What is the good homosexual life, a life that is complete, fulfilled, and happy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter djeter
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Here, here or “hear, hear” as the case may be.

And now for a definition of terms. One of my favorite short stories is by Ray Carver. It made Esquires list of 75 books every man (and woman I guess) should read.
You can find a summary here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/what-we-talk-about-when-we-talk-about-love/

Now in addition to that depiction of modern love, I would advance my definition of love by looking to Thomas Aquinas: "Each human act is considered right and virtuous when it conforms to the standard of divine love. But when a human act does not conform to the standard of love, then it is not right, nor good, nor perfect.

This law of divine love accomplishes in a person four things that are much to be desired. First, it is the cause of one’s spiritual life. For it is evident that by the very nature of the action what is loved is in the one who loves. Therefore whoever loves God possesses God in himself; for scripture says, Whoever remains in love remains in God and God in him. It is the nature of love to transform the lover into the object loved. And so if we love God, we ourselves become divinized; for again, Whoever is joined to God becomes one spirit with him.

Augustine adds, “As the soul is the life of the body, so God is the life of the soul.” Thus the soul acts virtuously and perfectly when she acts through charity, and through charity God lives in her; indeed, without charity she cannot act; for scripture says, Whoever does not love, remains in death. If a person possesses all the gifts of the Holy Spirit, but lacks charity, that person has no life. For it matters not whether one has the grace of tongues, or the gift of faith, or any other gift such as prophecy; these do not bring life without charity. Even if a dead body should be adorned with gold and precious jewels, it nevertheless remains dead."

Elsewhere Thomas has written that love is willing the good of the other as other.

Can you accept these reflections as a good definition of love or would you care to add/detract whatever?

Thanks

dj
This definition is too narrow, in my view. It leaves out the possibility, by definition, simply because of their religion, for billions on this planet to have a full or complete love. That is absurd to me, and contrary to 1000s of years and billions and billions of pairs of loving couples and their experiences.

And there is no such thing as “perfect love.” It is an ideal, based in religious teaching or romantic superficiality, that also has nothing to do with how people actually live and love and find contentment and fulfillment.
 
Not to butt in to this portion of the thread DJETER,

but the crucial missing element in either Saint Thomas’s definition of love or your phrasing of it as " that love is willing the good of the other"…is the operational-izing of the term “good”.

Saint Thomas, and JPII in his TOB, clearly refer to the ultimate good; supernatural good achieved. Premarital sex is not supportive of the ultimate good of the other. Neither is extramarital sex. Or homosexual sex, or any other form of sexual gratification (in all sorts perverted creations) and union outside of the marital act.

So while two homosexual people may love, seek the good of, and self-empty (kenosis) for each other, for the good of one another, the Church has always expressed and has maintained that the true good end of each other is to do the will of the Father, to live a life in correspondence with that will, to seek complete union with God, as much as we can here as humans, and we have Hope for divine union later.

In the case of living out our sexuality, we were designed to love, for union, male and female. We either live in line with that design, which demands fidelity in our marriage (itself is a form of sacrifice, self-giving, if you will) or we completely self-sacrifice our sexual unitive capabilities for an even deeper mystical union with His Church here on earth, as in the case of the priesthood, and other forms of the celibate and consecrated life.

“Attractions” are feelings / emotional responses. Quite frankly they can be tuned and trained. Sexual gratification can be enormously powerful reinforcing behavioral forces. Just look at all the crazy perversions, fetishes, and off-shoots that we’ve misused our creativity and sexuality to date.

The “genetic” argument will soon enough have to “explain” those variations as well.

In marriage, if done as an act of self-giving, it can be powerfully renewing and strengthening to the marriage. If in marriage, it’s done in some sort of perverted fashion, it can be enormously damaging.

Sorry for rambling.
 
“What is the good homosexual life, a life that is complete, fulfilled, and happy?” Confronted with this question, a gay activist worth his or her salt would first ask what a good heterosexual life is, and then go on to say that a good homosexual life is, mutatis mutandis, the same thing. This answer has the advantage of pushing criticism of the “homosexual lifestyle” back onto the “heterosexual lifestyle,” and the further advantage of showing how it is possible to be gay and happy. It says, in effect, that gay people can be as happy as straight people.

Unfortunately, that answer also has the disadvantage of ignoring the ethical issues surrounding unnatural sex (by which I mean complete sexual acts which, merely considered as such, are not apt for generation). If after careful consideration of such acts one comes to the belief that they are intrinsically evil, then the gay activist’s answer no longer works, and the question becomes what is the good life for homosexual men and women? If something similar to the good life for heterosexuals is not possible for these men and women, then can we reasonably expect them to be happy in this world?

As a Catholic, this is the main question I have with regard to homosexuality. The OP’s question seems easy by comparison, since if I can imagine happy heterosexuals, I can virtually by the same act imagine happy homosexuals. What I can’t do is imagine a way of life that would make the overwhelming majority of heterosexuals desperate and unhappy (celibacy) and then imagine the same kind of life making homosexuals grateful and content.

[NB: I am not doubting the moral teaching of the Church here. The problem I’m pointing out, phrased more succinctly, is this: Natural Law, being a form of participated theonomy, tells us how to perfect and maintain the human species; but no one *is
the human species, so the perfection and maintenance of a give human person might be contrary to Natural Law; for such a person, any conceivable action could only lead to further misery.]

Actually, if you wish the Catholic answer I would point you to Fr. Jose Noriega’s essay that takes up the answer in full. I simply borrowed his question. I don’t think a gay activist can use any of this:

payingattentiontothesky.com/causes-of-homosexuality-a-christian-appraisal-of-the-data/homosexuality-the-semblance-of-intimacy-by-jose-noriega/

dj
 
Not to butt in to this portion of the thread DJETER,

but the crucial missing element in either Saint Thomas’s definition of love or your phrasing of it as " that love is willing the good of the other"…is the operational-izing of the term “good”.

Saint Thomas, and JPII in his TOB, clearly refer to the ultimate good; supernatural good achieved. Premarital sex is not supportive of the ultimate good of the other. Neither is extramarital sex. Or homosexual sex, or any other form of sexual gratification (in all sorts perverted creations) and union outside of the marital act.

So while two homosexual people may love, seek the good of, and self-empty (kenosis) for each other, for the good of one another, the Church has always expressed and has maintained that the true good end of each other is to do the will of the Father, to live a life in correspondence with that will, to seek complete union with God, as much as we can here as humans, and we have Hope for divine union later.

In the case of living out our sexuality, we were designed to love, for union, male and female. We either live in line with that design, which demands fidelity in our marriage (itself is a form of sacrifice, self-giving, if you will) or we completely self-sacrifice our sexual unitive capabilities for an even deeper mystical union with His Church here on earth, as in the case of the priesthood, and other forms of the celibate and consecrated life.

“Attractions” are feelings / emotional responses. Quite frankly they can be tuned and trained. Sexual gratification can be enormously powerful reinforcing behavioral forces. Just look at all the crazy perversions, fetishes, and off-shoots that we’ve misused our creativity and sexuality to date.

The “genetic” argument will soon enough have to “explain” those variations as well.

In marriage, if done as an act of self-giving, it can be powerfully renewing and strengthening to the marriage. If in marriage, it’s done in some sort of perverted fashion, it can be enormously damaging.

Sorry for rambling.

the crucial missing element in either Saint Thomas’s definition of love​

C’mon now Edward, do you really want to criticize St. Thomas? That is the classic definition of divine love, which we are called to obey. I was responding to Larkin31’s Hallmark moral case for homosexuality: LOVE FLOURISHING LOVE…Notice how he went on to define it – whoops, it doesn’t exist…

dj
 
And there is no such thing as “perfect love.” It is an ideal, based in religious teaching or romantic superficiality, that also has nothing to do with how people actually live and love and find contentment and fulfillment.
So let us return to the relativist swamp… no thanks, Larkin31. I’m Catholic. I know better.

dj
 
In my opinion it is not the “goodness” in homosexuality, but the lack of sin and evilness. IMO it is neutral, just like heterosexual marriage. If they choose to adopt, they saved an unwanted child from an orphanage. If they don’t adopt, then they don’t have kids like some heterosexual couples.

I just find it to be morally neutral. They aren’t hurting anyone IMO. I know that I have read on these boards that the legalization of gay marriage will lead to the end of the world (someone actually wrote that :D) but I don’t see the big deal. Taking religion out of the argument and there is no argument against it.
If the state recognizes same sex unions/marriage as equal to hetero marriage they will indeed be hurting people… kids. Already many Catholic and other charities’ services had to be shut down. The Catholic adoption agencies can no longer operate because the state says they are discriminating for refusing to place children with gay couples.

Another way they hurt kids is that they deprive them of their natural right to have both a mom and a dad.

Ultimately what it will come down to is the abandoning of the institution of marriage by the state altogether. This breakdown began years ago with no fault divorce.
 
Would you say that the following supports your world view correctly?

“Those who argue that homosexual inclinations are “natural”…

dj
I am unsure of whether or not to say I would argue about my homosexuality like this, because it is not precisely the framework in which I think. My belief is that love is the most valuable thing in the world, both to give and to receive. Now, it has been my experience in life that I am capable of giving and receiving the most intimate and full expressions of love to another man, and I am not capable of doing the same with a woman. I can find no harm to anyone or any injustice that would be caused by my love of another man, so it seems that since I have been given the opportunity to do so I should joyfully embrace that opportunity. I will concede to you that *if *I did believe that any aspect of a gay relationships endangered a person’s eternal life that I would be obliged to refrain from those aspects. However, that is something I do not believe.

As for the “truth” which I pursue, I suppose I should say that I pursue knowledge, wisdom and whatever may be true. I suppose the reason I do this is because I believe that doing so will allow a more complete understanding of the universe and God, if God exists. This is a bit vague I suppose, but it will have to do for now.

I hope this addresses some of what you are asking.

-Kevin
 
Once, I admitted to a Franciscan that I have these tendencies, and he told me never to focus on asking God to “get rid of” my homosexuality, but that I should focus on asking God to fill me entirely and push all my sins away. This should be the same for every homosexual human being. It seems, to me, that the good homosexual life is one that consists in visiting the Tabernacle daily and begging God to fill you with His Spirit. A homosexual has some extra hurdles to get over, but a sinful lust remains so no matter who it is.

The most complete homosexual person is the one who acknowledges that he is human, and that heterosexuals are human. In this, God shows him his infinite worth as a living being, a beloved child of the Most High. It’s the same as a good heterosexual life…
 
If the state recognizes same sex unions/marriage as equal to hetero marriage they will indeed be hurting people… kids. Already many Catholic and other charities’ services had to be shut down. The Catholic adoption agencies can no longer operate because the state says they are discriminating for refusing to place children with gay couples.

Another way they hurt kids is that they deprive them of their natural right to have both a mom and a dad.

Ultimately what it will come down to is the abandoning of the institution of marriage by the state altogether. This breakdown began years ago with no fault divorce.
Many kids don’t grow up with a mom and dad. As for Catholic adoption agencies shutting down, how does that hurt the kids? I am sure that the other secular adoption agencies will pick up the slack. Its not like kids are getting thrown onto the street because these adoption agencies are shutting down.
 
If the state recognizes same sex unions/marriage as equal to hetero marriage they will indeed be hurting people… kids.
No harm has yet been demonstrated to children adopted by gays (because they are gay, meaning not also the same harm as caused by heteros). You can’t just claim it; you must demonstrate it. In a court of law, anyway.
 
No harm has yet been demonstrated to children adopted by gays (because they are gay, meaning not also the same harm as caused by heteros). You can’t just claim it; you must demonstrate it. In a court of law, anyway.
I find that people on this board like to just assume what causes damage and what does not. And if something doesn’t cause damage according to studies and things of that nature they will say that it causes spiritual damage…something that can’t be measured and thus cannot be proven wrong.
 
Love is nearly always good. Let it flourish.
Catholics agree that love is good. In fact, Catholics love homosexuals so much that they have no wish to see them treated as meat machines, and have no wish to help them along the road to eternal damnation.
 
I do have a son, and if my son told me that he thought he was gay I would tell him it was ok and I would love him either way.

To be honest I parted ways with the church a while ago. This forum definitely has made my opinions of the Catholic church MUCH, MUCH worse. I think that most Catholics would feel the same way if they read these forums.
Ah, but your notions of Catholicism differ from what the Scriptures and the Catechism teach. If Catholicism were a serve-yourself way of life, you might have a valid argument, but the Scriptures and Catechism leave no room for doubt when it comes to homosexual practices: they are grievous sin.

That does not mean that the person with homosexual tendencies is bad, evil, somebody worthy of pity, hate, or scorn. He or she is just another sinner with a different cross to bear. As the old saying goes, “Life ain’t easy and it sure ain’t fair.”
 
I find that people on this board like to just assume what causes damage and what does not. And if something doesn’t cause damage according to studies and things of that nature they will say that it causes spiritual damage…something that can’t be measured and thus cannot be proven wrong.
And which has no bearing in a modern secular court if all we are talking about is a religious moral sensibility. Obviously, the commandment not to worship other Gods is central to Christian morality. But we dismiss it in a modern secular legal society because ALL it is, is a religious moral claim. There is no material evidence of any damage to our families or our towns or our societies to allow persons to worship other gods of their choice. So we let them, and we do not make laws against it based ONLY on the religious commandment against it. Same goes for “honoring mother and father”. Same goes for using God’s name in vain.
 
Catholics agree that love is good. In fact, Catholics love homosexuals so much that they have no wish to see them treated as meat machines, and have no wish to help them along the road to eternal damnation.
Luckily, your God loves us enough to accord gay people more free will than many Catholics on this board would themselves allow.
 

the crucial missing element in either Saint Thomas’s definition of love​

C’mon now Edward, do you really want to criticize St. Thomas? That is the classic definition of divine love, which we are called to obey. I was responding to Larkin31’s Hallmark moral case for homosexuality: LOVE FLOURISHING LOVE…Notice how he went on to define it – whoops, it doesn’t exist…

dj
No criticism intended of the great Saint, of course. No toehold for you there.

But you’ll agree that words like good, happiness and most importantly love don’t quite enjoy the same level of substantialness to them today as they did in St Thomas’s day.

I just wanted to cut off the predictable hiding are of “we ARE pursuing his happiness/goodness”. The practicing homosexual is decidedly not pursuing his own or his partners ultimate good.
 
good luck on your quest for perfect love with an actual person

hope you find it

🤷
Next time you see a priest ask him how Jesus could have possibly said:

Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. [Matthew 5:48] and why we obey it as best we can.

But listen to Pascal:

The nature of self-love and of this human self is to love only self and consider only self. But what is it to do? It cannot prevent the objects of its love from being full of faults and wretchedness; it wants to be great and sees that it is small; it wants to be happy and sees that it is wretched; it want to be perfect and sees that it is full of imperfections; it wants to be the object of men’s love and esteem and sees that its faults deserve only their dislike and contempt.

The predicament in which it thus finds itself arouses in it the most unjust and criminal passion that could possibly be imagined, for it conceives a deadly hatred for the truth which rebukes it and convinces it of its faults. It would like to do away with this truth, and not being able to destroy it as such, it destroys it , as best it can, in the consciousness of itself and others; that is, it takes every care to hide its faults both from itself and others, and cannot bear to have them pointed out or noticed…

The Catholic religion does not oblige us to reveal our sins indiscriminately to everyone; it allows us to remain hidden from all other men, with one single exception, to whom it bids us reveal our innermost heart and show ourselves for what we are. There is only this one man in the world whom it orders us to disillusion, and it lays on him the obligation of inviolable secrecy, which means that he might as well not possess the knowledge of us that he has. Can anything milder and more charitable be imagined? And yet, such is man’s corruptions that he finds even this law harsh, and this is one of the main reasons why a large part of Europe has revolted against the Church.

This aversion to the truth exists in differing degrees but it may be said that it exists in everyone to some degree because it is inseparable from self-love. The result is that anyone who has an interest in winning our affection avoids rendering us a service which he knows to be unwelcome; we are treated as we want to be treated; we hate the truth and it is kept from us; we desire to be flattered and we are flattered; we like being deceived and we are deceived…

Thus human life is a perpetual illusion; there is nothing but mutual deception and flattery…Man is nothing but disguise, falsehood and hypocrisy, both in himself and with regard to others. He does not want to be told the truth. He avoids telling it to others, and all these tendencies, so remote from justice and reason, are naturally rooted in his heart…
Pensées 978

Sin kills the life of the soul. Sin is spiritual death. The forms of sin are original sin and actual sin. The essence of sin is selfishness, self-love or pride. Christianity teaches us that we ought to have more self-respect and less self-love. As Chesterton puts it, “a man cannot think too little of his self, or too much of his soul.” …

Original sin is very similar to one of the most popular doctrines of Freud, one of Christianity’s most powerful enemies: namely the doctrine of the pleasure principle”. Both teach…that we are all born into the world selfish little pigs that (as Augustine puts it) “the innocence of babies is in their bodies, not in the virtue in their souls”; that our original working philosophy is always “I want what I want when I want it”; and that even when we later learn to cover up and compromise this demand, it remains down at the bottom of our heart….

The difference between Freud and Christ is not about this fact but about whether it is to be judged and whether it can be cured. For the secularist, it is just human nature, and all we can do is live with it, compromise, “cope”.

For Christianity, it is our disease, not our design, and it must and can be destroyed. In other words Christianity with its dogma of Original Sin is wildly more optimistic.

Deliberate self delusion may even be “the unforgivable sin” for once we shut our souls to the light; we shut them to God, for God is light. We can repent of any sin if only we see the light; refusing light (truth) makes repentance possible. The damned in hell may be adamantly convincing themselves that they are in Heaven.

And if you say “What does it matter, then, as long as they are satisfied?”, you are infected with the same Hellish disease that sent them there: indifference to Truth, that is, to God.

And to think it all starts with that “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect…” No no no says the swamp rat, join me here in my relativist swamp. Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see. It’s getting hard to be someone but it all works out. It doesn’t matter much to me. You know it’s nothing but a dream. Nothing is real. Nothing to get hung about…Strawberry Swamp forever…Stawberry Swamp…forever. Sing along, Larkin31…Let me take you down…

dj
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top