Would I be allowed to be in a relationship if I was never intimate or got married?

[Hopey]

If I were looking for emotional companionship I would not have looked for my husband. I am not attracted to that only and I get most of that, not all from girlfriends although my husband is doing a better job.
It would be interesting to see what other women think. I know there was a trend for young ladies to say they were lesbians to get guys to leave them alone in college or to show false empathy to a lesbian friend. I really hope that changes. That may be where that is coming from or not.

But, I can say I have never felt the urge, even in sharing my deepest secrets with my girl friends, wanting to be with them as I would be my husband.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

There comes a point when we think we understand something, but are unable to give a definition of it or find a reliable source to help us that we might not understand it as well as we think we do.
There are times I am not able to explain things and turn to different sources.
There are times when I am unable to give an explanation of what I think to be the definition because I don’t understand it.
I have read Pope Benedict’s encyclicals and many others.
Do you have a favorite quote?
He is an awesome theologian and I hope he writes more!

A favorite quote by him? He writes to much great stuff for me to have merely one favorite quote.

One of my favorite ones

5. Finally, I would like to speak of one last feature, not to be overlooked, of the spirituality of World Youth Days, namely joy. Where does it come from? How is it to be explained? Certainly, there are many factors at work here. But in my view, the crucial one is this certainty, based on faith: I am wanted; I have a task in history; I am accepted, I am loved. Josef Pieper, in his book on love, has shown that man can only accept himself if he is accepted by another. He needs the other’s presence, saying to him, with more than words: it is good that you exist. Only from the You can the I come into itself. Only if it is accepted, can it accept itself. Those who are unloved cannot even love themselves. This sense of being accepted comes in the first instance from other human beings. But all human acceptance is fragile. Ultimately we need a sense of being accepted unconditionally. Only if God accepts me, and I become convinced of this, do I know definitively: it is good that I exist. It is good to be a human being. If ever man’s sense of being accepted and loved by God is lost, then there is no longer any answer to the question whether to be a human being is good at all. Doubt concerning human existence becomes more and more insurmountable. Where doubt over God becomes prevalent, then doubt over humanity follows inevitably. We see today how widely this doubt is spreading. We see it in the joylessness, in the inner sadness, that can be read on so many human faces today. Only faith gives me the conviction: it is good that I exist. It is good to be a human being, even in hard times. Faith makes one happy from deep within. That is one of the wonderful experiences of World Youth Days.

M’kay, you’re getting to the point of telling TMI on your own sexual feelings…
I’m not so sure you’re an accurate spokesperson for all womankind though. Probably a moot point, so we’ll drop that one.

I never claimed to be an spokeswoman for all womankind though, I actuallt specifically said that most, but not all women are like that and that I was talking about potentiality.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

So you refuse to improve my poor layman’s definition of eros, but insist it’s wrong. Actually you’re wrong. But the reason why is secret!

Deus Caritas Est:

In philosophical and theological debate, these distinctions have often been radicalized to the point of establishing a clear antithesis between them: descending, oblative love—agape—would be typically Christian, while on the other hand ascending, possessive or covetous love —eros—would be typical of non-Christian, and particularly Greek culture. Were this antithesis to be taken to extremes, the essence of Christianity would be detached from the vital relations fundamental to human existence, and would become a world apart, admirable perhaps, but decisively cut off from the complex fabric of human life. Yet eros and agape—ascending love and descending love—can never be completely separated. The more the two, in their different aspects, find a proper unity in the one reality of love, the more the true nature of love in general is realized. Even if eros is at first mainly covetous and ascending, a fascination for the great promise of happiness, in drawing near to the other, it is less and less concerned with itself, increasingly seeks the happiness of the other, is concerned more and more with the beloved, bestows itself and wants to “be there for” the other. The element of agape thus enters into this love, for otherwise eros is impoverished and even loses its own nature. On the other hand, man cannot live by oblative, descending love alone. He cannot always give, he must also receive. Anyone who wishes to give love must also receive love as a gift. Certainly, as the Lord tells us, one can become a source from which rivers of living water flow (cf. Jn 7:37-38). Yet to become such a source, one must constantly drink anew from the original source, which is Jesus Christ, from whose pierced heart flows the love of God (cf. Jn 19:34).

In the account of Jacob’s ladder, the Fathers of the Church saw this inseparable connection between ascending and descending love, between eros which seeks God and agape which passes on the gift received, symbolized in various ways. In that biblical passage we read how the Patriarch Jacob saw in a dream, above the stone which was his pillow, a ladder reaching up to heaven, on which the angels of God were ascending and descending (cf. Gen 28:12; Jn 1:51). A particularly striking interpretation of this vision is presented by Pope Gregory the Great in his Pastoral Rule. He tells us that the good pastor must be rooted in contemplation. Only in this way will he be able to take upon himself the needs of others and make them his own: “per pietatis viscera in se infirmitatem caeterorum transferat”.[4] Saint Gregory speaks in this context of Saint Paul, who was borne aloft to the most exalted mysteries of God, and hence, having descended once more, he was able to become all things to all men (cf. 2 Cor 12:2-4; 1 Cor 9:22). He also points to the example of Moses, who entered the tabernacle time and again, remaining in dialogue with God, so that when he emerged he could be at the service of his people. “Within [the tent] he is borne aloft through contemplation, while without he is completely engaged in helping those who suffer: intus in contemplationem rapitur, foris infirmantium negotiis urgetur.”[5]

Regardless of good intentions, the word ‘partner’ is far more beyond retrieval in popular definition than friend is. It’s an interesting idea, but hopelessly buried by gay social engineering.

Given that the word “gay” was once used to shame LGBT people, but has been so thoroughly reclaimed that people think LGBT people have appropriated it I’d say it is certainly possible.

I’ll have to take your word on Tennyson. I’ve never been able to appreciate poetry unless it has a melody attached…

Okay

That’s a pity, given approximately 0% of the flock read Latin!

Latin is the superior version of virtually all Church documents with a few exceptions.

If I were looking for emotional companionship I would not have looked for my husband. I am not attracted to that only and I get most of that, not all from girlfriends although my husband is doing a better job.
It would be interesting to see what other women think. I know there was a trend for young ladies to say they were lesbians to get guys to leave them alone in college or to show false empathy to a lesbian friend. I really hope that changes. That may be where that is coming from or not.

A young woman saying she is a lesbian isn’t going to get guys to leave them alone, instead the guys are going to start pestering them about if they can watch; I’ve seen plenty of straight women claim to be lesbians to attract men. I’ve never seen “a trend for young ladies to say they were lesbians to … show false empathy to a lesbian friend”.

But, I can say I have never felt the urge, even in sharing my deepest secrets with my girl friends, wanting to be with them as I would be my husband.

The desire isn’t necessarily the same as that directed towards an opposite sex spouse.

 

[Hopey]

Yes, that quote showing that Eros can develop into other, Agape is not in contradiction of what Eros is because it is when it doesn’t move beyond, but merely possesses where it remains stunted.
I am not sure you are young enough for the trend or maybe the girls pretending to be lesbians found that guys were not going to leave them alone. No matter. I hope they stopped as it was wrong to do that.

 

[Hopey]

Also that quote is similar to when Pope Benedict said that homosexuals who start using a condom can be seen, or could be, as more caring, a turning. He was not “okaying” condom use but the fact that you would move from not caring, to caring about yourself and others is a “good” even though the action is still very sinful and disordered. The Catholic world blew up with that quote. Some took it as validating condom use, which he was not. Other took it as him validating homosexual activity which he was not.
In our pilgrimage, not all of use will have a 180 turn. Some will, for others, it is a gradual turning, etc.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Yes, that quote showing that Eros can develop into other, Agape is not in contradiction of what Eros is because it is when it doesn’t move beyond, but merely possesses where it remains stunted.
I am not sure you are young enough for the trend or maybe the girls pretending to be lesbians found that guys were not going to leave them alone. No matter. I hope they stopped as it was wrong to do that.

There isn’t really a way to make it brief and fully accurate when describing eros.

Also that quote is similar to when Pope Benedict said that homosexuals who start using a condom can be seen, or could be, as more caring, a turning. He was not “okaying” condom use but the fact that you would move from not caring, to caring about yourself and others is a “good” even though the action is still very sinful and disordered. The Catholic world blew up with that quote. Some took it as validating condom use, which he was not. Other took it as him validating homosexual activity which he was not.
In our pilgrimage, not all of use will have a 180 turn. Some will, for others, it is a gradual turning, etc.

Actually it wasn’t about homosexuals,
Pope Benedict XVI in an interview with Journalist Peter Seewald:

There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility,

 

[Hopey]

I believe those definitions given for Eros are adequate.
There will be times our love grows into other things but still, staying in Eros or even beginning there is not ideal and wrong in most cases.
Yes, thank you. Pope Benedict did refer to male prostitutes. Not all of them are heterosexual tho.

 

[manualman]

I believe those definitions given for Eros are adequate.
There will be times our love grows into other things but still, staying in Eros or even beginning there is not ideal and wrong in most cases.
Yes, thank you. Pope Benedict did refer to male prostitutes. Not all of them are heterosexual tho.

Male prostitutes mostly serve male clients. It’s a sad commentary on the moral fiber of men, but women seeking a disposable sexual fling generally don’t find it necessary to pay for it… B16 made a great moral point in that choosing to use the condom represents an initial recognition of the harm that results from sin and an initial attempt to refrain from causing harm. But a first step towards morality isn’t a completed voyage. Journalists seemed uninterested in comprehending that at the time.

My pastor spoke on eros in his homily this weekend. Between him and Joie’s posts, maybe God’s trying to tell me something!

Since I’m a slow learner, for now I’ll grant that eros is not MERELY what we modern folks think of as erotic. As such, what I said before about eros having zero place in same sex relationships isn’t quite accurate. I’ll retract that and say that romantic and/or erotic (common definition) experiences have no moral level of acceptableness in a same sex relationship. That’s really the point I was trying to make before we got sidetracked into an advanced ancient Greek lesson. The OP sounded like he wanted to have a romantic SS relationship minus the ickiest part. I’d say that’s a similar ‘first step’ towards a healthy morality, but not the completed voyage.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Male prostitutes mostly serve male clients. It’s a sad commentary on the moral fiber of men, but women seeking a disposable sexual fling generally don’t find it necessary to pay for it… B16 made a great moral point in that choosing to use the condom represents an initial recognition of the harm that results from sin and an initial attempt to refrain from causing harm. But a first step towards morality isn’t a completed voyage. Journalists seemed uninterested in comprehending that at the time.

My pastor spoke on eros in his homily this weekend. Between him and Joie’s posts, maybe God’s trying to tell me something!

Since I’m a slow learner, for now I’ll grant that eros is not MERELY what we modern folks think of as erotic. As such, what I said before about eros having zero place in same sex relationships isn’t quite accurate. I’ll retract that and say that romantic and/or erotic (common definition) experiences have no moral level of acceptableness in a same sex relationship. That’s really the point I was trying to make before we got sidetracked into an advanced ancient Greek lesson. The OP sounded like he wanted to have a romantic SS relationship minus the ickiest part. I’d say that’s a similar ‘first step’ towards a healthy morality, but not the completed voyage.

Interesting further ancient Greek fact: Plato actually thought that eros was a force that could be licitly directed in a number of directions. It could be directed toward marriage, but it could also be licitly directed toward friendships that (despite being passionate – or what we might call “enthusiastic”) are chaste. Plato especially praised the second option, because he thought that the verbal “intercourse” between two same-sex friends was literally fruitful, giving birth to knowledge and poetry and new (spiritual) life.

This same basic notion of friendship was held by Christians as various as Augustine, John Chrysostom, St. Aeldred, Shakespeare, Leo Tolstoy, and C.S. Lewis (though the Four Loves is not the best place to find it, since he offers a definition of “eros” there that is completely contrary to Plato’s notion of it).

Some comments about John Chrysostom’s close friend (very interesting reading): goodguyswearblack.org/2014/02/01/on-the-priesthood-book-1-the-deception-st-john-chrysostom/

 

[SMGS127]

The OP sounded like he wanted to have a romantic SS relationship minus the ickiest part. I’d say that’s a similar ‘first step’ towards a healthy morality, but not the completed voyage.

I think he could have a romantic SS relationship without sex licitly, to be honest. All that really means is that it is a commitment between two people to take care of each other in this life, and I don’t see how that’s sinful. If scandal is addressed and near occasions of sin aren’t an issue, then I think it would be perfectly okay. But any sexual activity (or lustful activity or activity that might lead to either) should absolutely be forbidden in any such arrangement.

 

[ready]

I’m gay, and I don’t care an awful lot about intimacy, in fact I don’t really want it. But I don’t want to be alone forever and have nobody(mortal) to love me. There are people out there who are romantically gay but don’t have any sexual desires, so it wouldn’t be impossible to find someone. I wouldn’t need to get married either if I’m not allowed to. But would I still be in the wrong just for being in a relationship? I’m trying to find something I’d be doing that is a sin, but I can’t think of anything. I guess I just want other opinions on this. If you think it’s still bad, I’d kind of like to see some doctrine supporting that, because I can’t find any. Also if your going to say it’s a choice, I promise you I’m not lying when I say I never chose it. Why would I choose it?

You may be friends with people of the same sex as you if they are not a near occasion of sin for you. However, you must not allow yourself any romantic feelings towards them. Be perfectly chaste and pure not only in body, but in mind and heart, love your friends like you would love a sibling. God bless you.

 

[manualman]

I think he could have a romantic SS relationship without sex licitly, to be honest. All that really means is that it is a commitment between two people to take care of each other in this life, and I don’t see how that’s sinful. If scandal is addressed and near occasions of sin aren’t an issue, then I think it would be perfectly okay. But any sexual activity (or lustful activity or activity that might lead to either) should absolutely be forbidden in any such arrangement.

I think any pair of people, gay or straight that find each other attractive and spend massive amounts of time together, have a deep friendship and physically express that attraction in any way (cuddling, kissing, etc) is kidding themselves if they think they can keep it frozen at that stage indefinitely. It’s either going to lead to sex or a breakup. Ask nearly anybody who tried to have a 1.5 year long or longer engagement. I advise short engagements!

 

[manualman]

You may be friends with people of the same sex as you if they are not a near occasion of sin for you. However, you must not allow yourself any romantic feelings towards them. Be perfectly chaste and pure not only in body, but in mind and heart, love your friends like you would love a sibling. God bless you.

You don’t get to control your feelings. Only your actions. The way you control your actions is to recognize where your feelings are headed and make choices while your reason centers are still in charge. Thus, my assertion that they need not abandon the friendship if one or both have feelings, but they really need to avoid the things that feed the growth of passion. If they try to do everything right up to the line of sodomy, they’re going to do that too. (Sorry for the bluntness!) It’s the way human nature works. You reap what you sow.

 

[ready]

You don’t get to control your feelings. Only your actions. The way you control your actions is to recognize where your feelings are headed and make choices while your reason centers are still in charge. Thus, my assertion that they need not abandon the friendship if one or both have feelings, but they really need to avoid the things that feed the growth of passion. If they try to do everything right up to the line of sodomy, they’re going to do that too. (Sorry for the bluntness!) It’s the way human nature works. You reap what you sow.

Though a person’s first feeling towards another may be of romance, with some exertion of good will and fear of offending God or of going to hell, this romantic feeling can be shifted to feelings of sorrow to God for one’s sins, thanksgiving to God for His love, love of God, etc… One should never willfully allow oneself to carry on with romantic feelings towards someone who is off-limits, what I mean here is that when any feelings of romance come about towards someone who is off-limits, one should not give into the feeling of romance and treat the feeling like it is okay to give into and run away with; when a disordered romantic feeling comes, one should make every effort to think about God and remain chaste and pure in thought regarding the other person, if a person can not remain chaste and pure in thought with another person, then they should avoid being near the other person, lest they fall into some grievous sin of thought. Whether it is a married woman or a man of the same sex that Mr. X feels romantic feelings towards, Mr. X still must shift his feelings: meaning he must shift his disordered feelings for the other person to wholesome feelings of love of God, sorrow for his sins, thanksgiving to God, etc. – he can’t run away with disordered romantic feelings and expect to be alright with God. God bless you.