular word in a papal document and argue that word alone proves their entire point. This group of people is so afraid of homosexuality they don’t even accept a factual understanding of Church teaching, preferring to discuss word choice semantics than how Church teaching integrates with actual choices. And worst, they project this onto others, claiming it is actually gay people who commit word semantics, despite all evidence to the contrary.

But the third group…the third group is the worst. This is what another poster called the paternalizers in another thread. This group believes that homosexuals, as a class, are so uniquely unfit to deal with temptation that they need to have their hand held the entire way through life. This is the group of people who support organizations like NARTH against all evidence, because they just know what gay people “really need.” This group argues that gay people are incapable of living chastely in a relationship by virtue not of the relationship itself but of some unique temptation that somehow exists for gays. They corner us like chickens in a coop and talk down to us like we deserve constant correction. They think us incapable of deciphering Church teaching ourselves and appoint themselves as chief interpreter of the Catechism, chastising us for following our own “personal agendas” as they blindly interpret [wrongly] the Catechism, whether dealing with conversion therapy or gay culture or what have you. They are so unwilling to actually listen to arguments they will intentionally seek to drown you out in a debate so as to dilute the effects of gay “infiltrators” in the Church, only considering those gays chaste that will sit quietly and nod to their mental superiority.

So I’ve known for awhile how to deal with and recognize these three groups. I started a thread specifically to get information on this issue, knowing Id probably get half my responses from posters who belong to one or multiple of these groups. But it’s also why I phrase my questions the way I do. It is not to prove my agenda but to show how blatant the agenda is of the homosexuality-fearers. There have been people willing to discuss these sensitive issues from the matter of actual Church teaching, and I thank those people, even those who disagree with me (notably Rau, CesarAugustus, and pnewton for those I believe disagree with me).

Oh, and by the way, if anyone was actually interested in what I proposed vs what they think I proposed, they’d know I mentioned half a dozen times that relationships would be limited to the lower barrier for lust in the relationship, as to be determined by responsible gay adults. Unlike many on this forum, I trust gay people to actually know what their limits are if they seek to follow Christ, and I do not foist a paternalistic double standard on the capability for gay people to read my posts accurately vs. straight people.

 

[Mark121359]

Okay well then perhaps I should explain exactly why I came to the conclusion I did.

In coming to these forums, I sought (and seek) Catholic teaching on every issue in my life. And yes, that includes homosexuality. Interestingly enough though, I have observed something in my year on these forums. And that something is that heterosexuals are really, really afraid of homosexuality. Not in a “oh those gays are going to get me” way, but in a “look at how uncontrollable homosexuality is; I need to personally, singlehandedly put a stop to it no matter what means I need to do.” way. And in this fear comes an obstinate refusal to actually consider Church teaching.

The worst posters and IRL Catholics on the issue are those who neglect Church teaching on compassion and respect. I have not dealt with many of that extreme on these forums, but these people are the most frustrating of the bunch, calling gays pedophiles and yelling at the top of their lungs about AIDS, etc.

The second group of people are those who pick apart Catholic quotes to find the “hidden meaning” that everyone should somehow see. This includes posters on this thread who have quoted Merriam Webster to “defend” Ratzinger against two countries’ Bishops, instead of looking at the big picture about how all the teaching integrates with itself. This includes those who obstinately refuse to source their personal beliefs on the subject. This includes those who hang up on a singular word in a papal document and argue that word alone proves their entire point. This group of people is so afraid of homosexuality they don’t even accept a factual understanding of Church teaching, preferring to discuss word choice semantics than how Church teaching integrates with actual choices. And worst, they project this onto others, claiming it is actually gay people who commit word semantics, despite all evidence to the contrary.

But the third group…the third group is the worst. This is what another poster called the paternalizers in another thread. This group believes that homosexuals, as a class, are so uniquely unfit to deal with temptation that they need to have their hand held the entire way through life. This is the group of people who support organizations like NARTH against all evidence, because they just know what gay people “really need.” This group argues that gay people are incapable of living chastely in a relationship by virtue not of the relationship itself but of some unique temptation that somehow exists for gays. They corner us like chickens in a coop and talk down to us like we deserve constant correction. They think us incapable of deciphering Church teaching ourselves and appoint themselves as chief interpreter of the Catechism, chastising us for following our own “personal agendas” as they blindly interpret [wrongly] the Catechism, whether dealing with conversion therapy or gay culture or what have you. They are so unwilling to actually listen to arguments they will intentionally seek to drown you out in a debate so as to dilute the effects of gay “infiltrators” in the Church, only considering those gays chaste that will sit quietly and nod to their mental superiority.

So I’ve known for awhile how to deal with and recognize these three groups. I started a thread specifically to get information on this issue, knowing Id probably get half my responses from posters who belong to one or multiple of these groups. But it’s also why I phrase my questions the way I do. It is not to prove my agenda but to show how blatant the agenda is of the homosexuality-fearers. There have been people willing to discuss these sensitive issues from the matter of actual Church teaching, and I thank those people, even those who disagree with me (notably Rau, CesarAugustus, and pnewton for those I believe disagree with me).

Oh, and by the way, if anyone was actually interested in what I proposed vs what they think I proposed, they’d know I mentioned half a dozen times that relationships would be limited to the lower barrier for lust in the relationship, as to be determined by responsible gay adults. Unlike many on this forum, I trust gay people to actually know what their limits are if they seek to follow Christ, and I do not foist a paternalistic double standard on the capability for gay people to read my posts accurately vs. straight people.

SMGS127, Our Catholic Faith is about spreading the truth and saving souls. Not about spreading some cockamamie experiment of what used to take place in Victorian England, and then selling it as gospel. Let me put it to you this way. If I approached my pastor, or even if I directed the following question right here on CAF in the Ask an Apologist forum, asking if the following scenario is in keeping with Catholic teachings on sexual morarity; Two lesbians are living together. They say they’re not having sex, but they “make out” and touch and “cuddle together” and sleep together in the same bed and are living together…what kind of response do you suppose I’d get? If my pastor looked me in the eye and said "Mark, this is within the teachings of the faith…then I’d be looking for a new parish, pronto! This concept that you’re pushing does one thing. It causes confusion. It is not within the teachings of the Church! If you’d like, I’ll post your scenario in the Ask an Apologist forum and put an end to this nonsense once and for all. Let me tell you something else. Hell is largely ignored by and large by many Catholics today. They seem to believe in the modern heresy of universalism. But I’ll tell you something, when you post on this forum, God knows who’ll read your words and run with them. And if I deliberately post things that are against Church Teachings, and my words lead someone down the path to sin…then as sure as God made me, I’m going to answer for them!

---

Peace, Mark***

 

[Rin]

Todays world is not a uniquely ‘fallen world’. Time and tide have seen cultures rise to virtue and fall into depravity over and over. That is why the Church has right to teach from generation to generation with apostolic authority. Each unique age has its unique challenges.

This is true, but romantic friendship did not disappear because of the Church, but because of Puritanism (and similar cultural impulses). These are essentially Protestant. This is also why, in some Catholic countries that were not affected by these impulses, you may still see remainders of it; public displays of affection that would give an American the shivers, life-long friendships of a much more involved art, etc. The blessings of the Middle Ages may be gone from the Latin Rite, but they’re actually still present in several of the Eastern (especially Oriental) Rites, and if I remember correctly, the priest even still joins the hands of the friends in his stole! The legal benefits are however no longer there.

So the reason for this disappearance was not the Church, but unhealthy cultural impulses. We see the effects in today’s society.

We don’t say well I think this was done in the past based on some of the literature so we should do it today.(…)

We do however sometimes observe that the culturally accepted solution (which by too many Americans is seen as the “Catholic” solution) just doesn’t work. For every happily islanded Catholic gay person there is, there are ten people who ended up emotionally starved and wrecked, and lost their faith. We need to offer something better than we do today - something which isn’t just “stay away from any and all physical and romantic contact”. And sometimes, when something doesn’t work, looking back to see if this has been handled better in earlier times, is the right thing to do.

That said, I’m opposed to archaeologism as an ideology, especially when it comes to liturgy. However, this isn’t even close to archaeologism - it’s simply picking up something we somehow left behind less than a few hundred years ago. The nonexistence of romantic relationships is a mere parenthesis in the history of the Church.

Trying to teach people to french kiss without becoming physically and emotionally aroused by natural god given desires is a scam. If that were true, people wouldn’t be susceptible to grooming and seduction.

A kiss can be seductive or non-seductive, be the tongue involved or not involved. SMGS was obviously not defending seductive kissing…

Nature is nature and has been since people started walking this earth.

Yes! And with our nature, we first and foremost long for physical and emotional contact. However, in today’s sex crazed society, this contact is somehow seen as something that can only precede sex. This causes people to believe that sex should follow such contact (!), and second, it causes people to believe that the longing for such contact is a longing for sex.

Basically, by requiring people to be islands, physically as well as emotionally, we cause them to sin.

There is suffering for those afflicted with this objectively disordered inclination but thankfully through Gods grace,there is much comfort and joy in living chastely and looking to God and the disinterested friendship of others to fulfill our need for relationship. I haven’t got anything more to say on the subject for the time being.

These words are pretty, but they’re also too simple. The solution presented by most people on this forum has been tried, tested, by honest, well-meaning people, time and again, and in the end, they just can’t take it anymore. We need something better (and not least more realistic) to offer.

Bottom line: While I do believe sexual urges can be controlled, experience shows that the need for physical and emotional intimacy just can’t, in most cases. And when one tries to control all three, it generally ends in collapse, causing people to believe the solution is sex, while it may in reality be physical and emotional intimacy.

 

[Rau]

Bottom line: While I do believe sexual urges can be controlled, experience shows that the need for physical and emotional intimacy just can’t, in most cases. And when one tries to control all three, it generally ends in collapse, causing people to believe the solution is sex, while it may in reality be physical and emotional intimacy.

Do you believe this regardless of the circumstances of individuals, eg. Including priests, religious etc.? What is meant here by physical intimacy?

 

[Rin]

Maybe for you this is true, and maybe not. People have different tolerance levels for heat, for cold, for pain and a great many of things. What if someone else who’s reading this thread who has homosexual leanings doesn’t have your level of self control as you claim you have? Then what?

Then they would probably fall, realize they didn’t have the self-control, and adjust their choices accordingly. They would also go to Confession.

You’re presenting it as if just one single homosexual act would be the point of no return. This just proves what SMGS said about people being horrified by homosexuality, and it’s definitely not a Catholic way of seeing things. Yes, we as Catholics should strive to be holy, yes, we should strive to not sin, and yes, we should set the boundaries we need to achieve that goal. However, we should not fret if something goes wrong, as if it is now impossible to live in holiness. Catholicism is concerned about chastity, more than virginity.

You, who are pushing so hard this bull theory of yours,

This “bull theory” was a commonly accepted phenomenon in the Church for almost two millennia until the heresy of Puritanism.

may in fact be leading someone to fall into sin! Did you ever stop and think about that?

Have you ever stopped and thought about whether your (I have to presume here) “have guy friends like heterosexual men do, or gal pals like heterosexual women do, and avoid any and all sort of physical [non-sexual] or emotional intimacy, in case it could cause you to lust” approach could be leading someone to fall into sin? And even worse, away from the Faith?

How many people reading this are lurkers, who are not members here

I for one hope as many lurkers as possible read what SMGS writes. It may help them immensely.

and decide to put your “theory” into practice, but find they simply just can’t stop after “making out” and “cuddling” like you claim that you can do? You’ll be responsible in a tangible way.

Again, consider your responsibility too. It amazes me how people who go for the cookie cutter approach never seem to even realize that their own views may have consequences - in this case everything from falling away from the Church, to much worse.

I mentioned to you in an earlier post that one of the priests in the Apologetics section here would make quick work here of dismissing your “theories” but you ignored it.

In that earlier thread, she asked for Magisterial pronouncements. I know that many CA “fans” see CA as a sort of Magisterium (no criticism of CA intended, I think this is the fault of their “fans”, not themselves), but they’re not. A reply from CA is no more authoritative than a reply from a random friend. The CA reply may be more educated, but not always. It depends on the friend, and the topic. For this reason, telling people to ask an apologist when they want Magisterial teaching isn’t really of much help.

The same goes for asking a random priest - which I cut from the quote above together with some poorly camouflaged ad hominems. For your info, converts often read a lot more theology in their early years of being Catholic than cradle Catholics do for their entire lives. In my case, I ended up changing majors from Philosophy to Catholic Theology. If anything, settling down in the Church (soon a decade, now) has made me more friendly to ideas like those presented here, rather than less - in my first years, I’d probably have shot down SMGS’ posts like you’re doing now, because I was convinced that the cookie cutter approach I falsely attributed to the Church (which should more correctly be attributed to our time and culture), worked for everyone. I’m ashamed of that fact, but it’s not uncommon during “conversion sickness”, as we call it where I live. I’m impressed that SMGS dares think outside the cultural box this early after her conversion.

Rather, I’m very, very concerned for those who may take your suggestions and run with them. And how this can put their very soul in serious, serious jeopardy. These “experiments” of yours are dangerous. I think this thread should be shut down and deleted!

Honestly, you’re overreacting. That is of course your prerogative, but if anyone on this forum puts souls in jeopardy, it’s not SMGS. She’s one of the most reasonable while uncompromisingly orthodox individuals on CAF.

I would however not for the life of me point gay friend towards CAF, because yes, their soul may be placed in serious, serious jeopardy on this forum, despite the exceptions. Sometimes, I think all threads about homosexuality (and transgenderism, but that is another topic entirely), should be shut down and deleted, and the topic(s) banned entirely, on the news section as well as the apologetics section. This place is not a good place to go for someone in these situations.

 

[Rin]

Do you believe this regardless of the circumstances of individuals, eg. Including priests, religious etc.? What is meant here by physical intimacy?

Obviously there would be exceptions - some may have a personal disposition where the need is lessened (having a dog to pet and bond with may be enough, instead of just a band-aid, which it usually is; not a band-aid to be underestimated though, it may save lives, and it did for me long ago), or in some cases the need may be entirely gone. In the latter case I do however believe a personality disorder may be in the picture, and I have not yet spoken to a priest who describes a complete lack of this need, which is reassuring. It may be small, and/or they may be used to being deprived of it, but it is still there - and they need to find ways to handle it. A few hundred years ago, even priests could handle it through romantic friendship, without a single eyebrow being raised.

And by physical intimacy, it means a lot of things. In my case, kissing would probably not be that much of a need. I’m sure I’d like it, but my circumstances just haven’t been right; actually, I’ve never kissed anyone. However, what I desperately need, is someone to hold and “cuddle” and be held by, someone whose lap to rest my head in or shoulder to cry on, someone to sleep next to (as opposed to “with”), and someone to simply share my daily life with.

I had a lot of that once, minus the sleeping and sharing of daily life (we didn’t live together) - it was not a romantic friendship as such, but it was a very physical one. Sadly, I ended it, out of fear of whether it was appropriate. She’s still one of my best friends, but not in that way. But anyhow, I had much fewer sexual temptations at that time. Which is why I can personally attest to such intimacy lowering sexual temptation rather than increasing it.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Do you believe this regardless of the circumstances of individuals, eg. Including priests, religious etc.? What is meant here by physical intimacy?

Historically, priests have usually lived in houses with 3-4 other people, so far as I know. In recent years, this practice has been (for understandable though still questionable reasons) changing in the US. Signs suggest that this is a bad progression. Men need brotherhood.

 

[Rau]

Historically, priests have usually lived in houses with 3-4 other people, so far as I know. In recent years, this practice has been (for understandable though still questionable reasons) changing in the US. Signs suggest that this is a bad progression. Men need brotherhood.

I can well believe it.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

You have a point about celibacy. and that reflects the crisis of vocations. but that is not the fault of the church. till recently many young people in catholic societies wanted to be nuns and priests. if you read books from the early 2oth entury you will see many catholic families had, quite proudly, at least a priest or nun in the family. this attitude is the result of the sexual revolution and its cultural upheaval not Christians of the past few centuries. the same reason we are debating today whether two gay people in the church can be making out is the same reason celibacy is looked down upon IMO.

Actually the vocations crisis is rooted in the degradation of lay celibacy and as such has been going on for longer than a century.

 

[simpleas]

This is true, but romantic friendship did not disappear because of the Church, but because of Puritanism (and similar cultural impulses). These are essentially Protestant. This is also why, in some Catholic countries that were not affected by these impulses, you may still see remainders of it; public displays of affection that would give an American the shivers, life-long friendships of a much more involved art, etc. The blessings of the Middle Ages may be gone from the Latin Rite, but they’re actually still present in several of the Eastern (especially Oriental) Rites, and if I remember correctly, the priest even still joins the hands of the friends in his stole! The legal benefits are however no longer there.

So the reason for this disappearance was not the Church, but unhealthy cultural impulses. We see the effects in today’s society.

We do however sometimes observe that the culturally accepted solution (which by too many Americans is seen as the “Catholic” solution) just doesn’t work. For every happily islanded Catholic gay person there is, there are ten people who ended up emotionally starved and wrecked, and lost their faith. We need to offer something better than we do today - something which isn’t just “stay away from any and all physical and romantic contact”. And sometimes, when something doesn’t work, looking back to see if this has been handled better in earlier times, is the right thing to do.

That said, I’m opposed to archaeologism as an ideology, especially when it comes to liturgy. However, this isn’t even close to archaeologism - it’s simply picking up something we somehow left behind less than a few hundred years ago. The nonexistence of romantic relationships is a mere parenthesis in the history of the Church.

A kiss can be seductive or non-seductive, be the tongue involved or not involved. SMGS was obviously not defending seductive kissing…

Yes! And with our nature, we first and foremost long for physical and emotional contact. However, in today’s sex crazed society, this contact is somehow seen as something that can only precede sex. This causes people to believe that sex should follow such contact (!), and second, it causes people to believe that the longing for such contact is a longing for sex.

Basically, by requiring people to be islands, physically as well as emotionally, we cause them to sin.

These words are pretty, but they’re also too simple. The solution presented by most people on this forum has been tried, tested, by honest, well-meaning people, time and again, and in the end, they just can’t take it anymore. We need something better (and not least more realistic) to offer.

Bottom line: While I do believe sexual urges can be controlled, experience shows that the need for physical and emotional intimacy just can’t, in most cases. And when one tries to control all three, it generally ends in collapse, causing people to believe the solution is sex, while it may in reality be physical and emotional intimacy.

 

[Mark121359]

Rin:
My “shooting down SMGS’ posts” as you suggested was in response to her bringing up “Romantic Friendships” . My whole bone of contention with her posts was aimed at this specific claim. Namely, that two homosexuals living together, “making out” “cuddling together” sleeping in the same bed together, is licit in the eyes of the RCC. And you seem to agree. And you also stated that CAF Apologists are not authoritative and their replies are not always accurate. But in the following thread; forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=564289 Michelle Arnold had this to say in her reply; “For two men to live in a romantic relationship with one another, whether or not they abstain from sex, violates chastity because it does not conform to the sexual integrity to which mankind is called.” This in my view is in keeping with Church teaching. What SMGS127 is proposing in the bolded above, is not! And I would argue from the hilltops that it certainly isn’t licit in the views of the RCC teachings on sexual morality. On the bolded above…what say you, licit or not?

***Peace, Mark ***

 

[Bookcat]

***Peace, Mark ***

More from the Catholic Answers Staff: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=10859862&highlight=date#post10859862

 

[Bookcat]

If a desire or a inclination or an attraction is disordered. It is not something I am to act upon - interiorly or exteriorly. Such is true for everyone.

Ought I act to upon any disordered inclination or attraction that may happen to me?

No.

Be it concupscience or some other disordered inclination.

Ought persons with SSA act upon their disordered attraction?

Should they date?

Should they kiss?

Should they be involved in “same-sex relationships”? (again I do not mean friendships)

No. Again.

Such is not an option - for such would be to conform themselves to the disordered inclination in question. Such would be to “act in a homosexual way”. To act according the the attraction. Just as a hetrosexual who engages in those activities - can be said to “act in a hetrosexual way”.

Dating or a “same –sex relationship” is not a possibility for such would be acting according to the disordered inclination/attraction instead of acting in a chaste manner in a disinterested friendship.

One cannot say “same –sex relationships” can happen –similar to “man-woman relationships” and would follow the same morality. The “inclination" and one can say the “attraction” is disordered “itself”. Thus ought not to be willingly engaged – be it in sexual acts or other homosexual acts such as kissing a person of the same gender – even lightly - or engaging in a same-sex relationship.

Catholic Answers Staff: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12153558&postcount=104

The romantic attraction to the person of the same sex is itself disordered. (*ordered attraction *is male for female and female for male). It is opposite sexes that are oriented towards each other in that kind of relationship in an ordered way. A guys romantic -relationship- attraction for another guy is disordered. It is not ordered properly. Guy-guy couples are not something to be entered into.

The inclination is disordered “itself” but that does not mean it is “sinful” itself - no. But to follow it then to head down the disordered way of acting.

One does not follow the “disordered inclination” or “disordered attraction” into dating or kissing or even more serious homosexual behaviors. Such would be following such that is disordered - and away from chastity.

What is needed and good and healthy is “friendships”.

An important Apostolate endorsed by the Holy See: couragerc.net/ Those who struggle with SSA will find much help and support there from brothers and sisters in Christ. Together following Christ and growing in holiness.

couragerc.net/wp-content/uploads/YA_CourageBrochure1.pdf

couragerc.net/wp-content/uploads/GeneralCourageBro1.pdf

 

[SMGS127]

My “shooting down SMGS’ posts” as you suggested was in response to her bringing up “Romantic Friendships” . My whole bone of contention with her posts was aimed at this specific claim. Namely, that two homosexuals living together, “making out” “cuddling together” sleeping in the same bed together, is licit in the eyes of the RCC. And you seem to agree. And you also stated that CAF Apologists are not authoritative and their replies are not always accurate. But in the following thread; forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=564289 Michelle Arnold had this to say in her reply; “For two men to live in a romantic relationship with one another, whether or not they abstain from sex, violates chastity because it does not conform to the sexual integrity to which mankind is called.” This in my view is in keeping with Church teaching. What SMGS127 is proposing in the bolded above, is not! And I would argue from the hilltops that it certainly isn’t licit in the views of the RCC teachings on sexual morality. On the bolded above…what say you, licit or not?

***Peace, Mark ***

I didn’t argue that making out IS licit. I argued that, depending on the individual natures of the two women, it could be licit if it did not lead them to engage in lust. As for the romantic relationship, the living together, cuddling, etc., those would almost certainly be licit in my view though. They are highly unlikely to lead someone into lust, though if they did, they would have to be cut as well . Gay people have discretion, you know.

 

[Rin]

Mark: Yes, I disagree with Michelle Arnold on this, and last I checked, such disagreement is legitimate. This is a matter of interpretation of doctrine, not doctrine itself. And, to be honest, on the matter of moral theology, I take anything that comes from the United States with a truckload of salt.

Bookcat: You are not really responding to us in these threads - you are simply posting essays of your own, loosely related to what people say. This is not least evident through your continued mixing up of the difference between intrinsically disordered acts, and objectively disordered dispositions insofar as they are directed towards such acts, and such acts only. There is therefore little use in engaging you further, and you are now on my ignore list.