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

[Sy_Noe]

Yea, you’re a poster on this thread.
What’s it about, all this talk?

What about your unsubstantiated assertion on another thread that 50% of priests in your diocese “are gay”.

Yea, you raise a good question here.

What’s it all about, all this obsessive talk?
What do you say?

This seems to me to be saying when Catholics talk so much about homosexuality, they only want to talk among themselves. Maybe if there weren’t so many threads about homosexuality, there would be less posters on those threads.

 

[Kurisu35712]

Is this seriously where this thread landed in just 48 hours since I last posted on it? And did no one here read the first 5 pages of the thread? Without trying to come across as uncharitable, I’m pretty sure everything past page 5 has broken from the topic of this thread.

The discussion isn’t about whether homosexual acts are sinful, pride parades are appropriate, whether being SSA is sinful or inappropriate or whatever. And as a Catholic from New Orleans, it certainly isn’t about the morality of Mardi Gras celebrations.

This discussion is about SSA Catholics, i.e. chaste, possibly celibate individuals who are actively striving to put God before everything else in their life. Not people who go to pride parades. Not the degree to which one should obey the Church, not the statistics on homosexual priests in the southern California area, and most certainly not about whether gay sex is in any way to be permissible or celebrated. Every person struggling with SSA in this thread is in full agreement with the Church on this issue. Anyone who is unclear on that and wishes to discuss it is welcome to create yet another thread about it. But the people with SSA in this thread aren’t the ones in need of a lesson on the morality of homosexuality and would likely all prefer if that did not become the result of yet another thread. This thread is about people, not another theological or political discussion.

 

[Kurisu35712]

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?

Going back through the thread, this post (#49) is a pretty in depth list of what this thread is supposed to be about. Also see post #59. I’m not asking that the thread be restricted to these issues, but I’m pretty sure I can safely say no one from pages 1-5 wants this to turn into another discussion on immorality and shame.

 

[randomuser]

Is this seriously where this thread landed in just 48 hours since I last posted on it? And did no one here read the first 5 pages of the thread? Without trying to come across as uncharitable, I’m pretty sure everything past page 5 has broken from the topic of this thread.

The discussion isn’t about whether homosexual acts are sinful, pride parades are appropriate, whether being SSA is sinful or inappropriate or whatever. And as a Catholic from New Orleans, it certainly isn’t about the morality of Mardi Gras celebrations.

This discussion is about SSA Catholics, i.e. chaste, possibly celibate individuals who are actively striving to put God before everything else in their life. Not people who go to pride parades. Not the degree to which one should obey the Church, not the statistics on homosexual priests in the southern California area, and most certainly not about whether gay sex is in any way to be permissible or celebrated. Every person struggling with SSA in this thread is in full agreement with the Church on this issue. Anyone who is unclear on that and wishes to discuss it is welcome to create yet another thread about it. But the people with SSA in this thread aren’t the ones in need of a lesson on the morality of homosexuality and would likely all prefer if that did not become the result of yet another thread. This thread is about people, not another theological or political discussion.

Well, with all due respect and charity, the detour the thread has taken is a perfect illustration of how problematic the term “SSA” can be. If we’re not supposed to use the word “gay” or “homosexual” anymore, because – why, of course, how could those words not be about gay pride parades and Mardi Gras and celebrating perversity? – naturally, it does get detoured.

A much-clearer term like “celibate gay Catholic” would eliminate oh-so-much confusion.

I would highly recommend re-reading Catholic Sheila’s post #50 as to the problems inherent with the term “SSA”:

*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.

Post #50.

 

[randomuser]

This discussion is about SSA Catholics, i.e. chaste, possibly celibate individuals who are actively striving to put God before everything else in their life.

It’s also about celibate gay Catholics who choose not to identify as “SSA.”

 

[cjforJesus]

Going back through the thread, this post (#49) is a pretty in depth list of what this thread is supposed to be about. Also see post #59. I’m not asking that the thread be restricted to these issues, but I’m pretty sure I can safely say no one from pages 1-5 wants this to turn into another discussion on immorality and shame.

What is one supposed to look like as a same sex sexually attracted Catholic? I would think about the same as any other Catholic.
If someone has deep seated homosexual tendencies I think the consecrated life may not be suitable. As far as marriage goes if you are not at all attracted to the opposite sex then marriage should be out of the question too.
A full life of charity and service to the poor may be a good option. I think there are many lay groups within the Catholic church that do charitable works and minister to the poor. I think some parishes also deliver meals to the elderly or offer companionship .
Most dioceses have various programs to aid the community which would be a wonderful outreach.
Also consider joining a weekly prayer group if one is offered. Daily masses often have prayer groups after or before.
You have lots of options to live out your faith. God bless

 

[randomuser]

As far as marriage goes if you are not at all attracted to the opposite sex then marriage should be out of the question too.

+1

 

[Kurisu35712]

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.

Again, randomuser, this is why I use the term SSA over celibate gay Catholic. You’re using a very specific term to describe a very large and diverse group of people. Also, I highly doubt my usage of the term SSA was responsible for the detour the thread took.

Also, thank you cj for bringing it back on topic.

 

[clem456]

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?

Why do you ask me?
-You claim- “posters here obsess about homosexuality” going on and on. Why do you obsess about homosexuality? Why do you obsess about Catholicism?
Why do you throw prejudicial smears at Catholic priests?
Why have you not addressed this issue with substantiation or apology?
I guess we will assume your obsession is without reason.

These are your assertions and questions.
Can you respond to the point or are we going to pretend?

 

[at9009]

What is one supposed to look like as a same sex sexually attracted Catholic? I would think about the same as any other Catholic.
If someone has deep seated homosexual tendencies I think the consecrated life may not be suitable. As far as marriage goes if you are not at all attracted to the opposite sex then marriage should be out of the question too.
A full life of charity and service to the poor may be a good option. I think there are many lay groups within the Catholic church that do charitable works and minister to the poor. I think some parishes also deliver meals to the elderly or offer companionship .
Most dioceses have various programs to aid the community which would be a wonderful outreach.
Also consider joining a weekly prayer group if one is offered. Daily masses often have prayer groups after or before.
You have lots of options to live out your faith. God bless

Thanks for your insight

The marriage question was meant for people with SSA yet have some attraction (since I know not all Catholics with SSA have only SSA) or have discerned marriage is their vocation. For them, there is a unique challenge in the marriage and how to even broach the subject with a future spouse.

Also I’m sure many are confused about exactly what ‘deep-seated tendencies’ mean. I do think the best option would be for the SSA/gay person to talk to a vocational director. However, I wonder if the ambiguity in the language will turn away people from a religious vocation when it it what their vocation is meant to be? (Not trying to be divisive here, honestly not sure how that is practically treated).

Granted neither of these really apply to me, but I am sure many here would appreciate others insight in these two topics.

 

[TMC]

I don’t see why an honest, charitable discussion would not be permitted.

And yet, before our discussion can really begin we have other posters clamoring for us not to discuss this issue.

 

[at9009]

And yet, before our discussion can really begin we have other posters clamoring for us not to discuss this issue.

I think a good solution would be to create a new thread that continues into the topic you guys are seeking. If seems like this thread has multiple conversations going on at once which may make any type of conversation a challenge. It’s not that people don’t want your discussion, just that it wasn’t really the original purpose of the thread, I think.

 

[clem456]

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.

I think it’s important to be precise.
The natural law in regard to sexuality is not an argument, it is an observation. While it is part of, and informs, Catholic Church teaching, the natural law teaching of the Church is not objectively true because it is Church teaching, it is true because the thing it observes is objectively true.

It is no different that observing that a human person is a human person. A person is not a person because the Church makes an assertion and teaches it, a person simply is, and that truth is observable as revealed. The Gospel of human dignity and sexuality is:
a revelation,
an observation of that revelation (eyes to see, ears to hear etc…),
and the communication of that revelation.

A sane society can observe truth and assent to it, an insane society ties itself in knots trying to avoid it.

If basic revealed truths about human beings are selectively optional for rejection or ignorance, then no truths about human beings are safe, because by degrading the truth about a human being, you degrade the human being. You can’t have your cake and eat it to, (I’m not referring to “you” as a poster)

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.

 

[Thorolfr]

It is no different that observing that a human person is a human person. A person is not a person because the Church makes an assertion and teaches it, a person simply is, and that truth is observable as revealed. The Gospel of human dignity and sexuality is:
a revelation,
an observation of that revelation (eyes to see, ears to hear etc…),
and the communication of that revelation.

So what makes a “human person” a “human person” and how is that observable and self evident? For example, all extant “humans” belong to the hominin clade Homo sapiens sapiens. But what about Homo sapiens neanderthalensis or Homo sapiens heidelbergensis or Homo erectus? Were they all human persons, too? How can we tell when any of these qualified as a “human person”?

 

[clem456]

So what makes a “human person” a “human person” and how is that observable and self evident? For example, all extant “humans” belong to the hominin clade Homo sapiens sapiens. But what about Homo sapiens neanderthalensis or Homo sapiens heidelbergensis or Homo erectus? Were they all human persons, too? How can we tell when any of these qualified as a “human person”?

You can’t be serious
I don’t know whether to laugh or cry

 

[Thorolfr]

You can’t be serious
I don’t know whether to laugh or cry

I’m serious. You state, “It is no different that observing that a human person is a human person. A person is not a person because the Church makes an assertion and teaches it, a person simply is, and that truth is observable as revealed.”

What is it that makes a human person a human person and is totally observable and self evident? What about another example. Is a human zygote, made of an ovum and a sperm, already a “person”? is it self evident that it is a person and deserves the same rights and protection as a infant that has been born? Both the terms “human” and “person” are open to definition and are not observable and obvious.

Wikipedia has an article on this subject:

The beginning of human personhood is the moment when a human is first recognized as a person. There are differences of opinion as to the precise time when human personhood begins and the nature of that status. The issue arises in a number of fields including science, religion, philosophy, and law, and is most acute in debates relating to abortion, stem cell research, reproductive rights, and fetal rights.

The same article also has a link about what I had mentioned in my last post: “For origins of humans as a species, see Human evolution.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beginning_of_human_personhood

 

[clem456]

I’m serious. You state, “It is no different that observing that a human person is a human person. A person is not a person because the Church makes an assertion and teaches it, a person simply is, and that truth is observable as revealed.”

What is it that makes a human person a human person and is totally observable and self evident? What about another example. Is a human zygote, made of an ovum and a sperm, already a “person”? is it self evident that it is a person and deserves the same rights and protection as a infant that has been born? Both the terms “human” and “person” are open to definition and are not observable and obvious.

Wikipedia has an article on this subject:

The same article also has a link about what I had mentioned in my last post: “For origins of humans as a species, see Human evolution.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beginning_of_human_personhood

So let me see if I understand you,
You cannot determine by natural reason and common sense what a human being is?

How do you propose to protect the dignity and rights of a human being if you are not quite confident in your observation of what it means to be human?

For instance, if you lived in 1930’s Germany and were confronted with the assertion that Jews are not quite human, you would have a hard time disputing that, right? Cause you are not quite sure of your observations.

If a crazy fundamentalist believed gays are not fully human and should be sterilized or put to death to “clean up the gene pool”, you would have to think and consult the internet before disputing that, right? Cause you are not quite sure what it is to be a human being. But wikipedia could help you decide evidently. (take your time figuring it out )

An old person should be terminated because they are not quite human anymore, due to age and infirmity? And you are unable to affirm their humanity, because you cannot observe what is obvious…

Am I hearing you correctly?

 

[Thorolfr]

If a crazy fundamentalist believed gays are not fully human and should be sterilized or put to death to “clean up the gene pool”…

It’s funny that according to you, the human person-hood of gays is obvious based on Natural Law, but most people in this forum would claim that it is also just as obvious based on that same Natural Law that our marriages, relationships and families do not deserve the same respect and protection as heterosexual marriages, relationships and families.

 

[clem456]

It’s funny that according to you, the human person-hood of gays is obvious based on Natural Law, but most people in this forum would claim that it is also just as obvious based on that same Natural Law that our marriages, relationships and families do not deserve the same respect and protection as heterosexual marriages, relationships and families.

Beforewe go on to the difference between personhood and marriage, can you address the first first?
Let me repost the question.
(I can only deal with one thing at a time.)

Originally Posted by Thorolfr View Post
I’m serious. You state, “It is no different that observing that a human person is a human person. A person is not a person because the Church makes an assertion and teaches it, a person simply is, and that truth is observable as revealed.”

What is it that makes a human person a human person and is totally observable and self evident? What about another example. Is a human zygote, made of an ovum and a sperm, already a “person”? is it self evident that it is a person and deserves the same rights and protection as a infant that has been born? Both the terms “human” and “person” are open to definition and are not observable and obvious.

Wikipedia has an article on this subject:
The same article also has a link about what I had mentioned in my last post: “For origins of humans as a species, see Human evolution.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beginni…man_personhood

Originally Posted by clem456:

So let me see if I understand you,
You cannot determine by natural reason and common sense what a human being is?

How do you propose to protect the dignity and rights of a human being if you are not quite confident in your observation of what it means to be human?

For instance, if you lived in 1930’s Germany and were confronted with the assertion that Jews are not quite human, you would have a hard time disputing that, right? Cause you are not quite sure of your observations.

If a crazy fundamentalist believed gays are not fully human and should be sterilized or put to death to “clean up the gene pool”, you would have to think and consult the internet before disputing that, right? Cause you are not quite sure what it is to be a human being. But wikipedia could help you decide evidently. (take your time figuring it out )

An old person should be terminated because they are not quite human anymore, due to age and infirmity? And you are unable to affirm their humanity, because you cannot observe what is obvious…

Am I hearing you correctly?

The assertion I am amazed at is, in a nutshell:

that you cannot determine by common sense observation that a human person is a human person, according to the operation of natural reason, or however else you would like to characterize the observation.

Honestly, I do not see how you can believe this, given what I have seen of your postings.

 

[Thorolfr]

Beforewe go on to the difference between personhood and marriage, can you address the first first?
Let me repost the question.
(I can only deal with one thing at a time.)

Your claim that the meaning of words such as “human” and “person” are all self evident and obvious is not true. If it was all obvious and self evident, then we would not be having disagreements in this country about whether a fetus is a person and deserves the same protections as other persons. There would be no disagreements about abortion in this country if it was all obvious. Even figuring out what divides “humans” from the animal world is not obvious and must be defined. Is it a soul (something which cannot be observed and scientifically demonstrated) that makes us human? Is it our superior intelligence that makes us human?