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

  • Thread starter Thread starter _Abyssinia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thorolfr said:
Obviously, most LGBT people no longer consider their behavior sinful, harmful or immoral or anything to be ashamed of. 🤷
Click to expand...
And what they think about it is irrelevant to the objective truth of it.

But hey, as Kennedy claimed in Obergfell that everyone has a right ““to define and express their identity,” then I guess it doesn’t matter what is objectively real. But it does matter to some, and it especially matters to Catholics on CAF.
 
edwest2 said:
You do not address my other points. I don’t recommend this but have you seen any video of gay pride parades? An Irish, Greek, Italian or Mexican parade has nothing to do with sex or promoting sexual behavior. It’s about pride in a particular cultural identity.

Ed
Click to expand...
Mardi Gras is quite sexual. And that is both cultural and Catholic.
 
Thorolfr said:
Obviously, most LGBT people no longer consider their behavior sinful, harmful or immoral or anything to be ashamed of. 🤷
Click to expand...
So, I obviously disagree with you about the behavior. From my Catholic background, to act on my attractions is indeed considered sinful. There is absolutely no way around that from a Catholic perspective based on its sacred tradition and the written word.

However, what is frustrating is how often I get the feeling that instead of treating my attractions as what it is, a cross. Many (including some here; though probably not their intention) is that I should be ashamed that I have this cross regardless of my actions to the point of self-loathing. So while I disagree with your belief that the attractions are moral, I am frustrated that many view me as less simply because of my particular cross (regardless of the fact that I’m celibate and striving to be chaste). For a more detailed spiel see my wall of text in post #35 in this thread. Hope I don’t distract too much from the current discussion within this thread.
 
at9009 said:
So, I obviously disagree with you about the behavior. From my Catholic background, to act on my attractions is indeed considered sinful. There is absolutely no way around that from a Catholic perspective based on its sacred tradition and the written word.
Click to expand...
Indeed. As a heterosexual man, I’m often attracted to beautiful women. My feelings, desires, and attractions do not excuse me acting outside the bounds of marriage.
at9009 said:
However, what is frustrating is how often I get the feeling that instead of treating my attractions as what it is, a cross. Many (including some here; though probably not their intention) is that I should be ashamed that I have this cross regardless of my actions to the point of self-loathing.
Click to expand...
I can’t speak for everyone, but my opinion is that the attraction is what it is. It’s where it leads someone. If I see a beautiful woman and lust over her in my mind, fantasize about her (perhaps during relations with my wife), or otherwise engage in other activity (masturbation, adultery, fornication, etc), then I’ve crossed the line. I don’t think it is any different for those with same sex attraction.

And when such thoughts/actions do cross the line, they are wrong and should be a source of shame. But when they do not, they are ordinary temptations everyone suffers from. Sure, we’d all like to have the fortitude of St Thomas Aquinas, but we aren’t saints (yet). And if anyone thinks you should be shamed “to the point of self-loathing” that is wrong regardless of the sin. We are all vulnerable to temptation. The mere fact that your temptation is of a different kind is irrelevant.
 
edwest2 said:
Far from it. Having men yelling from the streets to women in windows: "Show me your boobs [they actually use the other word]. is not Catholic.

Ed
Click to expand...
Well, it is rude, of course, but that Mardi Gras is rooted in Catholicism is pretty obvious.
 
TMC said:
Yes, it is. And it is a serious topic that deserves a serious discussion. Unfortunately, I don’t believe this forum is a place where such a discussion is likely.
Click to expand...
Why not? Set your filter to get the SNR right, and I think it can happen. If both sides are willing to listen and respond graciously.
 
ComplineSanFran said:
Well, it is rude, of course, but that Mardi Gras is rooted in Catholicism is pretty obvious.
Click to expand...
Rooted and related are two very different things. “Fat Tuesday” certainly has a connection to Catholicism. To say it is rooted in Catholicism is a bit off the mark. I’d love to see a Vatican document praising, condoning, or even tolerating, the kind of excess implicit in “Fat Tuesday,” regardless of the era.
 
Suudy said:
Rooted and related are two very different things. “Fat Tuesday” certainly has a connection to Catholicism. To say it is rooted in Catholicism is a bit off the mark. I’d love to see a Vatican document praising, condoning, or even tolerating, the kind of excess implicit in “Fat Tuesday,” regardless of the era.
Click to expand...
Does one need a Vatican document for every practice, custom, or tradition in Catholicism?
 
ComplineSanFran said:
Does one need a Vatican document for every practice, custom, or tradition in Catholicism?
Click to expand...
For anything that someone claims is Catholic. Otherwise it is something other than Catholic. (Edit: For example, Medjugorje. It is based in Catholicism, but without the Church’s blessing, it is outside of Catholicism.) (Edit #2: This is my opinion. But I think it consistent with saying what is Catholic and what is pseudo-Catholic. I don’t know what the Church’s official position on Mardis Gras is, but a quick web search turned up nothing official.)
 
Suudy said:
Why not? Set your filter to get the SNR right, and I think it can happen. If both sides are willing to listen and respond graciously.
Click to expand...
You’ve been posting here about the same amount of time as I. Do you really have to ask why not? Most posters here are not interested in having that discussion. The Church has a view on the matter, and we all know what that is (with some minor quibbles on details.) I doubt we could have a serious discussion here on whether that view is correct, or on whether another view could ever be Catholic.
 
TMC said:
You’ve been posting here about the same amount of time as I. Do you really have to ask why not? Most posters here are not interested in having that discussion.
Click to expand...
And I post here for the lurkers, not the posters. I think any value I bring is the arguments I put forth for all to ready, whether they post or not.
TMC said:
The Church has a view on the matter, and we all know what that is (with some minor quibbles on details.) I doubt we could have a serious discussion here on whether that view is correct, or on whether another view could ever be Catholic.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what you mean. On the one hand you say that we can discuss what the Church teaches. Then on the other hand it seems you dismiss what the Church teaches could be Catholic. Perhaps I’m misunderstanding your point. But I think a discussion between people can occur–if you filter out the noise.
 
Suudy said:
And I post here for the lurkers, not the posters. I think any value I bring is the arguments I put forth for all to ready, whether they post or not.

I’m not sure what you mean. On the one hand you say that we can discuss what the Church teaches. Then on the other hand it seems you dismiss what the Church teaches could be Catholic. Perhaps I’m misunderstanding your point. But I think a discussion between people can occur–if you filter out the noise.
Click to expand...
What I am saying is that we all know that the Church teaches that all homosexual acts are immoral. That teaching is by definition “Catholic,” in the sense that it is what the Church teaches. We can discuss ad nauseam the precise contours of that teaching, but I find little value in doing so.

I am saying that there can (and should) be room to discuss 1) whether that teaching is correct, and 2) whether the Church could ever teach differently. Those are more difficult discussions to have here. In fact, I am not sure they are even allowed given forum rules.
 
TMC said:
I am saying that there can (and should) be room to discuss 1) whether that teaching is correct, and 2) whether the Church could ever teach differently. Those are more difficult discussions to have here. In fact, I am not sure they are even allowed given forum rules.
Click to expand...
I don’t see why an honest, charitable discussion would not be permitted.

For #1, I think the natural law argument is quite strong. Sex serves a purpose, and sexual acts contrary to sex’s final end is disordered. The Church also teaches that sex is only appropriate within the context of marriage. Granted, the second argument reaches (I think) a bit beyond a basic understanding of natural law, but it is nonetheless a Church teaching. The former excludes homosexual acts, and the latter (combined with the former) exclude homosexual “marriages.” Now, it seems that the former is fundamental. We can discuss that aspect. But so long as the natural law argument regarding the former is intact, I don’t see how any discussion of gay “marriage” can proceed.

For #2, given the Church’s understanding of objective truth, I don’t think it can teach otherwise. Unless you think the Church is wrong with regard to #1. There can’t be both unitive sexual activity open to procreation within the context of marriage or arbitrary sexual activity of any sort regardless of marriage (the opposite extremes). The Church teaches all 3 must be present (unitive, procreative, and within marriage). If any are missing, it is contrary to Church teaching. Can it be otherwise? Only if you deny the unitive, procreative, and/or the marriage requirements.
 
Suudy said:
I don’t see why an honest, charitable discussion would not be permitted.

For #1, I think the natural law argument is quite strong. Sex serves a purpose, and sexual acts contrary to sex’s final end is disordered. The Church also teaches that sex is only appropriate within the context of marriage. Granted, the second argument reaches (I think) a bit beyond a basic understanding of natural law, but it is nonetheless a Church teaching. The former excludes homosexual acts, and the latter (combined with the former) exclude homosexual “marriages.” Now, it seems that the former is fundamental. We can discuss that aspect. But so long as the natural law argument regarding the former is intact, I don’t see how any discussion of gay “marriage” can proceed.

For #2, given the Church’s understanding of objective truth, I don’t think it can teach otherwise. Unless you think the Church is wrong with regard to #1. There can’t be both unitive sexual activity open to procreation within the context of marriage or arbitrary sexual activity of any sort regardless of marriage (the opposite extremes). The Church teaches all 3 must be present (unitive, procreative, and within marriage). If any are missing, it is contrary to Church teaching. Can it be otherwise? Only if you deny the unitive, procreative, and/or the marriage requirements.
Click to expand...
As to the forum’s boundaries, based on past experience the issue is that it is not allowed to argue that Catholics should disagree with or disobey the Church, as that is considered anti-Catholic proselytizing. It is not my intent to do that, and I will do my best to express my thoughts without doing so. I will count on the mods to provide charitable correction should we wander astray.

I will grant you that #2 hinges on one’s view of #1, provided that one accepts that the Church’s views on some topics can change and evolve.

But for the fundamental point, I think the natural law argument is a pure bootstrap argument. It simply says that the natural end of sex is what the Church says it is, and therefore natural law requires that all sex conform to that (preselected) end. And that preselected end is procreation. Thus, the core issue is whether sex must be procreative. If sex need not be procreative, then the rest falls away, does it not? So it seems to me that the core question is whether sex must be procreative to be moral. And the natural law argument that is must is a bootstrap.
 
clem456 said:
Is this a good example of prejudice?
Why do you obsess over the Catholic Church?
Click to expand...
Sorry? I’m not clear on what you mean. Is Mardi Gras not the last days before Ash Wednesday and Lent? My practice is to eat pancakes (Shrove Tuesday) but in New Orleans and Rio, they celebrate a bit more flamboyantly. I hear it’s marvelous fun.

And obsess? How so?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top