What are your ideas for the LGBT person's vocation in the Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholic1seeks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
For starters, these are loaded terms which mean different things to different people.

So I’m going use “same sex attraction.” Chaste people who experience “same sex attraction” could have a similar vocation as a consecrated virgin (if they are not a virgin).

And those same people who experience Same Sex Attraction, but who do not SUFFER from same sex attraction might have a calling to priesthood and religious life.

But those who suffer from it and have deep seated attraction should refrain from the priesthood & religious life.

Regardless, I honestly feel that people which SSA have a calling to be at least prayer warriors

God Bless
 
We ought to think more deeply about what some point of teaching is actually saying before we reject it for emotional reasons.

“Disordered” carries substantial meaning that the “dismissers” totally miss. They reject something they don’t understand. This is typical for the emotionalists.

It means “disordered to the good” of a person or persons.

Homosexual acts are disordered to the good of a person, that is the true good, which is unity with God and His will.

This good is higher than anything.

So we shouldn’t dilute the concept; we should rehabilitate the meaning of the term among the emotionalists, those who spin endlessly about the appearances of matters. The superficial types.
 
Last edited:
"What they are called to do is to live their lives as unmarried, lay persons in accord with the Gospel. No more, no less.

It does not mean having a particular role in a parish, nor really anything more than living their lives as a faithful Catholic."

Exactly. I wouldn’t know and couldn’t care less who around me in the pews has “SSA” unless they tell me or otherwise display it somehow. Yet no others tempted toward a particular sexual sin are so loud, so demanding, so petulant. Have"SSA?" Keep it to yourself and carry your cross. Just like everybody else.
 
Last edited:
The issue is connotation.

In American English at least, “disorder” is definitely negative, as it is associated with psychological illness. In addition, when it is paired with homosexual attraction, it strongly suggests that the gay person is himself disordered, because sexuality is part and parcel of what it means to be human.

You have to be skilled in the theology of Aquinas to truly understand what is meant. But the typical person is not. So I think that when the theological language is within a pastoral context, “disordered” should not be used.

The Catechism is not necessarily a pastoral guide, so I’m more on the fence. Nevertheless, the typical Catholic does not understand the philosophical terminology.
 
Very eloquently said Ed. I do not see a problem with the wording as it is. I believe it is incumbent on the person who wants to be apart of the Church to try to understand what the Church is trying to explain about certain truths.

I myself have many disordered passions I’m not sure what good would come from not teaching they are disordered.
 
anon10271182 said:
Exactly. I wouldn’t know and couldn’t care less who around me the pews has “SSA.” Yet no others tempted toward a particular sexual sin are so loud, so demanding, so petulant. Have"SSA?" Keep it to yourself and carry your cross. Just like everybody else.
Click to expand...
Keep it to yourself - but also have an explanation ready for why you’re still single, why you’re turning down dates, why you don’t want anyone to set you up with someone. Oh and be prepared to be asked why you’re not getting married and have a lot of speculation about how you’re worldly or selfish whatever.

I think much of the issue isn’t SSA itself. It’s that we expect people with SSA to stay single, but then treat the long-term singles as at best unfortunate souls who haven’t managed to graduate singleness yet, and at worst as suspect of sexual immorality or other forms of licentiousness. Women in particular are suspected of being influenced by modern feminism into rejecting marriage and family in favor of a career.
 
These are some ideas:

Not at all exhaustive. Just some quick ones I came up with in the last 5 mins or so…

Some of these are easier than others. Some require more thought and need more recognition on the universal church level.
  1. Local churches could recognize non-sexual, non-romantic same-sex love, or at least friendships in general. Blessings for friendships could be ritualized and celebrated. Just as there is a blessing for mothers on Mothers Day, so there could be a blessing for committed friends on particular days.
  2. Churches could form ministries to LGBT persons. There are already some good ministries out there (like Courage, etc.). However, they need not be associated with a larger national ministry. Simply having groups meet together, even for Bible study or prayer, will say two things:
    (A) Our Church recognizes LGBT people exist in our church
    (2) Our Church is committed to listen to and support these people
  3. In addition to marriage formation, our local parishes and churches on the diocesan level could form ministries and programs that actively promote vocation to single life. And by this, I don’t mean the vocation to “be single/celibate,” but rather be creative in encouraging ways of love and service that flow from such a single life.
  4. Host monthly (or whatever) liturgies, prayer meetings, or just meetings for LGBT persons and their supporters. NOT an activist “LGBT Mass” but rather a Mass or retreat (etc.) for LGBT persons, just as there are similar things for other groups – “Mothers Day Mass” or Mass for business leaders, etc.
  5. Our Churches should better promote communal living as a way of life. This used to be part and parcel of the Catholic world. Not so much anymore. Intentional community should be talked about, even the norm. There should be ways of actively pairing parishioners together. Maybe that means having communal meals in groups every few weeks. Maybe that means having assigned prayer and study groups.
  6. Simply listen to LGBT persons. Try to be open and sympathetic to the struggles and needs of gay parishioners.
  7. If there are gay couples in church, don’t simply cast them out as “other.” Rather, be a welcoming church that accompanies people, recognizing that all of us are imperfect and on a journey of perfection.
  8. Similar to #1, foster committed friendships as a vocation. Or we as a church need to at least realize that there are more living opportunities than being married, single at home alone, or a monk in a monastery.
 
Last edited:
catholic1seeks said:
The issue is connotation.

In American English at least, “disorder” is definitely negative, as it is associated with psychological illness. In addition, when it is paired with homosexual attraction, it strongly suggests that the gay person is himself disordered, because sexuality is part and parcel of what it means to be human.

You have to be skilled in the theology of Aquinas to truly understand what is meant. But the typical person is not. So I think that when the theological language is within a pastoral context, “disordered” should not be used.

The Catechism is not necessarily a pastoral guide, so I’m more on the fence. Nevertheless, the typical Catholic does not understand the philosophical terminology.
Click to expand...
Then the person who is trying to be apart of the Church should try to understand what is meant by the term. We all have disordered inclinations of some degree. I had several Gay friends that Wouldn’t (not couldn’t) listen to a reasonable defense of this passage. While only 2 actually stopped to listen to what I was explaining to them. Only one of these “friends” opens up enough to listen and understands what the Church is saying here. He is the only one that I no of that still goes to Mass. I’m sure if he is 100% chaste but I believe he tries like the rest of us.
 
SacredHeartBassist said:
Eh saying they’re fully human is meaningless
Click to expand...
Far from it. As a man attracted to other men, the claim that the attraction is somehow inhuman is something that has been deeply alienating to me. The Church does not make any such claim, and it’s worth making that clear in Church documents.
 
I’m single and don’t experience any of that. I suppose others might, maybe younger? But it’s really nobody’s business, right? I go to Mass for one reason. I consider myself married to the Church. If somebody wants to speculate about me, that’s their problem. At my age, I’m not looking for a wife. A Catholic teacher asked me at school one day if I’d ever been married. I responded with my usual joke and that was that.

Nobody ever said being single and celibate was supposed to be easy. It’s no easier for me as a heterosexual, in my opinion, and that’s why I get tired of all the complaining.
 
anon10271182 said:
Nobody ever said being single and celibate was supposed to be easy. It’s no easier for me as a heterosexual, in my opinion, and that’s why I get tired of all the complaining.
Click to expand...
I don’t think anyone is saying it’s easier for you as a heterosexual.

But then again, you can’t claim it’s exactly equivalent, either.

It’s probably different for every person. Including every gay person.

Besides, for many LGBT people in the church, the issue is precisely that they WANT to marry and enter into romantic relationships, but they can’t (in order to be faithful Catholics).

Hence a thread like this…

Hence it’s every gay person’s right to let the church know they’re gay, because the Church is meant to help its children. We are a community. We all have struggles and needs.

If my spiritual needs require that I let others know about my sexuality and the issues that relate to it, surely you wouldn’t stop me from doing so. I’d hope not, at least…
 
Last edited:
catholic1seeks said:
Local churches could recognize non-sexual, non-romantic same-sex love,
Click to expand...
How does a non-sexual, non romantic same sex love differ from two male friends who went to the same college sharing a beer?

and if there’s no difference…why on earth does the Church need to “recognize” such things.
 
catholic1seeks said:
  1. Local churches could recognize non-sexual, non-romantic same-sex love, or at least friendships in general. Blessings for friendships could be ritualized and celebrated. Just as there is a blessing for mothers on Mothers Day, so there could be a blessing for committed friends on particular days.
    leave the sex out of it and stay strictly with the title friends.
  2. Churches could form ministries to LGBT persons. There are already some good ministries out there (like Courage, etc.). However, they need not be associated with a larger national ministry. Simply having groups meet together, even for Bible study or prayer, will say two things:
    (A) Our Church recognizes LGBT people exist in our church
    (2) Our Church is committed to listen to and support these people
    LGBT are already invited to any ministry or bible study by default. The Church is a community by labeling something LGBT disinvites everyone else.
  3. In addition to marriage formation, our local parishes and churches on the diocesan level could form ministries and programs that actively promote vocation to single life. And by this, I don’t mean the vocation to “be single/celibate,” but rather be creative in encouraging ways of love and service that flow from such a single life. This is very reasonble. When I was single This would have been greatly appreciated.
  4. Host monthly (or whatever) liturgies, prayer meetings, or just meetings for LGBT persons and their supporters. NOT an activist “LGBT Mass” but rather a Mass or retreat (etc.) for LGBT persons, just as there are similar things for other groups – “Mothers Day Mass” or Mass for business leaders, etc. Except there is no Mother day Mass. There is a Mass on Mothers Day and we will give a blessing for mothers and probably a pancake breakfast. But is is an ordinary Mass just like any other. How does one get blessed as an LGBT. As for meetings there is no reason why you can not strat this on your own. Go for it!
Click to expand...
5 to 8 to follow
 
  1. Our Churches should better promote communal living as a way of life. This used to be part and parcel of the Catholic world. Not so much anymore. Intentional community should be talked about, even the norm. There should be ways of actively pairing parishioners together. Maybe that means having communal meals in groups every few weeks. Maybe that means having assigned prayer and study groups. Again there is no reason this can not be done but it would need to be a laity driven thing. Guidelines would have to be made and followed to be approved by a Diocese
  2. Simply listen to LGBT persons. Try to be open and sympathetic to the struggles and needs of gay parishioners. sounds reasonable and christian.
  3. If there are gay couples in church, don’t simply cast them out as “other.” Rather, be a welcoming church that accompanies people, recognizing that all of us are imperfect and on a journey of perfection. I don’t see this as a problem as long as Scandal is not brought into the community.
  4. Similar to #1, foster committed friendships as a vocation. Or we as a church need to at least realize that there are more living opportunities than being married, single at home alone, or a monk in a monastery. **I’m not sure what you mean by the above bolded statement. Having friendships is not a vocation. In some cases as in what I think you are talking about can be endorsing occasion of sin. This would have to be fleshed out a bit. **
Continued from first reply
 
Love doesn’t demand rights…it seeks to serve…as a modern day saint once said.

There’s too much “me, i, me, my needs” in all of this.

The question is how can you and I serve others…and - hint - it doesn’t have to be thinly veiled…more sex stuff.

If we got our head out of ourselves and were more focused on serving others in a zillion ways (unrelated to sex urges)…we’d be far happier Catholics.

It all sounds like a big pity party.
 
Last edited:
Why does Eve get a platform…it’s just more of the same stuff…woe is us…self focus.

Serve. Serve. Serve. Quietly, heroically.
 
Last edited:
@Edward_H

I’m ignoring any posts from you.

I’m sorry, but you’ve proven unhelpful.

Feel free to contribute, but I will not be responding to you.

This goes for others who have proven to be unhelpful, but considering your persistence, it’s worth letting you know. Just a friendly reminder that your time may be more beneficial somewhere else.
 
Last edited:
Plucking one string across two hundred posts isn’t helping anyone either.
 
@Imdaman

Again I recommend Eve Tushnet.

As for Mothers Day Masses, there were at the Catholic school I attended K-8. Mothers were invited to come. Granted, the entire liturgy may not have been mother themed throughout, but the idea is the same.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top