What are gay Catholics supposed to do?

[Murmurs]

When I spoke about making a family I wasn’t talking about making babies. I was talking about the human need for affection from loved ones, the desire for companionship and to not grow old alone, and so I spoke of the priesthood and religious life, adoption and/or a lifelong partnership…I even mentioned a lifelong partnership without sex. My point being that it seems that there is NO option for LGBT people other than living alone until they die. And this realization sets in at a young age when they first discover that they’re gay and Catholic, which I find particularly cruel, to tell a child he has to be alone forever. It’s like a death sentence. Because it’s being forced on them that they can’t make any kind of family. Unless I’m missing something - are you aware of what kind of family gay Catholics allowed to make? I mean it seems that even if a single gay person decides to be a foster parent - that even THAT is scandalous. It’s like they’re rejected by the religion itself. Like the other poster said, the Church is very aware that gay people are gay, but the seem to forget that gay people are people. People need families.

I think you highlight the issue perfectly. I think to be fair it’s not so much what the Church actually says or teaches but how it’s usually interpreted (often by people who either should know better, or who definitely don’t know better and should shut up about it). Everyone (or nearly everyone) needs a family life…loving relationships…partnerships.

I think it would be impossible for the Church to legitimately reconfigure its teaching on sex or marriage without alienating many people. But you can have a full accommodation and recognition of all the needs of gay people as human beings - as people - without saying you have a sacramental marriage coming into it or anything like that. Certainly when I have asked my priest about my own circumstances, I have understood that a relationship itself is of course fine. (Our obsession with “being a scandal to others” is frankly bizarre anyway) - and with regards to, well, sex, the same things apply as to anyone who isn’t married (to do so would be sinful). I know that is probably harder for others, and it’s not really a comfort to me that it’s not something I personally overly struggle with because I know many, many others really do. It’s natural, it’s being human. But I think change will slowly come.

I don’t know how long this will take. I’m sure it will be a process far longer than (sadly) Francis will the our Pope, but it will happen. The Church often makes truckloads of mistakes but I think it always ends up moving in the right direction. I have faith in that. I think we have to have faith in that.

 

[D0UBTFIRE]

I know gay people who married someone of the opposite sex, had kids and raised families. It’s not the norm, but if both parties agree to live a sacramental marriage and carry it out…The people I know who did this are of past generations, when living an outwardly homosexual lifestyle was not possible, nor would children be adopted to homosexual couples, singles and artificial insemination etc was not available.

They desired to have the family experience and that was a means of doing so . I am not referring to people who were dishonest with their partner and lived a homosexual lifestyle on the sly, but people who went into the marriage understanding the nature of the sexual attraction. I also know of couples that went the route of dishonesty as well, with unhappy endings.

Yes, well, I don’t know how I get about this. It really doesn’t seem right.

 

[Sarcelle]

I don’t know, but this is where it gets nonsensical to me… The only vocation they’re allowed to pursue is to be Single. But aren’t vocations like callings? Aren’t we supposed to discern our vocation not have it mandated to us (like we can’t be pressured into priesthood or marriage)? It seems that they’re being forced into being single.

Single is not a vocation. Gay people are not forced into being single.

Gay people can marry someone of the opposite sex so they can have a family. Of course the attraction may not be there.

 

[D0UBTFIRE]

Single is not a vocation. Gay people are not forced into being single.

Gay people can marry someone of the opposite sex so they can have a family. Of course the attraction may not be there.

Single isn’t a vocation? I wonder where I got that idea then…? I thought it was considered a vocation.

 

[Thorolfr]

Single is not a vocation. Gay people are not forced into being single.

Gay people can marry someone of the opposite sex so they can have a family. Of course the attraction may not be there.

Some men are somewhat bisexual so this might work in that case. But a gay man who has zero attraction for the opposite sex might have a difficult time getting an erection. It seems to me that there must be at least a little attraction (especially on the man’s part) to have sex. Or maybe he could take Viagra.

 

[D0UBTFIRE]

Some men are somewhat bisexual so this might work in that case. But a gay man who has zero attraction for the opposite sex might have a difficult time getting an erection. It seems to me that there must be at least a little attraction (especially on the man’s part) to have sex. Or maybe he could take Viagra.

Again, this doesn’t seem right. It certainly doesn’t seem like a compassionate solution… It’s basically telling them to pretend they’re not homosexual.

 

[meltzerboy]

I really like the way this author, who is a convert to Catholicism and a lesbian herself describes it:

*If I believed that Catholicism condemned gay people to a barren, loveless life, I would not be Catholic, full stop. **All people have a call from God to give and receive love. *** (My faith has often forced me to accept God’s love when I didn’t feel like I deserved it. In Catholicism God knows, loves, and forgives you, no matter what; your own opinion of yourself is interesting but irrelevant.) For me the call to love takes the form of service to those in need, prayer, and, above all, loving friendship. Friendship was once a form of Christian kinship—see Alan Bray’s beautiful historical study, The Friend. It was honored by society, guided by theology, beautified by liturgy. It wasn’t a sloppy-seconds consolation prize for people who couldn’t get the real love of marriage; **it was the form of love experienced and most highly praised by Jesus himself. **Renewing this Christian understanding of friendship would help to make the Church a place where gay people have more opportunities for devoted, honored love—not fewer.

…I think gay Catholics can also offer a necessary witness to the broader society. By leading lives of fruitful, creative love, we can offer proof that sexual restraint isn’t a death sentence (or an especially boring form of masochism). Celibacy can offer some of us radical freedom to serve others. While this approach isn’t for everyone, there were times when I had much more time, space, and energy to give to people in need than my friends who were juggling marriage and parenting along with all their other commitments. I’ve been able to take homeless women briefly into my own home, for example, which I would not have been able to do as spontaneously—and maybe not at all—if I had not been single.

You can read the whole article here: theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/05/im-gay-but-im-not-switching-to-a-church-that-supports-gay-marriage/276383/

It’s true gay people can’t get married or have a family of their own. But neither, frankly, can some straight people. That doesn’t mean our lives will be empty. Jesus promised that those of us who give up having a family in this life will be rewarded one hundred fold in this life and in the next. And he wasn’t just talking about priests or religious.

The fact is, we can only find true joy and happiness when we love God and live the way He meant us to, whether we are gay or not.

Some really good advice here for everyone, not just gay people and not just Catholics.

 

[D0UBTFIRE]

I think you highlight the issue perfectly. I think to be fair it’s not so much what the Church actually says or teaches but how it’s usually interpreted (often by people who either should know better, or who definitely don’t know better and should shut up about it). Everyone (or nearly everyone) needs a family life…loving relationships…partnerships.

I think it would be impossible for the Church to legitimately reconfigure its teaching on sex or marriage without alienating many people. But you can have a full accommodation and recognition of all the needs of gay people as human beings - as people - without saying you have a sacramental marriage coming into it or anything like that. Certainly when I have asked my priest about my own circumstances, I have understood that a relationship itself is of course fine. (Our obsession with “being a scandal to others” is frankly bizarre anyway) - and with regards to, well, sex, the same things apply as to anyone who isn’t married (to do so would be sinful). I know that is probably harder for others, and it’s not really a comfort to me that it’s not something I personally overly struggle with because I know many, many others really do. It’s natural, it’s being human. But I think change will slowly come.

I don’t know how long this will take. I’m sure it will be a process far longer than (sadly) Francis will the our Pope, but it will happen. The Church often makes truckloads of mistakes but I think it always ends up moving in the right direction. I have faith in that. I think we have to have faith in that.

When you say you think change will slowly come, what do you ultimately envision? Do you think the Church will someday not view homosexual unions as sinful? Or will still view them as sinful, but welcome gay people to be priest or adopt children…? Or what?

I understand that you feel you have to have faith that it will somehow get better, but it’s so bad right now that it makes it difficult for me to even have any faith in the Church and her teachings at all. This treatment of LGBT people is a huge problem for me to accept the Church. And the issue, at least from my angle, doesn’t appear to be just a matter of how people interpret Church teaching, but the teachings themselves. And I’m sure you’ve seen many posters on CAF insist one can’t be Catholic unless one agrees with everything the Church teaches.

I’m really very stuck - I’m loosing sleep over this. What distinction do you see that I’m somehow missing? Where is the love? Where is the compassion? What can change? Because clearly you’re holding out hope for some kind of change… Please, share that hope with me.

Please help!

 

[Corki]

Again, this doesn’t seem right. It certainly doesn’t seem like a compassionate solution… It’s basically telling them to pretend they’re not homosexual.

It may not be a perfect solution, but it is a solution that would accommodate a man or woman that identified as homosexual but who also deeply desired a family. There are certainly examples of people who have done this by pretending but other examples of people who are true to both their sexual identification AND their belief in a traditional family.

You started this thread with the premise that homosexual Catholics aren’t given any choices other than a lifetime of loneliness. But it seems that everytime someone presents a choice, you shoot it down.

Here’s another choice. If a person feels a vocation to religious life, he/she can discern if a mission outside of a religious community is appropriate. For example, there are lay missionaries who serve the Gospel but are neither ordained or part of a religious community. There are hermits (yes, they still exist) and there are consecrated virgins. For that matter, the prohibition against ordination is less clear when it comes to religious communities and to the non-ordained.

There are some people who can neither marry nor be ordained due to reasons other than their sexuality. An example is someone who is disabled to the point of being unable to minister or to consummate a marriage. A homosexual Catholic has many more choices and options than someone in that circumstance. It’s not** just** a “gay” Catholic issue.

 

[Murmurs]

When you say you think change will slowly come, what do you ultimately envision? Do you think the Church will someday not view homosexual unions as sinful? Or will still view them as sinful, but welcome gay people to be priest or adopt children…? Or what?

I understand that you feel you have to have faith that it will somehow get better, but it’s so bad right now that it makes it difficult for me to even have any faith in the Church and her teachings at all. This treatment of LGBT people is a huge problem for me to accept the Church. And the issue, at least from my angle, doesn’t appear to be just a matter of how people interpret Church teaching, but the teachings themselves. And I’m sure you’ve seen many posters on CAF insist one can’t be Catholic unless one agrees with everything the Church teaches.

I’m really very stuck - I’m loosing sleep over this. What distinction do you see that I’m somehow missing? Where is the love? Where is the compassion? What can change? Because clearly you’re holding out hope for some kind of change… Please, share that hope with me.

Please help!

It’s late here in the UK now and I’ll make more sense if I reply tomorrow, but just a brief note for the moment!! -

I guess what I would like to see and what I think is likely isn’t the same (it never is for anyone is it!?), but I imagine the Church being very very much more welcoming towards gay people than it is now (pastorally and among the church members as well as what officially catholics are “meant” to be like; the theory doesn’t match the reality much and CAF is sometimes a good example of that!). Gay men can already be priests, gay women can already be nuns - everyone in their circumstances are equally called to celibacy anyway regardless of orientation.

What it comes down to, is that gay men and women are according to Church teaching, called to celibacy (like anyone else who isn’t married). But being celibate doesn’t mean you can’t have a very deep and meaningful partnership, relationship, just that one expression of that (ie sex) isn’t appropriate. I think while sex is wonderful (well it should be anyway ), you don’t need it to have a fulfilling relationship (but like I say…might just be me thinking that).

My understanding is that a lot of what the church “teaches” on this matter is of pastoral rather than doctrinal matter - in other words, it’s perfectly possible to change it as the church’s understanding of and relationship to the world, changes. I can’t see how sex itself can be made “legit” but certainly there’s a degree of latitude around other aspects of relationships and union. It couldn’t be marriage, but some other type of recognition of a relationship is surely possible.

So as far as rules go…I think they are actually loving, compassionate, as far as a somewhat flawed 2000-year-old institution is able to be. The problem I genuinely think is how people follow them, and the catechismic, slavish way of “the church says this AND WE MUST OBEY THE LETTER OF THEM WITHOUT THINKING”. What I mean is, the fault is not with the church or its teachings but the people trying to follow them.

What is it you think the Church could/should do and doesn’t? Marriage itself is out of the question not because I think Christ Himself would be perturbed by it but definitely because our understanding of what God would like, would be (ie God might not actually mind, but we’ve not had a signal that this is the case, so we can only go with what we’ve already got). But pretty much anything else is open, and is open already. The problem I genuinely think is the people and not the institution in this case. (I know it is people make the church, but this is one of those times when plenty of people are frankly being a******s about something).

Sorry this probably doesn’t help but as I say, I will be back some time tomorrow after some sleep (by which time someone will surely have bitten my head off on here anyway!). Please don’t lose sleep over this, though I totally understand how you feel. You are in my prayers.

God bless

Murmurs

 

[Dorothy]

Perhaps you hadn’t explored the site yet.

Here is a review to read I found on a link on that site, about a movie called “Desire of the Everlasting Hills”.
It tells about three people with SSA; it is not long to read.

crisismagazine.com/2014/hearts-restless

The site I mentioned in my first sentence above is the one about courage and encourage, and I believe you had not explored it.

There was link there for another article you may want to read. (I hope you do). It is above, and was in Crisis magazine.

Because the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, it will not change its stance on matters of faith and morals. JESUS IS THE ANSWER, to all our woes. He will grant us peace and guidance if we pick up our cross and follow Him!

There are many different kinds of crosses we have to carry. Spiritual growth comes with the challenges the Lord allows us to have, and how we freely react to them.

“Doubtfire”, may you find rest and peace in the authentic teachings of the Church!

The Lord is ready and waiting to help us if we call on Him. His love, working in us, is the greatest power in the world.

 

[Memaw]

So what can they become? If they do not get married and they are not allowed to become priest, what is their vocation?

The single life like many other people live. I have been widowed for over 30 years and have never felt lonely or depressed. I keep busy and have taught CCD for over 20 years, and go to daily Mass. I belong to several Church organizations and help out at Church. There’s lots of ways to fill up our life so we don’t set around feeling sorry for our self. I know many widows and widowers that have lived a full life after loosing their spouse, without turning to sin. My sis found out she could never have children after she got married, later she lost her husband and she has taken in foster children and is still raising one. She has never turned to sin. And I also know some that have turned to one “partner” after another and have been very sad and depressed and can’t figure out why they can’t find someone “special.” Life is what we make of it and we can do it with GOD or without Him. It’s our choice. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Murmurs]

It may not be a perfect solution, but it is a solution that would accommodate a man or woman that identified as homosexual but who also deeply desired a family. There are certainly examples of people who have done this by pretending but other examples of people who are true to both their sexual identification AND their belief in a traditional family.

Seems to me, in passing, that going into a marriage under such a false pretense would be very legitimate grounds for divorce and annulment to boot. I can’t believe anyone actually suggests such a purported solution. Gay people used to marry conventionally because to do otherwise brought too much social stigma to be possible to bear. (And frankly, it still can in some places).

There are some people who can neither marry nor be ordained due to reasons other than their sexuality. An example is someone who is disabled to the point of being unable to minister or to consummate a marriage. A homosexual Catholic has many more choices and options than someone in that circumstance. It’s not** just** a “gay” Catholic issue.

Yes you’re right I suppose here. But this highlights what I said in the post above; and what D0oubtfire and I have been saying. Telling a gay person “it’s ok, you’re not severely disabled at least” is an utterly ridiculous thing to suggest. And I think it also represents an utterly bewildering fatalism (“oh well, God made me this way, I’ll just have to get on with it with my incredibly narrow field of options compared to everyone else”) that the Church enthuses so wonderfully about. A more compelling, not to say more Christian, approach, would I think to be “well, here I am…how can I make things better and please God with spreading the sum of human life a little further?”

 

[Horton]

Yes, I think single people, regardless of disability or ugliness have a choice in the matter that gay people don’t.

We do? I’ve been single for more than 20 years. The Church teaches I must live a chaste life to be in full communion with Her. God, in His infinite wisdom, has decided I am not to be married again yet, possibly never. I love the Church and I love God, so yeah, I willingly submit to a celibate life. I don’t see this as a negative in my life.

When I converted I was dating a cradle Catholic and we “sinned” a lot. When I internalized this particular teaching I told my SO our relationship would have to change (we both had previous marriages that had to be reviewed by the tribunal as well) and we could no longer be a “couple” until/if our marriage cases were resolved (mine was, don’t think he ever submitted a petition) and we certainly were not going to have sexual intimacy until we were married, if able to get married. I told him I wasn’t going to be a hypocrite with my faith. The relationship ended, which was a good thing. So at this point I’m waiting on God. He will either put a better man in my life or He will give me the graces to live single & chaste.

 

[Corki]

Seems to me, in passing, that going into a marriage under such a false pretense would be very legitimate grounds for divorce and annulment to boot. I can’t believe anyone actually suggests such a purported solution. Gay people used to marry conventionally because to do otherwise brought too much social stigma to be possible to bear. (And frankly, it still can in some places).

I absolutely agree that a person shouldn’t enter into marriage under false pretenses. But there are couples that acknowledge this as a cross but who value family more and are open and honest about it. There are even some posters here at CAF in such marriages.

There is even a reality TV series (not release yet, I think) called “My Husband’s Not Gay”. The premise is men who are sexually attracted to other men but who have decided that marriage and their faith as more important than expressing their homosexuality.

Yes you’re right I suppose here. But this highlights what I said in the post above; and what D0oubtfire and I have been saying. Telling a gay person “it’s ok, you’re not severely disabled at least” is an utterly ridiculous thing to suggest. And I think it also represents an utterly bewildering fatalism (“oh well, God made me this way, I’ll just have to get on with it with my incredibly narrow field of options compared to everyone else”) that the Church enthuses so wonderfully about.

I know it’s not a popular way to express things, but homosexuality is a disability in a sense. Some people bristle at the catechism using the word “disordered” to express homosexuality, but it is a disorder or a condition. That’s why it’s a cross and not something that anyone would want to bear. But it’s not a death sentence.

A more compelling, not to say more Christian, approach, would I think to be “well, here I am…how can I make things better and please God with spreading the sum of human life a little further?”

Isn’t that what most people are doing?

 

[Horton]

When you say you think change will slowly come, what do you ultimately envision? Do you think the Church will someday not view homosexual unions as sinful? Or will still view them as sinful, but welcome gay people to be priest or adopt children…? Or what?

I understand that you feel you have to have faith that it will somehow get better, but it’s so bad right now that it makes it difficult for me to even have any faith in the Church and her teachings at all. This treatment of LGBT people is a huge problem for me to accept the Church. And the issue, at least from my angle, doesn’t appear to be just a matter of how people interpret Church teaching, but the teachings themselves. And I’m sure you’ve seen many posters on CAF insist one can’t be Catholic unless one agrees with everything the Church teaches.

I’m really very stuck - I’m loosing sleep over this. What distinction do you see that I’m somehow missing? Where is the love? Where is the compassion? What can change? Because clearly you’re holding out hope for some kind of change… Please, share that hope with me.

Please help!

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html This document addresses the issue. Really easy to find this answer…Google is a great tool.

 

[D0UBTFIRE]

The single life like many other people live. I have been widowed for over 30 years and have never felt lonely or depressed. I keep busy and have taught CCD for over 20 years, and go to daily Mass. I belong to several Church organizations and help out at Church. There’s lots of ways to fill up our life so we don’t set around feeling sorry for our self. I know many widows and widowers that have lived a full life after loosing their spouse, without turning to sin. My sis found out she could never have children after she got married, later she lost her husband and she has taken in foster children and is still raising one. She has never turned to sin. And I also know some that have turned to one “partner” after another and have been very sad and depressed and can’t figure out why they can’t find someone “special.” Life is what we make of it and we can do it with GOD or without Him. It’s our choice. God Bless, Memaw

Memaw, do you have children? I do hope you do. If you do though, your situation is different than a single or gay person.

As for your friend who fosters… Clearly, this is something the Church looks down upon for a person to do if they’re gay.

It seems your anecdotes aren’t quite analogous (this is assuming you have children- which I’ve assumed because of the way you mentioned your friend couldn’t which sounded like a contrast to your situation. Forgive me if I assumed incorrectly)

 

[Horton]

Memaw, do you have children? I do hope you do. If you do though, your situation is different than a single or gay person.

As for your friend who fosters… **Clearly, this is something the Church looks down upon for a person to do if they’re gay. **

It seems your anecdotes aren’t quite analogous (this is assuming you have children- which I’ve assumed because of the way you mentioned your friend couldn’t which sounded like a contrast to your situation. Forgive me if I assumed incorrectly)

How in the world is having children and being single due to the death of a spouse or divorce any different? I have three children but they all live on their own, have their own families. I live a single life and right now live with my elderly parents to help them but am alone.

You mentioned in an earlier post about the Church not being a “family” in your opinion. I have experienced the exact opposite. But then I made an effort to get to know my faith family. I spoke to people about becoming involved with ministries and went out of my way to get to know people.

I know several older single, never married Catholics who are content with their calling in life. I can’t confirm their chastity as it really isn’t any of my business but I know who they are as people and I would assume they live a chaste life given the way they live other aspects of their life.

I’d like to see the sources for your comment bolded above.

 

[D0UBTFIRE]

How in the world is having children and being single due to the death of a spouse or divorce any different? I have three children but they all live on their own, have their own families. I live a single life and right now live with my elderly parents to help them but am alone.

You mentioned in an earlier post about the Church not being a “family” in your opinion. I have experienced the exact opposite. But then I made an effort to get to know my faith family. I spoke to people about becoming involved with ministries and went out of my way to get to know people.

I know several older single, never married Catholics who are content with their calling in life. I can’t confirm their chastity as it really isn’t any of my business but I know who they are as people and I would assume they live a chaste life given the way they live other aspects of their life.

I’d like to see the sources for your comment bolded above.

If you don’t already see a difference then I’m not likely going to convince you of one. However, I would say that any woman whose suffered from infertility or who has lost her children would say that you’re in a much better position than they for your children exist and are living, regardless of whether they live with you or not, and therefore you have a family and they may very well not. You also would have the prospect of living with your grown children later in life as needed. A person without kids would not have that.

As for the thing in bold…I kinda want to start a thread on it to see opinions and if maybe anyone else has some references but,
This is the only thing I’ve seen on the matter: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=798268

 

[Flopfoot]

Scandal should be a non issue if people didn’t stick their nose where it didn’t belong. Seems like a gay person should be allowed to live with their romantic partner of the same sex as long as they’re not having sex. But barring that, it should be okay for a gay man to live with a lesbian woman since people know there is no chance of anything wrong going on.

And yeah, gay people are allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex as long as they’re honest about it. Marriages don’t have to be about love and/or sexual attraction, they just have to be permanent - think of old school royals marrying for politics.