What do you consider the "gay lifestyle" to be?

[Tigg]

As you said, American bishops oppose gay civil unions AND gay marriage. It’s because both legal relations are between two people of the same sex, which gives standing to homosexual relationship that is against Church teaching. The Church’s opposition to civil unions is understandable because how many people who enter same sex civil unions plan to be celibate during the union, and how many will not go forward with child adoption or IVF to have children. As you know, the Church regard homosexual acts and mentioned methods of family creation as not consistent with its teachings.

Actually, I am puzzled that homosexual couples are insisting on gay marriage laws in addition to civil unions already in place under which they enjoy all practical rights that heterosexual married people enjoy. Gay marriages are therefore unnecessary and would just be superfluous. One can therefore conclude that what gay couples wish is to force societal approval of the homosexual relationship.

Lastly, sodomy laws have been struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court already, so any “sin” associated with the homosexual act is not considered illegal. Hence, why should an act that is not picking somebody’s pocket or breaking someone’s leg be illegal? I don’t think there is any debate on making such “sins” illegal or punishable by jail time. It is clear that the Church speaks of spiritual harm that visits those who engage in homosexual sex or undergo / promote same sex marriage; it does not speak of civil or criminal punishment at all.

.

Well said! You have succinctly hit upon the very heart of the matter. I too, have wondered about the insistence of gay couples to be “married” since they have achieved their goals of equality in the legal sphere – there has to be something unstated and more subtle that they have hopes of gaining. At this point, I can only surmise that they desire the very notion of family to be transformed and radically altered which is diametrically opposed to the natural law and Christian values. I have no doubt this is a spiritual war – just another battle being fought to undermine traditional principles relating to faith and truth.

 

[Kolbe300]

A person who has homosexual urges who is celibate is not really a “homosexual”. He is a celibate. His urges don’t define who he is. A person who calls himself a homosexual is letting his sexual acts define who he is.

For some reason, the above thinking is repeated so often on this message board (by a few people). It seems to me that any person with any sexuality could read that (slowly, maybe?) and realize that it makes no sense. No person is defined entirely by their “urges”, and no person is defined entirely by their sexuality. An important note here: “sexuality” and “urges” are not the same thing, they are not interchangeable terms. That being said, this idea that celibacy somehow makes a homosexual person no longer homosexual, or that a celibate homosexual need not make their sexuality “known” is absolutely ludicrous. I have a homosexual orientation. My sexuality, just the same as every other person’s sexuality, is not simply a collection of “urges”. Denying “urges” doesn’t make a sexuality go away. Are celibate, single heterosexuals not really “heterosexuals” because they are celibate? Are you a celibate homosexual person? If not, maybe you aren’t really in a position to tell those who are what their sexuality should or shouldn’t be. I happen to be a celibate homosexual person. I am not ashamed of that fact, nor should I be. My celibacy does not change my sexuality or make it disappear. In fact, my celibacy allows me to live out my sexuality for God alone.

I would love to know what it is about celibacy that makes a homosexual person “not really a homosexual”, like you say.

Peace,
Kolbe

 

[Elizabeth502]

In my region, the gay lifestyle has certain essential elements (#1 and #2):

(1) actual sexual activity (as opposed to mere SSA)

(2) a long-term (and usually live-in) partner, or an attempt to find such a partner. That is the norm. It doesn’t mean that some active gays don’t reject that path for more superficial arrangements (just as some straight guys prefer to remain permanently uncommitted and hop from one woman to another). Note that this also does not mean that once a gay man finds a “permanent” partner, that the couple remains monogamous. I posted an article about this a couple of months back on CAF. The norm for gay partnerships in my area is “an open arrangement” characterized by periodic experimentation (infidelity). That is among males, anyway. I have no actual data on lesbian relationships, but my understanding is that they are far more permanent/faithful, and, like most straight women, incline heavily toward monogamy.

(3) it can include also membership in openly gay groups, such as social groups, political groups, even business/economic networks, but that would make sense.

(4) it can (but doesn’t necessarily) also include a more hard-core-flamboyant social life, such as spending lots of time in gay bars and other establishments (whether or not for “crusiing” purposes), to the point where the person’s social contacts virtually exclude straights, because of a preference/comfort level for hanging out with gays.

I don’t consider #3 and #4 to be essential to defining the phrase, and I’ve also never heard these as substituting for #1 and/or #2, ever (as a definition of the phrase). But from the viewpoint of separating SSA from ‘the gay lifestyle,’ that also makes sense. If you’re trying to break a pattern or avoid indulging an inclination, it is counterintuitive to walk into occasions and people which will weaken your resolve.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I would love to know what it is about celibacy that makes a homosexual person “not really a homosexual”, like you say.

No one means that the attraction goes away. What it means is that the attraction is dormant, because sexual activity itself (and all the aspects of that, such as romantic flirting, courtship, etc.) is repudiated when celibacy becomes the permanent commitment and the new orientation. You are oriented to the people of God and agape for them, not eros for a particular individual.

 

[TMC]

I would love to know what it is about celibacy that makes a homosexual person “not really a homosexual”, like you say.

I think that the insistence by some people here (and I only really encounter it here) to insist that celibate homosexuals are not really gay, and to say that “SSA” and “gay” are not the same, is simply an attempt to justify continuing to demonize and ostracize gay people. They think that they can carve out the “good gays”, declare them “not really gay” and then throw away the rest. That way they don’t have to moderate their extreme language and positions, even when presented with examples of good and holy gay people.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I think that the insistence by some people here (and I only really encounter it here) to insist that celibate homosexuals are not really gay, and to say that “SSA” and “gay” are not the same, is simply an attempt to justify continuing to demonize and ostracize gay people. They think that they can carve out the “good gays”, declare them “not really gay” and then throw away the rest. That way they don’t have to moderate their extreme language and positions, even when presented with examples of good and holy gay people.

No, that’s not it, and you don’t get it.

Catholics other than myself may know people who identify themselves as gay but celibate, but I know none – not self-described “gay” Catholics, nor non-Catholics. Judging from other Catholics I also have discussions with (which goes far beyond CAF), my experience is the rule, not the exception.

Most people who identify themselves as “gay,” by that name, intend to be sexually active or are sexually active. Mostly, Catholics who are what you call “gay” but are in fact living chaste lives, may or may not discuss their SSA, but generally don’t discuss bieng “gay.” Occasionally some of them will use that term but add quickly that they are not in that lifestyle and obtain strength from living within the Sacraments and within a supportive community, which does in fact embrace those with SSA.

In the '90’s there were gay groups that sprang up in some parishes, and they proclaimed their active sexual lifestyles, which created great scandal in those parishes. They were not “good and holy” by any Catholic definition or biblical definition, because even biblical definitions of goodness are comprehensive and not limited to selected, excised sayings from Jesus, but to the entirety of Torah combined with Christian writings.

Some of these rogue groups still exist, which continues to be problematic for anyone of any orientation trying to resist the many temptations in modern culture against chastity.

 

[portarica]

No, that’s not it, and you don’t get it.

Catholics other than myself may know people who identify themselves as gay but celibate, but I know none – not self-described “gay” Catholics, nor non-Catholics. Judging from other Catholics I also have discussions with (which goes far beyond CAF), my experience is the rule, not the exception.

Most people who identify themselves as “gay,” by that name, intend to be sexually active or are sexually active. Mostly, Catholics who are what you call “gay” but are in fact living chaste lives, may or may not discuss their SSA, but generally don’t discuss bieng “gay.” Occasionally some of them will use that term but add quickly that they are not in that lifestyle and obtain strength from living within the Sacraments and within a supportive community, which does in fact embrace those with SSA.

In the '90’s there were gay groups that sprang up in some parishes, and they proclaimed their active sexual lifestyles, which created great scandal in those parishes. They were not “good and holy” by any Catholic definition or biblical definition, because even biblical definitions of goodness are comprehensive and not limited to selected, excised sayings from Jesus, but to the entirety of Torah combined with Christian writings.

Some of these rogue groups still exist, which continues to be problematic for anyone of any orientation trying to resist the many temptations in modern culture against chastity.

I think you hit upon the real crux of the problem. Most people do not practice chastity and many who do, wish they weren’t. The boundaries of what compose morally acceptable sexual practices have greatly expanded from the days when sex was only for procreation within marriage and for enjoyment outside of marriage. Now there is probably more sex for enjoyment within marriage than was ever imagined being possible in the past. Mainly because people now live past the typical age of being fertile.

Peace

 

[TMC]

No, that’s not it, and you don’t get it.

Catholics other than myself may know people who identify themselves as gay but celibate, but I know none – not self-described “gay” Catholics, nor non-Catholics. Judging from other Catholics I also have discussions with (which goes far beyond CAF), my experience is the rule, not the exception.

Most people who identify themselves as “gay,” by that name, intend to be sexually active or are sexually active. Mostly, Catholics who are what you call “gay” but are in fact living chaste lives, may or may not discuss their SSA, but generally don’t discuss bieng “gay.” Occasionally some of them will use that term but add quickly that they are not in that lifestyle and obtain strength from living within the Sacraments and within a supportive community, which does in fact embrace those with SSA.

In the '90’s there were gay groups that sprang up in some parishes, and they proclaimed their active sexual lifestyles, which created great scandal in those parishes. They were not “good and holy” by any Catholic definition or biblical definition, because even biblical definitions of goodness are comprehensive and not limited to selected, excised sayings from Jesus, but to the entirety of Torah combined with Christian writings.

Some of these rogue groups still exist, which continues to be problematic for anyone of any orientation trying to resist the many temptations in modern culture against chastity.

I disagree. All the gay people I know identify themselves as gay, whether they are chaste or unchaste. Saying that gay people that are not sexually active are not gay is merely an attempt to deny that there is such a thing as “gay”. It is an attempt to say that being gay is a choice that relates to activity, and not an orientation that is not chosen. While there may be moral differences between gay people that are sexually active and those that are not, they are still gay. Just as straight people that are not sexually active are still straight. Chaste straight people are not referred to as Opposite Sex Attracted or “OSA,” they are just straight or heterosexual. Chaste gay people are just gay or homosexual.

I’m sure that most Catholics do know or have known celibate gay people - its just not the kind of thing that pops up in conversation. Gay people are not any different than straight people in that regard, most do not have a habit of listing off their sexual history in polite conversation.

 

[estesbob]

I think that the insistence by some people here (and I only really encounter it here) to insist that celibate homosexuals are not really gay, and to say that “SSA” and “gay” are not the same, is simply an attempt to justify continuing to demonize and ostracize gay people. They think that they can carve out the “good gays”, declare them “not really gay” and then throw away the rest. That way they don’t have to moderate their extreme language and positions, even when presented with examples of good and holy gay people.

Actually it makes it a lot easier to discuss the morality the issue if we do differentiate between people who engage in homosexual behavior and those who have same-sex attraction. What we often see in these threads is somebody condemns homosexuality as being against the teachings of the church followed, by outraged posts by people telling us that the catechism said there’s nothing wrong with homosexuality when, in reality, they’re referring to same sex attraction. What results is a semantics storm with lots of condemnation and pious remarks pointed in every which direction

Homosexual behavior is wrong. Same-sex attraction is disordered but is not considered a sin unless acted upon. We should always make it very clear which we are referring to in these discussions.

 

[TMC]

Actually it makes it a lot easier to discuss the morality the issue if we do differentiate between people who engage in homosexual behavior and those who have same-sex attraction. What we often see in these threads is somebody condemns homosexuality as being against the teachings of the church followed, by outraged posts by people telling us that the catechism said there’s nothing wrong with homosexuality when, in reality, they’re referring to same sex attraction. What results is a semantics storm with lots of condemnation and pious remarks pointed in every which direction

Homosexual behavior is wrong. Same-sex attraction is disordered but is not considered a sin unless acted upon. We should always make it very clear which we are referring to in these discussions.

Unchaste sexual behavior is wrong - whether homosexual or heterosexual. If it is so important to divide out sexual attraction from sexual behavior, why is it only done on the homosexual side? I don’t think there is any confusion among Catholics that unchaste sexual behavior is against Church teaching. If there is, maybe we should start calling unchaste heterosexuals some new term and chaste heterosexuals something else.

The creation of a new category of people called “SSA” people seems to me to be a deliberate attempt to create divisions where there are none. It seems that some are suggesting we should have three categories of people the “normals” (all heterosexuals regardless of their chastity), the “SSA” (the “good” homosexuals, who are disordered but not necessarily damned) and the “gays” (the bad homosexuals). Why not just admit that all people can be chaste or unchaste and leave it at that? While we are at it, why not admit that unchaste homosexuals are no more or less evil than unchaste heterosexuals?

Divisions are usually made so the divider can (surprise!) put him or herself into the “best” category. I don’t see any support for creating those kinds of divisive categories here. Or do you think that homosexual sins are somehow categorically worse than heterosexual sins? If you do, why?

 

[Elizabeth502]

I’m sure that most Catholics do know or have known celibate gay people - its just not the kind of thing that pops up in conversation.

Again, they don’t identify themselves as “gay,” because unlike the secular gay community, most Catholics with SSA understand their Catholic faith and have accepted (therefore) Catholic philosophical premises, which differ from other philosophical systems, such as modern humanism, And yes I do know them, some of them very well. And no, they do not call themselves “gay.” Partly because they do get it: they get that their similarity with other Catholics exceeds any differences between themselves and Catholics with a heterosexual orientation.

So here’s the newsflash: People with SSA are not ontologically different from people without SSA. Their common species is human being. And there are far more profound and signficant and unbridgeable differences between men (straight or not) and women (straight or not) than there are between a homosexual man and a heterosexual man.

People who identify themselves as homosexual and are not Catholic do usually (in contemporary culture) call themselves gay. Different expectations, language, and premises.

 

[Elizabeth502]

The creation of a new category of people called “SSA” people seems to me to be a deliberate attempt to create divisions where there are none.

No, it’s an attempt to be clear, because “gay” in the secular population implies something very different than mere SSA does. If I identified myself in the class of people called Adulterers, people would expect me, if I insisted on embarrassing myself in that manner inside a Catholic Church, to put the word “Recovering” after that, or to describe myself as someone attracted to adultery or tempted to adultery.

I am not responsible for creating moral theology in the Roman Catholic Church, but the theology is that homosexual activity is objectively disordered, whereas heterosexual violations against chastity (such as adultery, fornication, etc.) are sinful but not disordered in themselves. You could say that there is a degree of difference between the two. Nevertheless, in Catholic philosophy and theology, all sin represents a rejection of God’s order, and thus is “disordered” – as it trends away from unity with God and toward disunity, which also opposes order in Catholic philosophy.

 

[kjn_23]

Actually it makes it a lot easier to discuss the morality the issue if we do differentiate between people who engage in homosexual behavior and those who have same-sex attraction. What we often see in these threads is somebody condemns homosexuality as being against the teachings of the church followed, by outraged posts by people telling us that the catechism said there’s nothing wrong with homosexuality when, in reality, they’re referring to same sex attraction. What results is a semantics storm with lots of condemnation and pious remarks pointed in every which direction

Homosexual behavior is wrong. Same-sex attraction is disordered but is not considered a sin unless acted upon. We should always make it very clear which we are referring to in these discussions.

I agree, but when conversing with people who are not well educated in how the church defines “homosexual” compared to “people with SSA” one must be very careful because they are going to use the secular meaning of homosexuality. Which is having sexual attraction to people of the same sex, not having sex with people of the same sex. Just as gay doesn’t refer to a person attracted to the same sex who is engaging in homosexual acts.

And for the record I’m a gay Catholic who is in line with the churches teaching. And most of the other celibate homosexuals I’ve met in the church have referred to themselves as gay.

 

[Elizabeth502]

IJust as gay doesn’t refer to a person attracted to the same sex who is engaging in homosexual acts.

And for the record I’m a gay Catholic who is in line with the churches teaching. And most of the other celibate homosexuals I’ve met in the church have referred to themselves as gay.

I live in a very, very gay-saturated environment, and I have yet to meet any person outside of the Catholic Church who describes himself as “gay,” who does not also assume in that description, that even if he is without a partner right now, he feels fine with having had them (or just one) in the past, and would feel no compunction about having a homosexual lover currently or in the future, should he meet some Signficant Other he would choose to partner with.

My friends inside the Catholic Church who are oriented toward homosexuality have gone in one of two directions: (1) repudiated any such activity and simultaneously have stopped referring to themselves as “gay” – precisely because of the wider ambiguity of that term, or (2) continued referring to themselves as gay but either stopped receiving the sacraments – maintaining a cultural or formal association only with their local parish & the wider Church, or discontinued church attendance entirely, because they are choosing to continue a level of sexual freedom not approved in the church.

Obviously we have very different experiences. (Yet two of the parishes I have attended in the last 15 years do have a critical mass of SSA-inclined individuals.) I do know one priest from each of those 2 parishes fairly well. One of them refers merely to ‘gays’ without distinction, but this priest has an unorthodox theology and approach which does not represent mainstream Catholicism. The other priest refers to both terms, and differentiates the terms, when discussing church policy.

 

[TMC]

No, it’s an attempt to be clear, because “gay” in the secular population implies something very different than mere SSA does. If I identified myself in the class of people called Adulterers, people would expect me, if I insisted on embarrassing myself in that manner inside a Catholic Church, to put the word “Recovering” after that, or to describe myself as someone attracted to adultery or tempted to adultery.

I am not responsible for creating moral theology in the Roman Catholic Church, but the theology is that homosexual activity is objectively disordered, whereas heterosexual violations against chastity (such as adultery, fornication, etc.) are sinful but not disordered in themselves. You could say that there is a degree of difference between the two. Nevertheless, in Catholic philosophy and theology, all sin represents a rejection of God’s order, and thus is “disordered” – as it trends away from unity with God and toward disunity, which also opposes order in Catholic philosophy.

Saying that a person is gay is a comment only on their orientation, not their activity. Just as saying someone is straight does not mean that you are saying he or she is an adulterer or a fornicator, saying that someone is gay says nothing about that person’s chastity. I take you at your word that you know Catholics that self identify as “SSA” and think that means something different than “gay”. I have never heard the term outside of Catholic message boards, and I don’t know anyone that thinks saying someone is gay is the same as saying that they are sexually active.

I am not aware of any Catholic teaching that says it is more sinful or a worse sin to be an unchaste gay person than it is to be an unchaste straight person. If such a teaching exists, please point me to it. The Church says that homosexuality is intrinsically disordered, but that does not mean that heterosexuals are given a pass for sinning against chastity, or homosexuals are committing a worse sin if they sin against chastity.

 

[flameburns623]

Saying that a person is gay is a comment only on their orientation, not their activity. Just as saying someone is straight does not mean that you are saying he or she is an adulterer or a fornicator, saying that someone is gay says nothing about that person’s chastity. I take you at your word that you know Catholics that self identify as “SSA” and think that means something different than “gay”. I have never heard the term outside of Catholic message boards, and I don’t know anyone that thinks saying someone is gay is the same as saying that they are sexually active.

I am not aware of any Catholic teaching that says it is more sinful or a worse sin to be an unchaste gay person than it is to be an unchaste straight person. If such a teaching exists, please point me to it. The Church says that homosexuality is intrinsically disordered, but that does not mean that heterosexuals are given a pass for sinning against chastity, or homosexuals are committing a worse sin if they sin against chastity.

Elisabeth’s post was pretty clear to me: sin is sin is sin is sin—all mortal sins lead to hell if unrepented/unconfessed.

However Catholic moral theology does differentiate between sexual sins which are objectively disordered; and other sexual sins. The consequences of sin are ever-and-always the same, but the character of certain sins can be differentiated.

 

[TMC]

Elisabeth’s post was pretty clear to me: sin is sin is sin is sin—all mortal sins lead to hell if unrepented/unconfessed.

However Catholic moral theology does differentiate between sexual sins which are objectively disordered; and other sexual sins. The consequences of sin are ever-and-always the same, but the character of certain sins can be differentiated.

You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. You say sin is sin, but then you say that the character of gay sins is different than the character of straight sins. Point me to the Church teaching that says this.

 

[flameburns623]

You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. You say sin is sin, but then you say that the character of gay sins is different than the character of straight sins. Point me to the Church teaching that says this.

Pastoral letter to bishops, 1986:

“Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder. Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be directed to those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not.”

 

[Kolbe300]

No one means that the attraction goes away. What it means is that the attraction is dormant, because sexual activity itself (and all the aspects of that, such as romantic flirting, courtship, etc.) is repudiated when celibacy becomes the permanent commitment and the new orientation.

Hi Elizabeth. If the attraction doesn’t go away, the person is still homosexual. While some may feel their attractions are “dormant” due to celibacy, I doubt that’s the norm.

I think that the insistence by some people here (and I only really encounter it here) to insist that celibate homosexuals are not really gay, and to say that “SSA” and “gay” are not the same, is simply an attempt to justify continuing to demonize and ostracize gay people. They think that they can carve out the “good gays”, declare them “not really gay” and then throw away the rest. That way they don’t have to moderate their extreme language and positions, even when presented with examples of good and holy gay people.

TMC, I could not possibly agree with you more. This website is the only place I have ever encountered people using the term “SSA”. When I told my Catholic family and my close Catholic friends about my sexuality, they would have had NO clue what I meant by SSA. In fact, I can tell you exactly what they would have replied with: “Do you mean you’re gay?” People on here seem to think that “SSA” is some universally known and used term. It is not. Not even close.

99.99% of people who have a homosexual orientation will refer to their sexuality as gay whether they are engaging in sex or not. Case in point: young people. Young people growing up as I did can only be hurt if we assume that “gay” people are sinful, active homosexuals. If all they hear is how bad the “gay” people are, what are they to think? I can guarantee you they’re not sighing in relief because they’re not really gay, they’re SSA. I have not had a single spiritual director (all priests) use the term SSA.

The simple matter of fact is exactly as you said. “Good gays” are a stumbling block to the language and the argument of many Christians. It’s tough to use the “hate the sin, love the sinner” mantra when that gay person isn’t a sinner! If only celibate gays would get rid of that “gay” part, the Christian argument would be so much easier. I know this because I’ve had to spend my entire time on this board fighting for both sides. That is something I never saw coming when I joined CAF.

Anyways, just wanted to say I agree with your posts in this thread. And I can’t believe I’ve spent this much time on the subject. Talk about beating a dead horse.

Peace,
Kolbe

 

[TMC]

Pastoral letter to bishops, 1986:

“Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder. Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be directed to those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not.”

This does not say that it is a worse sin when gay people are unchaste than it is when straight people are unchaste. It says nothing of the sort.