What are gay Catholics supposed to do?

[MarcoPolo]

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…

I remain unclear why you think this is different from other single Catholics, striving for a chaste life, who have little or no hope of marriage either.

 

[Murmurs]

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

Neither do I! although I am sure that one could be found if it was something the church felt moved to do.

I remain unclear why you think this is different from other single Catholics, striving for a chaste life, who have little or no hope of marriage either.

Single Catholics may be happy being single, or may not be happy, or may find a way to become very contented with it (which is the positive equivalent of being “resigned” to it!) - but there is always the possibility of marriage in the background. This isn’t the case with gay people - and whereas those in Holy Orders are called to celibacy because of the choice they made in undergoing ordination (and in fact while there is a great deal to be said against it, it is possible to leave the priesthood if marriage becomes the stronger calling) - but homosexuals are not ever presented with that choice.

The point is that while not everyone is able to get married (some because of their own choices and callings), the option is there for every man and woman born except homosexuals and that’s what a lot of people find difficult to grasp.

 

[Horton]

I remain unclear why you think this is different from other single Catholics, striving for a chaste life, who have little or no hope of marriage either.

This I agree with. The Church can never recognise a union between to people of the same gender as a marriage. The very simple answer to this question is gay Catholics are to do what all single Catholics are called to do…remain chaste.

 

[Thorolfr]

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.

So is the Catholic Church going to provide all these “holy life of service” jobs for gay people (which of course can’t include the priesthood)? What about the gay person who ends up working perhaps in an office job for some company or the one who works at McDonald’s? Can that be a “holy life of service”?

 

[Corki]

So is the Catholic Church going to provide all these “holy life of service” jobs for gay people (which of course can’t include the priesthood)? What about the gay person who ends up working perhaps in an office job for some company or the one who works at McDonald’s? Is that their “holy life of service”?

The Church already provides many opportunities for service (missions, ministry, religious life) but there are not special opportunities for homosexual persons. Nor should there be.

But MOST people do not live out their lives doing work provided by the Church. You are confusing vocation with employment. One can be employed anywhere (including an office job or at McDonalds) and be living a holy life.

 

[Rau]

…The point is that while not everyone is able to get married (some because of their own choices and callings), the option is there for every man and woman born except homosexuals and that’s what a lot of people find difficult to grasp.

Or is it that it is easy to grasp, but painful to accept?

 

[Rau]

…What about the gay person who ends up working perhaps in an office job for some company or the one who works at McDonald’s? Can that be a “holy life of service”?

Don’t equate one’s life to one’s job, but in answer to your question, yes of course, and no less so than for anyone else.

 

[Thorolfr]

Don’t equate one’s life to one’s job, but in answer to your question, yes of course, and no less so than for anyone else.

But for many people who work long hours, their job is a lot of what they do in life. They then come home, often tired, to a family that they spend their evenings with. But the gay person is expected after a long day at work to come home to an empty house or perhaps one with a pet.

 

[Rau]

But for many people who work long hours, their job is a lot of what they do in life. They then come home, often tired, to a family that they spend their evenings with. But the gay person is expected after a long day at work to come home to an empty house or perhaps one with a pet.

Being single does not destroy one’s ability to live a holy life, or to serve others.

 

[Murmurs]

Or is it that it is easy to grasp, but painful to accept?

Well that could be true as well of course! But you adroitly misdirected - no one chooses homosexuality (no one chooses heterosexuality either for that matter). I don’t think everyone has a “right” to a relationship (or to get married for that matter, although both are very wonderful things!), but it is just entirely and utterly unreasonable, and simply, morally, wrong for the Church to teach that you basically can’t have one if you’re gay. It’s equally wrong for the church to assert that a marriage is invalid if one/both of the spouses were infertile before the event. It’s not a case of it just seeming unfair. It’s wrong.

What planet, I sometimes wonder, does our Church think it’s on?

 

[Thorolfr]

This whole thread reminds me of the recent case of a gay couple in Lewistown, Montana:

BILLINGS — A gay couple has been told they can no longer receive Communion or participate in church ministry after a new priest at a Roman Catholic church in central Montana learned they had been married in a civil ceremony more than a year ago.

The decision set off a split that has cut attendance at St. Leo the Great Catholic Church in Lewistown. Bishop Michael Warfel of the Diocese of Great Falls-Billings plans to visit on Saturday to discuss how church teachings apply to the situation.

Paul Huff, 66, and Tom Wojtowick, 73 — who have been in a committed relationship for more than 30 years and have lived together in Lewistown for 11 years — said they were stunned by the decision of the Rev. Samuel Spiering, who also said the men could not sing in the church choir.

Wojtowick said the men married in Seattle in May 2013 so they could make medical and financial decisions for each other.

During an Aug. 25 conference call with Spiering, Warfel and other diocesan officials, Huff and Wojtowick agreed to write a restoration statement that, in part, would support the concept of marriage being between a man and a woman, Huff said.

"It was not our intent to challenge that (concept), but to have the rights of civic protections in our old age," Wojtowick wrote.

However, when they met with Spiering to write the statement, Wojtowick said, the priest told them it would also have to include a timeline for the two men to quit living together and divorce, which the men said they did not agree to.

missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/lewistown-priest-no-communion-for-gay-couple-after-marriage/article_57d08d36-402a-11e4-a4f0-f338d20aef37.html

So after living together for 30 years and in their old age, they’re supposed to get divorced and separate and live alone which would, of course, require them to sell their house and divide their assets, probably at considerable cost. They weren’t even given the option of living together but remaining celibate.

 

[Denise1957]

What planet, I sometimes wonder, does our Church think it’s on?

The same planet where our Lord Jesus Christ was horrible tortured and crucified for our sake. Didn’t our Lord say that we are to pick up our cross and follow him? How is it that being a dedicated Christian means an easy life? The cross of a homosexual Catholic seems to be a difficult one to bear, but non–homosexuals Catholics throughout church history have had difficult crosses to bear, too.

Sympathy and support should be given to those homosexual Catholics who strive to live up to the teachings of the Church. Just as support for divorced Catholics who strive to live up to Church teachings should also be provided. Ours isn’t an easy path at all.

 

[Rau]

Well that could be true as well of course! But you adroitly misdirected - no one chooses homosexuality (no one chooses heterosexuality either for that matter). I don’t think everyone has a “right” to a relationship (or to get married for that matter, although both are very wonderful things!), but it is just entirely and utterly unreasonable, and simply, morally, wrong for the Church to teach that you basically can’t have one if you’re gay. It’s equally wrong for the church to assert that a marriage is invalid if one/both of the spouses were infertile before the event. It’s not a case of it just seeming unfair. It’s wrong.

I did not seek to redirect, but to capture what I think is reality.

By the Church’s understanding of marriage, based as it is in Scripture, marriage can only be between a man and a woman. The anatomy of our Bodies further reinforces this conclusion.

The church makes no assertion of invalidity of a marriage where one party is infertile.

 

[Murmurs]

I did not seek to redirect, but to capture what I think is reality.

By the Church’s understanding of marriage, based as it is in Scripture, marriage can only be between a man and a woman. The anatomy of our Bodies further reinforces this conclusion.

The church makes no assertion of invalidity of a marriage where one party is infertile.

Apologies, I misspoke (miswrote anyway) - I should have said impotence rather than infertility (Canon 1084.s1)

I’m not actually saying that what the Church teaches is wrong in a doctrinal sense - it seems to some people (including me, entirely depending on how obstreperous I’m feeling!) that it might morally fail in this area on the grounds of seething unfairness.

Given I’m in this mood already this evening (!!), I feel I ought to point out that the nature of male/female bodies reinforces that sex should be between a man and a woman. Marriage has nothing whatsoever to do with sex except that the latter isn’t sinful in the context of the former…

 

[Rau]

Apologies, I misspoke (miswrote anyway) - I should have said impotence rather than infertility (Canon 1084.s1)

I’m not actually saying that what the Church teaches is wrong in a doctrinal sense - it seems to some people (including me, entirely depending on how obstreperous I’m feeling!) that it might morally fail in this area on the grounds of seething unfairness.

Given I’m in this mood already this evening (!!), I feel I ought to point out that the nature of male/female bodies reinforces that sex should be between a man and a woman. Marriage has nothing whatsoever to do with sex except that the latter isn’t sinful in the context of the former…

I believe your comments are predicated on a personal understanding of marriage, different from your Church’s. I certainly understand marriage to be a sexual Union, unique in that regard.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

I strongly dislike courage because it is my understanding that they push “reparative therapy” or whatever it’s called. This therapy is very damaging, from my understanding.

The bigger problem is that the 12 step program they use is really only applicable to people who have washed out of “the gay lifestyle”, is of limited use to those who were never sex addicts and is useless to virgins.

Ah! I see what you mean and I’m sorry that what I wrote before wasn’t very clear on that front (reading it through even I can barely understand what I meant, so forgive me!). I think I was reading marriage/children etc for family and that’s not quite the same thing. Indeed you make that distinction and I agree with it.

For what it’s worth I don’t think the Church teaches there is anything wrong with having a (obviously platonic!) very close relationship with someone of the same gender as oneself. Obviously there are people here and in the wider catholic populace who would be screaming about the near temptation of sin but while sex is certainly wonderful, it’s not essential. I wasn’t for a minute saying that gay people should in the Church’s eyes be without that kind of nurturing love that often can be only or at least best found in a relationship. (I don’t want to bring my personal life into a broader point too much, but I have found you can have a huge amount of intimacy without doing anything ‘sinful’ as far the church is concerned, but I accept that everyone is very different on that front…).

People need families. I could not agree more. The Church currently has issues navigating the realisation that gay people are people as well as gay, and need the same things as everyone else, on the one hand - and its traditional teaching on the other. Some day (hopefully) soon, that circle can be fully squared without upsetting either side. It’s not nice, and like any change the church makes it will take a very very long time. But we are getting there, slowly. Either way, I do think sometimes that a purportedly Christian institution that focusses to much on its own definitions of other peoples’ sins (sexual or otherwise), and not enough always on other peoples’ needs, is in a bad place. The Catholic Church is a wonderful, wholly wonderful, thing, created and led after divine instruction and example. Its human leadership (I don’t necessarily mean the Holy Father here at all) can sometimes be, for all the good it means to do, utterly diabolical.

This may not answer your question, but I completely agree with you. I think I only live with it by putting tremendous energy into other things. This can’t be a solution though. It’s not how human beings work. I hope, though, I don’t sound pessimistic…while the status quo is entirely unacceptable I think there is (as always) great hope for the future.

God bless,

Murmurs

There is indeed nothing wrong with intimate and chaste same sex relationships theologically. Once upon a time the Church blessed those relationships and some Apostolic Churches do to this day. Obsessing about “scandal” and butting their heads into everything is an American vice. European Catholics, even the very religious ones, tend to not intrude so deeply into the lives of others as Americans do, they leave people alone unless they are committing truly public sin. The problem with people these days is they no longer have the extended family. Historically people didn’t leave their parents house until they got married, in such a situation they kept their family which was great. People also had much more contact with aunts, uncles and cousins with single people being included in it so they did have family.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

But even a platonic relationship, especially one where a residence is shared, would be viewed as a problem, and as causing scandal (which is a sin in and of itself), no? The way things are right now just seem terribly unjust to me. And it’s really hard to accept that an organization that seems to support such an injustice is really “the pillar of truth.” My mind wants to say yes to the Church, because it has a pretty good argument that it in fact is the Church Jesus started, but my heart is saying “No!” because truth doesn’t promote injustice, and so I’m left with the nagging feeling that this just can’t really be Christ’s Church. That he either didn’t really start one or if he did it’s more like the Protestant version where it’s an invisible church made up of believers. Or, alternatively, this is His Church, but it was wrong about these social/moral issues, and perhaps the rigorists apply infallibility to widely, or the whole doctrine of infallibility was wrong to begin with.

Were you raised Catholic or was this something you converted to? What would you say to an LGBT person who wants to consider becoming Catholic? What would you say to a child who is Catholic who comes out to you about their homosexuality? How are we supposed to handle these things with love in a Church culture that teaches that gays and lesbians are “disordered”?? I think celibacy is awesome if someone chooses it but it seems so wrong to have it forced on people, it seems so wrong to tell someone they were made the wrong way when it seems perfectly natural to them.

It’s hard to believe that the Church is right about this. How do you do it?

No, no it wouldn’t, it would only be scandalous to nosy American Catholics who feel the need to be scandalized; it wouldn’t actually be scandalous in a sinful way.

The Catechism does not teach LGB (or T) people are disordered

Distinguishing Inclinations from Actions
6. In her teaching, however, the Church never condemns persons with same-sex attraction. She carefully distinguishes between an individual’s inclinations or feelings – some of which are transitory and/or situational and others which are deep-seated or permanent – and one’s actions. While homosexual acts are always objectively wrong, same-sex inclinations are not in themselves sinful or a moral failing. To the extent that a same-sex attraction is not freely chosen, there is no personal culpability in having such an inclination. Nonetheless, when oriented toward genital activity, this inclination is “objectively disordered.”10 This does not mean that the person as a whole is somehow defective or “badly made,” or that he or she has in some way been rejected by God. Inclinations to homosexual acts in no way diminish the full human dignity or intrinsic worth of the person. For many people, same-sex attraction constitutes a trial. They therefore deserve to be approached by pastors with charity and prudence.

Episcopal Commission for Doctrine of the
Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops
Emphasis mine

Well, I did not say a gay person shouldn’t or couldn’t enter religious life, but to think twice before doing so and to be forthright about their inclination. As far as pedaphiles are concerned they are likely to be gay and find the young easy marks and vulnerable.

Yes, nuns /sisters have been known to have gay orientations, but it seems to be less problematic than for gay priest. It is why at one time the rule of not having “Particular Friendships” was observed.

Now, consider a gay seminary student in a dorm or school for young men studying for the priesthood. Would there be a temptation to act upon one’s sexual orientation? If a heteral person is tempted do you think a gay person might also act upon ones desire/orientation?

There are no easy answers to this as nothing is always black and white, but with a lot of gray areas. It will depend upon a superior’s discretion as to whither one gets “in” or not.

I think one time when I was reading the NT that Jesus accepted some or others that were “different,” but I don’ remember the passage or context. It was vague, and I don’t know what it referred to. Also, I am upon minded , but a relaying what I a aware of within the Church. I know, I know, someone is bound to correct me according to their view. So be it.

Sure in seminary there might be more temptation, but once outside into the real world I don’t think so.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

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.

The modern world commits idolatry with romantic relationships and sex ascribing them a far higher value than they had that said it is not good for man to be alone.

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).

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?”

It would it be false pretenses if the other party knew was beforehand and still agreed to marry the LGBT party.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

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.

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.

Isn’t that what most people are doing?

disordered≠disordered
I hate how English lacks a distinct word for disordered. Homosexuality is only disordered as far as it is a desire for gay sex, that is what the Church teaches.

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.

A gay man and a lesbian woman is more scandalous because of heternormativity and even if both are attracted to the same sex people will wonder.

Actually, non-love marriages are the historic norm for Europe, even peasants with property did it and it still happens in India to this day.

Single people can adopt. That often happens if say an aunt or uncle gains custody of nephews or nieces after the death of their parents.

My mom has a brother who is gay. He’s always been very circumspect about that part of his life. If I was, God forbid orphaned as a child, going to live with him would have been better than going to live with a non family member, or into foster care. He’s been a good, generous uncle.

Well, adoption by family (including baptismal sponsors) if possible is definitely a desirable thing especially if the child is more than just a baby.

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.

Due to heteronormativity the gay man living with a lesbian woman is still going to be regarded as “scandalous”

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.

Not that true actually.

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!

They can set the hurdles high because there are more people looking to adopt than kids to adopt in the US.

 

[Murmurs]

I believe your comments are predicated on a personal understanding of marriage, different from your Church’s. I certainly understand marriage to be a sexual Union, unique in that regard.

I will be the first to suggest it may be a personal misunderstanding of the Church’s understanding(if you see what I mean!), but I’ve always had the impression that sex is about marriage (because of where it’s appropriate to take part in it). Marriage isn’t really (certainly doesn’t have to be) about sex, surely? If one enters marriage because of The Sex, that’s not really a good idea IMO. Matrimony is a legitimator for sex (although it has very many more important and profound and wonderful things about it, don’t get me wrong).

Given I have known for sure I was a lesbian since I was about 15, and then about 6 years later joined the Catholic Church, I have been aware since that time that marriage (or sex) isn’t an option for me if I want to remain within the fold towards which I was inexorably drawn. I will therefore freely admit that my opinions on marriage/sex don’t matter much in some respects, and I have more or less made peace with how I fit into the Church, and the world, and myself. But at the same time I do have a very strong appreciation of the at best very mixed feelings plenty of people both within the Church and outside it, will have about its teaching in this area.