What does it look like to be gay – and a practicing Catholic?

[bobballen_18]

**First, I apologize for the long rambling. I am horrible at speaking concisely lol **

Oh, well join the club, me too. It’s so easy for me to ramble on and on, especially about subjects like this which are deeply personal.

Maybe it’s just me personally but SSA vs gay feels semantics because I honestly see it as two ways to say the same thing. Both mean attracted to others of the same sex, neither implies behavior, neither implies permanence, neither affects my ability to pursue a holy life.
…I also see the benefit of using gay when trying to do ministry to non-chaste people with SSA where using the term SSA will push them further from God.

So, maybe it is not an either or situation, but a contextual situation. …

Again, there may be a certain sense that it’s just “semantics”, but do you see how it’s different to say “I have or struggle with or am dealing with SSA” vs “I am gay”? The former very obviously just describes the experience, while the latter, even if unintentionally, ascribes being “gay” literally to a part of one’s identity. Do you see what I’m trying to say? I understand what you’re saying, but only in the sense that sure, someone who identifies as gay is certain capable of being chaste and following Church teachings. I still disagree wholeheartedly with the decision to identify oneself as gay. I think it can be misleading both to oneself as well as to others, both in the Church and out.

Regarding the last part of your quote there in part 1 - I would say that is the only context in which I personally would use the term “gay” - that is, in the case of ministry to unchaste people who identify as “gay” - I can see how it could be better to use the term “gay” in that instance, but only initially - you could bet my bottom dollar that I’d be working as quickly as possible to turn them away from calling themselves gay. Obviously I wouldn’t (necessarily) make that a deal-breaker or something, but yeah.

But when one’s primary ministry/audience/whatever is striving to follow Church teaching and striving to be chaste, I think one must do whatever is possible in order to use language which most accurately reflects one’s identity, and as I hinted at in an earlier post, “gay” does not most accurately reflect one’s identity, no matter how chaste (or unchaste, for that matter) that person may be.

**Part II: I apologize for the wall of text. ** [Also, let me convey that this is just my personal opinion and I am sure there are others in my position who feel differently )

Regarding your second “long” post about the Catholic Church’s responses to those with SSA, I definitely tend to agree with you. I guess I was lucky in the sense that I never felt pushed away by the Church’s doctrine, since I think I knew from pretty early on that there was a distinction between the acts and the inclinations. It was the fact that the inclinations are objectively disordered (though not sinful), coupled with my middle school self being in public school for the first time and almost immediately perceiving that one of the worst things one could be called then was “gay”, that made me extremely on guard once I went through puberty and began noticing these attractions I experienced.

I would venture to guess that if parish communities felt…well, more like an actual community and not just a place to meet on Sunday mornings, then people who are currently in celibate stages of their lives, whether having SSA or not, would not feel so left out. But you’re right, I do notice that there’s a sense in which SSA is still extremely looked down on even if one is committed to chastity.

Regarding “admitting your SSA” and being looked down upon, I imagine that’s left over from part of the general “taboo” placed on the topic of sexuality. Which obviously is not so prevalent in today’s society but is still present in some senses amongst Catholics (and some other Christians too, obviously). I definitely agree that feeling we “have to keep [our] cross a secret” adds to the burden and is not the correct solution. In my own experience, possibly one of the biggest parts of the burden is fearing what others would think of me if they knew I had SSA. I know part of the fear can be alleviated by having close friends who love us, but to some extent, that fear will always be present around those who do not know this about me/us, and it can be a very healing experience to tell someone we have SSA and have that person accept us and love and include us despite knowing we have it. So even though I personally sometimes cringe at the thought of feeling like I “need” to tell someone about my struggles, I am coming to realize that it’s necessary in some cases to tell people. I don’t know, I guess ideally it would be great to be able to just mention it and the other person not blink an eye…but I will say, I’m not looking to be able to mention it to everyone I meet…lol…just to those who matter to me so that I can know they will love and accept me no matter what.

So I guess yeah, I agree with you, I absolutely hate feeling like I have to actually hide it. And again, that doesn’t mean I want to go around advertising the fact that I have SSA, but just that I want to be able to mention it to those I want to mention it to, without the fear of being totally rejected or looked down upon. I don’t know, maybe that’s more or less all you’re saying as well.
[/QUOTE]

 

[bobballen_18]

However, despite all of these frustrations I have, the ability to go to mass on Sunday and receive the Eucharist (when I am able to) has helped sustain me and is probably the primary reason why I still feel like I belong within the Catholic Church.

Oh my goodness, absolutely, I can honestly say I would never ever consider leaving the Church, for this reason. The fact that during this difficult time in my life I have daily access to the sacraments really just blows my mind when I think about it - though I have to remind myself of it often, I know that without a doubt God is giving me all the graces I need (and more, no doubt) to grow in holiness and even to overcome my struggles. I have always felt like I belonged to the Catholic Church itself as a whole - it’s just that I have not felt particularly welcomed/included amongst individuals/communities inside it.

I tend to kind of agree with you. I do believe and know of several people are gay/ssa who are indeed married and happy(I think they are called mixed orientation marriage) though it does present with its own unique challenges.

However, I do think that many of us with SSA/are gay have discerned that marriage is unlikely our personal vocations which implies a celibate vocation (but each individual person needs to discern and truly try to find God’s path for them). It is possible that God can change my situation where I would then be called to marriage, but there is also the reality that I will not and will remain celibate for life. I think its a balance of hope and reality of one’s situation I guess. A similar analogy is like a person with cancer; they have the believe and knowledge that God can cure them of the disease, but they also acknowledge that it may not be within His plans.

Indeed, I think your observation that “It is possible that God can change my situation” is key - that one ultimately must place complete trust in God. I don’t think that having SSA itself means that one is “consigned” to celibacy for life. I think it’s more a matter of being able to emotionally handle a marriage, but I think most individuals with SSA, if they get the help and support they need, could emotionally handle a marriage, to the point where it wouldn’t be any more of a struggle for them than for any other “normal” couple. I don’t see acknowledging celibacy/singlehood for those with SSA as a problem in and of itself, because I think it is more likely for those who have SSA to need at least a period of singlehood to sort through their life issues. I don’t know, my positions on pursuing marriage while having SSA are probably undergoing frequent changes/modifications, so it’s really hard for me to explain. Overall, I still see it as a problem precisely because of what you mentioned, regarding comparing having SSA to cancer. Not that I believe one has to get rid of his SSA in order to get married, so I don’t believe in a “cure” in that sense (aside from God choosing to remove it in pretty rare instances, we can never count out God), but I think partially the availability of a person with SSA to be married, and the widespread belief that they’re called to celibacy for life, is precisely the line of thought which prevents them from being open to marriage.

I guess that’s a long way of saying that I believe God is calling more people with SSA to marriage than are actually getting married. Lol.

But what do I know…I’m a 24-year-old who has just recently started to address these issues. What a journey. haha.

 

[at9009]

But what do I know…I’m a 24-year-old who has just recently started to address these issues. What a journey. haha.

It’s okay. I’m only a 25-yr old, so what do I know . Either way I appreciate your perspective.

 

[TCEL]

Well, I’m a married 27 year old with a young son, and I can tell you that marriage can be every bit as difficult as celibacy! There is no way out when you’re married. Without going into too much detail, I may have been called to celibacy myself. We all have to square with our choices, but God is merciful, even if repentance takes time. I’m devoted to Mary Undoer of Knots. Anyway, I just wanted to reaffirm that celibacy and being single aren’t bad.

 

[Kurisu35712]

So are you saying that sexual contact cures loneliness?
One does not have to have genital contact with another human being to lead a full productive life.
I know two very happy elderly women who have been roommates for YEARS.They are very active in Church affairs and the many outreach programs of the parish.

Nowhere in my post was that even implied, much less stated. As Bob said, I was simply emphasizing the issue so many Catholics with SSA face, which is loneliness and isolation. During low points in one’s spiritual journey, simply hearing “you’re just called to a life of chastity,” which frequently means celibacy unless we’re talking about someone who’s bisexual, comes across as a platitude that doesn’t actually do much to help the person, and certainly doesn’t communicate sympathy. Which, at such points, sympathy is one of the most important things to help them get back to a more manageable state. Sympathy communicates concern, friendship, charity, and does far more to combat loneliness (by which I mean just that, a feeling of being alone and isolated) than telling people things they already know.

Every Catholic struggling with this cross, myself included, knows that sexual intimacy isn’t the end all be all in life, and frankly, understands that fact far better than anyone who hasn’t struggled with SSA, short of celibate religious and canonized Saints. The last thing a faithful Catholic with SSA truly wants is any kind of sexual contact. Multiple posts have emphasized the need for true and compassionate (obviously platonic) friendship. If I actually thought that sex cures loneliness, I would have said that. The idea that all gay people want from life is sex is one of the more isolating attitudes I’ve found in these discussions. Yet again, it reduces people with SSA to just that, the fact that they experience SSA. All anyone in this life wants is human companionship. All my post was trying to do was bring much needed attention to the fact that people with SSA frequently feel lonely and isolated, for many many reasons, some unrelated to SSA at all, and that as Catholics, we should not be so unsympathetic as to resort to platitudes and debating every time the topic of SSA comes up. As at9009 mentioned, it makes them feel like a theological debate rather than a person.There are a lot of people here who read these posts and never reply, and it isn’t a true reflection of the Church if we make that kind of response look like the norm.

 

[randomuser]

Nowhere in my post was that even implied, much less stated. As Bob said, I was simply emphasizing the issue so many Catholics with SSA face, which is loneliness and isolation. During low points in one’s spiritual journey, simply hearing “you’re just called to a life of chastity,” which frequently means celibacy unless we’re talking about someone who’s bisexual, comes across as a platitude that doesn’t actually do much to help the person, and certainly doesn’t communicate sympathy. Which, at such points, sympathy is one of the most important things to help them get back to a more manageable state. Sympathy communicates concern, friendship, charity, and does far more to combat loneliness (by which I mean just that, a feeling of being alone and isolated) than telling people things they already know.

Every Catholic struggling with this cross, myself included, knows that sexual intimacy isn’t the end all be all in life, and frankly, understands that fact far better than anyone who hasn’t struggled with SSA, short of celibate religious and canonized Saints. The last thing a faithful Catholic with SSA truly wants is any kind of sexual contact. Multiple posts have emphasized the need for true and compassionate (obviously platonic) friendship. If I actually thought that sex cures loneliness, I would have said that. The idea that all gay people want from life is sex is one of the more isolating attitudes I’ve found in these discussions. Yet again, it reduces people with SSA to just that, the fact that they experience SSA. All anyone in this life wants is human companionship. All my post was trying to do was bring much needed attention to the fact that people with SSA frequently feel lonely and isolated, for many many reasons, some unrelated to SSA at all, and that as Catholics, we should not be so unsympathetic as to resort to platitudes and debating every time the topic of SSA comes up. As at9009 mentioned, it makes them feel like a theological debate rather than a person.There are a lot of people here who read these posts and never reply, and it isn’t a true reflection of the Church if we make that kind of response look like the norm.

Celibate gay Catholics - i.e., Catholics living with homosexuality, since heterosexuals aren’t attracted to people of the same sex - have a growing number of orthodox Catholic resources for fellowship. I do think the term “SSA” is an obstacle to the very isolation in question, since it’s difficult to feel kinship towards others who haven’t a clue what “SSA” is. The crystal-clear term “celibate gay person” lends itself to a greater degree of empathy - which I would think is more preferable to celibate gay Catholics than “sympathy” (any counselor can tell you that) - and understanding, since it’s more clearly and accurately understood the person is “celibate” and “gay.” Once the “SSA” thing has run its course, will there be another phrase I’m expecting to use instead of “gay” or “homosexuality”? It’s a little difficult to know who I’m praying for if the words keep changing.

 

[TCEL]

As at9009 mentioned, it makes them feel like a theological debate rather than a person.

Seems like it would get pretty old.

 

[Kurisu35712]

Celibate gay Catholics - i.e., Catholics living with homosexuality, since heterosexuals aren’t attracted to people of the same sex - have a growing number of orthodox Catholic resources for fellowship. I do think the term “SSA” is an obstacle to the very isolation in question, since it’s difficult to feel kinship towards others who haven’t a clue what “SSA” is. The crystal-clear term “celibate gay person” lends itself to a greater degree of empathy - which I would think is more preferable to celibate gay Catholics than “sympathy” (any counselor can tell you that) - and understanding, since it’s more clearly and accurately understood the person is “celibate” and “gay.” Once the “SSA” thing has run its course, will there be another phrase I’m expecting to use instead of “gay” or “homosexuality”? It’s a little difficult to know who I’m praying for if the words keep changing.

The crystal clear term celibate gay Catholics doesn’t describe every Catholic with SSA, though, hence why I used that instead. I’m not cashed to celibacy, nor am I gay, but I mentioned that I struggle with SSA. I’m bisexual. And while I’m sure you didn’t mean to, your post completely ignored what I was saying in the post you quoted in favour of yet another argument on semantics and what we should call gay people and to make the point that gay people have a ton of Catholic resources available to them. I feel like you missed my point entirely.

 

[at9009]

The crystal clear term celibate gay Catholics doesn’t describe every Catholic with SSA, though, hence why I used that instead. I’m not cashed to celibacy, nor am I gay, but I mentioned that I struggle with SSA. I’m bisexual. And while I’m sure you didn’t mean to, your post completely ignored what I was saying in the post you quoted in favour of yet another argument on semantics and what we should call gay people and to make the point that gay people have a ton of Catholic resources available to them. I feel like you missed my point entirely.

I think this is an issue that the Church hasn’t quite figured out. People don’t quite seem to realize yet that people with same sex attractions within in the church have a wide breath of a backgrounds. Some are like me who have no attraction to women and where gay celibate Catholic would be a decent label, others are like you were they have a varying degree of attractions, and there are others too. Not only that, we all have different experiences and backgrounds which may or may not be related to our attractions. I honestly think the best option is to let the person with the attractions describe the attractions in their terms and then ask them what they mean. Then one can go from there.

Instead of focusing on labels, it would be helpful, I think, to focus on how to discover and live out our vocations. How does one with same sex attractions live out a celibate vocation? How do they meet their emotional and physical needs? How does dealing with these attractions affect their ability to relate to others, how does it affect how one sees the world. How does a person with same sex attractions live out a marriage vocation? How does one discuss it with a potential spouse? Does one’s same sex attractions prevent one from entering a religious vocation? What exactly is deep-seated tendencies? What options are there?

Not everyone will have the same answers to these questions, but these are important discussions to have. Instead, the focus is almost exclusively on the immorality of the acts and the debate over how one should or shouldn’t talk about this particular cross. As faithful Catholics, most of us with these attractions know, understand, and abide by the Church’s teachings. The question then becomes where do I go from there?

 

[CatholicSheila]

What is the correct term for disorder - homosexuality or SSA?

Everyone who has SSA seems to deny they’re homosexual, which is all the more confusing since there aren’t any heterosexuals who (by definition) have “same sex attraction.”

Therefore, where are all the homosexual Catholics?

Only some people with SSA deny they’re homosexual. Some of us think that is completely silly. If others prefer to refer to themselves as ‘same sex attracted’ then they’re welcome to, but don’t use that term for me. I find it insulting and I don’t see how it can’t be anything but a stumbling block when trying to reach non-Christian gays.

When I hear a non-gay Christian use the term ‘same sex attracted’ over gay/homosexual I feel as though what they’re really saying is that I’m somehow better or cleaner than all those other ‘nasty dirty gays’. I want none of that. I’m no better or worse than ‘the gays’. If you lust for a woman, then you are no better than an adulterer. I am no better than an active gay and I won’t, I can’t, set myself apart from them in a way that strikes me as saying I am better than them because I’m celibate.

I was raised pentecostal and to believe that even having the attraction makes you unacceptable and unlovable, not just to others but also to God. Using the term ‘same sex attracted’ has simply moved that line from the attraction making you unacceptable and unlovable to the actions making you unlovable and unacceptable. That’s how I see it anyway and I reject that. God loves gays. Celibate or not. He wants us despite our sin - that’s why he sent Christ. He loves us even when we are seeped in sin.

Sheila (A gay, and celibate, Catholic)

 

[kozlosap]

Only some people with SSA deny they’re homosexual. Some of us think that is completely silly. If others prefer to refer to themselves as ‘same sex attracted’ then they’re welcome to, but don’t use that term for me. I find it insulting and I don’t see how it can’t be anything but a stumbling block when trying to reach non-Christian gays.

When I hear a non-gay Christian use the term ‘same sex attracted’ over gay/homosexual I feel as though what they’re really saying is that I’m somehow better or cleaner than all those other ‘nasty dirty gays’. I want none of that. I’m no better or worse than ‘the gays’. If you lust for a woman, then you are no better than an adulterer. I am no better than an active gay and I won’t, I can’t, set myself apart from them in a way that strikes me as saying I am better than them because I’m celibate.

I was raised pentecostal and to believe that even having the attraction makes you unacceptable and unlovable, not just to others but also to God. Using the term ‘same sex attracted’ has simply moved that line from the attraction making you unacceptable and unlovable to the actions making you unlovable and unacceptable. That’s how I see it anyway and I reject that. God loves gays. Celibate or not. He wants us despite our sin - that’s why he sent Christ. He loves us even when we are seeped in sin.

Sheila (A gay, and celibate, Catholic)

I agree, especially with the fact that many apologists on Catholic Answers refuse to use the words gay and straight. When they use the term SSA, it’s in a totally degrading way. If I were to use SSA in a discussion with professional collegues and family members, they would have no inkling what that acronym stands for.

 

[at9009]

If I were to use SSA in a discussion with professional collegues and family members, they would have no inkling what that acronym stands for.

If its my family, they’d think I meant Society Security Administration.
Oh well.

 

[clem456]

I agree, especially with the fact that many apologists on Catholic Answers refuse to use the words gay and straight. When they use the term SSA, it’s in a totally degrading way. If I were to use SSA in a discussion with professional collegues and family members, they would have no inkling what that acronym stands for.

That’s because the word “gay” has been distorted so badly by the agenda. No one knows what it means. Is it desire, is it actions, is it lifestyle? What?

Same sex attracted means what it says.
And I think you are off base in claiming that CA apologists use “SSA” in a degrading way. Maybe you have specific examples of how the apologists use it to degrade.

 

[at9009]

That’s because the word “gay” has been distorted so badly by the agenda. No one knows what it means. Is it desire, is it actions, is it lifestyle? What?
.

Well, simple point. Instead of jumping to any conclusions just ask what the person means. Because for younger generations, SSA and gay are basically synonymous. The whole language police attitude about ‘gay’ can be extremely annoying and frustrating since often it feels like there is a lack of charity.

 

[randomuser]

Well, simple point. Instead of jumping to any conclusions just ask what the person means. Because for younger generations, SSA and gay are basically synonymous. The whole language police attitude about ‘gay’ can be extremely annoying and frustrating since often it feels like there is a lack of charity.

That’s because they are synonymous. The term “SSA” is already in the (NSFW) web site Urban Dictionary as a euphemism for those who refuse to use the terms “gay” or “homosexuality” - that should be a huge red flag as its appropriateness for Catholics.

I’m not aware of the term “celibate gay Catholic” being a part of any gay agenda. I do know it’s awfully confusing if you don’t know who, or what, you’re praying for when the words keep changing will-nilly. Am I praying for someone on SSI with the SSA (Social Security Administration)?

And, yes, it’s extremely uncharitable that someone decided Catholics are somehow obligated to use the term “SSA” instead of “gay” or “homosexual” when Church teaching is very clear and defined that they are deep-seated homosexual tendencies – not deeply seated same-sex attraction. I can only imagine how insulting and nerve-wracking it must be for struggling gay Catholics.

 

[clem456]

That’s because they are synonymous. The term “SSA” is already in the (NSFW) web site Urban Dictionary as a euphemism for those who refuse to use the terms “gay” or “homosexuality” - that should be a huge red flag as its appropriateness for Catholics.

I’m not aware of the term “celibate gay Catholic” being a part of any gay agenda. I do know it’s awfully confusing if you don’t know who, or what, you’re praying for when the words keep changing will-nilly. Am I praying for someone on SSI with the SSA (Social Security Administration)?

And, yes, it’s extremely uncharitable that someone decided Catholics are somehow obligated to use the term “SSA” instead of “gay” or “homosexual” when Church teaching is very clear and defined that they are deep-seated homosexual tendencies – not deeply seated same-sex attraction. I can only imagine how insulting and nerve-wracking it must be for struggling gay Catholics.

Honest communication is necessary.
The Gospel is communication. Dishonest communication is an evil.
The use of the words SSA denotes a person who has desires or tendencies. It simply says nothing about action. If we say “I am SSA” we know that I have desires along this line, we do not know if I am acting on them or advocating for the pursuit of them. The term does not enter into any prudential moral judgment.

“Gay” has come to mean many nebulous things, but it certainly communicates something about lifestyle, or action, or advocacy, or agreement.
In another thread, priests were slandered by a couple of posters with the assertion that "50% of them in a given diocese were “gay”. That’s an easy slander to make when you have no defined parameters to back up. It’s the worst kind of prejudice, used by the very people who have a pretense of tolerance.
It’s not much different than saying
Black people are “xyz…”
Jews are “xyz…”
Without defining exactly what you are talking about. The problem for these agendas is, if we are going to agree on words, the agenda is seen to be full of holes and and the inconsistencies can be pointed out. We can’t have that!!!

The fact that no agreement can be had about words is in itself part of the agenda to confuse and homogenize. For the agenda to move forward, it is necessary to obfuscate. And so, here we are, having this conversation about the meaning of words.

Prime example: the word marriage.

Let your yes be yes and your no be no. Anything else if of the evil one.

 

[randomuser]

Honest communication is necessary.
…
“Gay” has come to mean many nebulous things, but it certainly communicates something about lifestyle, or action, or advocacy, or agreement.

Yes, honest communication is necessary, and perhaps the word “gay” would be a good starting point.

No, the word “gay” most certainly does NOT communicate something about “lifestyle or action, or advocacy or agreement” – for pete’s sake, all the word “gay” means is homosexual - nothing more, nothing less. You start with a deeply flawed premise for why people should use “SSA” instead of “gay,” and it’s no wonder it’s such a confusing term if you’ve got a flawed starting premise.

Since actions seem to be the hurdle here, why not simply add the adjective “celibate” to the word “gay”? That seems pretty simple and straightforward: “celibate gay.” Neither “celibate” nor “gay” communicate an ACTION; in fact, “celibate” is added as the qualifier to communicate NO ACTION. I really don’t know how much clearer it could get than that.

I really feel for Catholics struggling with deep-seated homosexual tendencies, having well-meaning people insist they use “SSA” instead of “gay.” How is someone struggling with SSA not struggling with homosexuality? Are you saying there’s a difference between SSA and homosexuality? If so, then what is the difference between the two?

 

[clem456]

Yes, honest communication is necessary, and perhaps the word “gay” would be a good starting point.

No, the word “gay” most certainly does NOT communicate something about “lifestyle or action, or advocacy or agreement” – for pete’s sake, all the word “gay” means is homosexual - nothing more, nothing less. You start with a deeply flawed premise for why people should use “SSA” instead of “gay,” and it’s no wonder it’s such a confusing term if you’ve got a flawed starting premise.

Since actions seem to be the hurdle here, why not simply add the adjective “celibate” to the word “gay”? That seems pretty simple and straightforward: “celibate gay.” Neither “celibate” nor “gay” communicate an ACTION; in fact, “celibate” is added as the qualifier to communicate NO ACTION. I really don’t know how much clearer it could get than that.

I really feel for Catholics struggling with deep-seated homosexual tendencies, having well-meaning people insist they use “SSA” instead of “gay.” How is someone struggling with SSA not struggling with homosexuality? Are you saying there’s a difference between SSA and homosexuality? If so, then what is the difference between the two?

I take homosexual to mean one who engages in sexual acts with the same sex, or to refer to that practice. Of course, if one is acting, one is inclined, or has that desire, so homosexual would also encompass those meanings I suppose.

Same Sex Attraction means just that.
Really, what is the problem with the term? It is specific, it means something. It’s honest.

I have no idea what is meant exactly by gay anymore. It means different things to different people.
When someone claims that someone is gay who is not an acting sexual person of any kind, that is dishonest. I would be offended by that if I was struggling with SSA but remaining chaste.
The reason for the differentiation of the terms I think is due to the abuse of the word gay.
Just like “marriage” is becoming less meaningful. We will soon have to use “sacramental marriage” to differentiate, or something like that.

 

[Kurisu35712]

Yes, honest communication is necessary, and perhaps the word “gay” would be a good starting point.

No, the word “gay” most certainly does NOT communicate something about “lifestyle or action, or advocacy or agreement” – for pete’s sake, all the word “gay” means is homosexual - nothing more, nothing less. You start with a deeply flawed premise for why people should use “SSA” instead of “gay,” and it’s no wonder it’s such a confusing term if you’ve got a flawed starting premise.

Since actions seem to be the hurdle here, why not simply add the adjective “celibate” to the word “gay”? That seems pretty simple and straightforward: “celibate gay.” Neither “celibate” nor “gay” communicate an ACTION; in fact, “celibate” is added as the qualifier to communicate NO ACTION. I really don’t know how much clearer it could get than that.

I really feel for Catholics struggling with deep-seated homosexual tendencies, having well-meaning people insist they use “SSA” instead of “gay.” How is someone struggling with SSA not struggling with homosexuality? Are you saying there’s a difference between SSA and homosexuality? If so, then what is the difference between the two?

As I said in a previous post that I guess got buried underneath other replies, not everyone who struggles with SSA is gay. Case in point. I struggle with SSA. I am **not **gay. I am bisexual and am attracted to both men and women. As a result, I experience both SSA and OSA. I am not a celibate homosexual. I am not planning on remaining celibate unless I find myself called to it. I am not homosexual. I am a Catholic who is chaste and bisexual.

To some people, myself included, there is a difference between gay and SSA. There are actually multiple differences if you want my interpretation, but I obviously can’t speak for anyone aside from myself. For starters, the word gay means exclusively attracted to the same sex as oneself. I’m 22. If someone came up to me and said that they’re gay, I’m going to assume that, if I didn’t ask them that directly, that they’re not living a particularly chaste lifestyle. That assumption has more to do with statistics regarding my age group than any assumption about gay individuals though. That being said, I grew up in New Orleans and live in Texas. No chaste homosexual Catholic is going to be parading their sexual orientation to other people. I can’t speak for gay people in other locations. But, here at least, if someone outright proclaims that they’re gay, they generally aren’t just talking exclusively about sexual orientation, and lifestyle choices are generally also an implication. “Gay” doesn’t necessarily imply or evoke that they go to pride parades or anything like that, but I have yet to actually meet a person in real life who says they’re gay and isn’t having sex like seemingly everyone else in this generation.

SSA on the other hand means exactly what it says on the tin. Same-sex attracted. Not exclusively same-sex attracted. Not actively engaged in sexual acts with the same sex. Just that the person finds themselves attracted to other people of the same sex. Part of the reason people here prefer this term is that it doesn’t imply gay marriage advocacy, doesn’t imply sexually active, doesn’t necessitate an exclusive attraction, etc. That’s the reason I prefer using SSA to gay. Identifying as gay, like straight, implies at the very least that the person in question wants to have sex with someone else and is actively pursuing that goal to some extent.

To answer your first question, I struggle with SSA. I don’t really “struggle” with OSA. Therefore you could say that I struggle with homosexuality, but it is an incomplete expression of my experiences as it indicates that I’m homosexual, when I’m not.

Let me state this again, to make sure that I’m perfectly clear. Not everyone who struggles with SSA is gay. Not everyone who experiences SSA experiences it exclusively. Please, in all charity, stop insisting that only gay people struggle with SSA. It is false.

 

[at9009]

Let me state this again, to make sure that I’m perfectly clear. Not everyone who struggles with SSA is gay. Not everyone who experiences SSA experiences it exclusively. Please, in all charity, stop insisting that only gay people struggle with SSA. It is false.

See Post #49

I really wish we could get past the whole label debate on both sides and actually address living out vocations.