What Will I Tell My Gay Friends? (An account of the dilemma a woman becoming Catholic faced)

[Elijah_Baley]

The Church does not define anyone by their sexuality. You do. Maybe this is the cause for your confusion.

In other words: for a heterosexual, celibacy represents the conditioning of the sexuality (this fundamental aspect of their humanity) by the will so that it flourishes in a new and different way. The analogy here is pruning a tree. For a homosexual, celibacy is an* imposition* of the will to destroy or suppress sexuality (this fundamental aspect of their humanity). The analogy here is chopping the tree down. How can it be otherwise? The catechism is clear: good flourishing is impossible for something that is objectively disordered. Good fruit cannot come from a bad tree. (Although, if good fruit *could *be observed–such as a flourishing of virtues [faith, hope, love, for instance] in a homosexual relationship–one would be bound to conclude that the tree is not intrinsically unsound, that homosexual desire is not objectively disordered…)

The desire is not a sin. Only acts can be sins. Any choice to desire, any inflaming of the desire, is a sin, but the little temptations which call here and there are not sins.

Those who are celibate are not necessarily celibate temporarily. Priests do not merely hold back an irrepressible urge. They transform it to God’s will here on earth, much like Akido does not entail using your own force to create an effect but transforming existing force into a different effect.

Therefore, the only flourishing you can possibly mean in heterosexual chastity is just as applicable in homosexual chastity, as chastity is not the temporary holding back of the flood gates against some unstoppable force but rather the complete resynthesis of an old thing into a new thing.

Celibate heterosexuals offer their “sexuality” — for lack of a better word — up to God and are given the grace to perform great works. This works exactly the same as homosexual celibacy.

To people who do not hold sexuality at their very core, I can see how the definition by the Church is an affront to your sensibilities. Perhaps it is your sensibilities — if they are yours at all — which are at fault, and not the inexorable teachings of the Church.

 

[dusty_david]

A bunch of clunky translations of stuff said hundreds of years ago is not what I was looking for.

The Church says “NO” to homoseuxality. I understand that. I agree with that. Do you understand that?

I want to know what the Church’s YES for a person like me could possibly be?

SEX: NO
MARRIAGE: NO
PRIESTHOOD: NO
RELIGIOUS LIFE: NO
CONSECRATED LIFE: NO

What kind of options does someone like me have? Chastity is NOT a vocation, it’s a virtue that everyone is called to. Being single is NOT a vocation, it is a state of life in which one lives their vocation (priesthood or consecrated religious life). As I see it, homosexual = impeded from vocations. Just live a third rate life as a third class citizen in the Church.

I don’t understand why you hang here. If you’re not going to be a man, why bother making comments and sighing about being a homosexual. It’s sinful. Get over it. I dunno about Catholics. But men of other Christian faiths aren’t thrilled about homosexuals. And whining about how hard you people think life is – really off putting.

 

[chrysostim83]

I want to know what the Church’s YES for a person like me could possibly be?

SEX: NO
MARRIAGE: NO
PRIESTHOOD: NO
RELIGIOUS LIFE: NO
CONSECRATED LIFE: NO

What kind of options does someone like me have? Chastity is NOT a vocation, it’s a virtue that everyone is called to. Being single is NOT a vocation, it is a state of life in which one lives their vocation (priesthood or consecrated religious life). As I see it, homosexual = impeded from vocations. Just live a third rate life as a third class citizen in the Church.

I haven’t checked this answer too carefully, but I think it’s possible to be a nominalist about vocations, which would imply that vocations such as marriage and priesthood just represent convenient (but not substantial) labels for empirically given sets of personal vocations. So having a personal vocation that is not aptly described by one of the classic labels does not imply that you must live a third rate life or be a third class citizen. A personal vocation is all anyone is ever given, and, because it is given by God, it is always best: so, as other folks here have said, trust in God (heaven knows that’s easier said than done) and maybe seek out a spiritual director to help you discern how exactly God wants you to use the life He’s given you.

To dusty david: there are a few things about your post that I didn’t understand.

I don’t understand why you hang here. If you’re not going to be a man, why bother making comments and sighing about being a homosexual.

Do you think “not being a man” makes life easier or more difficult?

It’s sinful.

Do you think the sinfulness of same sex sexual behaviors makes life easier or more difficult for gay men and lesbian women who consciously try to live by Church teaching?

Get over it.

Do you think the process of getting over it makes life easier or more difficult?

I dunno about Catholics. But men of other Christian faiths aren’t thrilled about homosexuals.

Do you think being rejected by other Christians makes life easier or more difficult?

And whining about how hard you people think life is – really off putting.

Do you think being called “you people” (like you’re some kind of alien), and being told not to kvetch when life has already gotten pretty rough from all the other factors running around here—do you think that makes life easier or more difficult?

In the end, what is really interesting about your post is, in response to LCMS_No_More’s complaint that he is a third class citizen, it seems to me you said, “Yes, that is exactly what you are, so just shut up.” To say the least, it’s not in the best tradition of even so-called true compassion and respect.

 

[dusty_david]

In the end, what is really interesting about your post is, in response to LCMS_No_More’s complaint that he is a third class citizen, it seems to me you said, “Yes, that is exactly what you are, so just shut up.” To say the least, it’s not in the best tradition of even so-called true compassion and respect.
Reply With Quote

I see you know how to read.

 

[chrysostim83]

I see you know how to read.

OK, but I think one of us is missing the point. As I tried to show, your post essentially read as a laundry list of reasons why it is more difficult to be gay than straight in traditional Christian religions… and yet you say “teh geys” (or at least one of them) should stop complaining about their situation? Was the irony intentional?

 

[dusty_david]

OK, but I think one of us is missing the point. As I tried to show, your post essentially read as a laundry list of reasons why it is more difficult to be gay than straight in traditional Christian religions… and yet you say “teh geys” (or at least one of them) should stop complaining about their situation? Was the irony intentional?

The only irony I have is on my iron board.

I just find whining annoying.

 

[Aboveallbereal]

Treat them with kindness and respect. They will probably be shocked when they hear you are Christian and actually respect them as human beings. Most of them are brainwashed by the media stereotypes of Christians going psycho when faced with a gay person. Be kind and compassionate, and share your views if they ask, for they will ask when they are ready and they are not ready before they ask.

Treat them the same way you would treat a smoker, for the gay lifestyle actually has worse health effects than smoking. The average gay person has 5-10 years shorter life span than the average smoker. Instead of lung cancer, gays get anal and other nasty forms of cancer that do not respond well to treatment. Like smoking, being gay is very addictive. Many people have left homosexuality, and many others never do. Do not shove your views down their throats, but be open if you’re asked your opinion.

I think Stephe’s advice is good. Remember that your friends who are engaged in homosexual activity will not know many “out” Christians and will almost certainly have a negative view of Christians as ranting queer bashers.

You have to remember that it is they who are mainstream and we who are counter cultural in modern culture. so if you do talk about christian views with them remember that they will almost certainly know little or nothing about the religion and need to be gently led to the idea that we are not horned devils but in fact have a message that liberates them.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Grace & Peace!

3 Doctors (and others), I think the difficulty that LCMS brings up is much more complex than you’re recognizing. Because of the language of the catechism (that states that the homosexual inclination is “objectively disordered”), a homosexual’s desire for physical intimacy will always be an occasion of sin. By the catechism’s reasoning, there is no correctly ordered way that a homosexual may desire physical intimacy. And once he or she becomes conscious of the desire, he or she must also become conscious that it is a **disordered **desire, the gateway of sin. There is no way that his or her desire can be put to a good end, according to the catechism, because there is no goodness, in it, no part of it that can be correctly ordered–that’s what objectively disordered means. It is not sin. Granted. But it has all the hallmarks of a curse of Calvinistic proportions. Because contrary to Catholic teaching (which declares nature to be wounded, but not destroyed, and therefore capable of bearing and receiving grace), the homosexual’s capacity for desire is utterly and completely broken according to the catechism. It is not subject to disorder, it is not liable to impairment. It is objectively disordered and thus intrinsically broken.

This is not so with heterosexual desire. A heterosexual can desire intimacy and say, “One day, I’ll get married, and be able to share myself with another!” A heterosexual may experience desire for intimacy and say, “I sacrifice the expression of my good desire for the sake of chastity!” or “I recognize a call to celibacy, and therefore I choose to sacrifice the expression of my good desire for the sake of the church!” A homosexual can say none of these things. He or she cannot experience physical intimacy without sin, therefore it is their duty, not their choice, to refrain from physical intimacy. Moreover, in what way can a homosexual say, “I sacrifice the expression of my intrinsically disordered desire for the sake of chastity”? It’s analogous, given the catechism’s reasoning, to saying, “I sacrifice stabbing myself in the head with a steak knife for the sake of being able to think clearly.” There’s no real sacrifice involved, there. The same goes for the homosexual’s “choice” to be celibate, according the catechism’s logic.

What the homosexual is actually asked to sacrifice, however, is the expression of the fullness of their humanity. The catechism is clear that sexuality relates to our relational capacity and is an incredibly important part of what it means to be human. A heterosexual’s choice to be celibate can justifiably be called a good expression of their sexuality–the good of celibacy comes from the good of their sexuality. But a homosexual’s “choice” for the good of celibacy arises from no such good of sexuality, because their sexuality is objectively ungood!

In other words: for a heterosexual, celibacy represents the conditioning of the sexuality (this fundamental aspect of their humanity) by the will so that it flourishes in a new and different way. The analogy here is pruning a tree. For a homosexual, celibacy is an* imposition* of the will to destroy or suppress sexuality (this fundamental aspect of their humanity). The analogy here is chopping the tree down. How can it be otherwise? The catechism is clear: good flourishing is impossible for something that is objectively disordered. Good fruit cannot come from a bad tree. (Although, if good fruit *could *be observed–such as a flourishing of virtues [faith, hope, love, for instance] in a homosexual relationship–one would be bound to conclude that the tree is not intrinsically unsound, that homosexual desire is not objectively disordered…)

So we need to drop the pretence that Rome is calling homosexuals and heterosexuals to the same thing. Heterosexuals are called to flourishing. Homosexuals are called to an act of self-destruction. They are not the same calling. They cannot be called by the same names–it is willfully ignorant to do so. But because they cannot be called by the same names, because they are essentially different callings, I would argue that the catechism’s labelling of homosexual desire as objectively disordered is unjust and scandalous.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy!
Deo Gratias!

Finally! Someone GETS IT!

 

[kaid100]

I’m not Adam. There is plenty of “anecdotal evidence” (if such a thing exists) of people who have stopped BEHAVIORS and made proclamations that they stopped certain BEHAVIORS. There is no evidence that celibate homosexuals can magically become straight. If the homosexual is celibate and there’s no sinful behavior, then by what measure can someone declare “ex-gay”? Evaluating one’s orientation, or disorientation as the case may be, by behavior alone…that doesn’t make much sense. There’s no such thing as “ex-gay.” You’re either born gay, or you’re born straight. Two words: Serenity Prayer.

Sorry I have to disagree here. Whether or not you are “born” to your orientation, it isn’t “either gay or straight”: there are plenty of bisexuals.

 

[Carmel_B]

I dunno about Catholics. But men of other Christian faiths aren’t thrilled about homosexuals. .

There are no other Christian faiths other than the Catholic Faith which includes the Orthodox and other denominations. All other so-called “Christian Faiths” are heresies of one kind or another which does not make them bad it just means they are not Christian.

 

[oldbrit2009]

Grace & Peace!

3 Doctors (and others), I think the difficulty that LCMS brings up is much more complex than you’re recognizing. Because of the language of the catechism (that states that the homosexual inclination is “objectively disordered”), a homosexual’s desire for physical intimacy will always be an occasion of sin. By the catechism’s reasoning, there is no correctly ordered way that a homosexual may desire physical intimacy. And once he or she becomes conscious of the desire, he or she must also become conscious that it is a **disordered **desire, the gateway of sin. There is no way that his or her desire can be put to a good end, according to the catechism, because there is no goodness, in it, no part of it that can be correctly ordered–that’s what objectively disordered means. It is not sin. Granted. But it has all the hallmarks of a curse of Calvinistic proportions. Because contrary to Catholic teaching (which declares nature to be wounded, but not destroyed, and therefore capable of bearing and receiving grace), the homosexual’s capacity for desire is utterly and completely broken according to the catechism. It is not subject to disorder, it is not liable to impairment. It is objectively disordered and thus intrinsically broken.

This is not so with heterosexual desire. A heterosexual can desire intimacy and say, “One day, I’ll get married, and be able to share myself with another!” A heterosexual may experience desire for intimacy and say, “I sacrifice the expression of my good desire for the sake of chastity!” or “I recognize a call to celibacy, and therefore I choose to sacrifice the expression of my good desire for the sake of the church!” A homosexual can say none of these things. He or she cannot experience physical intimacy without sin, therefore it is their duty, not their choice, to refrain from physical intimacy. Moreover, in what way can a homosexual say, “I sacrifice the expression of my intrinsically disordered desire for the sake of chastity”? It’s analogous, given the catechism’s reasoning, to saying, “I sacrifice stabbing myself in the head with a steak knife for the sake of being able to think clearly.” There’s no real sacrifice involved, there. The same goes for the homosexual’s “choice” to be celibate, according the catechism’s logic.

What the homosexual is actually asked to sacrifice, however, is the expression of the fullness of their humanity. The catechism is clear that sexuality relates to our relational capacity and is an incredibly important part of what it means to be human. A heterosexual’s choice to be celibate can justifiably be called a good expression of their sexuality–the good of celibacy comes from the good of their sexuality. But a homosexual’s “choice” for the good of celibacy arises from no such good of sexuality, because their sexuality is objectively ungood!

In other words: for a heterosexual, celibacy represents the conditioning of the sexuality (this fundamental aspect of their humanity) by the will so that it flourishes in a new and different way. The analogy here is pruning a tree. For a homosexual, celibacy is an* imposition* of the will to destroy or suppress sexuality (this fundamental aspect of their humanity). The analogy here is chopping the tree down. How can it be otherwise? The catechism is clear: good flourishing is impossible for something that is objectively disordered. Good fruit cannot come from a bad tree. (Although, if good fruit *could *be observed–such as a flourishing of virtues [faith, hope, love, for instance] in a homosexual relationship–one would be bound to conclude that the tree is not intrinsically unsound, that homosexual desire is not objectively disordered…)

So we need to drop the pretence that Rome is calling homosexuals and heterosexuals to the same thing. Heterosexuals are called to flourishing. Homosexuals are called to an act of self-destruction. They are not the same calling. They cannot be called by the same names–it is willfully ignorant to do so. But because they cannot be called by the same names, because they are essentially different callings, I would argue that the catechism’s labelling of homosexual desire as objectively disordered is unjust and scandalous.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy!
Deo Gratias!

Deo Volente,
The Catholic Church is absolutely right to describe homosexuality as intrinsically disordered. For a man to have a mating instinct for another male, what is more disordered than that!

 

[oldbrit2009]

I’m not Adam. There is plenty of “anecdotal evidence” (if such a thing exists) of people who have stopped BEHAVIORS and made proclamations that they stopped certain BEHAVIORS. There is no evidence that celibate homosexuals can magically become straight. If the homosexual is celibate and there’s no sinful behavior, then by what measure can someone declare “ex-gay”? Evaluating one’s orientation, or disorientation as the case may be, by behavior alone…that doesn’t make much sense. There’s no such thing as “ex-gay.” You’re either born gay, or you’re born straight. Two words: Serenity Prayer.

havana,
Human being are not “born gay”. There is no such thing.
Why, even some gays themselves pour scorn on the idea.
Being “born gay” is refuted even by a rabid feminist like Camille Paglia, but she has the intellectual honesty to admit the claim is total nonsense.
"Homosexuality is not ‘normal.’ On the contrary it is a challenge to the norm … Nature exists whether academics like it or not. And in nature, procreation is the single relentless rule. That is the norm. Our sexual bodies were designed for reproduction … No one is born gay. The idea is ridiculous … homosexuality is an adaptation, not an inborn trait."

 

[stevealbert99]

Treat them the same way you would treat a smoker, for the gay lifestyle actually has worse health effects than smoking. The average gay person has 5-10 years shorter life span than the average smoker. Instead of lung cancer, gays get anal and other nasty forms of cancer that do not respond well to treatment. Like smoking, being gay is very addictive. Many people have left homosexuality, and many others never do. Do not shove your views down their throats, but be open if you’re asked your opinion.

this is all completely false, sorry you have been brainwashed into thinking otherwise

 

[stevealbert99]

… Nature exists whether academics like it or not. And in nature, procreation is the single relentless rule.

Why are there gay animals then?

 

[oldbrit2009]

Why are there gay animals then?

Because they don’t know any better, stevealbert.

 

[stevealbert99]

Because they don’t know any better, stevealbert.

if you claim that homosexuality is not natural, then why is there homosexuality in nature?
Saying “they don’t know any better” is not a sufficient answer. Homosexuality does not always involve sex, even with animals. There has been documented evidence of same-sex animals staying together as companions, without engaging in sex.

 

[The_Reginator]

if you claim that homosexuality is not natural, then why is there homosexuality in nature?
Saying “they don’t know any better” is not a sufficient answer. Homosexuality does not always involve sex, even with animals. There has been documented evidence of same-sex animals staying together as companions, without engaging in sex.

An anomaly found in nature does not make that anomaly ‘natural’.
How can a behaviour that leads to the demise of a species be considered ‘natural’? The natural behaviour for any species is to act in such a way as to perpetuate that species.

This whole “homosexuality in nature” argument is nonsense. Cannibalism exists in nature. Is that any sort of argument to defend human cannibalism?

 

[Teelynn]

I don’t understand why you hang here. If you’re not going to be a man, why bother making comments and sighing about being a homosexual. It’s sinful. Get over it. I dunno about Catholics. But men of other Christian faiths aren’t thrilled about homosexuals. And whining about how hard you people think life is – really off putting.

Seriously? This uh, BTW, is a “Catholic” forum. Not to say that non Catholics are not welcome, they certainly are, but to post something this condescending when someone is searching for answers poses a question in my mind. Why do you hang here? If you are put off by someone elses dilemma, with all due respect, find another thread. Why the antagonization of someone who is looking for answers? Men of “other Christian faiths” aren’t thrilled? There are a lot of people of all denominations not thrilled about homosexuals, unfortunately but this is not a thread intended to bash gays. Oh and BTW, men of other Christian faiths don’t unfortunately have the whole truth of Jesus Christ. But I guess that subject is for a different thread.

I guess the bottom line is: If you don’t like the so called “whinning”, then why are you here?

 

[oldbrit2009]

if you claim that homosexuality is not natural, then why is there homosexuality in nature?
Saying “they don’t know any better” is not a sufficient answer. Homosexuality does not always involve sex, even with animals. There has been documented evidence of same-sex animals staying together as companions, without engaging in sex.

Stevealbert,

If I might add to Reginator’s exellcent post.
My answer, “they don’t know any better” was more than sufficient. Humans and animals differ in as much that human being posses a part of them that survives death, the part we call the soul. Animals may well have a part of them that survives after death, but God has chosen not revealed it to us.
Humans and animals share certain characteristics and abilities but one ability animals do not posses is to be able to distinguish between right and wrong. They have no moral awareness as we humans have. Animals may well indulge in what appeares to us to be homosexual behaviour, but in reality they are just blindly following their sexual instincts. Therefore animals do not know any better.