What Should a Gay Catholic Do?

[Exalt]

A friend of mine pursuing his Master of Theological Studies at Boston College sent me this link earlier this weekend, which I found to be absolutely fascinating. I’ve reproduced it here below, and I’m interested in hearing the opinions of Catholics on these forums.

Essentially, the question before you is this: What are gay Catholics supposed to do in life? There’s a ton they can’t do - can’t become a priest, can’t get married, can’t adopt children, can’t engage in romantic relationships, and can’t work for the church and be open - even if they are celibate. Volumes upon volumes of text has been produced by the Church on what gay Catholics *shouldn’t *do and *shouldn’t *say and *shouldn’t *pursue. But very little has been written in the way of what they *should *do. What do you think?

Here’s the original article, by Father James Martin, S.J:

What should a gay Catholic do?

Here’s a real pastoral question to consider: What place is there for the gay person in the Catholic church? With the warning from the archdiocese of Washington, D.C., that it would pull out of social services in the city rather than accede to a bill that would afford benefits to same-sex spouses, a question, too long neglected, arises for the whole church: What is a gay Catholic supposed to do in life?

Imagine you are a devout Catholic who is also gay. Here is a list of the things that you are not to do, according to the teaching of the church. (Remember that most other Catholics can choose among many of these options.) None of this should be new or in any way surprising. If you are gay, you cannot:

1.) Enjoy romantic love. At least not the kind of fulfilling love that most people, from their earliest adolescence, anticipate, dream about, hope for, plan about, talk about and pray for. In other cases, celibacy (that is, a lifelong abstinence from sex) is seen as a gift, a calling or a charism in a person’s life. Thus, it is not to be enjoined on a person. (“Celibacy is not a matter of compulsion,” said then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.) Yet it is enjoined on you. (“Homosexual person are called to chastity,” says the Catechism, meaning complete abstinence.) In any event, you cannot enjoy any sort of romantic, physical or sexual relationship.

2.) Marry. The church has been clear, especially of late, in its opposition to same-sex unions. Of course, you can not marry within the church. Nor can you enter into any sort of civil, same-sex unions of any kind. (Such unions are “pseudo-matrimonies,” said the Holy Father, that stem from “expressions of an anarchic freedom”) They are beyond the pale. This should be clear to any Catholic. One bishop compared the possibility of gays marrying one another to people marrying animals.

3.) Adopt a child. Despite the church’s warm approval of adoption, you cannot adopt a needy child. You would do “violence,” according to church teaching, to a child if you were to adopt.

4.) Enter a seminary. If you accept the church’s teaching on celibacy for gays, and feel a call to enter a seminary or religious order, you cannot–even if you desire the celibate life. The church explicitly forbids men with “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” from entering the priesthood. Nor can you hide your sexuality if you wish to enter a seminary.

5.) Work for the church and be open. If you work for the church in any sort of official capacity it is close to impossible to be open about who your identity as a gay man or a lesbian. A gay layman I know who serves an important role in a diocese (and even writes some of his bishop’s statements on social justice) has a solid theological education and desires to serve the church, but finds it impossible to be open in the face of the bishop’s repeated disparaging remarks about gays. Some laypeople have been fired, or dismissed, for being open. Like this altar server, who lives a chaste life.Or this woman, who worked at a Catholic high school. Or this choir director.

At the same time, if you are a devout Catholic who is attentive both to church teachings and the public pronouncements of church leaders, you will be reminded that you are “objectively disordered,” and your sexuality is “a deviation, an irregularity a wound.”

Nothing above is surprising or controversial: all of the above are church teaching. But taken together, they raise an important pastoral question for all of us: What kind of life remains for these brothers and sisters in Christ, those who wish to follow the teachings of the church? Officially at least, the gay Catholic seems set up to lead a lonely, loveless, secretive life. Is this what God desires for the gay person?

 

[RobbyS]

A friend of mine pursuing his Master of Theological Studies at Boston College sent me this link earlier this weekend, which I found to be absolutely fascinating. I’ve reproduced it here below, and I’m interested in hearing the opinions of Catholics on these forums.

Essentially, the question before you is this: What are gay Catholics supposed to do in life? There’s a ton they can’t do - can’t become a priest, can’t get married, can’t adopt children, can’t engage in romantic relationships, and can’t work for the church and be open - even if they are celibate. Volumes upon volumes of text has been produced by the Church on what gay Catholics *shouldn’t *do and *shouldn’t *say and *shouldn’t *pursue. But very little has been written in the way of what they *should *do. What do you think?

Here’s the original article, by Father James Martin, S.J:

One thing that bothers me is the assumption that this is a natural thing rather thing rather a matter of culture. IAC, what not think of being gay as a disability? Many disabled people cannot do many of these things. The severely retarded cannot–or ought not–marry/ become priests because of their limitations.

 

[Bob4BVM]

A friend of mine pursuing his Master of Theological Studies at Boston College sent me this link earlier this weekend, which I found to be absolutely fascinating. I’ve reproduced it here below, and I’m interested in hearing the opinions of Catholics on these forums.

Essentially, the question before you is this: What are gay Catholics supposed to do in life? There’s a ton they can’t do - can’t become a priest, can’t get married, can’t adopt children, can’t engage in romantic relationships, and can’t work for the church and be open - even if they are celibate. Volumes upon volumes of text has been produced by the Church on what gay Catholics *shouldn’t *do and *shouldn’t *say and *shouldn’t *pursue. But very little has been written in the way of what they *should *do. What do you think?

Here’s the original article, by Father James Martin, S.J:

How about take Jesus at His word:
Behold, the kingdom of heaven is at hand, repent, and believe.

Do you expect the Church to deviate from what the Bible says regarding your article points ?

 

[d2k5000]

Gay Catholics can still devote themselves toward service for other people. This could be done through works of charity, scholastic works, or a job which is of service to other people (such as a doctor).

 

[TheRiver]

Sexual Desire given by God →

Sexual Desire for the same sex →

Act on Sexual Desire →

Hell



Very big of the pope to call out and say they are called to a life of chastity, if he loves his celibacy that’s his own decision and people should respect it, but to tell gay people they should live a life of chastity is not only going to NOT work, but anger people, simply because sexual desire is instinctive and engrained in every sexual being, hence why we are called sexual beings. I sometimes wonder if some of these academics need a refresher course in logic.

At least if they could offer a smarter response whilst holding true the traditionalist stance, we supposedly have brilliant minds in the Vatican and they can’t come up with anything better than half-witted statements.

A very big difference between him and JPII, their positions may have been the same but they delivered it very differently, and it’s very obvious.

 

[RSD]

I think that this essay actually demonstrates a great deal that is wrong not with the Church’s teachings on marriage and sexuality but on the problem with substituting a worldly understanding for the Church’s teachings. First of all, what a Catholic is called to do, no matter what their personal temptations, is to seek God’s will and do it. Because God made each of us to show His glory in some individual way, each of us will have a calling to live out His will, to serve Him in some way that no one else can. This calling will involve temptations that no one is aware of besides God, will involve struggles, difficulties and joys that no one else will understand. If the writer of that essay thinks that it is actually a Catholic view that we are meant to pursue “romantic love of the type that most people long for from adolescence”, well, that is a very clear indication of a lack of understanding. ALL of our loves must be subject to God’s will. That type of “romantic love that most people long for, etc,…” is actually a kind of idolatry of a person. It makes for great stories, but not so good in real life. Do you think that Romeo and Juliet subjected every desire to God’s will? Maybe not. Do you think that they lived out God’s will in their lives? Do you envy them their love?

 

[fultonfish]

There are MILLIONS of things your gay friend CAN do. And only a very few he can’t do.

Here is what he CAN do [and which most Catholics don’t have the time to do].

Daily Mass.

Weekly Confession.

Daily Rosary: all 20 decades.

Use the opportunity to pray for others.

Reconsecrate his life to pray for others. You don’t need to take Holy Orders or to live in Community to dedicate your life to serve others.

Enough of this me-me-me stuff.

He has the time available to pray for others constantly.

Jesus spoke over and over that when someone is married he has to look after the needs and demands of his wife.

But your gay friend has the opportunity to dedicate his life to the service of God and the service of others.

The best service to others is the service that does not receive something in return. So your friend can work for others with purity of motives: no public recognition. So your friend will be warmly greeted by Jesus at his final judgement and get a high place in heaven.

Your gay friend should focus on the positives and look at the amazing opportunity he has to serve others without getting a reward.

He needs to focus on his future reward in heaven instead of getting a reward here on earth.

 

[TheRiver]

I think that this essay actually demonstrates a great deal that is wrong not with the Church’s teachings on marriage and sexuality but on the problem with substituting a worldly understanding for the Church’s teachings. First of all, what a Catholic is called to do, no matter what their personal temptations, is to seek God’s will and do it. Because God made each of us to show His glory in some individual way, each of us will have a calling to live out His will, to serve Him in some way that no one else can. This calling will involve temptations that no one is aware of besides God, will involve struggles, difficulties and joys that no one else will understand. If the writer of that essay thinks that it is actually a Catholic view that we are meant to pursue “romantic love of the type that most people long for from adolescence”, well, that is a very clear indication of a lack of understanding. ALL of our loves must be subject to God’s will. That type of “romantic love that most people long for, etc,…” is actually a kind of idolatry of a person. It makes for great stories, but not so good in real life. Do you think that Romeo and Juliet subjected every desire to God’s will? Maybe not. Do you think that they lived out God’s will in their lives? Do you envy them their love?

Your argument is weak, first of all this word “temptation” is vague, others may see it differently.

I don’t think it’s the writers lack of understanding, but your lack of understanding to have an open mind, a closed mind leads to ridiculous teachings within the church say like in the 1800’s when Gregory XVI deemed the use of railways to be the way of the devil

Or say…Pope Pius IX proudly proclaiming that it’s a theological error to consider animal rights - and other cardinals, bishops and ridiculous people within the clergy coming up with stupid ideas like St. Aquinas claiming that the missionary position is the only acceptable position for sex

I fail to see how we should be following God’s will when even these supposedly learned and holy men had trouble forming a distinction between logic and plain idiocy.

So when you say all of our love’s must be subject to God’s will, who then decides that it’s indeed God’s will, do we start a subject on the forums and form a user poll opinion and decide what exactly was God’s will after much prayer? Or do we wait for a sudden relevation and then wait out for an atheist to point out hey there have been many people with “revelations” and many of them have done despicable things, such as certain serial killers who thought they have been instructed by Jesus to do this and that, it sounds funny and stupid, but in reality it’s no different to a lot of the Catholic clergy over the last 2000 years, so no don’t give us God’s will speech.

I am not gay, and neither do I think it’s natural, however it exists, and the feelings that gays have for others exist, and feelings are powerful i presume, like for a man and woman, God gave humans the ability to feel for a reason, some would consider this an “evil temptation”, but this could easily be dismissed by pointing out to the church’s other erroneous teachings over time.

I agree that many people look for a story-book type of love, but those usually tend to be young people anyways, after a few life experiences you get the bigger picture.

All of our love must be subject to reason, not God’s will, because who’s to say what’s God will or not. Reason has also helped humanity, unlike prophets of God’s will.

 

[Brendan]

Sexual Desire given by God →

Sexual Desire for children->

Act on Sexual Desire →

Hell



.

and the feelings that pedophiles have for others exist, and feelings are powerful i presume, like for a man and woman, God gave humans the ability to feel for a reason, some would consider this an “evil temptation”, but this could easily be dismissed by pointing out to the church’s other erroneous teachings over time.

Just a little twist on what you wrote. What about pedophiles, should they act on their “God Given” sexual desires too?

 

[TheRiver]

There are MILLIONS of things your gay friend CAN do. And only a very few he can’t do.

Here is what he CAN do [and which most Catholics don’t have the time to do].

Daily Mass.

Weekly Confession.

Daily Rosary: all 20 decades.

Use the opportunity to pray for others.

Reconsecrate his life to pray for others. You don’t need to take Holy Orders or to live in Community to dedicate your life to serve others.

Enough of this me-me-me stuff.

He has the time available to pray for others constantly.

Jesus spoke over and over that when someone is married he has to look after the needs and demands of his wife.

But your gay friend has the opportunity to dedicate his life to the service of God and the service of others.

The best service to others is the service that does not receive something in return. So your friend can work for others with purity of motives: no public recognition. So your friend will be warmly greeted by Jesus at his final judgement and get a high place in heaven.

Your gay friend should focus on the positives and look at the amazing opportunity he has to serve others without getting a reward.

He needs to focus on his future reward in heaven instead of getting a reward here on earth.

Lol @ this post.

In either case, I think you’re promoting selfish motives here, which is also contradictory to one of your lines: “Enough of this me-me-me stuff.”

Isn’t focusing on getting to heaven a selfish motive? You just said he needs to focus on his future reward in heaven. Heaven is after all eternity, so focusing on an eternal reward as opposed to an earthly finite reward would mean he’d be the most selfish of them all. I don’t care how you put it, doing something to get to heaven to get your reward is a selfish motive, because it’s ultimately about YOUR destiny.

Honestly mate, the logic in these kinds of posts can be broken so easily.

Scenario: Someone is in the state of mortal sin, his friend’s life is in danger, he can either risk his live to save his friend who he knows to a very probable extent is in grace and if his friend dies, the friend would see heaven, but if he himself dies would most probably go to hell.

Should he let his friend die and focus on his own repentance to get to heaven, or should he die and risk hell fire, but save his friend?

 

[RSD]

All of our love must be subject to reason, not God’s will, because who’s to say what’s God will or not. Reason has also helped humanity, unlike prophets of God’s will.

I am curious. Your self identification is “Catholic”. What do you mean by it, if you do not think that the Catholic is our best guide to learning God’s will?

 

[TheRiver]

Just a little twist on what you wrote. What about pedophiles, should they act on their “God Given” sexual desires too?

This is where the framework of the law comes in, something which the church has had trouble with in the past, usually resorting to say…erm killing people?

Paedophilia is a crime in developed countries, homosexuality isn’t. Also as far as I know, paedophilia is considered a psychological disorder, where as homosexuality isn’t.

Luckily we have independent bodies apart from the church that deal with these things, the last time the church and state were one, there was trouble, just saying this in case you decide to launch a war against psychological definitions or something.

When in doubt, look at the law, it will help you greatly.

Good luck.

 

[TheRiver]

I am curious. Your self identification is “Catholic”. What do you mean by it, if you do not think that the Catholic is our best guide to learning God’s will?

I was raised Catholic, and for the most part I identify with a lot of Catholic beliefs.

I believe abortion should be banned.
I do not think homosexuality is natural, but I believe there could be a better way to go about addressing the problem than falling the lead of the catholic church, for God’s sake, our clergy is constantly in the news for molesting boys, what kind of message does that send? Wasn’t a bishop recently caught? You see my point here, it’s hypocrisy at the highest level.

I think contraception is un-natural too, and that it shouldn’t be used, but of course it’s a personal choice for the couple involved.

I think reason should be our first line of defence, and not merely following the Church “because Rome said so” - a brief read of history will show many people going down the wrong path because they simply followed what the Church said.

God gave us reason, and I thank a lot of the atheists and agnostics over time to question EVERYTHING, for that is how advancements have been made for us to live a better life. Even Catholics that questioned the church’s teachings.

God also gave us faith, and I think that’s important too, but unfortunately either people have too much faith and a lack of reason, or too much reason so they bloat themselves and fail spiritually because of their lack of faith.

JPII said it all best in Fides et Ratio, unfortunately though there doesn’t seem to be a great amount of catholic leaders (and i’m referring to the highest orders of the vatican) who are “reasonable” they are hypocritical and close minded.

Thank God that we happened to have at least TWO great popes in the 20th century (Pius XII and JPII) that actually possessed something called reason.

 

[Brendan]

This is where the framework of the law comes in, something which the church has had trouble with in the past, usually resorting to say…erm killing people?

Paedophilia is a crime in developed countries, homosexuality isn’t. Also as far as I know, paedophilia is considered a psychological disorder, where as homosexuality isn’t.k.

So what you are saying is that there is no MORAL reason why a pedophile should not seek sexual gratification from children, only a legal reason why they should not?

Is morality to be defined by what is, or is not legal under civil law?

 

[TheRiver]

So what you are saying is that there is no MORAL reason why a pedophile should not seek sexual gratification from children, only a legal reason why they should not?

Is morality to be defined by what is, or is not legal under civil law?

For the most part, laws are based on around morality is it not? You’re the one who posed this question clearly with the moral agenda; paedophilia.

I gave you my response, I argued from a legal standpoint, but I however did not state that legality and morality are two different things entirely, laws are largely based on morality, especially in this specific case of paedophilia.

I did not mean to imply a dichotomy between the two at all. So in response to your question here, there is a moral reason why paedophilia should not be allowed, and using the legal argument can be justified because it’s formed from a moral viewpoint.

Cheers

 

[Brendan]

. So in response to your question here, there is a moral reason why paedophilia should not be allowed, and using the legal argument can be justified because it’s formed from a moral viewpoint.

Cheers

How does one arrive at the conclusion that acting on pedofilliac urges would be immoral?

What moral framework does one use?

 

[TheRiver]

How does one arrive at the conclusion that acting on pedofilliac urges would be immoral?

What moral framework does one use?

I think it would be stemming from morality in a sense of community and for the mental health of the individual, clearly from past experience, paedophilia is a grave disturbance to the child’s mental health and also a violation to their body since they have not developed an understanding similar to an adult of what sexuality is and has been proven to have adverse consequences in their life.

It is this sympathy we must have for affected children that this morality comes from.

But since we are on the topic of paedophilia, clearly since you feel so strongly about it, would you mind if your daughter claimed to have a vision of God, and that she must shack up with a 50+ year old man, but insist she and him will be celibates?

Because if you didn’t, I’d just point to the case of Mary and Joseph, it would not be acceptable in society for a 14 year old girl to shack up with a 50+ year old random man, even if they they were abstaining, there’d be a great deal of suspicion, and no doubt child health services would be on it quicker than **** on velcrow.

Morality should be objective right? I’d be glad to take a user poll on this board and see if it’s moral for a teenage girl to shack up with an elderly man, even if they were abstaining. Create an exception to this kind of objective morality, and it’d be immediately hypocritical.

 

[fix]

I don’t think it’s the writers lack of understanding, but your lack of understanding to have an open mind, a closed mind leads to ridiculous teachings within the church say like in the 1800’s when Gregory XVI deemed the use of railways to be the way of the devil

Or say…Pope Pius IX proudly proclaiming that it’s a theological error to consider animal rights - and other cardinals, bishops and ridiculous people within the clergy coming up with stupid ideas like St. Aquinas claiming that the missionary position is the only acceptable position for sex

I fail to see how we should be following God’s will when even these supposedly learned and holy men had trouble forming a distinction between logic and plain idiocy.

So when you say all of our love’s must be subject to God’s will, who then decides that it’s indeed God’s will, do we start a subject on the forums and form a user poll opinion and decide what exactly was God’s will after much prayer? Or do we wait for a sudden relevation and then wait out for an atheist to point out hey there have been many people with “revelations” and many of them have done despicable things, such as certain serial killers who thought they have been instructed by Jesus to do this and that, it sounds funny and stupid, but in reality it’s no different to a lot of the Catholic clergy over the last 2000 years, so no don’t give us God’s will speech.

I am not gay, and neither do I think it’s natural, however it exists, and the feelings that gays have for others exist, and feelings are powerful i presume, like for a man and woman, God gave humans the ability to feel for a reason, some would consider this an “evil temptation”, but this could easily be dismissed by pointing out to the church’s other erroneous teachings over time.

I agree that many people look for a story-book type of love, but those usually tend to be young people anyways, after a few life experiences you get the bigger picture.

All of our love must be subject to reason, not God’s will, because who’s to say what’s God will or not. Reason has also helped humanity, unlike prophets of God’s will.

Basically, you reject the magisterium based on examples that are not related to the Church’s teaching authority on faith and morals, and then claim you are being open-minded and rational.

Who is your authority in this matter?

 

[rick43235]

What are gay Catholics supposed to do in life? There’s a ton they can’t do - can’t become a priest…

You’re kidding…right?

 

[fultonfish]

Lol @ this post.

In either case, I think you’re promoting selfish motives here, which is also contradictory to one of your lines: “Enough of this me-me-me stuff.”

Isn’t focusing on getting to heaven a selfish motive? You just said he needs to focus on his future reward in heaven. Heaven is after all eternity, so focusing on an eternal reward as opposed to an earthly finite reward would mean he’d be the most selfish of them all. I don’t care how you put it, doing something to get to heaven to get your reward is a selfish motive, because it’s ultimately about YOUR destiny.

Honestly mate, the logic in these kinds of posts can be broken so easily.

Scenario: Someone is in the state of mortal sin, his friend’s life is in danger, he can either risk his live to save his friend who he knows to a very probable extent is in grace and if his friend dies, the friend would see heaven, but if he himself dies would most probably go to hell.

Should he let his friend die and focus on his own repentance to get to heaven, or should he die and risk hell fire, but save his friend?

The ONLY person who can save your friend is your friend.

He has free will.

The ONLY worthwhile goal is to save your own soul.

If you want to HELP your friend so that he might save his soul, then, pray for him.

“Let those who have ears, hear.”

Other than that, some people only want to argue. Sarcasm betrays the inner self. Humility works: all gifts are from God and God alone.

I would also suggest daily attendance/participation in Perpetual Eucharistic Adoration.