This distinction seems to me to be fairly irrelevant. Because a person’s sexuality is often an important and integral part of their identity and their personality, to say that this important part of them is disordered because it is directed at an inappropriate object but that they themselves as a person are not disordered doesn’t make much sense. Isn’t that disordered thing (their sexual orientation) an important part of who they are as a person?
To play “devil’s advocate,” there are single Catholics who hope and hope and die without fulfillment, and lose a lot of time and effort pursuing a good spouse, and never get it, and their lives are a frustrated hell day after day. From that perspective, isn’t the homosexual person in better shape because they at least know which way to go?
Is it even appropriate to tell another person what their crosses are? Some straight folk who don’t have very many difficulties in their lives are often telling gay people that they have a heavy cross to bear. That whole “cross to bear” language always makes me shudder and feels a little patronizing somehow, especially when someone else tells me what crosses I have to bear. It might be better for them to concentrate on their own crosses.
The bold part of this is simply false. I’m infertile and if I married it certainly would be a valid marriage. This is NOT a teaching of the Church.
This is not consistent with the CCC:
If this isn’t about sex, I don’t know what is.
Many are born with conditions that prevent them from have a “fulfilled” life. Fortunately our purpose is not a fulfilled life. Our purpose is to have a faithful life, independent of the number and strengths of the difficulties that are encountered.
Is it even appropriate to tell another person what their crosses are? Some straight folk who don’t have very many difficulties in their lives are often telling gay people that they have a heavy cross to bear. That whole “cross to bear” language always makes me shudder and feels a little patronizing somehow, especially when someone else tells me what crosses I have to bear. It might be better for them to concentrate on their own crosses.
And probably this is true in most developed countries. In which case, you’d imagine that single people are going to face a ‘doubly’ high hurdle.
Yes, I think there is truth in this. “Telling” someone that “x and y” is their “cross to bear” seems needlessly intrusive, even patronising or demanding, particularly if the person concerned does not share that view. But often, this idea is not “told” to anyone, but quietly acknowledged by others in the spirit of concern and respect. It may serve to temper and promote prudence in one’s behaviour and judgement in ways that are entirely good.
While there is a distinction, I agree it is a big ask to expect it to be routinely understood. If one accepts that same sex sexual acts are not good (and I appreciate you don’t accept that), then it is difficult to argue that an inclination to them is good. For if it was, then to embrace those inclinations - to seek to live them out - must also be morally good.
It is right to say that:
Marriage is about making babies which is why gay couples cannot get married, they are inherently unable to procreate together. To get married you have to be able to consummate the marriage, permanent impotence is a bar on marriage.
Homosexuality is disordered only so far as it is the desire to engage in sex with the same sex. I think we can agree that there is far more to gayness than wanting to bang someone of the same sex. For a man to love another man is not sinful nor is cuddling or living together. Basically gay relationship are morally acceptable minus the sex.This distinction seems to me to be fairly irrelevant. Because a person’s sexuality is often an important and integral part of their identity and their personality, to say that this important part of them is disordered because it is directed at an inappropriate object but that they themselves as a person are not disordered doesn’t make much sense. Isn’t that disordered thing (their sexual orientation) an important part of who they are as a person?
I accept this (plenty of people who are born otherwise than they might have wished do to, though speaking personally and at a tangent I don’t know if I would actually change this about me…) - but plenty of people don’t, and wholeheartedly interpret what the Church says about homosexuality to be effectively condemning them for something outside of their control. It is at least in part as Rau pointed out already, just an unpalatable truth.
). Rightly or wrongly we live in an age where sexual identity is held to be very important (and I am all for the principle of free expression) - the difficulty is that this means for some people they are forced to see themselves as homosexual Catholics, rather than Catholic homosexuals.I agree (though marriage is about more than just babies IMO!). It seems to me that the fundamental reason behind the invalidity of a same-sex marriage that the couple can’t have procreative sex; while the fundamental reason behind the sinfulness of homosexual sex is that the couple can’t get married.
) the Talmud doesn’t condemn sex between two women in the same way as between men is condemned (and of course we find in the Bible no mention of lesbian sex) - it’s merely viewed as licentiousness rather than something possibly punishable by death. I suppose it’s nice to know that the Patriarchy isn’t always so oppressive :ehh:Because of this conflict that exists for any gay or lesbian person in the Catholic church, some religious gay people have decided instead to become homosexual Episcopalians (or some other denomination that welcomes them) and no such conflict exists there between their faith and their sexual orientation. But for those who believe that being Catholic is more important to them, it will be a bit of a struggle.But I think for some at least resolving the two ideas of “we are called to live a faithful life” and “God despite making it harder for me to live that life in one sense, I still should think of as a loving God” is an impossible task. (And it was for me for a long time which is why I wasn’t Catholic sooner
Marriage is primarily about making babies, it is not about love. The reason behind the sinfulness of gay sex is that it cannot fill the primary purpose of having sex and that is reproduction.I agree (though marriage is about more than just babies IMO!). It seems to me that the fundamental reason behind the invalidity of a same-sex marriage that the couple can’t have procreative sex; while the fundamental reason behind the sinfulness of homosexual sex is that the couple can’t get married.
(Ok, it’s more than that, I get it, because of Scripture, but in canon law terms there is a Catch-22 as well!).
Interestingly (at least from my point of view
In this thread there are people here articulating that gay people have this difficulty, right down to the subject line. I don’t think I made up any cross on anyone’s behalf. There wouldn’t even be this thread otherwise. A number of gay persons have lamented about difficulty of celibacy and single hood or adoption confusion of their own accord.
I can see your point but the problem (from a catholic perspective) is that is rooted in three ideas: that the ultimate goal of human being is living a happy earthly life – this is wrong as the Church teaches us that earthly life is temporarily that what we should aim is for the afterlife. We need to learn to sacrifice ourselves in this life in order to obtain eternal life (remember Jesus saying do not accumulate treasures in this world instead accumulate them in heaven?)
I wish I’d known that before going to confession
)This is really clearly articulated, thank you for writing it
I think you were reading my mind.:clapping::tiphat:
Gay Catholics are supposed to carry their cross, just like the rest of us do.
And I had a lot of errors and typos because I’m on the phone…sorry about thatThis is really clearly articulated, thank you for writing it
)
but at least you got the idea. What I meant where I repeated myself before the st Therese quote was that all our human relationships should be secondary to God. God should be the primary one and then our relationships with people surrounding us. At The end I meant that there is a lot that can be done in the church by committed single lay people struggling with SSA and living in celibacy that may be highly beneficial to the church. We need to focus more on helping them to participate more in the church.