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

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholiclala
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Fauken said:
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.
Click to expand...
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
@MNathaniel You are correct. I came to this wanting to learn more. In posts after my original I even go on to say, that was my impression based on what I had been told and what I have seen represented culturally. Many points were clarified for me. I didn’t insert “deep seated” tendencies or not because I wasn’t thinking in that framework to make a distinction.
 
Last edited:
MNathaniel said:
seems non-constructive considering that the most true answer to the question would start by explaining why the initial “if” premise is untrue.
Click to expand...
You are hyper focused on what I should or should not do in your opinion. You are demanding that I do things a certain way, approved by you. You are concerned that I am not clear on certain things. Okay. Why don’t we switch things around and here’s what I want to ask you:
  1. Do you accept that sacred virginity is a spousal vocation with a spousal bond?
  2. Do you accept that sacred virgins are consecrated by a bishop and by the action of the Holy Spirit are by His grace elevated to the dignity of Spouse of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and made mothers in the spirit?
  3. Do you accept that sacred virginity, in the order of virgins, is open only to women and that those with deep seated homosexual tendencies are not called by God to this vocation?
    4)Whatever your personal emotions or feelings may be on the matter, do you accept that people can self-dedicate but cannot self-consecrate?
If not, why?
 
SerraSemper said:
You are hyper focused on what I should or should not do in your opinion. You are demanding that I do things a certain way, approved by you.
Click to expand...
Wow, you got me. It’s all about you. I’m fibbing about caring for the experience of my SSA loved ones who tell me how wounded they feel when they read unnecessarily exclusionary nonsense like yours online. What I really want isn’t for you to clarify your statements and cease going beyond what the Church actually teaches – that was a feeble lie on my part. What I really want is to control you, an Internet stranger, into doing things in only the certain way that I pre-approve. It’s a power trip.

Shucks, now that my dastardly plan has fallen through, I guess I’d better get back to my family Christmas.

Foiled again! If it weren’t for those meddling kids…

:woman_shrugging:t2:👻🐶
 
LOL. And you refuse to answer my questions despite making many claims about consecrated virgins that were factually incorrect. Ok. You made your assumptions and assertions with nothing but your opinion to back you up, and I made mine and pointed to magisterial documents and a liturgical (pontifical) rite to back mine.
 
SerraSemper said:
LOL. And you refuse to answer my questions despite making many claims about consecrated virgins that were factually incorrect. Ok. You made your assumptions and assertions with nothing but your opinion to back you up, and I made mine and pointed to magisterial documents and a liturgical (pontifical) rite to back mine.
Click to expand...
You’re in no position to complain that I don’t answer your questions, when after this many back-and-forths you still haven’t answered my question by stating with an affirmative sentence whether you agree that it is true that a person who experiences SSA may validly become a consecrated virgin.

It seems objectively true that SSA people are not, at this time, categorically excluded from the order of virgins. You haven’t shown one piece of evidence to the contrary, but you also haven’t yet stated that you agree with this statement.

Until you can do either, I refuse to follow you as you move the goalposts.
 
Last edited:
catholiclala said:
Exactly. This is an example of inserting sex in the equation where it shouldn’t be. There are also marriages like Joseph and Mary, no sex involved and that is allowed, so thinking that a woman who is to be a consecrated virgin must be sexually-orientated in a way that implies a sexual marriage with Jesus, I feel odd even typing it TBH.
Click to expand...
So if Mary was with a woman instead of Joseph, if no sex is involved, then that could be labelled “marriage”?
 
SerraSemper said:
So if Mary was with a woman instead of Joseph, if no sex is involved, then that could be labelled “marriage”?
Click to expand...
Of course not, and no one is claiming this.

But the fact that you think this is the kind of argument being made in this thread, seems to reveal how incapable you are of understanding the points others make.
 
MNathaniel said:
Of course not, and no one is claiming this.
Click to expand...
I wasn’t asking you. Obviously if sex is missing from the dynamic, then the question is what is the measuring stick for understanding Mary’s relationship with Joseph? Why not have a “spiritual marriage” with a woman. After all, no sex involved? Your arguments are partially based on the premise that sex is not involved with Christ, therefore there can be no marriage with Christ (and therefore a woman’s relationship would be the same as a man’s).
 
SerraSemper said:
Tell me if you think if there are people who experience SSA who cannot validly become a consecrated virgin.
Click to expand...
I think your inability to answer the simple, yes/no question I’ve been asking for ages, is officially funny.

The number of deflections you’ve stacked up at this point is just silly.
 
MNathaniel said:
I think your inability to answer the simple, yes/no question I’ve been asking for ages, is officially funny.
Click to expand...
Funny that. I just asked a simple yes or no question. I asked if you think if you think there are people who experience SSA who cannot validly become a consecrated virgin. That is a yes or no question.
 
SerraSemper said:
Funny that. I just asked a simple yes or no question. I asked if you think if you think there are people who experience SSA who cannot validly become a consecrated virgin. That is a yes or no question.
Click to expand...
Sister, I’m not going to play internet ping-pong.

I asked you a single question, I’m not going to bother countering how many posts ago because it’s not worth it. But a ridiculous number.

You’ve wasted a ridiculous number of posts trying to deflect from answering, including asking me multiple separate questions of your own.

How about this: I’ll give you a free, I’ll-give-you-more-than-you-give-me offer: if you will finally answer the one question I’ve been asking you, I’ll answer three of your questions. Because I’m just that nice.

To reiterate my question, and I’ll even frame it as yes/no so you won’t have to type more than 2 or 3 keys on your keyboard. And please keep in mind the qualifiers we’ve thoroughly discussed, like SSA meaning only what it says (same-sex attraction), not anything else. Assume the most charitable possible interpretation:
Do you affirm that it is possible for a woman who experiences SSA to become a consecrated virgin?
Click to expand...
 
MNathaniel said:
To reiterate my question, and I’ll even frame it as yes/no so you won’t have to type more than 2 or 3 keys on your keyboard. And please keep in mind the qualifiers we’ve thoroughly discussed, like SSA meaning only what it says (same-sex attraction), not anything else. Assume the most charitable possible interpretation:
Click to expand...
Why don’t you answer my question?
 
Because you have written very negatively about the vocation to sacred virginity, and I if I respond to your question, I see you as hopping off your soapbox, with your disrespect for the vocation standing with no clarification as to whether you accept that a group of female virgins with SSA cannot have the vocation to sacred virginity.
 
SerraSemper said:
Because you have written very negatively about the vocation to sacred virginity, and I if I respond to your question, I see you as hopping off your soapbox, with your disrespect for the vocation standing with no clarification as to whether you accept that a group of female virgins with SSA cannot have the vocation to sacred virginity.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure I follow.

If you think I’m on a soapbox, wouldn’t you want me to hop off my soapbox?
 
You have said things in this thread that would distort peoples’ ideas on the vocation to sacred virginity. Yes, I would want that corrected before you step off your soapbox. But you can’t answer my question. Which means that you don’t care if you misrepresent the vocation to sacred virginity as long as you get an answer that you want. And with that, I am leaving, because I don’t think you have what it takes to answer my question.
 
Last edited:
SerraSemper said:
You have said things in this thread that would distort peoples’ ideas on the vocation to sacred virginity. Yes, I would want that corrected before you step off your soapbox. But you can’t answer my question. Which means that you don’t care if you misrepresent the vocation to sacred virginity as long as you get an answer that you want.
Click to expand...
More uncharity of mind.

I have no interest in misrepresenting anything.

Incidentally, I am running out of time in the real world. My offer is open. If you answer my one question, I will answer three of yours. But it has to be quick because I’m about to be super busy and unable to attend to computer for quite a while.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top