What are gay Catholics supposed to do?

[D0UBTFIRE]

I’m really quite interested to know what you think should be done about the difficult challenges some people face. You’ve started the thread, expressed great compassion, but not given us your own thoughts on how things should be changed by Church or State. See my earlier posts where these questions were posed.

Well, I know the status quo isn’t right. I don’t see any good reason to discriminate against gays who are chaste regarding the priesthood, religious life or adoption. I also don’t see why two people of the same sex who love each other can’t live together and remain chaste if they desire to be faithful Catholics.

That’s all within the Church. As for the State, everyone in the USA is not Catholic so there’s no reason for everyone here to have to follow the rules of the Church. Gay marriage will be legal and common, it’s only a matter of time.

As for the Church actually embracing gay marriage I don’t think that’s likely but I do think it might be possible in a distant future. But I really don’t know.

What I would like to see at the present time is less culture wars and condemnation and more listening to what gay Catholics have to say. Starting with the language. Calling them disordered is grossly inappropriate, lacks sensitivity and is the opposite of welcoming.

What I see when I look around is “gays can’t be priest”, “gays can’t adopt”, “gays need therapy”, “gays can’t be teachers at Catholic schools”, “gays can’t get health insurance for their partners”, “gays can’t get married”, “gays are disordered”, “it’s an abomination”…There’s a lot of negativity there. I’ve never seen any other sin or sinners treated like this. And the institutional church often seems to support this language and behavior towards gays, instead of speaking about compassion. I mean, yeah, I get it, the Church considers gay sex a sin, but geez, gays are people too. The lack of compassion towards gays by many in the church just really bothers me. Maybe it’s because of the culture wars that people have thought about them as an activist group with an agenda and not as persons. I don’t know. But it’s a problem.

These are human hearts we’re breaking when we call them disordered and abominations - and sure, you, Rau, are a thoughtful person, and you might make the distinction between the gay person and the sex act, but don’t fool yourselves, most people don’t make that distinction. The hate towards gays among conservative religious groups is real. And even if the language used to describe this sin is theologically accurate, it’s not appropriate to forget that we’re dealing with persons who need to be welcomed into our communities. Pope Francis gives me hope that the Church will focus more on being pastoral… But the church has been so slow to change on this matter that if I were the parent of a gay young person I would have great difficulty trusting the Church with my child’s mind and heart. I do not feel that the Church is a healthy place at this time for most gay young people. Being gay in Catholicism is like being the only black person in a white, southern, confederate-flag-displaying, pick-up-truck-driving, shot-gun-carrying, out-in-the-boonies neighborhood. It’s got to be terrifying.

 

[D0UBTFIRE]

I was speaking about the variability of sexual inclination that people experience, and the varying time frames in which they become apparent.

Everyone has options - but a person that never marries - for whatever reason - does not have a (moral) option to participate in a sexual relationship.

The Church has concluded that it cannot admit to the Priesthood persons who engage in same sex relationships or who endorse those who do, or who have a deep-seated homosexual inclination. This is the Church’s judgement on what is appropriate for the priesthood and the role of priests. The first 2 criteria are I think clear cut. The 3rd is a judgement call. I don’t have a strong view on it, but my own judgement would probably lean that way.

Isn’t this just a matter of discipline? Could it not change?

 

[Rau]

Isn’t this just a matter of discipline? Could it not change?

Yes, it could change.

 

[D0UBTFIRE]

In so far as the priesthood is concerned: "the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called “gay culture.” vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html

There is no doubt that for many, the finding that they do not experience sexual inclinations consistent with their bodies (ie. man to woman, and woman to man), may be devastating and may present great fears for the future. While the single (heterosexual) may also experience loneliness and the fear of not finding a partner, they may at least have the opportunity to socialise more freely, date and so on. But at the end of the day, the requirements of chastity are, nevertheless, the same.

We may ask the question: “How could this situation be different?” Should the Church reconsider the meaning of marriage and broaden it as some States seek to do? This may be welcomed by a proportion of homosexual persons, but (in addition to facing massive theological hurdles), would seem to do nothing for the sad and lonely single heterosexuals. Would it thus be appropriate to consider reviewing the teaching concerning sex outside marriage?

In connection with “families” - how are families formed other than through marriage? Now, I’m not aware of the current situation with regard to single people adopting - it may be possible though I’d question how the adoption authorities would go about allocating a child to a single person as opposed to a couple (assuming the latter are available). In an objective sense, one would think that a married couple would more likely present as the more suitable candidate - offering the child a mother and father figures, the potential to spend more time with the child, etc. [Of course, every situation is unique.]

The “right” to have a child is often raised, and often underpins the argument for IVR to be accepted as licit by the Church. If fact (IMHO), there is no particular “right” to have a child, and achieving that result (by any means) is often impossible for many. We understand that a child is a gift, not a right, and children come into this world by the acts of their parents.

Your post above, and the subsequent posts, reflect what I am sure is a genuine compassion for those that life has dealt a difficult hand. I’m sure you feel equally compassionate for persons beset with other difficulties - poverty, intellectual or physical disability, infertility, serious illness, single and lonely and so on. We should equally ask - what are these people to do?

I don’t think that comparing homosexuals to single heterosexuals is a fair comparison… If a person who is straight is lonely, because they don’t have a partner, then allowing them to participate in the hook up culture will not help the loneliness. Only finding a life long partner could help that. Gays aren’t saying they want to be free to have casual sex, they’re saying they want to form a life long partnership… If we’re speaking strictly secularly, that partnership would include sex, but if we’re talking about Catholics, many are willing to be celibate. But regardless of the sex or celibacy - we can’t compare the hook up culture to stable relationships.

As for adoption, you’re right that the ideal is a mother and a father. But this shouldn’t mean that gays can’t adopt (in this case I’m talking celibate Catholic gays). There are many children who never get adopted that would love to have at least one parent.

As for other people with problems like poverty or disability, of course they are important too, but I’m not sure why you brought them up? I am not here to say that gays are more important only that this is an issue that I don’t think is being dealt with well. And it’s a stumbling block for me.

Edit: I forgot to say that I don’t think IVF is ever a moral option. Artificially making babies is not what I meant when I brought up making family.

Second edit: of course some gays like the hook up culture, but the issue I’m addressing is regarding those who desire a family so it excludes people looking for hook ups.

 

[D0UBTFIRE]

I agree, but I thought the scenario we were discussing was a celibate gay single person adopting a child. Not something triggered by a death in the family, etc.

But either gays can raise kids or they can’t… There are so many kids that are never adopted… Don’t you think they would rather have at least one parent? And if the person is a celibate Catholic - what would be wrong with parenting a child? It’s not immoral to be a single parent - sometimes life just doesn’t turn out ideally. I would rather one adoptive parent than to grow up in foster care.

 

[Rau]

…I don’t see any good reason to discriminate against gays who are chaste regarding the priesthood, religious life or adoption.

We should bear in mind that “discrimination” is not an inherently bad thing, when well founded. In connection with the Priesthood, the Church authorities have multiple factors to balance. They conclude: * “Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women. One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies.”* In my opinion, this is their judgement to make, and they are responsible for it. A different opinion might be reached at some other time, but I certainly don’t think it is “obvious” that the judgement is “wrong”.

Regarding Religious Life - I am unaware of any group’s position. I note in passing that we don’t have mixed congregations of men and women in religious orders living together, and we would not do so regardless of a commitment to chastity.

I previously addressed adoption.

I also don’t see why two people of the same sex who love each other can’t live together and remain chaste if they desire to be faithful Catholics.

Would you advocate similarly for an unmarried man and woman? Would this seem wise?

As for the State, everyone in the USA is not Catholic so there’s no reason for everyone here to have to follow the rules of the Church.

Agreed, State law will be formulated on democratic principles.

As for the Church actually embracing gay marriage I don’t think that’s likely but I do think it might be possible in a distant future. But I really don’t know.

I cannot fathom how the Church could ever arrive at the conclusion that God intended that, given all positive Scriptural examples are of Man+Woman and the Church has had the same understanding of the proper place of marriage from the beginning.

What I would like to see at the present time is less culture wars and condemnation and more listening to what gay Catholics have to say.

I am listening. To listen is not to agree.

Starting with the language. **Calling them disordered **is grossly inappropriate, lacks sensitivity and is the opposite of welcoming.

Now I have to believe you have read sections of the Catechism, and thus you fully that:

• no person is ever called disordered;
• homosexual sex acts are called disordered;
• Numerous other immoral acts (lying, calumny, fornication, etc. etc.) are described as disordered.
  I agree with you that the regularity with which those opposing the Church view cite the language is probably sufficient reason to change the language, but it is just mischievous of you to make the statement I bolded.

What I see when I look around is “gays can’t be priest”, “gays can’t adopt”, “gays need therapy”, “gays can’t be teachers at Catholic schools”, “gays can’t get health insurance for their partners”, “gays can’t get married”…There’s a lot of negativity there. I’ve never seen any other sin or sinners treated like this.

Why you would expect a Church that teaches the immorality of same sex sexual acts to appoint practicing homosexuals as priests, teachers or guardians of children. With the exception of priests, how a person feels internally is no likely a consideration for the other roles. Your point seems more focussed on the view that same sex sexual relationships are good - since were that accepted, several of the other matters would be resolved.

And the institutional church often seems to support this language and behavior towards gays, instead of speaking about compassion. I mean, yeah, I get it, the Church considers gay sex a sin, but geez, gays are people too. The lack of compassion towards gays by many in the church just really bothers me…

It may be that you don’t sufficiently distinguish compassion from accommodation?

These are human hearts we’re breaking when we call them disordered and abominations - and sure, you, Rau, are a thoughtful person, and you might make the distinction between the gay person and the sex act, but don’t fool yourselves, most people don’t make that distinction. The hate towards gays among conservative religious groups is real.

I can assure you there is ample “disdain” towards homosexual persons from great swathes of people who are quite irreligious. To specially link that antagonism to people with a religious belief system is wrong. [Of course, the next thread somebody starts will point to how many Catholics support SSM ]

And even if the language used to describe this sin is theologically accurate, it’s not appropriate to forget that we’re dealing with persons who need to be welcomed into our communities. Pope Francis gives me hope that the Church will focus more on being pastoral… But the church has been so slow to change on this matter that if I were the parent of a gay young person I would have great difficulty trusting the Church with my child’s mind and heart.

It can be challenging to be pastoral towards persons who do not seek what you have to offer.

I do not feel that the Church is a healthy place at this time for most gay young people.

By “gay young people”, I assume you mean a person who declares his inclinations publicly and/or embraces them, while simultaneously seeking to participate in the Church and the Sacraments? I suggest that if such a person spoke with his priest about wanting to align himself with the Church, the priest would be entirely welcoming and pastoral. But - at the other end of the spectrum - what should the Priest say to the person who requires that the Church accommodate him and his (sexual) partner?

 

[Rau]

But either gays can raise kids or they can’t… There are so many kids that are never adopted… Don’t you think they would rather have at least one parent? And if the person is a celibate Catholic - what would be wrong with parenting a child? It’s not immoral to be a single parent - sometimes life just doesn’t turn out ideally. I would rather one adoptive parent than to grow up in foster care.

How does an adoption agency know that single man “Fred” is gay?

I would expect that single person have a disadvantage - compared to a man+wife - at the adoption agency because they are single.

How would an adoption agency even determine “celibacy”? They can’t.

And just BTW - it is a weird fact that the hurdle to adopt (I’m talking for conventional man+wife couples) seems to be set quite high. Eg. if you’re in you 40s, that can be a problem!

 

[D0UBTFIRE]

We should bear in mind that “discrimination” is not an inherently bad thing, when well founded. In connection with the Priesthood, the Church authorities have multiple factors to balance. They conclude: * “Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women. One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies.”* In my opinion, this is their judgement to make, and they are responsible for it. A different opinion might be reached at some other time, but I certainly don’t think it is “obvious” that the judgement is “wrong”.

Regarding Religious Life - I am unaware of any group’s position. I note in passing that we don’t have mixed congregations of men and women in religious orders living together, and we would not do so regardless of a commitment to chastity.

I previously addressed adoption.

Would you advocate similarly for an unmarried man and woman? Would this seem wise?

Agreed, State law will be formulated on democratic principles.

I cannot fathom how the Church could ever arrive at the conclusion that God intended that, given all positive Scriptural examples are of Man+Woman and the Church has had the same understanding of the proper place of marriage from the beginning.

I am listening. To listen is not to agree.

Now I have to believe you have read sections of the Catechism, and thus you fully that:

• no person is ever called disordered;
• homosexual sex acts are called disordered;
• Numerous other immoral acts (lying, calumny, fornication, etc. etc.) are described as disordered.
  I agree with you that the regularity with which those opposing the Church view cite the language is probably sufficient reason to change the language, but it is just mischievous of you to make the statement I bolded.

Why you would expect a Church that teaches the immorality of same sex sexual acts to appoint practicing homosexuals as priests, teachers or guardians of children. With the exception of priests, how a person feels internally is no likely a consideration for the other roles. Your point seems more focussed on the view that same sex sexual relationships are good - since were that accepted, several of the other matters would be resolved.

It may be that you don’t sufficiently distinguish compassion from accommodation?

I can assure you there is ample “disdain” towards homosexual persons from great swathes of people who are quite irreligious. To specially link that antagonism to people with a religious belief system is wrong. [Of course, the next thread somebody starts will point to how many Catholics support SSM ]

It can be challenging to be pastoral towards persons who do not seek what you have to offer.

By “gay young people”, I assume you mean a person who declares his inclinations publicly and/or embraces them, while simultaneously seeking to participate in the Church and the Sacraments? I suggest that if such a person spoke with his priest about wanting to align himself with the Church, the priest would be entirely welcoming and pastoral. But - at the other end of the spectrum - what should the Priest say to the person who requires that the Church accommodate him and his (sexual) partner?

There is some confusion here because the majority of the time I’m talking about gay Catholics who wish to be celibate. I’m typing on my iPhone so it’s too much to go back and point it out one by one but assume I mean celibate unless I refer to a secular situation or gay marriage.

 

[Thorolfr]

They conclude: * “Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women. One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies.”*

This is kind of a silly statement in my opinion. In what way is a celibate priest, even a heterosexual priest, going to be relating sexually to the men and women in his flock? If this statement is about some kind of non sexual relating, in what way would a priest with SSA be different from one with opposite sex attractions in relating non-sexually to both men and women?

 

[D0UBTFIRE]

Rau, regarding an unmarried man and woman and advocating similarly. Yes, I would under certain circumstances such as those in second marriages who are required to live as brother and sister. The “wise” or lawful thing to do might be to tell them to separate their family, lest they are tempted to sin… But the compassionate thing to do would be to understand their love for one another, especially if they’re trying to follow church teaching and be chaste. It’s a special circumstances. As is the situation with gay couples, because of their homosexuality, I view it as a special circumstance. Also, especially gay couples who have made a life together perhaps sinfully at first, but at some point want to return to the church. They could be welcomed and encouraged to be celibate without having to break apart the family that they’ve made. Without having to move out. Just some ideas.

 

[Mary_Estelle]

I think everyone really got off track here and now it seems to be a debate about marriage among the gay and single people. Wasn’t the question about if a gay person could become a priest or sisters? Shouldn’t the question be put to a priest in person or in confession or to a religious formation director? I would think that would be the best advise that I could give.

 

[D0UBTFIRE]

I think everyone really got off track here and now it seems to be a debate about marriage among the gay and single people. Wasn’t the question about if a gay person could become a priest or sisters? Shouldn’t the question be put to a priest in person or in confession or to a religious formation director? I would think that would be the best advise that I could give.

In a way, yes that was my question… But it was more rhetorical because I’m aware that they’re not supposed to become priests. So the question was, if not that, and obviously not marriage, what ARE they to do? it’s a plea to understand what is expected of gay Catholics and why such a heavy burden is being placed on them where they’re required to live a very marginalized life, without vocation, without family… This is a stumbling block for me in my faith and I was hoping to gain some insight…

 

[Rau]

I don’t think that comparing homosexuals to single heterosexuals is a fair comparison… If a person who is straight is lonely, because they don’t have a partner, then allowing them to participate in the hook up culture will not help the loneliness. Only finding a life long partner could help that. Gays aren’t saying they want to be free to have casual sex, they’re saying they want to form a life long partnership…

There is no (State) impediment in the situation you describe to such persons forming a life-long partnership. Heck, plenty of (heterosexual) couples do enter such arrangements without marriage. As to religious impediments, consider the following: If a (Catholic) man meets and falls in love with a woman, but they cannot marry for some reason, then this man may believe he has met his lifelong partner - but mere “rules” stand in his way. The Church continues to assert he should not be sleeping with her just as it does in respect of 2 same sex persons. Yes, agreed, the predicament of the of the homosexual is tougher, but this is grounds for compassion, not accommodation.

If we’re speaking strictly secularly, that partnership would include sex, but if we’re talking about Catholics, many are willing to be celibate.

I’m not sure how you know this? But in any event, marriage is understood widely to be a sexual institution. I doubt the Church would object to a State legal framework that provided for mutual care, inheritance arrangements, asset sharing etc so long a that arrangement was open to any pair of persons (eg. including a pair of sisters). But I know that is not acceptable to gay persons. Their requirement is to be viewed identically to a married couple. I can understand that perspective, but I also feel entitled to say that it is not so.

As for adoption, you’re right that the ideal is a mother and a father. But this shouldn’t mean that gays can’t adopt (in this case I’m talking celibate Catholic gays). There are many children who never get adopted that would love to have at least one parent.

And I imagine that such persons have the same opportunity as any single person.

As for other people with problems like poverty or disability, of course they are important too, but I’m not sure why you brought them up?

Only because they too suffer an injustice of sorts.

 

[Vico]

In a way, yes that was my question… But it was more rhetorical because I’m aware that they’re not supposed to become priests. So the question was, if not that, and obviously not marriage, what ARE they to do? it’s a plea to understand what is expected of gay Catholics and why such a heavy burden is being placed on them where they’re required to live a very marginalized life, without vocation, without family… This is a stumbling block for me in my faith and I was hoping to gain some insight…

Catechism

The participation of lay people in Christ’s priestly office

901 "Hence the laity, dedicated as they are to Christ and anointed by the Holy Spirit, are marvelously called and prepared so that even richer fruits of the Spirit maybe produced in them. For all their works, prayers, and apostolic undertakings, family and married life, daily work, relaxation of mind and body, if they are accomplished in the Spirit - indeed even the hardships of life if patiently born - all these become spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. In the celebration of the Eucharist these may most fittingly be offered to the Father along with the body of the Lord. And so, worshipping everywhere by their holy actions, the laity consecrate the world itself to God, everywhere offering worship by the holiness of their lives."434

 

[Rau]

Rau, regarding an unmarried man and woman and advocating similarly. Yes, I would under certain circumstances such as those in second marriages who are required to live as brother and sister. The “wise” or lawful thing to do might be to tell them to separate their family, lest they are tempted to sin… But the compassionate thing to do would be to understand their love for one another, especially if they’re trying to follow church teaching and be chaste. It’s a special circumstances. As is the situation with gay couples, because of their homosexuality, I view it as a special circumstance. Also, especially gay couples who have made a life together perhaps sinfully at first, but at some point want to return to the church. They could be welcomed and encouraged to be celibate without having to break apart the family that they’ve made. Without having to move out. Just some ideas.

Does the Church “require” divorced persons who have remarried before the State to separate, or just call upon them to abstain from sexual relations, pending determination that they are free to marry? I’m not aware that it does.

I note your post to the effect that you wish to focus on the situation of gay persons committed to a non-sexual relationship. IMHO, and speaking from a Catholic perspective, 2 persons with a platonic relationship (which may include considerable devotion to one another) are entirely free to live together. However, if the relationship is romantic, and thus sexual tension is present, I struggle to see how the pair - seeking to live chastely, would reasonably choose to live together. [However, I do recall one poster on CAF who believed that just such an arrangement could be suitable for her.]

 

[Rau]

In a way, yes that was my question… But it was more rhetorical because I’m aware that they’re not supposed to become priests. So the question was, if not that, and obviously not marriage, what ARE they to do? it’s a plea to understand what is expected of gay Catholics and why such a heavy burden is being placed on them where they’re required to live a very marginalized life, without vocation, without family… This is a stumbling block for me in my faith and I was hoping to gain some insight…

Without vocation? No - that’s not right. Their options are limited for sure. But the option to choose to live a holy life, to choose *or accept *a single life, is not a marginalised valueless thing. Fundamentally, the call is to live a holy life of service.

 

[Murmurs]

Does the Church “require” divorced persons who have remarried before the State to separate, or just call upon them to abstain from sexual relations, pending determination that they are free to marry? I’m not aware that it does.

I note your post to the effect that you wish to focus on the situation of gay persons committed to a non-sexual relationship. IMHO, and speaking from a Catholic perspective, 2 persons with a platonic relationship (which may include considerable devotion to one another) are entirely free to live together. However, if the relationship is romantic, and thus sexual tension is present, I struggle to see how the pair - seeking to live chastely, would reasonably choose to live together. [However, I do recall one poster on CAF who believed that just such an arrangement could be suitable for her.]

The Church doesn’t require temporary separation (as far as I know - if it does, then there is a very legitimate club to beat the Church with right there, but as I say I don’t think it does). It can and does say what is the more appropriate course of action, and abstinence until things are straightened out is a reasonable thing to ask. Although it’s also reasonable for many couples to ignore that stipulation for reasons all of us can surely understand (even if we can also see how in the church’s eye’s it’s a whopping great sin).

Some people within the church - and it seems to me this is more the laity than the clergy to be honest - are obsessed by how individual behaviour relates to “scandal”. Two (celibate) gay people in a relationship shouldn’t live together even if they do nothing more intimate than cuddles because other people will just assume them to be doing something they’re not. Is the usual message.

That’s kind of the ridiculous thing. It should be between the couple/individual, their priest (because we are assuming they have at least the intention to be faithful Catholics and so will utilise the sacrament of confession), and God. They are the only people concerned, and of all of them their priest only indirectly anyway. It’s absolutely fine to be concerned for the state of someone’s soul but sometimes (not you Rau, but your reply merely raised the issue in my head!), people get quick to judge. And pretty much the only time this actually happens is when it’s something to do with sex. I’m not saying we should shut up about sex, just please, as a Church, can we be more circumspect about it? It’s excruciatingly embarrassing.

Without vocation? No - that’s not right. Their options are limited for sure. But the option to choose to live a holy life, to choose *or accept *

*a single life, is not a marginalised valueless thing. Fundamentally, the call is to live a holy life of service.

I think it’s easy to say for someone who finds it relatively easy to shift expectations towards a single life, but as D0ubtfire has been saying since the start - most people not only want but need intimate relationships (if not sex, that’s different). The impression (not necessarily the reality) is that gay people are called to nothing more than a second-class life. I love my cat, I love my family, friends, and I have been lucky (until I lost her!), in finding a woman who shared not merely my orientation but my faith and desire to live out the fullness of what our Church teaches. But I can’t say for a minute it’s not excruciatingly lonely sometimes. That’s why the issue feels so fundamentally unfair.

The Church can’t condone homosexual…sex…but integrating celibate homosexual relationships into the life of the Church surely has to come at some point…*

 

[Rau]

The Church doesn’t require temporary separation (as far as I know…)

OK, that’s what I understood too.

Although it’s also reasonable for many couples to ignore that stipulation for reasons all of us can surely understand (even if we can also see how in the church’s eye’s it’s a whopping great sin).

It is understandable that some may do other than what the Church teaches. But note that it was God who said that what he joins, men must not separate, and that is the basis of the Church’s teaching.

Two (celibate) gay people in a relationship shouldn’t live together even if they do nothing more intimate than cuddles because other people will just assume them to be doing something they’re not.

My point is that two “single men” (say) are free to live together should they do so chastely. The question of scandal ought not arise unless they conduct themselves in a manner which advertises a romantic involvement. And then a separate point is - a personal question for the two concerned - on what basis would they conclude that it is appropriate (“wise” if you like) to live together if they are romantically involved?

I think it’s easy to say for someone who finds it relatively easy to shift expectations towards a single life, but as D0ubtfire has been saying since the start - most people not only want but need intimate relationships (if not sex, that’s different).

The word “intimate” means different things to different people - a platonic relationship can be intimate. Neither need be accompanied by romantic attachment or romantic displays. And I see no wrong in persons with such a relationship sharing accommodation and other activities.

The impression (not necessarily the reality) is that gay people are called to nothing more than a second-class life. … But I can’t say for a minute it’s not excruciatingly lonely sometimes. That’s why the issue feels so fundamentally unfair.

Many people must feel their life is second class.

The Church can’t condone homosexual sex…but integrating celibate homosexual relationships into the life of the Church surely has to come at some point.

If they are celibate (ie. chaste) why must they also be described (in this context) as homosexual? How is the sexual orientation relevant, in this context? If the relationship you contemplate is specifically between persons with such orientation, can you see how this (“chaste homosexual relationship”) goes perilously close to an oxymoron. I don’t deny it is possible or that there are examples - but is it not sufficient to describe it as a deep friendship, and thus to ask - how would or should a deep friendship be integrated into the life of the Church?

In expressing the thoughts I have, I am not arguing or pretending that any of this is easy, or that those following another path are all wilfully evil. But I don’t see any merit in the broad condemnation that is levelled at the Church, the misrepresentation of what the Church says, or the tendency to suggest that accommodation (ie. accepting as moral what is not) is the appropriate means of showing compassion. I am sure the Church, indeed all of us, could provide better pastoral service, but, to be honest, I don’t hear (on CAF) many who are seeking that. I recall exactly 1 poster who posed the question (with herself in mind) whether it would be licit to have a same sex relationship with no sex, but with intimate “making out” (hence something more than we would recognise as a deep friendship). She believed deeply she could manage such a relationship. But this seems rare. Those who are vocal on CAF (and I’m not suggesting that is anyone on this thread) seem generally to be seeking accommodation for same sex sexual relationships and SSM.

 

[Murmurs]

Rau I agree with pretty much everything you say!

If they are celibate (ie. chaste) why must they also be described (in this context) as homosexual? How is the sexual orientation relevant, in this context? If the relationship you contemplate is specifically between persons with such orientation, can you see how this (“chaste homosexual relationship”) goes perilously close to an oxymoron. I don’t deny it is possible or that there are examples - but is it not sufficient to describe it as a deep friendship, and thus to ask - how would or should a deep friendship be integrated into the life of the Church?

With regards this, I meant a situation whereby the long-term nature of a chaste/platonic intimate relationship is something the Church could bring itself to recognise (quite how, exactly, I’m not sure off the top of my head). “Marriage” isn’t the answer to this and I don’t expect (nor want!) the church to get involved in SSM. But while matrimony is certainly a sacrament it is also, effectively, the Church (or the local church community for the couple anyway) recognising the married couple’s relationship and commitment. I’m not in favour of same sex marriage (well, I am, but i think the Church should have nothing to do with it), but some other kind of recognition might, for some, be helpful.

But then I suppose most people in that kind of relationship whereby a “recognition” (however defined) would be appreciated, might not be practicing Catholics anyway and so not be bothered. I’m probably selfishly thinking of myself more than anything But, it is just an idea and I can’t conceive of a reasonable argument against it…

 

[Rau]

…With regards this, I meant a situation whereby the long-term nature of a chaste/platonic intimate relationship is something the Church could bring itself to recognise (quite how, exactly, I’m not sure off the top of my head)…

I guess there would need to be some theological basis for such a ‘ceremony’. I do not know what that might be.