North Star
Dec 18, 2011
Last night I received this comment on an old post. Read it, friends, and weep.
God loves you fully for who you are – your sexuality is an expression of the love in your soul and heart and God does not require that you repress it unless you really want that (i.e. as a monk)…brother you are trying to be accepted by the church but the true acceptance comes from God – the church’s reasons to oppose gay love are history, fear, self-repression and bigotry–the church has got it wrong and in time will correct it – in the meantime
are rejected and treated as half people – please promise you will try to talk to somebody more open – perhaps Jesuits- please realize God made you as you are and loves you—
- another Gay Catholic who is a practicing Catholic and has a loving partner.
So much compassion, and so much confusion. The author appears to assume the following things:
- - That I don’t believe God loves me, SSA and all.
- - That all sexual feelings are expressions of love.
- - That the only way to be celibate is through “repression”.
- - That rejecting the behavior of gay people (or anyone else) implies a rejection of the people themselves.
So many Catholics have been tricked into believing that they can take the parts they love about Catholicism and leave the parts they don’t. This would be the case if the Church were a philosophy, or a political creed, or a theory. The Church is none of those things.
The Church is — among other things — the instrument by which God communicates His truth to the world. Like Christ, she is both human and divine. Her humanity means that she is full of knaves and imbeciles1 as well as saints, just like the rest of the world. It means that her members, who of all people should know better, have often done unspeakable and horrific things, and often done them in the name of Christ.
But she is also divine, and because of this, there is one thing she has never done: she has never erred in her official teachings on a matter of faith and morals, Nor has she ever changed one of these teachings. I challenge you to find one instance, just one, of such an error or such a change. (Citations required, please.)
This unchangeability is our salvation. As soon as we begin to sift through Catholic moral teaching and select the ones that please us, we have ceased to believe in the Church as she has always been understood, and have replaced her with something that is designed to suit us. We have changed her foundation from rock to sand.
We have, in short, set ourselves up as the ultimate authorities. I’ve lived with myself all my life, dear readers, and by this time I know very well that I’m not an ultimate anything. Thank God for the Church, my compass, my anchor, my North Star. However far I wander, she will always leads me back to sanity; because she does not move.
Please pray for this man and all those like him, who have been led so far into the wilderness that they no longer know they are lost.
Daniel, your posts are good. It is not wrong to love a man. You can still have a soul mate but not have sex with that person. Don’t struggle with thinking that there is something wrong with romantic love between two men. That can be something beautiful. Don’t feel that there is plenty wrong with that. Using someone for sex is one thing but truly loving and caring for another person is something else. When we talk about gay people we talk about a variety of people who are not all the same. I would never refer to myself as a homosexual but realize that I am more gay than straight. But I am not open about it, I live a straight life and until a few years ago I never discussed this with anyone, not even myself. I feel that I was born the way I am. God made me this way. I have never been in a physical relationship with a men or even dreamed about being with a man in that way. When I was a teen I liked girls better but didn’t have a strong sexual interest in them. In all high school I never even kissed a girl and have never kissed a guy in a romantic way. I wasn’t really exposed to much in the way of homophobia and I didn’t know a lot about gay people. I remember when I was a teen I thought magazines like Playboy were disgusting and didn’t like the way women were portrayed in them. I thought it was because I was a good Catholic. Well, it wasn’t that, I was just different.
You guys are making me break that promise to give up this thread. Maybe we can beg Steve to put up a new post that’ll break our train of thought?
Btw Steve, I’d accept your offer, but I don’t think I have enough silver in my pocket to provide you with the proper change.
For the curious, I’m a heterosexual Catholic man, civilly divorced and trying to live chastely since I’ve never gotten an annulment. (For the record, divorce was her idea, and I raised our two kids myself.) So with the exception of who I’m attracted to, I’m pretty close to being in the same boat at the faithful men and women here with SSA. Some may take exception to the comparison, but frankly I’m unexpectedly surprised how much I seem to have in common with you all.
I’ve been trying to parse my way through the comments about male-male “romance” without sex, and I have to agree with JP. You can have deep, meaningful friendships, but once you start considering something “romantic” you’ve really drifted over the double yellow line.
“The chaste person maintains the integrity of the powers of life and love placed in him. This integrity ensures the unity of the person; it is opposed to any behavior that would impair it. It tolerates neither a double life nor duplicity in speech.
Chastity includes an apprenticeship in self-mastery which is a training in human freedom. The alternative is clear: either man governs his passions and finds peace, or he lets himself be dominated by them and becomes unhappy….
(at 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.”
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#2338
For comparison, let’s remember that in my situation, I can’t date because it would be enticing another woman to commit adultery.
“If a husband, separated from his wife, approaches another woman, he is an adulterer because he makes that woman commit adultery, and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has drawn another’s husband to herself.”
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2384.htm
I think the Catechism uses “approaches” intentionally, because of the Lord’s teaching that “anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” (Mat 5:28)
Even if you could say “there’s nothing wrong with a man romantically loving another man,” in itself, i.e. if there’s no sex involved (and I don’t think you can – see above), there’s the fact that it’s a near occasion of sin. You’re tempting each other to violate the chastity you’re called to. Add to it that it’s a scandal, because other members of the church don’t know you’re trying to live chastely. Though again, you can’t say it’s chastity if you’re only avoiding sex. You have to put a governor on the lust as well.
I have to say, I can’t parse out the idea of “lust” from “romance”. When I’m attracted to a woman, and imagine being in a romantic relationship with her, no matter how noble and pure I might want the courtship to be, my mind is going to drift into the idea of physicality. It’s not right for me to go there unless the endgame is a legitimate possibility.
Mark – thanks for the post. It was real nice and i bet your experience is not all that uncommon.
This has been a really good discussion!
If I have a problem with describing a chaste male relationship w/ a homoerotic component as a “romance”, it’s not because I’m straight but because I’m a bit of a semanticist and know-it-all jerk. “Romance” implies adventurous pursuit towards a goal; in old-fashioned terms, the goal was the altar and then off to the new adventure of family-building. But here such a goal is by definition denied and no pursuit possible. As I say, though, this is semantics; I don’t know what else you could call a situation where SSA is not honestly deniable yet resolution is set out of bounds.
As far as maintaining the relationship, the one thing I definitely do not recommend is living together! I did that once; while the young woman and I never got beyond hugs, it was still very difficult for me, and I swore I’d never do it again. Talk about your near occasion of sin! And there’s the problem: once there’s an admitted attraction, how do you maintain sufficient distance to keep from … er, resolving the tension? Sometimes the best way is literal, physical distance; I live almost fifty miles away from my closest woman-friend.
Chastity is difficult enough when you don’t have any sexual experience; once you’ve had a few bites of the apple, it’s very difficult to just set it aside. Especially if you set it close enough to where you can pick it up again; you’re just daring yourself to break your promises. Here endeth the lesson.
ya i know steve already posted another blog, but wanted to say something else. Everyone is tempted to sin everyday. you can’t live 50 miles away from your right hand. its about self-mastery
Furthermore, when one person in a married couple becomes physically unable to have sex (like in a car accident) the romance is still there even if it is not reaching towards a goal
no one is really answering this example. romance can happen without sex.
Daniel, let’s spin it another way. Sure, you CAN have romance without sex. But if there isn’t at least the most subtle desire to have sex, can it really be called romance?
I think the closest I can imagine to saying yes would be the romance held by an elderly couple who have been married a long time. It’s possible they just don’t have any sex drive left, and yet they can still undoubtedly be in love. But even there, I can’t imagine them not wishing they had some sex drive left to fool around with. Doesn’t that amount to the same thing?
everyone has the desire to have sex. but desire isn’t the sin. with romantic love, sure the desire to have sex would come up. its whether you act on that desire or not.
Daniel, as I’ve already pointed out, that’s not what Jesus told us in Matthew 5:28. And the Catechism reinforces the idea that a proper view of chastity requires us to interpret it that way. How is an orthodox Catholic supposed to respond to your assertions otherwise?
Yeah just curious, and possibly related to Daniel’s point, suppose if we have a married couple who are unable to perform the marital act (due to an accident), then it’s still alright for them to kiss, hold hands, cuddle, to date, etc (basically all the trimmings of “romance”) However, these acts are considered sinful when two guys do it, even with no sex involve.
So now the question is, what makes the romantic activities of one pair alright, and the other pair not ok, even without the sex (whether because they are physically unable to, or they just decided not to do it).
I’m not actually disagreeing, but I feel that there is a certain sense of inconsistency here, so I would appreciate some clarifications. Thanks!
ya dusky, good post. i think you got my point across better than i could.
and i thought we just decided that its that desire to have sex with a guy or a married man is just the near occasion of sin. sometimes we could lust for people walking down the street. but i think thats the difference with romantic love – it wouldn’t be lust, but love. and as long as no one is acting on their desire and actually having sex, then they are being chaste and have attained self-mastery
Dusky, I don’t think those things are sinful if men do it. Suppose a guy takes a girl to dinner and then they go to a basketball game. No sin there. If a gay man takes another gay man to dinner and then to a basketball game that is not a sin either. For two men to show affection to each other is not sinful. For a man to force himself on another man sexually or pick up a guy just for sex, then that would be sinful.
One thing which has always helped me was told to me by a very near friend and support. “You know, no one is married in Heaven, no one has that ‘special someone’ there.” Acts are not what send us to Hell. Sins are not the problem. Sin is. This may sound contradictory, but think about it. Going to Hell is a choice that we make; no one “sends” us there. We go by our own free will.
Each individual sin we make can be forgiven very easily. God is all-powerful. It is nothing for Him to say, “your sins are forgiven.” That’s how powerful He is. So the act is not the worst part of each sin. The problem lies in the hardening of hearts.
Everything we do trains us to continue in that direction. That direction is either forward or backward. Toward God or away from God. So the “romance” between two guys while each act may not be sinful (movie, baseball game, dinner, etc.) the overall effect is very harmful. If we are constantly trying to get as close to the line as possible without crossing it, then our ultimate momentum is toward the line. Eventually our human strength will be much too weak to combat such great momentum. We will cross the line. We will choose Hell.
Each bad act (sins) pulls us toward a state of apart-ness from God (sin). We must ever keep fighting away from that line, never trying to get close to it, but always trying to be as far from it as possible. So, having a romantic relationship (without sex) with another man may not be sinful in that you may not actually commit ‘sins’ (hard to do with a romantic relationship with another man), but it is sinful in the fact that it is leading you toward a state of ‘sin.’
[...] Definitely go read the rest here. [...]
[...] Note: The following was originally published Dec. 18, 2011 at http://www.stevegershom.com. The letters “SSA” stand for “Same Sex [...]
[...] [...]
“another Gay Catholic who is a practicing Catholic and has a loving partner” *sigh* Good job describing how you don’t get to nitpick what you believe and what you don’t
Somehow I stumbled upon this post. I don’t understand how people who have love for the same sex could be judged. If they love and are committed to their partner for life, how is this different than a heterosexual relationship?
I’m not a lesbian, so I don’t have a personal objective with my response. It just made me think of an email that I received some time ago.
When you say “we have ceased to believe in the Church as she has always been understood, and have replaced her with something that is designed to suit us”, I disagree. I don’t mean to offend by posting what I received via email. It’s just that people don’t realize how things have changed so much since the bible was written.
—–
In her radio show, Dr Laura Schlesinger said that homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura,
Dear Dr. Laura: Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination …. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God’s Laws and how to follow them. 1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians? 2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? 3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness -Lev15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense. 4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord -Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them? 5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it? 6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexual ity. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Are there ‘degrees’ of abomination? 7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here? 8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die? 9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves? 10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14) I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I’m confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.
Your adoring fan, James M Kauffman, Ed.D. Professor Emeritus, Dept. Of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education University of Virginia (It would be a damn shame if we couldn’t own a Canadian)