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

[Prodigal_Son]

It’s a very interesting question whether it is calumny to suggest that Newman and his friend (or David and Jonathan, etc.) might have been sexually attracted to each other. I can see why one could see this as calumny, but I wonder if that isn’t simply a flaw in our thinking. Remember, there is nothing wrong with being attracted to a person of the same sex, and such attraction (in a healthy person) usually exists without any desire for sexual activity with the object of one’s attraction.

(An example of this dynamic: When I was smitten by girls with long blond hair and attractive figures as a teenager, my desire was not to have sex with them, but surely the attraction was the same thing people call “sexual attraction”.)

So in essence, speculation about Newman and his friend having a chaste relationship despite desire is speculation about whether they experienced something that is not sin, and refrained from something that is sin. I don’t understand what’s calumnious about that.

Hopey, since you think it is calumny, can you tell me what bad characteristic is being suggested about Newman and Ambrose?

 

[Hopey]

It’s a very interesting question whether it is calumny to suggest that Newman and his friend (or David and Jonathan, etc.) might have been sexually attracted to each other. I can see why one could see this as calumny, but I wonder if that isn’t simply a flaw in our thinking. Remember, there is nothing wrong with being attracted to a person of the same sex, and such attraction (in a healthy person) usually exists without any desire for sexual activity with the object of one’s attraction.

(An example of this dynamic: When I was smitten by girls with long blond hair and attractive figures as a teenager, my desire was not to have sex with them, but surely the attraction was the same thing people call “sexual attraction”.)

So in essence, speculation about Newman and his friend having a chaste relationship despite desire is speculation about whether they experienced something that is not sin, and refrained from something that is sin. I don’t understand what’s calumnious about that.

Hopey, since you think it is calumny, can you tell me what bad characteristic is being suggested about Newman and Ambrose?

The reason it is wrong is that you are assuming and placing something on a person that is not known, nor knowable.
It is similar to our youth, boys, have to create a new term, Bromance because people draw the wrong conclusions when someone of the same sex shows any affection toward someone of the same sex.
That is why it is wrong. You are claiming something of someone which is not knowable, nor any of our business and also drawing the conclusion, of which our youth is suffering from, that any affection can be taken as interest sexually in the same sex.

 

[Hopey]

Calumny is also why I lost my BF in high school. We were wondering why no guys ever asked us out. We found out a few girls, probably not wanting the competition, spread that our relationship was not “just” friends. It is wrong for people to do that. If a person wants to say this or that, that is one thing. But when you do it to others, it can be harmful.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

The reason it is wrong is that you are assuming and placing something on a person that is not known, nor knowable.

That’s why it’s called “speculation”, no?

That is why it is wrong. You are claiming something of someone which is not knowable, nor any of our business and also drawing the conclusion, of which our youth is suffering from, that any affection can be taken as interest sexually in the same sex.

Some people might be doing this. But other people might be simply looking at writings and recognizing a certain passion or intensity, and wondering whether this passion was accompanied by something like sexual attraction (or, you might say, “eros”). Why would they do this? Because the Christian tradition is largely bereft of good and holy examples of friendships including men or women with same-sex attraction.

 

[Hopey]

The reason you do not do that is because having friendships, even with same sex, is a good thing to have. It doesn’t matter their sexual preference or attraction. If I read about the intensity of friendship/relationship that a penitent had with a spiritual father, priest, does that mean it was sexual or I should draw the conclusion it was? No.
Not all gay men and women can have intense relationships with the same sex. Just like not all heterosexuals can have intense relationships with opposite sex.
And those who are not gay and have not revealed themselves as such do not want to be referred to as such.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

The reason you do not do that is because having friendships, even with same sex, is a good thing to have. It doesn’t matter their sexual preference or attraction. If I read about the intensity of friendship/relationship that a penitent had with a spiritual father, priest, does that mean it was sexual or I should draw the conclusion it was? No.

I don’t understand how a relationship’s involving attraction makes it “sexual”. I recall something C.S. Lewis wrote to a friend of his who was gay. He basically said that he was perfectly fine with it if his friend was attracted to him, but he thought it would be a shabby and unkind thing if his friend avoided him because of that attraction.

You see, the fact that a friendship involves attraction (on one or both sides) does not make it sexual, no more than a friendship which involves on one side the temptation to envy makes the friendship “mercenary”.

And those who are not gay and have not revealed themselves as such do not want to be referred to as such.

Well, I certainly agree that we shouldn’t spread rumors about living people being gay! But this is because it could be hurtful to them, not because there is something wrong with being gay. And in the case of dead people, it is, I have heard, very difficult to hurt a dead person. :sad_yes:

 

[Hopey]

I don’t understand how a relationship’s involving attraction makes it “sexual”. I recall something C.S. Lewis wrote to a friend of his who was gay. He basically said that he was perfectly fine with it if his friend was attracted to him, but he thought it would be a shabby and unkind thing if his friend avoided him because of that attraction.

You see, the fact that a friendship involves attraction (on one or both sides) does not make it sexual, no more than a friendship which involves on one side the temptation to envy makes the friendship “mercenary”.

Well, I certainly agree that we shouldn’t spread rumors about living people being gay! But this is because it could be hurtful to them, not because there is something wrong with being gay. And in the case of dead people, it is, I have heard, very difficult to hurt a dead person. :sad_yes:

Yes, bad in that is not who they are/were nor how they wish to be viewed nor remembered. An investigation already occured about them and found it to be false. Maybe what the gay lobby is failing to grasp is that frienships can be just that and those can be imitated wo someone being exactly like you. People do not have to identify themselves by their attraction. You can harm a person’s reputation after they are dead.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Yes, bad in that is not who they are/were nor how they wish to be viewed nor remembered. An investigation already occured about them and found it to be false. Maybe what the gay lobby is failing to grasp is that frienships can be just that and those can be imitated wo someone being exactly like you. People do not have to identify themselves by their attraction. You can harm a person’s reputation after they are dead.

Well, having done an internet search, I agree that the “Newman was gay” theme is generally silly and involves liberals grasping at straws. But I don’t think the problem is with the mere suggestion of same-sex attraction; I think the problem is the sensationalism about it, and the bizarre idea that sexuality is deeper than spirituality.

In reality, the depth of Newman’s friendships is a challenge to Christians and gay people alike. The possibility of such friendships isn’t in our categories.

touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=18-07-021-f

 

[Hopey]

Well, having done an internet search, I agree that the “Newman was gay” theme is generally silly and involves liberals grasping at straws. But I don’t think the problem is with the mere suggestion of same-sex attraction; I think the problem is the sensationalism about it, and the bizarre idea that sexuality is deeper than spirituality.

In reality, the depth of Newman’s friendships is a challenge to Christians and gay people alike. The possibility of such friendships isn’t in our categories.

touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=18-07-021-f

Godly relationships are going to look very odd to people. Yes.
The reason it is wrong is the person did not identify as such nor want to be referred to as such. That is what is wrong. If a person identified as such, then there would be no problem. But I would even wager those that have this, and are holy, do not identify as such because it isn’t necessary. People do not have to be identified by their attraction.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Godly relationships are going to look very odd to people. Yes.
The reason it is wrong is the person did not identify as such nor want to be referred to as such. That is what is wrong. If a person identified as such, then there would be no problem. But I would even wager those that have this, and are holy, do not identify as such because it isn’t necessary. People do not have to be identified by their attraction.

OK, but then is the speculation that some historical had same-sex attraction (as opposed to that they were “gay”) out of bounds?

 

[Hopey]

OK, but then is the speculation that some historical had same-sex attraction (as opposed to that they were “gay”) out of bounds?

It would depend on who it was and I wouldn’t do it.
The fact the we all struggle with sexual urges, one way or another, should not limit what saint we use, identify with. We all have them and if we view our body as an ***, we must patiently whip it into shape.
I would not look back on people and claim they were one way or another uless the revealed it. If they say they struggled with sexual temptation, then we all have a friend to imitate and help us.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Calumny is the correct word for what they and others tried to do concerning them.
2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.278 He becomes guilty:

• of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;
• of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them;279
• of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them

Can you explain your comment about Jesus further? If we do not think he took on all suffering including sin when he died on the cross, then we would not look to him as someone who can comfort us. I don’t understand what you mean by a beloved nor do I think it was appropriate for you to use it in that way in this discussion.

Going back to the original discussion, having a partner for partner sake, it still is not a good idea because of what partner means, more than friends.
Sure friends can be a good influence or bad. You would have to decide who to keep company with. A partner does not mean just a friend.

That’s the result of direct translation of the Catechism which occasionally runs into issues. Calumny in modern English requires one to try to harm someone’s reputation which is definitely not what the LGBT community is trying to do with Newman.

I was referring to John, the disciple who Jesus loved.

It is not “having a partner for partner sake,” it is having a partner for the sake of companionship.

I have repeatedly said a partner is not exactly the same thing as a friend; of course I know “[a] partner does not mean just a friend”.

Is English a foreign language to you?

 

[sttcatherinefan]

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?

This makes me so sad. I think that the Catholic Church needs to do a better job supporting single individuals, especially individuals who is says cannot marry like gay people and divorcees. I’m currently single as well (but not gay) and get the loneliness that you are probably feeling. I feel it as well. I’m in my thirties and many of my so-called friends are married so I am always the out of place third wheel. When I go to Mass alone, I feel very uncomfortable and out of place because it is mainly married couples with young children and older people. I just think that people kinda don’t want me there. I really feel like I’m on the outskirts looking in. I’d imagine that a gay Catholic probably feels even more estranged and on the outsides than even a 30-something hetero single.

One site that I’ve run across that might help is the following site. spiritualfriendship.org/ It is part of a movement called the “New Homophile” movement which is really trying to figure out a special place for gay people inside the Catholic Church.

 

[Hopey]

That’s the result of direct translation of the Catechism which occasionally runs into issues. Calumny in modern English requires one to try to harm someone’s reputation which is definitely not what the LGBT community is trying to do with Newman.

I was referring to John, the disciple who Jesus loved.

It is not “having a partner for partner sake,” it is having a partner for the sake of companionship.

I have repeatedly said a partner is not exactly the same thing as a friend; of course I know “[a] partner does not mean just a friend”.

Is English a foreign language to you?

No, is Catholicism a foreign religion to you?
Calumny is the correct word for this.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

No, is Catholicism a foreign religion to you?

A well worn Catechism and Liturgy of the Hours suggests otherwise.

Calumny is the correct word for this.

It neither the correct word nor does the Catechism say it is the correct word for this situation despite how opaque to the layman it can be.

 

[MacQ]

This makes me so sad. I think that the Catholic Church needs to do a better job supporting single individuals, especially individuals who is says cannot marry like gay people and divorcees. I’m currently single as well (but not gay) and get the loneliness that you are probably feeling. I feel it as well. I’m in my thirties and many of my so-called friends are married so I am always the out of place third wheel. When I go to Mass alone, I feel very uncomfortable and out of place because it is mainly married couples with young children and older people. I just think that people kinda don’t want me there. I really feel like I’m on the outskirts looking in. I’d imagine that a gay Catholic probably feels even more estranged and on the outsides than even a 30-something hetero single.

One site that I’ve run across that might help is the following site. spiritualfriendship.org/ It is part of a movement called the “New Homophile” movement which is really trying to figure out a special place for gay people inside the Catholic Church.

Perhaps you should either look for ways to get involved in your parish outside of Mass (where younger single folks are active), or find a parish that has more young single people and get involved in activities there outside of Mass.
Mass isn’t a social hour per se. You need to get involved in other parish activities for that.

 

[PaulGH]

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!

Thanks for the reply, and I am glad you liked my blog. I really like that Mother Angelica video too, especially the part where the sombrero falls off her head, and of course the “whoa-oa whoa-oa” parts. My kids loved that video too. The guy who put that video together did a great job.

 

[sttcatherinefan]

Perhaps you should either look for ways to get involved in your parish outside of Mass (where younger single folks are active), or find a parish that has more young single people and get involved in activities there outside of Mass.
Mass isn’t a social hour per se. You need to get involved in other parish activities for that.

When I was a child, my family got involved in a few nasty parish politics situations and because of it, I was bullied at Catholic schools and youth groups. So I choose to stay out of that stuff for my own emotional well-being and sanity. I would just like to be treated like I don’t have a contagious disease or am missing a nose when I attend Mass on Sundays.

 

[MacQ]

When I was a child, my family got involved in a few nasty parish politics situations and because of it, I was bullied at Catholic schools and youth groups. So I choose to stay out of that stuff for my own emotional well-being and sanity. I would just like to be treated like I don’t have a contagious disease or am missing a nose when I attend Mass on Sundays.

You don’t need to get involved in parish politics to join a bible study, or a discussion or support group, or volunteer in the food pantry…or any of the myriad social and spiritual groups that are often part of a parish.
Have you reached out to others, or just kept to yourself expecting them to approach you?
Just sayin’ it’s a two way street, and you may be giving off a leave-me-alone-I-know-you-are-against-me attitude.

Go to an ACTS retreat. Serve in a ministry. Volunteer. You make the move.

 

[manualman]

This whole thread illustrates how today’s gay lobby profoundly harms larger society. Whether it’s David and Jonathon or Cardinal Newman and his friend, the gay lobby has, perhaps unintentionally, created an atmosphere where any deep relational intimacy between men is assumed to be an indicator of homosexuality. This is really harmful! Men have a hard enough time establishing brotherhood without such insinuations being introduced. Historically, it seems to require the horrors of war before most men will really bond deeply.

The whole idea of two non-sexually involved people labeling one another as “partners” strikes me as absurd as well. The exclusivity of marriage is unique to marriage and characterizes the sexual union between them. Simulating that in a same sex deep friendship innately sexualizes that relationship and the couple will just be trying to fool themselves and/or others about their intention to have a chaste relationship, especially (if I read the OP right) if their intent is to have a relationship that includes physical affection just short of outright gay relations (to put it delicately). It’s a plan designed to fail.

Gay christians absolutely should have deep friendships. If they are blessed to find another person of the same (or opposite!) sex who also desires a non-romantic close lifelong friend to share a home and a life with, that’s awesome as well. But I’m pretty sure that trying to live halfway down the greased slope won’t work. Call it and live it a friendship and you have a shot at it. Try to “date” chastely and perpetually and you’ll fail at it. Brotherly love and romantic love just aren’t the same thing. It’s a failure of the English language that we use the same word for both.