What is the vocation of same-sex-attracted Catholics?

[RolandThompsonGunner]

And now, all, since I do not see any of you actually arguing from Church documents although I have referenced a few

Weren’t you the one arguing that we don’t need documents for everything and we can just use our own powers of deduction?

 

[MNathaniel]

I understand the difference; it is you who hasn’t understood even the basics of my vocation nor that I have never claimed anything other than consecrated virginity requiring proper affectivity. You have consistently put different spins on that.

Why go back and edit a comment after my later posts, rather than make a later post yourself?

Anyhow, you are the one publicly asserting that all women who experience SSA categorically lack the so-called “proper affectivity” to become Consecrated Virgins.

That is a strong claim requiring strong evidence, and you have failed to provide it, then blamed everyone else for not falling in line with your opinions. You have refused to clarify your terms, refused to clearly answer the questions put to you. This is a ‘you’ problem, not an ‘everyone else’ problem. You can run away from the conversation, but you don’t seem to have persuaded anyone by your unsupported assertions.

 

[SerraSemper]

I actually claimed that a sacred virgin is a spouse of Christ. And pointed you to the Rite. Did you read the Rite? Can you PLEASE READ The RITE? Is it too much to ask?!

I claimed that a sacred virgin is a spiritual mother and that is her primary charism or mission or whatever you want. Just like for a priest to be a spiritual father. I even quoted from the Rite. Did I mention that reading the Rite is important?

To be a good spouse and a good mother, one should have the “intimate communion of the whole of life” with Christ. That entails a spousal/maternal affectivity. If you understand how a priest is fatherly, then you understand how a sacred virgin is motherly. If you can’t understand the one, you can’t understand the other.

When you have read the Rite and can show me that you have, maybe then you’d be at a point where we can have a conversation. Until then, I dont think you can possibly understand much of my vocation.

 

[catholiclala]

@SerraSemper Why are you assuming I didn’t read it? I’ve read everything linked in this thread. I just didn’t come to the same conclusions. Anyways, you’re going to all caps text now and exclamation points. Too hype for me. We can end this correspondence, thanks!

 

[MNathaniel]

Did you read the Rite?

Like @catholiclala, I’ve also read the links included in this thread.

They just didn’t prove your private point.

 

[SerraSemper]

Anyhow, you are the one publicly asserting that all women who experience SSA categorically lack the so-called “proper affectivity” to become Consecrated Virgins.

That is your interpretation, not mine. I have explained earlier that in responding to the OP, I thought she was defining SSA as people with the deep rooted homosexual tendencies. And now, it is time for you to read the Rite.

 

[MNathaniel]

That is your interpretation, not mine. I have explained earlier that in responding to the OP, I thought she was defining SSA as people with the deep rooted homosexual tendencies. And now, it is time for you to read the Rite.

Ah, this is good! Sorry, I did miss the part where you stated that SSA Catholics may become consecrated virgins.

Could you quote for me the sentence where you said that, or state it again?

 

[SerraSemper]

They just didn’t prove your private point.

Like the Sacred Virgin is the Bride of Christ? I’m sure it is in the Rite. Several times actually.
Like the Sacred Virgin is a spiritual mother of souls? I’m sure it is in the Rite.
Like the Sacred Virgin relates to Christ as Bride? I’m sure it is in the Rite (hint: even the prayer of consecration has it)

 

[SerraSemper]

Ah, this is good! Sorry, I did miss the part where you stated that SSA Catholics may become consecrated virgins.

Why don’t you do a search for my posts. I was using her language to say that no, CVs couldn’t be persons with SSA (since I assumed that she was talking only about those with deep seated tendencies). Then, she clarified that it wasn’t in her thought process… and I explained that I had assumed that was what she had meant. Anyway, I continue to claim that one must have proper affectivity. And I dare you to claim that a person with deep rooted tendencies will have that.

 

[MNathaniel]

MNathaniel:

They just didn’t prove your private point.

Like the Sacred Virgin is the Bride of Christ? I’m sure it is in the Rite. Several times actually.
Like the Sacred Virgin is a spiritual mother of souls? I’m sure it is in the Rite.
Like the Sacred Virgin relates to Christ as Bride? I’m sure it is in the Rite (hint: even the prayer of consecration has it)

Correct.

Being a bride and mother is perfectly possible for women who experience SSA.

So experiencing SSA doesn’t categorically exclude a woman from this vocation.

I was using her language to say that no, CVs couldn’t be persons with SSA (since I assumed that she was talking only about those with deep seated tendencies). Then, she clarified that it wasn’t in her thought process… and I explained that I had assumed that was what she had meant.

Now if you’re randomly talking about some group beyond the thread topic (and uncharitably assuming that SSA implies some kind of active involvement in same-sex sexual behaviour or LGBT+ identity interpretations), that’s on you to learn to not inject this uncharitable bias into a conversation that was only about SSA people before you jumped in. Stop spreading uncharity. Start spreading charity.

 

[SerraSemper]

Being a bride and mother is perfectly possible for women who experience SSA.

Anyone can exchange vows and anyone (woman) with the proper fertility can bring forth a baby. That does not necessarily guarantee 1) a real marriage and 2) genuine maternity.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

And I dare you to claim that a person with deep rooted tendencies will have that.

If a lesbian can’t have “proper affectivity” then presumably the issue is her lack of sexual attraction to men, right? I mean, what else could it be?

 

[MNathaniel]

Anyone can exchange vows and anyone (woman) with the proper fertility can bring forth a baby. That does not necessarily guarantee 1) a real marriage and 2) genuine maternity.

You’re doing a really poor job at demonstrating your understanding that people who experience SSA are capable of real spousal relationship.

And I notice that even since denying you haven’t said the opposite (double negative) you still refuse to affirm the positive (that a person can both experience SSA and become a Consecrated Virgin).

 

[SerraSemper]

Now if you’re randomly talking about some group beyond the thread topic (and uncharitably assuming that SSA implies some kind of active involvement in same-sex sexual behaviour or LGBT+ identity interpretations), that’s on you to learn to not inject this uncharitable bias into a conversation that was only about SSA people before you jumped in. Stop spreading uncharity. Start spreading charity.

No. If you read my post with charity, you would understand what I am actually saying rather than your own agenda. The OP claimed in her very first post that SSA people can’t marry and become religious. Using HER definition, I said that SSA people cannot become CVs. To me, it was obvious she wasn’t talking about those without deep seated tendencies but those with, and although her language was sloppy, I was merely making the point that if you exclude a group from religious life and marriage, you must also necessarily exclude consecrated virgins because they are married.

 

[MNathaniel]

No. If you read my post with charity, you would understand what I am actually saying rather than your own agenda. The OP claimed in her very first post that SSA people can’t marry and become religious. Using HER definition, I said that SSA people cannot become CVs.

You are failing to communicate with the spiritual maturity I would expect of a spouse of Christ.

 

[SerraSemper]

spiritual maturity I would expect of a spouse of Christ.

A beautiful ad hominem.

 

[MNathaniel]

You’re being immature. The OP asked a question. You didn’t ‘use her definition’. You simply failed to provide her an answer with accurate information. And you seem to still be refusing to correct your own misinformation.

 

[SerraSemper]

That is your opinion. Enjoy it.

 

[Fauken]

Guys, I realize this is a topic close to home for many people for different reasons, but please, let’s calm down. No one is meaning offense.

 

[MNathaniel]

The OP claimed in her very first post that SSA people can’t marry and become religious.

No. She objectively didn’t. She said (emphasis mine):

If we are supposed to have a vocation of holy matrimony or religious life, what is the vocation for the same-sex-attracted who are not supposed to marry but are also not supposed to be welcomed into religious life?

The tone and intent of the OP’s question was obviously not to make a positive claim that SSA people are not to marry or enter religious life, but to ask a question based on a premise she’s been given to understand. And the OP used the word “if” to make it clear she was asking a question, not claiming to provide definitive answers.

And the premise of the question (through no culpable fault of the OP) was technically erroneous.

A helpful answer to her question would start by identifying the false premise, bringing light and clarity in the form of noting that SSA people are actually not categorically excluded from these vocations.

Beyond that, we can get into the weeds. But it seems disingenuous to claim an OP made a “claim” in her first post, when she was clearly just asking a question, the best answers to which would surely involve helping address the incomplete understanding implied by the question.

Basically, this approach:

I was merely making the point that if you exclude a group from religious life and marriage, you must also necessarily exclude consecrated virgins because they are married.

seems non-constructive considering that the most true answer to the question would start by explaining why the initial “if” premise is untrue.