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

[Cackles]

Just for the record, this personal opinion is not the teaching of the Church.

I’d imagine you could go to almost 90% of the posts on any religious site and say that same.

 

[Netty1]

God issues out souls when you come out of the body at birth.

(Apologies to Wuggums as this reply to another poster is off-topic from his OP).

If this true then why does Holy Mother Church insist (rightly so) that abortion is an abomination?

After all, if the soul is not issued by God until birth then your assertion makes the unborn baby nothing more than what the abortionists claim it is - a bag of cells.

You could make the “potentiality” argument I suppose - that the baby potentially will have a soul at birth so killing it before birth ends it’s potential to be a body with a soul.

It is far more logical, and imo more likely, that the unborn child is in the hands of God from the moment of conception.

 

[MacQ]

1. The baby only get the soul issued after the baby is fully out of the womb. This is why if the mother is threatened with death instead of the baby, we save the mother. Even if the mother wants the baby because it’s worse to kill someone with a soul than without. Although, killing all human life is bad but we’re talking about the most rarest of situations.
2. Because to cleave to a woman and become 1 flesh, this person must be a soulmate. If not, then the marriage wont last. The more we see ourselves as ‘souls’ instead of ‘flesh’, the MUCH easier it is to choose a soul mate. You dont even have to date. Friends can just point you to a proper match. But today everyone is so evile and messed up we’re all blinded because of the darkness.
3. Free will means you have the choice to follow God or not. That’s all it means. So you have free will to do anything you like. There’s very rare times free will is taken away. This is when God choses you to be a prophet or messenger. Our Lady might visit you. You might have a near death experience and see heaven or hell first hand. When these things happen you completely lose Free Will and end up working for God because you are so scared from what you saw. If you could see heaven and hell, you would lose free will. People wouldnt bother going to work, they would run and hide and sing psalms all day. So God ensures that we always have Free Will. When we need proof to have faith, God ensures it’s available. When science tries to disprove, God allows more scienticif proof. His proof ALWAYS has doubt placed in it though. He wants you to have Free Will regarding the proof he gives you. He’s not going to give you bulletproof, case closed proof. He always allows opposition in his proof. So theres the shroud of turin. A 1% contamination would make the shroud from about 30 AD. But the logic of man through laughable carbon dating says otherwise despite there being proof the shroud was documented in much earlier befor the carbon dating. So you have choice to follow Atheists out of Academia, are you have a choice to believe in Gods Truth.

That is what free choice is all about. God controls how much money you’ll make, if you’ll get married, what kind of soul you get, etc. if you are greedy and want money so bad you lie, cheat, and backstab, he’ll let you have it and let you live a long life in luxury. That is your reward for the little bit of good you have done in this life. But afterwards… Expect some dark hallway with some unfriendly ushers to show you where your going. Instead of that you want express to heaven and see family members to great you. If you are religious and catholic you might see Jesus at the doors, with a bunch of keys, and he might even go over your life. He’ll say he didnt know you and send you down to the hellfire. You see, this is the reason I dont eat pork anymore. BECAUSE IM SCARED AND HAVE THE FEAR OF GOD IN ME!!!

Ok…well I think you should change your religious designation to “Cackleism” then.
Because you’re making up your own.

Thanks to JOIE, EASTER JOY and others for pointing out it certainly doesn’t come from the Church.

 

[EasterJoy]

I’d imagine you could go to almost 90% of the posts on any religious site and say that same.

I hope you are not implying that the carelessness of others would constitute some sort of excuse for you. If you cannot exercise some care about whether or not you post only what is true, it would be better to not post at all. Even when you post what you believe to be true, make it clear when something you post here is not to be found in the deposit of faith. If you find your views are in opposition to the teachings of the Church, then move with haste to conform yourself to the Church, and not try to conform the Church to yourself.

 

[catybug]

Cackles,I’m pretty sure the Church teaches that from conception, a baby has a soul.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I’m developing a sort of checklist for this kind of thing. I think it’s helpful, though I would certainly listen to anyone who suggests revisions.

If you are gay and you want to live with another person of the same sex, ask yourself the following questions:

(1) Am I attracted to this person, or do I anticipate being attracted to him? If yes, then go to #2. If no, then there isn’t a problem living with the person; it’s called being roommates.

(2) Do I have previous experience dealing on a daily basis with a person I am attracted to, without sinning? If yes, continue to #3. If no, do not move in with the person.

(3) Would I honestly still want to live with this person if I were not attracted to him (or if he was not attracted to me)? If yes, continue to #4. If no, do not move in with this person.

(4) Am I open to changes in living situation? Would I be fine living with 3-4 guys, instead of one guy? If no, then do not move in with this person.

If yes, then you can begin prayerfully discerning whether such a living situation would help you be a better person and a better follower of Christ.

 

[zaus]

Im Gay and I have a companion and we both live chastely. Firstly, I thank God for this gift because without this grace I would NEVER be able to live a chaste lifestyle.

I most certainly think you can have a non intimate relationship with another man. Actually I’m really discovering how neat it is to be in love with someone but not in an intimate way. I’m only 28 but I’m really learning how many deep levels there are to love. It’s beautiful and I thank God for this. Hopefully I can be an example to other gay men and women who want to follow Christ in this crazy, sex-fueled world.

 

[PaulGH]

Im Gay and I have a companion and we both live chastely. Firstly, I thank God for this gift because without this grace I would NEVER be able to live a chaste lifestyle.

I most certainly think you can have a non intimate relationship with another man. Actually I’m really discovering how neat it is to be in love with someone but not in an intimate way. I’m only 28 but I’m really learning how many deep levels there are to love. It’s beautiful and I thank God for this. Hopefully I can be an example to other gay men and women who want to follow Christ in this crazy, sex-fueled world.

Thank you for sharing that. You and your companion are a great witness to what you aptly called our “crazy, sex-fueled world.”

And by the way, it sounds like you have something that I don’t have, which is a strong and deep friendship with another man. I have found that with moving away from friends after college, and then being busy with marriage and family since then, that I just haven’t made or maintained any close friendships with other men. I thank God for my wife and kids, but I do sometimes long for close male friendships that I just don’t have at this point in my life, and that I really haven’t had for quite a few years. So while I know you have a large cross to bear (and one that I wouldn’t want to take up myself – not that you had any choice), still you do have something that I suspect many heterosexual men these days are missing – a truly close male friendship.

 

[Pablopedro]

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?

I don’t mean to be insensitive to your situation, but if your desire is for intimacy and sexual desire doesn’t play a heavy role, then what is wrong with seeking this intimacy with a woman? Just out of curiosity.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I don’t mean to be insensitive to your situation, but if your desire is for intimacy and sexual desire doesn’t play a heavy role, then what is wrong with seeking this intimacy with a woman? Just out of curiosity.

Puzzling question. Wouldn’t most Catholics say that a man seeking intimacy with a woman he isn’t going to marry is wrong?

 

[zaus]

Wuggums47= Not sure if this is helpful at all but I was thinking about this post a lot last night. Some diocese have a CMGLP or CAGLP Ministry which is the Catholic Ministry (or association) for Gay and Lesbian Persons. This is good stuff. There are all kinds of opportunities to meet other people, ask questions, get answers, and be in a sound christian environment that respects your dignity. I read a bit of the gay catholic blogs because it interests me how our brothers and sisters are fairing. Anyways, not sure if you needed this info but like I said, I was thinking about this post a lot last night and wanted to share in case you didn’t know about any of the ministries.

I hope and pray that you can find love, a partner, a companion, a friend. I think our vocation not only as Christians but as humans is to love, so right on!! I often think about David and Johnathan when these topics come up and the pure love and friendship that they shared for each other. Honestly, I personally used to want there to be something more intimate in their relationship until I found (and am finding) what it means to have a deeper love and friendship. I found this really appropriate quote that I thought i’d share with you. “When we focus on love, instead of sexual orientation, we have a much better image of ourselves, we’re brothers.” God Bless you!

PaulGh- I pray that you find another guy to really share friendship with too! I know what you mean. I moved around a lot too and starting over kind of puts a damper on establishing friendships-especially when you’re busy! I think guys just need other guys to be guys with! I checked out your blog, btw. Mother Angelica Remixed is classic!! Wow LOL! Cool! I work on a ship so our computers are in a common room and needless to say all the other folks around me were getting some laughs too! God Bless you!

 

[Hopey]

I do not think it is right, nor what the Church is asking of us, to look for a partner when we are unable to marry that person.
They have asked us to develop friendships.
Such as, if I were to look for a so called partner even though I couldn’t marry, divorced-no annulment, then that would be wrong in that I would give the illusion that I were in a mock marriage. I would cause scandal to others and possibly put myself in temptation to sin.

That is not the advice I have seen from groups approved by the Church, to go out and find a partner. We are to have chaste friendships no matter our status - married, divorced, single, widowed, etc.

You give other people the impression that something more is going on especially if you introduce them as your partner instead of “friend”.

I would not take that advice nor would I do that esp for my sake and everyone else.

As far as I know, the only approved group in the Church is Courage.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

I do not think it is right, nor what the Church is asking of us, to look for a partner when we are unable to marry that person.
They have asked us to develop friendships.
Such as, if I were to look for a so called partner even though I couldn’t marry, divorced-no annulment, then that would be wrong in that I would give the illusion that I were in a mock marriage. I would cause scandal to others and possibly put myself in temptation to sin.

That is not the advice I have seen from groups approved by the Church, to go out and find a partner. We are to have chaste friendships no matter our status - married, divorced, single, widowed, etc.

You give other people the impression that something more is going on especially if you introduce them as your partner instead of “friend”.

I would not take that advice nor would I do that esp for my sake and everyone else.

As far as I know, the only approved group in the Church is Courage.

Partner and spouse are different; it is quite possible to present yourself as partners with presenting yourself as married.

 

[Hopey]

Partner and spouse are different; it is quite possible to present yourself as partners with presenting yourself as married.

In the secular world, it does have the same commitment as a marriage and does mean other aspects. In our faith, we do not use it that way unless we are referring to a spouse, etc. IOW, I would not look for a partner unless I could marry that person. Our focus, in and out of marriage, is on friendships. To look for a partner would indicate something else.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

There’s no reason to call the person “partner”, and the word could cause confusion or scandal. The word “friend” could be used – or even “brother” or “sister”.

 

[Rau]

Puzzling question. Wouldn’t most Catholics say that a man seeking intimacy with a woman he isn’t going to marry is wrong?

If you understand intimacy between man and woman as linked to a sexual relationship, then yes. But, not the way he uses the word intimate. It would be important to ensure the woman understands the relationship in the same way the man does.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

If you understand intimacy between man and woman as linked to a sexual relationship, then yes. But, not the way he uses the word intimate. It would be important to ensure the woman understands the relationship in the same way the man does.

I don’t understand, though. If it’s problematic for a man attracted to men to seek intimacy from another man, why would it be OK for a woman attracted to men to receive intimacy from a gay man?

Now, I think both these things are probably fine, personally. But I wonder why people get so hung up on the idea of gay men seeking non-sexual intimacy with other men.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

In the secular world, it does have the same commitment as a marriage and does mean other aspects. In our faith, we do not use it that way unless we are referring to a spouse, etc. IOW, I would not look for a partner unless I could marry that person. Our focus, in and out of marriage, is on friendships. To look for a partner would indicate something else.

committed≠copulating

There’s no reason to call the person “partner”, and the word could cause confusion or scandal. The word “friend” could be used – or even “brother” or “sister”.

There actually is a reason to use the term “partner” and that is to more accurately describe the relationship.

 

[Rau]

I don’t understand, though. If it’s problematic for a man attracted to men to seek intimacy from another man, why would it be OK for a woman attracted to men to receive intimacy from a gay man?

Now, I think both these things are probably fine, personally. But I wonder why people get so hung up on the idea of gay men seeking non-sexual intimacy with other men.

I agree with you. But the notion of non-sexual intimacy is not easily understood. I’m not sure I can define it. Is it more than platonic? Entirely non-physical? Surely non-romantic.

 

[Hopey]

http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/bromance_2777.png

committed≠copulating

There actually is a reason to use the term “partner” and that is to more accurately describe the relationship.

So, correct me if I am misunderstanding you. If a heterosexual man had a friendship with another male, and they share whatever degree of intimacy that they understood it, it would be accurate, although one might be married to a woman, to call them a partner?
What I am trying to get at, and understand, IF the term partner could be used to describle all friendships, then that is one thing. It isn’t used like that and naive for us to think so also. If I were to walk in and describe my best friend as my partner, who is NOT my husband, I should get some really strange looks as partner DOES mean something in addition to friendship - next level.
So, does this mean the House show has turned gay? How surprising.