Where sin begins in same-sex physical intimacy

[SMGS127]

I studied moral theology --yes it is on my side (not that it is about a side…but about the truth)

Such is not a disinterested friendship and such “relationships” are ordered towards marriage. Tis the nature of man woman. They are oriented to each other by creation. Such relationships are oriented towards marriage.

As to Kissing (see above for details):

Such is simply not to be engaged in by those of the same gender. It is not something “friends” do as “disinterested friends”.

Even if one claims it is not for “erotic desire”.

There is no need to even go into the quotes there noted -for it is a “no go” from the get go. Those of the same gender ought not be “kissing” or “sending romantic notes” or saying “I love you” in the homosexual way or being “a couple” etc.

Disinterested Friendships is the way to life.

“Disinterested” would yes include “Romance…” Such is not something those of the same gender ought to engage in. Such is not: “disinterested friendship”.

I am sorry, Bookcat, but unless you actually post evidence supporting your claim, I am no longer going to respond to you. I find it hard to believe you got a degree in theology without ever having to do research, and the fact that you can’t find literally any Magisterial evidence to support your claim has much more of an impression on me than the fact that you can quote yourself over and over saying the same things.

I’m asking for actual teachings, not opinions. Again, Church teachings, not Bookcat’s personal ideology. You are literally the only person unwilling to actually back up your claims in this thread.

So in closing, again, I will not respond unless you post actual evidence. If you don’t have it, that’s fine and good day. If you do, I look forward to reading it.

 

[Bookcat]

I am sorry, Bookcat, but unless you actually post evidence supporting your claim, I am no longer going to respond to you. I find it hard to believe you got a degree in theology without ever having to do research, and the fact that you can’t find literally any Magisterial evidence to support your claim has much more of an impression on me than the fact that you can quote yourself over and over saying the same things.

I’m asking for actual teachings, not opinions. Again, Church teachings, not Bookcat’s personal ideology. You are literally the only person unwilling to actually back up your claims in this thread.

So in closing, again, I will not respond unless you post actual evidence. If you don’t have it, that’s fine and good day. If you do, I look forward to reading it.

I do not have the time nor the resources to do that kind of search - this is a forum not a University with research work. Sometimes I have the documents or resources at hand -other times I do not.

You may contact the Catholic Answers staff -they can assist you with such research perhaps.

But in it is important to note that the Magisterium often leaves such “details” to the orthodox Moral Theologians to get into. So to ask for a document that need not exist - is simply to ask for something that need not exist. But the lack of such detailed notes in documents is* not *support that the teachings regarding Homosexuality do not apply to such.

Not saying such does not exist (already in the Catechism - there is the reference to “disinterested friendships”) but even if …

(nor I dare say are assertions that such relationships are moral going to be supported by documents from the Church…rather those with this difficulty are to by grace, prayer, chastity and the other virtues, by disinterested friendships and the Sacraments bear this cross and become quite holy).

---

Can I have such a “friend” and engage in such kissing with someone not my wife? No. Claiming it is not “erotic”? No. I think my wife would not agree with any such suggestion.

Such actions are not part of “disinterested Friendships”

(PS: couragerc.net/Spiritual_Friendship.html)

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Bookcat,

I think it’s pretty clear that the Church hasn’t given Catholics with SSA a very clear vision of what sort of life they are supposed to lead. There are plenty of signs that this may be changing, and these are hopeful signs. I don’t think the solution is to read random theological opinions that claim to be based on Church teaching – since we ourselves don’t have the Church’s discernment about which theological teachings are trustworthy.

I’m looking forward to the Synod on the Family, which promises to provide more direction for people like me and SMGS.

 

[Bookcat]

Bookcat,

I think it’s pretty clear that the Church hasn’t given Catholics with SSA a very clear vision of what sort of life they are supposed to lead.

I would not say that.

And like many things of the “detailed” nature - not only moral theologians but faithful Priests in confessionals etc can assist one in following Christ.

There have been various documents - couragerc.net/Church_Documents.html and also on the practical pastoral and community level there is courage. couragerc.net

Yes perhaps more good things will come forth too.

I understand this is a great cross for those with SSA -but like all crosses - such is also a way towards virtue and holiness. May those with such difficulty know that they are loved and with the assistance of fellow Christians - live joyful and holy Christian lives - and they in turn assist us (meaning me and others without SSA) to do so with our crosses and difficulties.

We are all in it together. Let us follow Christ together -in him is true life.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I would not say that.

Until the Church comes out with a recommendation of whether single SSA Catholics should live alone, or what living situation they should have, the community of single SSA Catholics is – I would say – in crisis. “It is not good for man to be alone”. The Church needs to explain how, in practical ways, a gay Catholic is not living alone. Yes, “disinterested friendship” points to that way, but surely many more details are needed.

This points to a larger gap in modern ecclesiology on “living in community”. Catholics in the United States rarely share a community life, and this is especially hard on those Catholics who do not have close familial relationships to fall back on.

 

[Bookcat]

Yes, “disinterested friendship” points to that way, but surely many more details are needed.

Yes “details” of course are important -but not necessarily on the Magisterium level. Such would be something dealt with on the Moral Theology level …and the orthodox pastoral level.

Readers of the thread can read through also the various documents just above…I do not have the time to do so at the moment. Also Courage is a good resource.

 

[Bookcat]

Also one may listen to Catholic Answers - the International Director of Courage: Fr. Paul Check

catholic.com/profiles/fr-paul-check

He would be I would think a good source (he also teaches Moral Theology).

 

[CesarAugustus]

Does this mean nonmarried heterosexual couples shouldn’t kiss since that is related to the marital state which they don’t have?

Passionate kissing? making out?

Yes, that would be something to avoid until married. read the quotes I presented some pages back.

 

[Bookcat]

Passionate kissing?

Yes, that would be something to avoid until married. read the quotes I presented some pages back.

The Church does not get into every possible manifestation of sexual sin in her documents. Rather such is left to orthodox Catholic Moral Theology.

Passionate kissing is basically be said to be for married couples due to its nature to directly stimulate the sexual faculties. It is rather directed to sexual pleasure.

An examination of Conscience for Confession (from Midwest Theological Forum …via CNA):

• Did I engage in acts such as “petting,” “necking,” passionate kisses, or prolonged embraces?

catholicnewsagency.com/resources/sacraments/reconciliation/examination-of-conscience/

(As to “kissing” between two persons of the same gender -see comments above).

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

I have been “off site” this weekend -so I do not know all that has been said above -but I will note this.

Yes - certain kinds of kissing is yes for “the married”. Other kinds of “kissing” is for those who of opposite gender and not married but able to and seeking marriage at some point down the road.

Why should people in relationships that probably wont lead to marriage get rights over those who aren’t in relationships

Aside from certain “cultural greetings” and “kisses of family” etc - you know those short little kisses of family and society - those of the same gender should not be “kissing”. Nor ought they be engaged in some “relationship” that those of opposite gender would call by such terms as “dating”, “going steady”, “going out on dates” etc.

I struggle to understand why you are using a change in society that is recent to buttress your argument, it’s morally relativistic to do so. The phrase romantic friendship is a recent creation because previously what we call romantic friendship was simply called friendship and many of the people we call friends today would have been called acquaintances…

Disinterested Friendship is key for those with SSA.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#IV

Yes, friendships that are not sought for personal gain are good for gay people (and everyone else).

I would not say that.

And like many things of the “detailed” nature - not only moral theologians but faithful Priests in confessionals etc can assist one in following Christ.

There have been various documents - couragerc.net/Church_Documents.html and also on the practical pastoral and community level there is courage. couragerc.net

Yes perhaps more good things will come forth too.

I understand this is a great cross for those with SSA -but like all crosses - such is also a way towards virtue and holiness. May those with such difficulty know that they are loved and with the assistance of fellow Christians - live joyful and holy Christian lives - and they in turn assist us (meaning me and others without SSA) to do so with our crosses and difficulties.

We are all in it together. Let us follow Christ together -in him is true life.

The Church has said what to say no to, but not what to say yes to.

 

[Bookcat]

Why should people in relationships that probably wont lead to marriage get rights over those who aren’t in relationships
.

Tis not about rights but about reality.

A couple who have a possibility to marry are rightly ordered in showing signs of affection of that nature (chaste and modest of course). Tis the nature of the genders - the male and female being ordered towards each other in such a way that they may form in the end a marriage.

The same gender are ordered towards friendship (not being “a couple”). Which brings different ‘signs of affection’ - that of friends (without any other overtones).

 

[Bookcat]

I struggle to understand why you are using a change in society that is recent to buttress your argument, it’s morally relativistic to do so. The phrase romantic friendship is a recent creation because previously what we call romantic friendship was simply called friendship and many of the people we call friends today would have been called acquaintances…
.

Hum me being though of as being “morally relativistic” - I will have to tell my wife that one -she will fall over laughing.

Eros has been with us – a rather long time. Be it involved in “modern romantic” arrangements or otherwise. Persons know what “disinterested friendship” is. As opposed to what is in the various approaches of “boy meets girl” and they like each other ‘in that way’.

I recall a friend at university - who was a girl -with whom I was friends with and we made it quite clear there was no possibility of “liking each other that way”. Certainly if I had suggested -ok but lets kiss several times for bonding as friends -she would have not agreed that such was proper…

 

[Bookcat]

.

Yes, friendships that are not sought for personal gain are good for gay people (and everyone else).

Yes most certainly - persons with SSA and those who do not have such - friendship is key. A gift.

 

[Bookcat]

The Church has said what to say no to, but not what to say yes to.

Sure -yes-to disinterest friendship, to brothers and sisters in Christ, to chastity, to holiness, to a life of prayer, to offering up ones suffering with Christ for the good of others, to the heights of holiness as a disciple of Jesus of Nazareth!

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Tis not about rights but about reality.

A couple who have a possibility to marry are rightly ordered in showing signs of affection of that nature (chaste and modest of course). Tis the nature of the genders - the male and female being ordered towards each other in such a way that they may form in the end a marriage.

The same gender are ordered towards friendship (not being “a couple”). Which brings different ‘signs of affection’ - that of friends (without any other overtones).

Your perspective on what qualifies as “signs of affection” is rather modern.

 

[Bookcat]

Your perspective on what qualifies as “signs of affection” is rather modern.

Sure -I suppose in some things - for they would not even touch each other all perhaps! In times and cultures. Or always have someone with them…

One still “knew the difference” between those persons who where “friends” and those who “where more than friends” as one might say today.

There is really though not much new under the sun here.

 

[SMGS127]

Sure -I suppose in some things - for they would not even touch each other all perhaps! In times and cultures. Or always have someone with them…

One still “knew the difference” between those persons who where “friends” and those who “where more than friends” as one might say today.

There is really though not much new under the sun here.

Yes, throughout history people considered the people they were non-sexually yet physically and romantically intimate with to be their friends, and those they had sex with and bore children with to be their spouses. It is a very modernist view to consider intimacy as unique to marital-type relationships. In fact, I find it extremely hard to believe that the Vatican would not respond to one of the most common relationship types in the Western world for most of human history if it were sinful. Under your logic, there would be no need for the Church to condemn gay sex because moral theologians could just infer it from the Church’s teachings on marriage! . You can be more than sure that the Church would have responded negatively from the Vatican if these relationships were sinful, considering their propensity. Your personal views are being influenced by Puritanism.

But as I said Bookcat, I am not willing to respond anymore to you. You clearly have no evidence to back up your claim, as you admitted yourself. I am not interested in the Church of Bookcat or its doctrines; instead, I was hoping people could give me theological sources to analyze from the Catholic Church. Cesar did so, and I am most appreciative of him for that. You are unwilling to do so, however, so good day.

And by the way, your appeal to authority doesn’t even work. I (and I think Prodigal too) studied theology at an orthodox Catholic university, and nothing you have said has made any remote sense from a Catholic point of view, and the fact that you cannot back your claims up (such that chaste lesbians calling themselves a “couple” is sinful, amongst many other bizarre claims) further improves my impression of you as trying to force others to believe your personal, non-doctrinal beliefs on the subject.

 

[Gertabelle]

Thank you for your post, sincerely.

I am a bit surprised by your story, but I definitely believe you. So I don’t know; maybe it’s a case-by-case basis.

Personally, while I understand the point you make about making out, I would be mad if a partner of mine got significant emotional attention from another woman, and that clearly isn’t sexual. You don’t have to commit a sexual act to cheat on a partner. In this case, obviously there would be no partner I was cheating on; I am not talking about marrying a man and getting my “attention” somewhere else. That, to me, is so clearly immoral as to not even justify a thread on the issue.

I do agree that making out, as opposed to intense emotional attention, is specifically reserved for a relationship, and indeed, I don’t deny that I am talking about the possibility of allowing for a romantic same-sex relationship in Catholic teaching. However, I deny that making out is tied to sex. While making out occurs during sex, so does, for example, complimenting each other, and complimenting isn’t tied to sex either. I just see them as very separate, even though all 3 actions (complimenting, making out, sex in order of intensity) are born out of desire and love. In my mind, complimenting is a fairly unrestricted option, passionate kissing/making out is reserved for very intimate relationships, and sex is reserved only for valid marital unions.

Perhaps my statement WAS too sweeping, and I meant it more to come across that “some lesbian relationships are capable of existing without sex” than to be so broad as to say lesbian relationships, in general, are always so. But to me, while sex helped me to connect on a stronger level with my ex-girlfriends, it was not an integral key to the relationship itself, e.g. the relationship could exist even had the sex never occurred.

As Prodigal put it, I am looking for that love connection that I cannot have. No matter how hard I try, I can’t have it with men; I just can’t. I have tried, really. And it kills me inside every day knowing what I used to have, even though I have now vowed to follow Christ no matter what in sexual (and, well, all) matters. And that love existed even without the sex. 99% of that relationship was the cuddling, and the romance, and the movie marathon nights, and the hanging out with each other 20 out of the 48 hours on weekends.

Sex, to me, was just icing on the cake. And I don’t need that icing. But I do need that intimacy to live, and it really does kill me not having it. And I will follow Christ no matter what; if I can’t ever have that love again licitly, then I won’t. But if there’s some way, any way, that I could have a licit, chaste relationship with the member of the same sex that obviously avoided sex, lusting, etc., it would make my life significantly easier.

This is something that’s made me cry a lot over the last year, especially the last few days (I got triggered by seeing a lesbian relationship). I need to figure out something to help me here. Because I know from experience that I cannot, in any way, be attracted to guys in the same way. I can’t even feel the same love with them, no matter how much physicality or emotional involvement I put into it.

So please, if there’s any way I can have a chaste same-sex relationship, where both members work to keep the other chaste and in the grace of God, it would help me get through life.

I’m so sorry for your tears… Be assured of my prayers for you!

I was out of town and couldn’t reply, and it seems the conversation may be wrapping up.

I understand your frustration, confusion, looking for something to fill that void – in order to support you in being faithful to Christ. I don’t have any documentation from Magisterial sources to hand on to you, sorry. But I do recommend that you seek spiritual guidance from a priest regarding how to move forward. You seem very committed to your opinions – that making out is fine, that you can have a committed and exclusive relationship that is chaste and in keeping with the Church’s teachings. I think discussing this with a priest will give you more authoritative direction.

There is so much more i could say if I hadn’t just spent 11 hours driving across Nebraska and Colorado :yawn:

God bless you, dear one! You are very much in my prayers

Gertie

 

[theCrow]

If you truly love someone, heart and soul and are expressing that love through physical intimacy, then perhaps this is a beautiful thing and not a sin, no?

 

[Gertabelle]

If you truly love someone, heart and soul and are expressing that love through physical intimacy, then perhaps this is a beautiful thing and not a sin, no?

Hi, Crow!

I see you are new to these forums, and you are very welcome here. If you would like to discuss whether or not your idea is beautiful or a sin, you should start your own thread, probably in the Moral Theology sub-forum. Trying to get others to discuss your opinion on this thread is called “hijacking” a thread, since that isn’t the topic of this thread, and I don’t get the sense that you are trying to do that.

God bless you.

Gertie