A conversation with my gay friend
The other day we got together with a friend of mine from high school named Andrew*, and his boyfriend, Tom. They moved out of state earlier this year, but a business trip brought him and Tom back through town recently, and we jumped at the chance to go out to dinner with them. This was one of the first times in a long while that we’d had a chance to sit down and talk with them, just the four of us. We caught up on life and work, Andrew and I clicking as well as we always have. I wore waterproof mascara because I knew I’d end up laughing to the point of tears, which, in fact, I did.
Then, when my husband and Tom went to pick up a round of drinks at the bar, Andrew had a question for me.
“So,” he said, grabbing a tortilla chip from the basket in front of us. “What do you think of gay marriage?”
The last time we hung out, this unspoken topic was not as palpably present as it was now. Even though our gay friends knew that we’d converted to Catholicism, nobody cared enough to bring up potentially controversial issues. But now, the mood in the world around us had changed. Throughout our country the issue of same-sex unions was being debated furiously; it had become a defining issue of our generation, and thus the average person was no longer allowed not to have an opinion about it. It was too weird to sit at the table, two orthodox Catholics and two men in a gay relationship, and not bring it up. We could no longer ignore the storm that raged outside the cloister of our friendship; the doors had blown open, and the rain had come inside.
I shrugged, trying to keep it casual. “I don’t think that same-sex couples getting married is the same thing as traditional marriage, if that’s what you mean.”
Andrew didn’t look surprised, but he seemed annoyed. “I didn’t realize you were a homophobe,” he said, only barely kidding.
“Oh, yeah, I’m terrified of you. I only hang out with you because you make the best dry martini in the world — but I’m trembling the whole time!”
“How can I hear your statement as anything but anti-gay?”
“I worry about what will happen to our society if everyone starts thinking that marriage is about any two people doing whatever they want. But that has nothing to do with being anti-gay.” I was afraid he was going to incur ocular damage from rolling his eyeballs back into his head so far, so I added, “Want me to explain?”
He folded his arms across his chest. “Sure.”
I immediately regretted my offer, wishing I’d promptly changed the subject to the weather, celebrity gossip, or any other subject inane enough that I could speak intelligently about it. I’m proud of being Catholic, and proud to stand by what the Church teaches. I converted to Catholicism in large part because I think that, through its moral code, it gives all humans a prescription for living a life of peace, in harmony with one another and with our Creator. I could not have converted to a religion that had doctrines that singled out one group of people in an unfair way, since it would seem illogical that an all-loving God would create such a system. But I knew I was going to have a hard time making my case; Andrew and I had such utterly different worldviews, it would be as if I were speaking through a distortion microphone that warps your voice and replaces every other word with random offensive phrases.
Before I could begin, the man and woman next to us caught our attention by gesticulating wildly in an animated conversation. They chatted happily over a shared plate of enchiladas, and each was wearing a wedding ring.
Andrew motioned to them. “You don’t think Tom and I are good enough to have what they have?”
“‘Good enough?’ It’s our insane culture that says that your entire life and personhood and soul are defined by your sexual attractions, not the Catholic Church. The Church articulates boundaries for behavior, not people.”
Andrew was still looking at them. They were in their late 20s, stylishly dressed, with golden summer tans. We could hear some of their conversation, and they seemed to be talking about a recent vacation. “I look at them, and I don’t see how what Tom and I have is all that different.”
“What do you see when you look at that couple? You see two people who really like each other, who decided to get married as a statement of lifelong commitment?”
“Yeah. Pretty much.”
“You’re imagining that they’re living life out of that Khalil Gibran poem, right?” I asked, referring to the famous verses that were read at a commitment ceremony we’d attended years ago. “The man and the woman each plan to do their own thing for the rest of their lives. There are no obligations on them outside of respecting one another and having fun. Is that about right?”
“Close enough. What is marriage if not a commitment? What else could it be about?” With that statement, Andrew had gotten to the core of the issue. This was the bulging pressure cooker where almost all of our culture’s misunderstanding roiled. I hoped I wouldn’t say anything that made it explode.
I tried for a silly analogy. “Have you ever looked backwards through binoculars?”
“Sure. Why?”
“That’s how I see our culture’s understanding of marriage: They’re looking backwards through the binoculars. They’re kind of getting it right, but because they have the thing flipped around, it’s going to entirely distort their view of things.”
Andrew sipped his drink. “How so?”
“Marriage is about new human life. All sexual morality is about new human life. From time immemorial, societies understood that people only respect human life to the extent that they respect the act that creates human life.” But when our culture embraced contraception, I continued, for the first time in human history, the sexual act was severed from its life-giving potential in the societal psyche. People began to feel like they had a right to the pleasure of the sexual act, without having to give a second thought to any new life that might be created. Not surprisingly, this tempted us to dehumanize those inconvenient lives that kept popping up out of the blue, and the destruction of newly conceived life became necessary in order for the “truths” of contraception to be upheld. As Pope Paul VI predicted back in 1968, the idea that we can and should exercise complete control over when new people come into the world could not be contained the realm of pregnancy alone, and an entire “culture of death” erupted as a result.
“Great soliloquy,” Andrew deadpanned. “So, umm, why is it that you don’t want Tom and I to get married?”
“Because marriage is about new human life. That’s what the binoculars analogy was about: Yes, marriage is about sex. But it’s about sex because sex is how new life is created — and, ultimately, it is an institution ordered toward protection and respect for new people.”
“So if you have a straight friend who’s infertile, you’d tell her she can’t get married either?”
“I said ordered toward. When a man and woman have sex they’re engaging in that sacred act that creates human life, even if none will be created in that particular act. It’s still sacred.”
“Okay, but for fertile couples, that sounds barbaric to say that they have to be trying to have babies all the time. Not everyone is as crazy as you guys.”
“That’s not what Catholics believe. Child spacing is perfectly fine, if done with natural methods. And the reason that natural family planning doesn’t lead to the same kind of cultural insanity as artificial contraception is because it’s a sacrifice-based system.”
“I’m not following. I don’t see why there’s any more sacrifice than with contraception — or, frankly, why it matters.”
I offered a brief overview of how NFP works, trying to avoid scarring Andrew for life with too many details about the signs and symptoms of a woman’s fertile time, and bumbled around to convey why abstaining during fertile periods is fundamentally different than artificially sterilizing the sexual act. “You don’t get to do whatever you want, whenever you want, even as a married heterosexual. All sexual activity must be ordered toward new human life, so there’s no, umm…” If there had been an awkwardness meter on the table, it would have exploded as I tried to elucidate this point without naming specific sexual acts ending in specific ways that aren’t licit in the Catholic worldview. I skipped it and moved on.
“Anyway,” I continued, “in this view you are constantly having to make sacrifices out of respect for what this act is all about: If you’re totally open to having kids, then there are the sacrifices that come with birth and raising children; if you’re abstaining during fertile times, you’re sacrificing. Infertile couples sacrifice by not using artificial methods like in vitro to force new life into existence. Gay men and women sacrifice by living chaste lives, as do people separated from their spouses, and people who are not yet married, or whose spouse has died. Notice that we’re all sacrificing, and that all of the sacrifices are about the same thing: love and respect for new human life, and specifically the act that creates new human life.”
“So you’re saying that gay men should never have sex?”
I hesitated. The way the question was phrased, to answer would make it seem like I see myself as some kind of moral authority. “I’m saying that every human being is called to make sexual sacrifices in the name of respect for human life. So, yeah, that would mean that a gay man would not act on his attractions. And would that be harder for him than for a single Catholic who hasn’t found a spouse, or for a person whose spouse has left him, for a married couple with a medical condition that’s not compatible with pregnancy — even for the average, healthy married couple who abstains regularly to space their kids? Honestly, I think it depends on the people. You’d be surprised at how much everyone sacrifices — not just people with same-sex attraction.”
“Great belief system you have there,” Andrew said. “Sounds like a barrel of laughs.”
“Andrew, you know me. You know how lazy I am, right?”
“Definitely.”
“And how weak I am? And how little fortitude I have in any area of life? Remember how I could never meet you guys for brunch because you met at eleven-thirty, and it was just too early to ask me to get up?”
“All true.”
“I have had to make plenty of sacrifices for this concept.” I told him about the DVT, my blood clotting disorder, the never-ending medical bills. “I’m not Mother Teresa in the streets of Calcutta or anything. A lot of people have it a lot worse than I do — ”
Andrew was laughing at me having used “me” in the same sentence with “Mother Teresa,” agreeing under his breath that, indeed, I am not Mother Teresa. I ignored him and continued. “Listen. Do you think that I would have gotten myself into a belief system that involves sacrifices if there weren’t a huge payoff?”
“What, does the Pope give you a pot of gold?” Andrew was on a roll.
“Ha, ha,” I said dryly. “Look, I can’t tell you what it would be like for you or any other gay man to live a chaste life. I have no idea what your sacrifices would be, and would never for a moment dream to tell you that it would be easy. But based on my own small experience, I will say this: When you get your sexuality in line with respect for human life, you get your soul in line with God, who is the Source of human life. And there is more joy there than you could imagine.” I told him about all the priests and nuns and monks who are some of the most joyful people I’ve ever met, pointing out that for thousands of years there have been large segments of society that live awesome lives without sex. I described some of the chaste single people I know who do more good for the world in a day than I do in a year. “Our society has forgotten entirely that it is perfectly possible not to have sex. Not only possible, but can even be a great thing.”
“I need a drink,” Andrew sighed, craning his neck to see if Tom and my husband were back from the bar.
“You’re not convinced?”
“You mean am I all anti-gay-marriage now after listening to your little speech?” Andrew look to the ceiling, as if appealing to the gods to help me with my ignorance. “Uhh, no.”
I didn’t expect that he would be; it certainly would have made for a weird dinner if Tom had returned from the bar to have Andrew say, “Tom! I just spent five minutes talking with Jennifer, and have decided that our love for one another would be most perfectly expressed in a chaste way! Let’s be celibate!”
“Do you at least believe that when I say that I don’t think gay marriage is a good thing, it’s not coming from a place of homophobia?” I hoped that my face expressed the depth of my concern for our friendship.
He didn’t respond right away. The silence that passed between us was palpable and heavy, as if the culture wars over human sexuality had become a physical thing that stood between us. Finally, a smile spread across his face. “You’re not homophobic. You’re just crazy, and have evidently joined an anti-sex cult!”
I laughed. “Okay. I’ll take that.” I started to make the case that Catholicism is actually quite pro-sex – so much so that it’s the only organization left in the world that demands that we respect it — but it seemed time to let the conversation drop.
The guys returned from the bar, and Andrew and I turned our attention to them. “What were you two talking about?” Tom asked.
Andrew didn’t miss a beat. “Jennifer was just agreeing with me that that shirt makes you look like you got drunk and raided Barbara Walters’ closet,” he quipped. This prompted a long and loud debate about Tom’s sartorial preferences, which would eventually end in our server announcing over our shouts and howls of laughter that the manager had asked us to please keep it down.
At the end of the evening — way too late, as always — we all exchanged hugs and promised that we’d do this more often. I watched Andrew and Tom walk away, holding hands, and prayed that I hadn’t done a totally terrible job of articulating my beliefs. I hoped that, if nothing else, he understood that there is no contradiction between me being a faithful Catholic and a close friend of his. I have converted to the religion of the crucifix, a belief system that promises joy in exchange for losing it all. Most people don’t want to sign up for that. I get that. I hope they consider it, for their own sake, since their lives would be better if they did — but it doesn’t change how I feel about them if they don’t. As the guys disappeared down the street, I hoped Andrew knew how much I loved him and Tom, and I hoped they still loved me too.
.
* Andrew and Tom’s names have been changed. Also, to save you from having to read thousands of words of hemming and hawing and talking around the issue, I have condensed our conversation, made both of us sound more articulate than we actually were at the time, and included elements of discussions I’ve had with other gay friends. In other words: This is meant to convey the gist of my recent conversations with dear friends who are gay, and is not meant to be a piece of journalism with precise accuracy as to how every word was spoken.
Oh, and I’ve done my best to express Catholic thought on these issues, but keep in mind that I’m a random woman with an internet connection, not the Pope. If I accidentally wrote anything that disagrees with what he would say, go with him, not me.
For your convenience, you can have each Conversion Diary post delivered free by email or on a feed reader.
Love this post! Thank you so much. I can’t tell you how much I’ve benefited from reading it.
It is a very difficult subject. My brother is gay and wants to “marry” a man and adopt children. I tried to converse with him via email but he wouldn’t even respond to some of the things I said because he said they were too “insanely” or “outrageously” offensive to respond to. I never used a slur, expletive or anything derogatory. I was simply trying to explain my and the Church’s beliefs. (The comparison to gambling seemed to particularly offend him, but then, so did everything.) I told him he was far too easily offended and questioned whether it would be best to end the discussion. He never replied after that. It greatly informed my view of “being offended” and the way so many people today seem to a) think they have a right to not be “offended” and b) how and why people do get so easily offended just because someone disagrees with them (it seems very insecure and immature to me).
He is cordial enough when we see him but he has taken to “liking” any and every article I share on FB in defense of traditional marriage, yes, including this one. I don’t think he has changed his mind. I think he does it with some idea of spite or sarcasm. He “liked” your article but didn’t bother to “like” a funny picture I shared with his name included.
The whole subject is difficult but it is all the harder when either side can’t calmly, rationally and respectfully speak and listen. It seems easier for people to throw words like “homophobe” around than actually consider the other person might have a real rational behind their beliefs.
Katherine recently posted..Emotional Irrationality
“I never used a slur, expletive or anything derogatory. I was simply trying to explain my and the Church’s beliefs.”
The leader of the KKK could write an eloquent, profanity-free piece on why whites are great and the other races are destroying society, but that wouldn’t make him any less wrong nor any less of a bigot. The fact that you used “nice language” to denounce your brother doesn’t magically absolve you from all guilt.
Similarly, the fact that you were just trying to explain your and your church’s beliefs means very little to them. If I wanted to marry a non-white person but my sister were in the KKK, I wouldn’t take much comfort from the fact that she was just trying to explain her and her organization’s beliefs. Belonging to a big group of bigots does not provide a legitimate excuse for bigotry.
“(The comparison to gambling seemed to particularly offend him, but then, so did everything.)”
Of course it did. You compared a fundamental part of his personality to something you believe to be a sin. If he sent you an email out of the blue calling you a Kool-Aid drinking cult-following moron, you just might be offended, too. He might just be trying to get you out of the destructive cycle of the church, but by making a complete mockery of something that defines you as a person, you probably aren’t going to feel super fantastic about his “advice.”
“I told him he was far too easily offended and questioned whether it would be best to end the discussion.”
Far too easily offended? His sibling is belittling him as a person. If you can’t see why that might offend someone, you might want to re-examine yourself before you go heaping blame on your brother.
“It greatly informed my view of ‘being offended’ and the way so many people today seem to a) think they have a right to not be ‘offended’ and b) how and why people do get so easily offended just because someone disagrees with them (it seems very insecure and immature to me).”
Your brother does not believe that he has a right not to be offended. Your brother believes that he has a right to be treated with respect and love by his sister, and you are falling far, far short of what kind of person he expects you to be.
It’s not a matter of being easily offended, as I said before. You are attacking the core of his being, and you are so short-sighted that you don’t even realize or understand why this might be a big deal to him. This is prototypical myopia.
By the way: Do you see how absolutely ironic it is to claim that his offense at his sister’s dismissal of his feelings is “insecure and immature”? You’re the one who has stopped unconditionally loving your brother because a magic book told you that his choices are evil, even though they have no victim. You’re the one who is trying to force your views onto other people, even your own brother. You’re the one who can’t stand to see two people who love each other be allowed to be happy together because you’re not comfortable with it. How can this not be exceedingly clear to you?
“The whole subject is difficult but it is all the harder when either side can’t calmly, rationally and respectfully speak and listen.”
As a white male, maybe I’m speaking out of my zone of experience, but I’m willing to bet that it’s a lot harder to be calm, rational, and respectful when much of the country–including your own family–thinks that you shouldn’t be allowed to be happy, and is willing to go so far as to legislate it. Maybe you two could actually have a reasonable conversation if you realized that your viewpoint does *nothing* for your brother but hurt him very deeply and very genuinely.
“It seems easier for people to throw words like ‘homophobe’ around than actually consider the other person might have a real rational behind their beliefs.”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me that Catholicism *is* homophobic. It does not like homosexuality. If it wasn’t homophobic, this article and these comments would never exist. The problem is that you do not want to be labeled as a homophobe, but you want to keep your label as a Catholic. I do not think that you can have your cake and eat it, too: Either homophobia is wrong, and so is Catholicism, or homophobia and Catholicism are both objectively good and true stances to hold. Make your choice.
Lastly, there is no legitimate rationale for being a bigot, *especially* towards your own brother. You are destroying your relationship with him and pushing him out of your life (I know that you don’t see it like that, but that’s the truth) because of some opinions that you found in an old book. You are making the decision–for both yourself and him–to remove the mutual respect and love and understanding that a brother and sister should have.
I urge you to make amends with your brother before it’s too late.
Arben,
I can see that this is a very personal subject for you. I don’t know what you have been through but you have made several very incorrect assumptions about my brother, myself and our correspondence. I have never been disrespectful or unloving towards my brother. I’ve never asked him to seek therapy to become a heterosexual. I’ve simple explained I believe he should live chastely. He could call me just about anything I wouldn’t be offended. Disappointed and perhaps hurt, but not offended. I have full confidence in what I believe and so no matter what anyone else says. I am not attacking the core of his being and his being is much more than who he is attracted to. All I commented on is my belief with regards to marriage and sex outside of the marital union of 1 man and 1 woman.
Everyone desires happiness but it is not so simple as simply giving everyone whatever they want. Unless I am mistaken, legislation to defend traditional marriage only became prevalent in response to the push for legislation for “gay marriage” so I don’t see how you can complain about traditional marriage legislation when you want the opposite legislation?
My viewpoint might hurt my brother. That is true. But my beliefs are what I believe to be true – I don’t believe them just to make anyone feel better. I don’t devote my life just to making people feel better. I live according to what I believe to be true, whether it is easy or not, whether it feels good or not. Many things in life don’t feel good but are good. Ask any woman who has been through labor.
“Homophobe” means “Fear of the same”. The Church doesn’t fear or hate homosexuality. It simply does not approve of acting on the sexual attractions of those who are homosexual. I am no more afraid of you than I am of my brother. My only fear is for the salvation of his immortal soul, which I believe to be in grave danger. I don’t know on what basis you call me a bigot. My brother visits regularly, for Thanksgiving, Christmas and when he wants to get away from the city. He eat with us, goes to movies with us and plays with my children. I am sorry for the pain you are in but I really think you are writing from personal pain and anger and projecting into assumptions about me and my brother. Yes, it hurts him that I do not approve of his lifestyle and would not attend any “gay wedding” he might have and, if that pushes him out of my life I am sorry for it, but I cannot dictate what I believe to be true simply because it is not easy.
My belief is far more than “some opinions” from “an old book.” The Bible is a foundation for it yes, but it is joined by 2 thousand years of tradition, years of personal study, personal prayer, reflection and meditation, and, indeed, even personal experience. It is not so easy to discard as an “opinion” from an “old book.”
Again, I’m sorry for your pain and hope you find peace. God bless.
Katherine recently posted..Emotional Irrationality
You certainly act according to you beliefs. That is good. The problem is that you beliefs don’t reflect reality.
I had to read this, go away, come back and read it again. Ultimately, I agree with your response. After all, he asked your opinion and you very respectfully gave it to him.
Some of the people who’ve commented on this post? Well, I can’t say the same for them. I take issue with the idea that homosexuality is a sin better or worse than the sin of having sex outside of marriage.
Also, not sure if you touched on this but what are your thoughts on civil unions? Do you see this as the same as marriage?
Larissa recently posted..Studying, Sans Books
You do a great job of expressing yourself in a difficult conversation. Thank you for stressing the great relationship that you have with Andrew and that he has with you. Just because you disagree about somethings doesn’t mean you can’t agree about a lot of other things and even work together on some issues.
Thanks
Seashore recently posted..The Our Father- Give us this day our daily bread.
I am just so happy that those of you who are the loudest are not in the majority. I realized that just because you pontificate – pun intended – your orthodoxy all over the internet – doesn’t mean the rest of us who are cradle Catholics aren’t rolling our eyes at you.
Real Catholics choose on the side of love and understanding. When in doubt, choose love.
You acted in a hateful manner toward your “friend.” With friends like you…etc. etc.
Loren- you are a BRAVE person- I bet that you will be the type of person God says “well done, good and faithful servant” to
it might be a ‘chicken and egg’ issue- but I think if the heterosexual community practiced more morality, chastity (even in marriage!), and modesty- it would be a bit easier for people with SSA to practice chastity
priest’s wife (@byzcathwife) recently posted..just because ‘Priest’s Wife’ is curious…take this survey, please!
Jen,
Thank you again for another great article. Your clarity is a true blessing. I will admit I started to skim through comments, so if my point has already been made I apologize. Many people commenting, who are obviously in disagreement with the Catholic point of view, keep talking about how we shouldn’t fight against gay marriage because everyone doesn’t believe as we believe and we have no right to push our beliefs on anyone. Doesn’t everyone – Christian, Muslim, atheist, etc., vote their conscience? Don’t their beliefs color the way they see any given issue? We can do nothing other than vote in a Catholic way because it is simply the way we see the world.
God Bless
“Doesn’t everyone – Christian, Muslim, atheist, etc., vote their conscience? Don’t their beliefs color the way they see any given issue? We can do nothing other than vote in a Catholic way because it is simply the way we see the world.”
Doesn’t everyone – racists, fascists, murderers, Nazis, rapists, et c., vote their conscience? Don’t their beliefs color the way they see any given issue? They can do nothing other than vote in their own ways because that is simply the way they see the world.
I have news for you, Michelle: Being in a group of a large people who all believe something doesn’t make it right to enforce your beliefs on other people. The fact that you have beliefs–congratulations, by the way, on such a difficult and complex accomplishment–does not give you any sort of right to oppress anybody else.
Do you think that if the majority of Americans thought it was right to outlaw Catholics from practicing their religion, that that would be just fine because they couldn’t help but see the world the way that they do?
Your argument holds precisely no water.
Hey Jen-I know you have a million comments, but I just wanted to let you know I really appreciated this and thought you did a terrific job in explaining the Church’s position. Its the tragedy of our age that modern society completely rejects the fact that one can hold two ideas at the same time i.e. not being homophobic but at the same time not supporting the legalization of same-sex marriage. Its an extreme world we live in.
Christy recently posted..Homeschooling and the Integrated Life of Mom
What else should the author have done. She stood by her beliefs and her love for her friend. She did not preach to her friend but answered and honest question that would otherwise have created a wedge between them. If everyone is a sinner which is part of our Faith, which ones are we supposed to shun? If a sin is actually harming another then we have a duty to protect the innocent. If someone has homosexual desires and is unable to overcome those desires and live a celibate life then they are really no different than a man who repeatedly cheats on his wife or a person who refuses to care for their elderly parents. The goal is to crowd as many soul sinto Heaven as possible. We need to live in love for everyone else and watch for the timber in our eye first. Don’t be rude and unkind. Be loving and respectful.
“If someone has homosexual desires and is unable to overcome those desires and live a celibate life then they are really no different than a man who repeatedly cheats on his wife or a person who refuses to care for their elderly parents.”
[******] In what way is that the same *at all*?
[Edited a bit for content by me.
-JF]
All homosexual relationships harm society according to the Church. Pope Benedict XVI, when he was Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, outlined several areas of major concern. I have provided an excerpt from the document but the whole paper is a must read to learn what the Church teaches about the damages and violence caused by the deviant lifestyle.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html.
(Excerpt): In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection. As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case.
Thank you, Jennifer, for such an excellent explanation of the Catholic/Christian view of sexuality and how it relates to gay sex. Bringing in a reality, often unmentioned in our modern culture – the Devil – I want to say that same-sex attraction, just like “coveting your neighbor’s wife” is a work of Satan’s clever deception. If the temptation goes unchecked, “because it’s natural” or whatever satan-inspired reasoning, one becomes trapped in this lifestyle. Then, they are conscience-bound to justify it and even to spread it. Watchful parents can nip such a temptation in the bud if their child gives any indication of such inclinations or unclear thinking by explaining that this isn’t God’s design and that we who are not that smart must trust His wisdom and live by it. St Peter tells us to “Resist the devil and he will flee.” However, some temptations require a lifetime of resistance and special strength from God. Let us keep those in prayer who struggle with this problem.
Jen,
Thank you for articulating this. I will definitely have to bookmark this for future re-pondering. I have gay friends, and the whole “Catholic thing” has been the white elephant we’re avoiding sometimes. You’ve given me some idea of the words to use to talk about this. In response to those saying thre’s a little two-faced quality about NFP! Not really. NFP means that you do have to abstain at times (no fun, but rewarding in emphasis on non-physical closeness), but that you can remain within the Church and plan your family naturally, with God, not against Him. A lot more respect for human life with NFP, and a lot more thought for marriage and each other than just popping a pill.
Ginny recently posted..Doubting Thomas – Which Side of the Coin to Look At?
I do not relish those conversations, and yet it’s so important that we do our best and stick them out, like taking a math test except instead of a good grade you’re aiming to not misrepresent the way, the truth, and the life. Ah! So much pressure!
Thank you for your binocular view, Jennifer. Let me take the analogy another step, and continue the conversation just a bit further. With your permission, I’ll step into Andrew’s shoes for a minute- well not exactly, I don’t even know what a dry martini is- but you get the picture. So, take out those binoculars of yours again, and turn them around. You look through backwards, and what do you get? A wider view. Sure, everything’s smaller, and there’s more to sort through, but you can’t focus on one thing, and that’s sometimes needed. Better yet, take those binoculars away from your eyes, and you can do your own focusing while still seeing the whole landscape.
When I look at a Catholic wedding ceremony, I see 5 specific places where each consenting individual says, in essence, “I do”, and only one of those “I do’s” mentions being open to new life. When I look to Mary and Joseph, the prime Catholic example of a married couple, I see a couple that Catholic tradition tells us completely abstained from sex. When I look at marriage in the Bible, I note relatively few mentions of marriage that relate specifically to the sex act. When I look to our saints, I find few who were married, fewer still with children, and a large proportion of married saints that specifically lived chaste marriages.
The wider and deeper understanding deals with the complete commitment and giving of oneself to another individual. An understanding of marriage with an openness to new life as its central foundation is laying on a shaky foundation. An understanding of marriage as an openness to life has the sex act as its center. Through focusing on the commitment and respect of the relationship that commitment creates through marriage, new life can be a wonderful and sacred side effect, but focusing on the sex act in a marriage trivializes the relationship, and doesn’t allow for the commitment needed to make the sex act sacred.
As a gay male, it is that commitment that I seek. That understanding that I can give away myself completely, and expect that in return is something that the words “civil union” can never provide. The Catholic Church teaches that homosexual attraction is not a sin, but that acting upon that attraction is sinful. I can honestly say that living chastely would be a trivial matter to me were I able to live in a chaste marriage, and that I would be just as open to new life in my relationship as Our Lady was in hers. It would take a miracle for me to bear a child, but then Mary knows all about that.
I guess what I’m saying is, life is sacred, I get that, I respect that, and I wish it were in my vocation to have some share in that miracle. I know that focus has been in the media a lot lately, but the Catholic Church’s obsession with sex is taking its toll on an understanding of marriage that is so much deeper and broader, and has never been centralized around sex.
> Marriage is about new human life. All sexual morality is about new human life
In which case, infertile people shouldn’t be allowed to marry, right?
[followup on previous comment]
Sorry, I missed the ‘ordered toward’ bit the first read through.
How is an infertile couple having sex any more ordered toward reproduction than any other people who can’t reproduce? They know they can’t reproduce. Just because it’s more *similar* to people who can?
What about people utterly incapable of sex? They can’t get married?
The Church requires more from us than we are providing regarding homosexual relationships. Pope Paul VI approved this document on faith and morals. I provide a short excerpt but the full text is at the following url:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19751229_persona-humana_en.html.
(Excerpt): At the present time there are those who, basing themselves on observations in the psychological order, have begun to judge indulgently, and even to excuse completely, homosexual relations between certain people. This they do in opposition to the constant teaching of the Magisterium and to the moral sense of the Christian people.
For according to the objective moral order, homosexual relations are acts which lack an essential and indispensable finality. In Sacred Scripture they are condemned as a serious depravity and even presented as the sad consequence of rejecting God. This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and can in no case be approved of. The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.
Thanks for the courage and for sharing. I have lost friends and have trouble when discussing this very thing with my young adult sons.It is always my desire to express the love intended by the Catholic faith and myself.You did a great job.It sounds like your friend was vey generous too.I pray he looks on others that share your belief with the same charity even he if does not agree.God less you.
Jennifer, I totally agree with your post, very thought-provoking. The way you explained sacrifice is right on. I have six children and have tried to live an unselfish life, but it is very hard sometimes when I see other people (sometimes other Christians) totally living for themselves, seemingly having a stress-free and fun life. However, I know God wants us to daily follow Him by serving others, more specifically for mothers, by caring for and training up our children. It is encouraging to know that I’m not alone. You and other moms are busy doing the same thing I’m doing. God bless you and your family.
God bless you for your courage.
As a young catholic adult, this is truly the hardest and most counter-cultural aspect of my faith right now, for me.
I am inspired by the grace and the perseverance you had in trying so hard to “speak the truth in love”.
I think it’s powerful that you didn’t just avoid that conversation or his friendship.
I really think as Catholics we have to do what you did – patiently and LOVINGLY trace the arguments back to the source – the views of love and the dignity of the human person, and the calling we all have to sacrifice all kinds of “natural” sexual desires (meaning many people have bizarre passionate/lustful desires) for the greater good, and out of respect for our bodies and for others. You hit the nail on the head!
I also think its a great witness that you didn’t treat him like something to be “changed” or someone disordered. I think we need to sidestep the confusing and irrelevant questions of “why are some people inclined to homosexuality” and all of the “nature vs nurture” arguments that our well-meaning Protestant brothers and sisters Get sidetracked by so easily (not unlike the “evolution vs creation” debates – whereas the Catholic Church in her infinite wisdom says “that is totally irrelevant. What matters is God is the author of life – whether He created using a Big Bang or using clay, just focus on Him being the creator”)… We as Catholics in America tend to forget that the Church doesn’t waste time on a useless debate over the nature of
Homosexuality’s origin!… Instead, like yourself, we must remember that the Church is compassionate and the Church is so consistent – with all forms of lustful temptations.
Sorry for the long comment when you have a bajillion. I just am so grateful you spoke out about this with such absolute clarity and love. I hope to do the same next time I am in this situation myself.
Kallah recently posted..Vanity of vanities and Bumble and bumble
I have skimmed the comments and would like to suggest a couple of books: God’s Grace and the Homosexual Next Door, and Giant Killers. The second one is by a man who felt different even as a little boy, and how he found freedom in Christ-(and is an outstanding musician).
Thank you Jennifer for opening up the conversation. It IS hard to talk about honestly and lovingly and with a good understanding.
As a faithful Catholic I trust that the Church’s teachings about sexuality, including homosexuality, are true and right. I also think that people with same sex attraction are born this way, and that it is not something they can change. It’s easy (and correct) to say that they are called to chastity like everybody else. And yes, everybody else struggles with chastity at times too. But, it sure sounds unfair to bar people with SSA from ever enjoying their God-given sexuality. Straight people at least have the hope that some day they find a spouse, or that the circumstances that require abstinence from them will change. So, I think the whole controversy boils down to the question: why are some people fated to a more miserable life than others? To carry a bigger cross?
Whether it is gay people, or people who can’t conceive children naturally, or people with terrible diseases, or people born in countries with famine and wars… Some people on this earth have lives that are harder than others, and it seems that God sometimes plays favorites and sometimes places bigger burdens on innocent people. I know that God doesn’t will suffering, He only permits it. And I can accept my own sufferings because I know that Jesus took on the cross for me, and that we live in a fallen world. But I know that as a straight woman with children who lives comfortably, I’m one of the luckier ones who have it easy(ier). I don’t really know what to tell the not so lucky ones, other than that I don’t think it’s fair either.
I don’t think it’s exactly the same thing talking about infertility, diseases, famines and wars on the one hand, and homosexuality on the other hand.
The first ones have indeed to suffer, and they unfortunately can’t do much about it. But chastity for gay people is a cross religion puts on their back, that they can throw away if they want to (and they do). I don’t think it’s fair to call it fate.
I don’t think you know what you are talking about. Love-shyness and imposed chastity and lack of intimate contact deprives people of a biologically grounded need. I assure you it can be an enormous burden.
How much you need different aspects of life to feel satisfied and experience meaning depends on your specific brain architecture. What is true for you is not true for others, and how much people need intimacy varies a lot in the human population.
You are welcomed to interpret this with your teleological tunnel vision. But be advised that you are lacking knowledge in evolutionary biology and cognitive sciences.
In other words, the view that all people can and should sacrifice their preferred form of sexuality for their mystical interpretations is provincial. People find what is meaningful in life in different ways and you know nothing about the genuine diversity there is in this area.
Thank you, Jennifer, for such a well articulated and lovingly spoken reflection on the Catholic position on gay marriage. What is rarely brought up, even among Christians, is the role of Satan in the current redefining of what is natural sexuality. I believe Scripture offers an explanation (Genesis 3:1; Exodus 20:13; Matthew 24:24; Romans 1:18ff; 2 Thessalonians 2:11, and many other places) that shows same sex attraction can be comparable to “coveting your neighbor’s wife” – a temptation offered by Satan, and which can be spiritually “hereditary.” If one is convinced, through the subtlety of Satan, that such an attraction is perfectly “natural,” and therefore, “good,” he/she can become entangled in it like an addiction. The Church, with the guidance of Sacred Scripture, has determined that sexual acts between people of the same sex are contrary to Divine and natural law. Therefore, it is instructive to investigate the Scriptures – God’s gift to correct our faulty human knowledge and reasoning – and the Church’s interpretation, for a correct understanding of this issue. From personal experience, a prayerful and watchful parent can nip in the bud such a tendency in a child. We also need to be diligent in prayer for those wresting with the temptation of SSA to enable them to resist this temptation (James 4:7).
Here are some points I think that need to be considered when discussing marriage – gay or not:
First some facts that most people can agree on:
1) Homosexuality has existed for as long as man has walked the earth. It is even written about in the bible.
2) Homosexuality can, and never will be able to produce children through the naturally occurring sex act within the bounds of the “homosexual relationship”. Of course, they can produce children through a proxy, or by having heterosexual intercourse with someone of the opposite sex – but that is not inside the bounds of the homosexual relationship.
3) Marriage, in its religious (and ORIGINAL) definition, comes from the bible (also the Torah, Koran, Hindu & Buddhist texts – in fact, marriage is a part of EVERY religious culture and is always seen as a HOLY ceremony between – guess what: a man and a woman!). In Christianity, God created marriage so that a man and a woman could unite as one being, and produce offspring. Sex in and of itself is not a sin (as many would have you believe) – except that to God it is a sin if you have it outside the bonds of matrimony – because He created marriage for man and woman. He did NOT create marriage for animals, He did not create marriage for a man and a man, nor did He create marriage for a woman and a woman. For a man to have sex with another man, or a woman to have sex with another woman, is a sin – because that sex act can never produce offspring naturally and God only blesses those things that are “natural” – that is: They either naturally create or exist – since homosexuality can NOT create naturally – therefore it is a sin. (Quick aside here: Couples who are for some reason infertile, in practice have all the right parts to produce offspring – it’s just that their parts don’t work. Gays do NOT have ALL the parts needed to produce offspring – no matter how much they want to – so they NEVER WILL produce offspring – therefore, they can’t get married.)
4) Marriage, as far as political reasons, exists because the Government wanted to be able to recognize the union of two people, and tax them.. that’s right – tax them… There are fees, and licenses, and a host of other things that the government gets by allowing you to “get married”. Additionally, in return for those taxes, the government bestowed certain rights on those it “married” – such as a right to inheritance, a right to send you offspring to government schools, a right to certain “privileges” that only married people can have. Marriage, in the political arena, has also made it expedient for certain things to be allowed, or not allowed: For example – if you are not blood related, you might not be able to visit someone in the hospital – but if you are married to them, well, that trumps blood relations in the government and hospital’s eyes and you can visit them. If you want to insure your spouse’s life or health, you have a right to do that. If you want to buy property, you have a right to jointly own that property as one entity.
On a side note: the government can not “marry” you in God’s eyes. The government can only marry you for tax purposes, so the correct term for a government marriage is “Civil Union”.
Finally, homosexuals claim that they want to be able to “marry” their partner. There are two reasons for this (and many will disagree with point b) below).
a) They want to be able to have all the rights and privileges that straight married couples have (gays want a civilly recognized union).
b) Many (though not all) have an “anti-religious” viewpoint, and this is a way for them to stick it in the eye of the churches. They believe that “God” has no right to define marriage (even those Homosexuals who are religious believe this to some extent or they wouldn’t support it).
c) Finally, most (though not all) homosexuals are atheists, or agnostic. The reason for this, is because religions (all true religions) teach that homosexuality is a sin, that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that marriage is for producing offspring. Because no one wants to have pointed out to them on a daily basis that their way of life is a sin, most people will abandon whatever upbringing or teachings they may have had in regards to this subject, and instead become atheists or at a minimum agnostic, instead of doing the hard choice and looking at their life and figuring out how to live it in a way that glorifies God. In other words, they take the easier way (the wrong), instead of forcing themselves to take the hard way (the right).
Since we are on the subject of atheists: Here’s another even more will disagree with: Atheists are slowly subverting the homosexual movements for their own agendas. Most atheists are usually “pro gay marriage”. The reason they support gay marriage: because they want to undermine religion in any way possible. Most atheists will deny this – but if you look at how they act, the true “believers” will scream you down if you even try to bring up why religion is right (I used to be an atheist, so I know what I’m talking about here). Atheists secretly see marriage, since God decreed it as between “man and a woman”, as against the very core of what they believe – that is – that there is no God. When you tell an atheist that you are married, secretly/subconsciously, they resent you because a real marriage, can only happen in God’s eyes. Since they don’t believe in God, marriage (real marriage) will never happen for them. Nothing would suit the atheist agenda MORE than to make a mockery of religion and force churches to “recognize” something that is a direct sin against God. I think many atheists will deny this… but for many others, esp. the hardcore “religion must be banned” types, they’ll probably openly admit this. Therefore, atheists are using the “gay marriage” movement for their own purposes, and homosexuals are allowing this to happen (mainly because they are atheists themselves).
Originally, back in the 70′s, when the whole “gay marriage” movement came about because of the hippies “lets be tolerant of everything” beliefs, most gays were happy with the term “civil union” so long as it bestowed the same government rights on them that straight “married” couples had. I have nothing against this term. You want to shack up with some one who’s the same sex as you, well, that’s not my business. You want to be able to pass on your estate, have visitation, and put them on your insurance – because you “love” them… That’s fine too. Your union is only being recognized by the state, and it’s granting you rights (under the government only) that any two people should have provided it is taken with the seriousness that such a union should be taken – face it, if you’re going to have a “union” with someone, and then leave them two weeks later for another someone, then you shouldn’t be allowed to have that “union” under the government. Regardless of whether you are marrying someone or creating a legal union, it should be carefully considered, because not only are you getting rights to them and their property, they are getting rights to YOURS.
While I said that using the term “union” is ok for gays who want to “be married”, I believe that using the term “marriage” is NOT – this is because: 1) it IS an attack on the religious institutions that created it, 2) it is subversively being used by the atheists to push their agenda 3) Marriage can ONLY happen between a man and woman. Gays want to use the “marriage” term because many gays are atheists, and they want the rights that a real marriage can bestow on them – but what they refuse to admit, is that a real marriage can produce offspring naturally – something they will never be able or have the potential to do.
I’m sure there will be many who now read this post and think I’m a homo-phobe (far from it – I’ve had many friends who are gay, and as I said, a civil union is fine), or that I’m a religious crackpot (nope – I’m actually very tolerant of others beliefs so long as they don’t try to force their views on me as the only view that’s right), or that I’m anti-atheist (well – got me there – but that’s because I used to be one – born and raised that way! so I know how wrong they are – but that won’t suffice for most of you that think that), or that I’m anti-government (yep, I’m against government being so big that it regulates what should be a strictly religious matter (marriage) and legislates what others should have a right to if they’ve seriously considered the ramifications (civil union) which is really a “states’ rights” issue and not a federal issue.), or finally, that I’m anti-gay marriage (yep – but that’s because gays can’t MARRY (BUT they can have a union – but the states need to pass that – not the FED.) So all you haters who can’t think for yourselves, let the bashing begin!
Since it’s open for bashing (you’ll offer the other cheek afterwards ?)… i’ll be nice
I don’t think many people want more than civil union, and if you don’t want to call it marriage, that’s fine by me (though i don’t think such a vocabulary issue is important at all). My only concern is equality regarding the features that come with civil unions.
What you said about atheists is interesting. It’s true there is quite a focus on gay rights, you can see that on blogs such as “friendly atheist”, and obviously because the opponents to gay rights have always been under a religious banner. I think it’s a bit unfair though to say they’re pro gay marriage “only to undermine religion” : religion left, they have not many reasons to oppose it, and they just do it more vehemently because their enemy on the subject is religious people.
I would’nt defend marriage indeed, it’s a bit of an old fashioned institution inherited from religion. In fact i’d prefer civil marriage to completely disappear, since it shouldn’t that much be a state concern (and i’m a bit anti-government too). But since it probably won’t soon, i just want people to be treated equally regarding the law.
And please avoid the “i was an atheist, i know what you think” thing, which mostly leads to straw man arguments. There are many reasons to be an atheist, and if you were one for the same reasons as me, you wouldn’t
be a catholic now
Damn, i was a catholic, raised that way, and i don’t implicitly tell you that i understand what you think and why, because i was like you years ago and now i’ve gotten smarter…
Feel free to bash back !
slan21: Actually, I’m not Catholic (I’m technically a Baptist, but am actually more nondenominational in my belief), so it is highly unlikely that you are smarter than I am because you became an atheist
Marriage in the Bible involved a man and multiple women, slaves, and even family members. Your whole argument is VOID
Hi Jen!
Thank you for writing this. This is a teaching that I, too, have troubles articulating and it’s great to know that I am not alone! It’s almost like you get caught between a rock and a hard place trying to balance emotionally supporting those with SSA and at the same time, understanding the Church’s teaching on the subject. This is a difficult subject to talk about with close friends, but thank you for placing it here, on the Internet, for the world to see.
Karianna@Caffeinated Catholic Mama recently posted..Fluffy Wishes Giveaway and Twitter Party!!
A very interesting read, and thank you for the note of journalism. Please note this comes from a place of respect and humility. I applaud your charisma and courage in sharing your beliefs not only online but in a calm and loving manner to a friend of the LGBTQQAA community. I think you are a bit flawed in some points.
Marriage is about joining in a committed and loving union with the person who you will work tirelessly to get through the gates of heaven. 1601 “The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.”84 While a gay couple can not procreate entirely of their own accord (just as a infertile couple can not) they can still work for the good of their spouse and the education of the children they raise. While I realize the catechism has much more to say on marriage this is the go to “definition” clause.
Your statement about contraception and the enjoyment of the sex act is also historically inaccurate: “But when our culture embraced contraception, I continued, for the first time in human history, the sexual act was severed from its life-giving potential in the societal psyche. People began to feel like they had a right to the pleasure of the sexual act, without having to give a second thought to any new life that might be created.” I will grant you since the introduction of the pill and the condom people engage in sex acts far more than they should and that, especially in this culture, the act of intercourse is not respected. However abortions have existed since the time of the early Egyptians and I’m sure you are aware of the orgies that occurred in BC cultures including Mesopotamia.
One thing not addressed in your conversation is the law of marriage. America has a separation of church and state. I do not begrudge individual churches or denominations or the Catholic Church not allowing homosexual marriages in their PRIVATE institution. However, marriage, outside of church, is a legal or PUBLIC matter that private institutions are trying to control. The founding fathers wanted separation of church and state for a reason, but people seem to have forgotten that; mostly the conservatives of this country which are so quick to hail the founding fathers as use them as support.
I will not use this as a soap box or a time to defend gay relationships, gay right, or even the inaccuracies of seeing homosexuality as wrong but I did wish to speak my mind at least a little bit. Thank you for your time.
I am speechless. You are amazing! Love you and love your dear heart and your smart mind! You make me want to be a better person
At least be honest with yourself if you can’t be honest with the internet. What you expressed here is not love but the vilest form of hate possible. You tell them to sacrifice for some ridiculous hope of eternal life that you know perfectly well is a lie and yet what do you sacrifice? Not so much as your convenience. You get to keep having “guilt free” sex, you get social approval, you get to consider yourself a liberal for having “gay friends”, all the while taking away their rights. This isn’t love, it’s selfishness and hatred.
Dear random reader (from one of tyhe family to another)
1) I trully don’t think she hates them, in fact she was willing to risk her friendship for the (in her eyes) betterment of her friend. The opposite of love is NOT hate it is indifferent. So while she may have been hurtful t her friend, which I don’t think she wanted to be, I would not say she was unloving or hateful.
2)While she does have a easier road as a married strigth woman, do not kid yourself that her life come without hardships. We all have hardships it is the human condition.
3)She honestly believed in the promise of eternal lfie and happiness and wants thatfor others especially her friends, so i think that is where she is coming from.
I will give you she is misinformed, misuided, naive, and following a (in my opionin) flawed faith [but then again what faith isn't?] but that doesn’t make her hateful. Calm yourself and realize people don’t always do and say things to attack others whn thy have a difference of belief or opinion. Also you’ll notice she was mostly talkign about the sex act and the SACRED marriage right. sex aside I think that is hermistake SACRED marrige (ie in a church) and CIVIL marriage should have only one thing in common (if a chruch allows a marriage then you can turn in a certificate and not have to go to the justice of th peace also).
Although I am an episcopalian, I enjoy this blog and find it thought-provoking. However, when the topic veers into the Church’s teachings on sexuality, I feel like I’m visiting another planet. There is a certain logic and even beauty to these teachings, but when I step back and look at the big picture, I don’t find any basis for these teachings in the gospel at all. Was Jesus really concerned with the minutiae of women’s fertility tracking calendars? Was Jesus interested in rules about which sexual acts are forbidden within a marriage? Even in the teachings of St. Paul I don’t find a clear or consistent teaching on sexuality, within or independent of marriage. I think these rules and laws about sexuality are alienating the faithful within the church, alienating Christians of other denominations, and distracting from more pressing matters, like serving the poor and working for social justice.
I think you did a great job expressing your views. So many times today we don’t speak up of how we really feel. That attitute of let other do what they want has filtered down so badly it’s harming our minds and children.
What a great and loving response. You showed your friends love by explaning it to them.
As a gay catholic man who is in a committed relationship with another catholic gay man, I want to say that I am with you on the gay marriage issue, as well as acknowledging the sacredness of sex.
It is sad that our society is built upon selfish people who can only think of their own happiness and not see the devastating effects they have on the world.
I pray that “Andrew” isn’t too quick to judge you based on your beliefs and continues to be a close friend (seriously, we are an awesome people to hang around with. I’ve always believed that gay people bring the happiness of God to everyone with their jokes and eye for the arts).
God Bless.
Recently I came across your essay, and partly because if it, I was inspired to write a response – http://knightofnothing.blogspot.com/2012/07/catholics-and-gay-marriage.html. Best wishes.
I would be very interested to hear Andrew’s take on this conversation. Also, I’m left with a question: do you believe that Andrew and Tom love one another? I ask this because it seems odd that the question didn’t come up in your conversations with Andrew and your other gay friends on this topic. How do you answer that question, if it does arise? Because it seems that, at the core of Catholic beliefs, such genuine feeling is not possible; it’s a manifestation of an “intrinsic disorder” to be overcome rather than a source of joy and comfort.
It would be an extraordinarily uncomfortable question to ask or answer, I’d imagine. But, based on your clear (and, I sincerely recognize, gentle as possible) articulation of your beliefs, it seems like there’s only one possible answer. And it would take a remarkable person to hear their friend say that their love for their partner of whatever duration isn’t real, no matter how strenuous the efforts to the person saying it to frame their “truth with love.”
I’m sure they do love each other. But as Jennifer explained in her OP, marriage is much, much more than two people who love each other making a commitment.
I love my siblings and my children but I’m not allowed to marry any of them.
JoAnna recently posted..7 Quick Takes Friday – July 20, 2012
With all due respect, I think that kind of comparison manages to trivialize both familial relationships and romantic ones. Love for siblings and children (presumably), wonderful and universal as those things ideally should be, doesn’t have a romantic component.
This kind of gets to the core of what I was trying to ask Jennifer. If one can believe that romantic love and commitment exist between two persons of the same sex can exist, then turn around and tell them that their love and commitment is essentially irrelevant in the grand design (a cross to bear and overcome, basically), it would take an extraordinary ability to compartmentalize on the part of a gay friend to identify any love in that on the part of the Catholic friend who delivered the message.
I’m always struck by the laudable Catholic notion of recognizing the dignity of all persons, as it gets thrown around a lot, usually right before the persons in question are told that they shouldn’t seek any sort of civil protections for their committed relationships or that they’d be better off adopting a lifetime of celibacy. I think it’s useful to remind Catholics that their definition of that person’s dignity might differ rather substantially from that person’s own definition of what constitutes their dignity.
This is perfect. Its great to see someone so humble and yet so courageous in confronting friends. I have been in a similar situation, with my atheist girlfriend who just couldnt reconcile her understanding of our society, relationships and sex with my liking her and wanting to spend time with her without out wanting sex.
I have likewise had similar conversations with friends (some also gay) and its great to see im not the only one struggling with being a good public Catholic while maintaining friendships with those who disagree with me and our lifestyle choices.
Thanks for taking the bare and loving the Church enough to be educated and your friend enough to “speak the truth in love”
Jennifer has slightly misunderstood Catholic sexual teaching, as have most of the posters on this thread.
The “ONE RULE” is not the BASE of Catholic sexual teaching, it is the APEX. This is a common misconception.
Intentionally sterilized intercourse is contraception. This is “intrinsically evil” CCC 2370.
Naturally sterile acts are masturbation. “The does not demonize masturbation, nor does she trivialize it” YouCat 409. These are disordered, but the catechism lists mitigating factors. CCC 2352.
Self-masturbation is inherently selfish and self centered sexuality leads nowhere. YouCat 409.
Homosexual masturbation also is contrary to the marital relationship and only further entrenches the partners in their disorder.
Marital masturbation is a bit more complex. It may be an act of lust or it may be an act of disordered love. These are somewhat unitive, but not at all procreative.
Often such activities are about mutually giving pleasure as opposed to using each other for pleasure. Such activities may be a relatively minor sin under the circumstances.
The reason why I address this is because some couples commit all sorts of OTHER sins to avoid marital masturbation, which really isn’t that bad of a sin. If strict abstinence is straining your relationship or causing you to be uncharitable or causing you to use your sexuality outside of the marriage, you may want to reconsider the best course of action.
Of course, couples should put forward their best effort to live the Church’s teaching.
I have written more about the subject here.
http://realcatholicloveandsex.blogspot.com/2012/06/honeymoon-series-part-9-nfp-on-your.html
would love to know if there is a ministry that helps gay people give up their lifestyle when they realize it is God’s call to do so, help them live as celibate friends, support them with the difficult parts, giving up a shared home, platonic ways of communicating, financial assistance, etc.
from Bill Foley
May I suggest a natural argument vs same-sex acts and so-called “marriage” between two persons of the same sex.
The basis is THE PARTS DO NOT FIT.
This applies to the psychological, emotional, and spiritual aspects—three areas in which a man and a woman do fit. This is why a child needs a father and a mother so that he/she can experience complete, normal development under the fullness of masculine and feminine characteristics.
The other facet is the physical dimension. The sexual/generative parts of the male and female bodies do fit, THEY ARE MEANT FOR EACH OTHER LIKE A LOCK AND A KEY, and this fit is IN ACCORD WITH NATURE. This natural fit also follows a natural purpose, namely, the generation of a human life. The sexual/generative parts of two males or of two females DO NOT FIT and do not fulfill the natural purpose of generating human life.
An over focus on PARTS misses the point. (The obvious answer to “the parts don’t fit” is “you just aren’t creative enough”.)
Besides, unmarried heterosexuals fit together just fine, yet fornication is still a sin.
And saying “married couples can’t do that either”, really isn’t going to win many people to the faith and misses the point of marital chastity.
Resorting to sexual stereotypes to justify heterosexual relationships doesn’t work either.
My neighbors are lesbians. One is very feminine, the other very masculine. I am not the world’s most masculine guy, while my wife is a bit of a tomboy. Different couples mesh in different ways.
All Catholic sexual teaching must be understood in the context of a full understanding of the sacrament and vocation of marriage. Use of our sexuality which is consistent with marriage is proper, use of sexuality that is inconsistent with marriage is disordered. The degree of disorder is directly proportional to the degree of the inconsistency.
A married couple, umm, using their parts incorrectly, is disordered because the couple should be ONLY be using them correctly, but there are aspects that are consistent with marriage, especially if the couple is doing so in a loving way and using them properly would not be responsible under the circumstances (i.e. the couple should be abstaining). It is a sin, but it is not the worst sin in the world. It should not be demonized or trivialized.
A same-sex relationship, however, is fundamentally INconsistant with marriage. Therefore, the same activities only serve to keep people in disordered relationships. The downside is greater and there is little to no upside.
The Church calls us to chastity in marriage or chaste continence. Both are positive goods, although neither are easy. Homosexual relationships are neither and will keep people from realizing the benefits of either one.
This is the correct answer to those with homosexual orientation.
Josh Weed chose to follow his Mormon faith (which is identical to the Catholic Church’s position on this) and decided not to pursue his homosexual desires and pursued the love of his best friend in marriage. The attraction comes from their mutual love, not any disordered desire.
http://www.joshweed.com/2012/06/club-unicorn-in-which-i-come-out-of.html
Similarly, us heterosexuals must also choose to put aside our disordered desires for all members of the opposite sex–including our spouse.
This is not because gay sex is “icky” or “not open to life”, but because we are called to so much more than homosexual relationships can give.
His case is an unusual one, but we are all called to do much the same: Put aside our disordered desires and follow the truth.
Jennifer’s post on this timely topic should be read with an open mind. Listen to what she is saying. For someone with a closed mind, their arguments are rushing out of their mouths in protest. Please re-read everything she wrote. Listen to what she is saying. She is trying to show her pals that she loves them so much she wants to point the way to the TRUTH that our bodies are NOT ours…..they belong to Our Creator, the one TRUE GOD, who gives us the greatest gift of our sexuality and places in our souls the innate desire to love and be loved…..then when sin entered the world, mankind said NO to God….I will do this MY way because it’s easy, when we should desire to become holy, and recognize in humility that God is God and we are not. Souls are at stake here, our eternal destiny is at stake here. Jennifer is trying to lead her pals to Our Creator, the One TRUE God. That, is the real reality. God bless you, Jennifer. I am praying for you and for your friends, may the Holy Spirit bring them JOY in conversion to understanding what TRUE LOVE is all about.
Thank you for sharing your story! I laughed. I’m glad that you and your friends are able to discuss that sort of thing and hear one another out regardless of your differences. I am for gay marriage, but it is helpful for me to understand why other people aren’t. I am bisexual (or more accurately I suppose I would consider myself sexually fluid) and if I had went a different path and had wanted to marry a woman, it breaks my heart that people believe that it would have influenced marriage as a whole. I don’t think that the wants or needs that I would have had with a woman would have been any different than with a man. Ultimately when it comes down to it though I think there is very little we can do to influence the opinions of others on the subject. It’s a passionate one. What we can do in the mean time is listen.
Lorelei recently posted..spread that love
I’m curious, Jennifer, did you consider inviting your friends home for a family dinner with your children?
The issue here is there is a difference between marriage and sex that people aren’t looking at. The Bible tells us that in the beginning people weren’t married. They were together and they procreated. As society became more evolved marriage was only around for protection and legitimacy, but we are in an age where marriage is about love. About loving someone so much that you want them by your side for the rest of your lives. If marriage was just about sex then gays wouldn’t need to get married, we can just have sex, but marriage today is about loving someone and wanting to ensure that they won’t struggle throughout their life and in case of your passing they will still be cared for. I think more people need to sit down and read through relationships in the Bible and realize that it is clearly not about procreation but as Paul said it’s the path someone must take who can’t control sexual urges. Sex is not a sin. Sex within marriage is biblically condoned, not just for procreation sake. Once people get that then you can truly love your gay friends who you are claiming aren’t good enough to have a holy union.
Truly though, it seems Catholic’s tend to be the “sex-craved” individuals. I’m not saying all Catholics go out and about doing whatever to whoever, I just mean that by your post it seems your idea of religion is based solely on sex. Why is it that when a straight couple is introduced to someone then they’re seen as loving each other but when it’s a gay couple people see it as them sleeping together? I think those who are so opposed to gay marriage for reasons such as you stated have this instant thought process to go to the negative or sinful things they can find in people (not purposefully of course) and not see a pure expression of love that may be presented to them.
Loved it. Thank you.
You did an excellent job explaining the stance of the Catholic Church and gay marriage! Keep up the good work.
Jennifer,
It’s nice that you can be friends with a homosexual, but you fail to mention the most divisive part of the debate over gay marriage. It’s not the “anti-gay” religious view that ticks off the LGBT community; it’s the political opposition to the legalization of gay marriage. They say, “Practice your own religion and believe whatever you want. But you want to DENY me the FREEDOM to marry. You are IMPOSING your beliefs on society.”
Once this argument is breached, the discussion inevitabely explodes. Because let’s face it: We DO want to deny gays the freedom to marry; we ARE imposing our beliefs on society. In my experience, it is nearly impossible for an orthodox Cathlic to be friends with a homosexual unless they agree to never discuss the issue.
Do you realize that there are countless of other views about the nature, purpose and meaning of sexuality around the world? The Hindus and the Buddhists have a very different conception of what you express here. Now, their religion is just as supported by reason and evidence as yours. So perhaps you might benefit from realizing that you cannot impose a particular view to the rest of the world, lest you’d accept having to comply with whatever morality people of other faiths or lack thereof have. You view is fine, if it helps you, if it makes you feel connected to God. But keep in mind that you are not the only one claiming to understand how the man-God relationship works! In fact, many people who have genuine mystical experiences have very different ideas. Why not let people decide how they approach the divine? And let them to decide whether they think the divine has anything to do with sexuality.
An objective truth must exist; not every truth can be subjective, or else there is no truth at all, and in my experience the Catholic Church has, by far, the great logical, spiritual and philosophical evidence and strength to back up its claims.
What a well articulated post. Thank you!
Melissa J. recently posted..One More Day!
I think this is very helpful. Thanks for sharing.
I am deeply saddened by the comments I read on your blog post. If marriage were only about sex, I wouldn’t want any part of it. I am a very happily married woman, and there are so very many different pieces to the complete love I feel for my husband. Neither one of us believe in divorce, and we keep our marriage as our top priority, because when something is this beautiful and special, you treat it differently and ensure no harm can ever come to it. We are deeply in love, and have a loving and enjoyable sex-life. However, our marriage is about many things. It’s about having someone constantly by your side through everything that life throws at you, and having my best friend with me always. We both have some health problems, therefore requiring compromise and sacrifices all the time. We gladly make each and every compromise and sacrifice, because our love and our marriage is real and special. I do not go around telling people who choose not to get married that they will never be happy (even knowing I have found endless happiness in being a devoted wife), or that they are immoral. I do not condemn anyone for believing differently than I do. To say that any one way is the only “right” way is a very ignorant and cruel thing to do. Why can we not all just accept one another? Why does there have to be this constant battle between everyone? If you don’t believe in birth control, don’t use it. If you don’t believe homosexuality is OK, then don’t be with someone of the same sex. It’s as simple as that. I applaud anyone trying to cement their commitment to the person they love. It is a beautiful thing when two people choose to forsake all other people in favor of each other. Saying others can’t do something because it is against your beliefs would be the same as saying no one else can eat donuts because you are on a diet, or can’t drive a car because you can’t afford one yourself. I have given myself completely to my husband, and could not be happier. And all your statements about my happiness, love, and marriage not being “true” will not change the validity of my love and marriage.
Wow, Jen, you love your friend so much that you’re willing to deny him equal civil marriage privileges! What a great friend. He’s so lucky to have you supporting him like this.
Today -The feast of Saint Anthony the Hermit – in 1982 my mind shattered upon awaking – a very long painful psychotic journey began – after twenty five years i began to write again. I am a Lay Carmelite and president of the Legion of Mary in my parish – I have been in a coma – near death many times and at seventy go by cane, My life was a long weakend -ending in JOY. Peter Whalen
REJOICE WITH ME
Rejoice instead in the measure that you share
In Christ’s suffering. When His glory is
Revealed, you will rejoice exultantly
(1 PT 4;13)
Pity me not because I lost my mind,
Wandered the streets in a psychotic fit-
Lived where I could, ate what I could find ;
Was for years and years the village idiot -
Nor feel sorry that I was no longer clever,
Sobbed hysterically a decade and a half ,
Nor let your heart break because I was a beggar -
That I traveled through life a psychopath-
Feel not anguish that I thrashed in locked wards,
Was abandoned in ways I could not say ,
A poet with a frightful loss of words;
A sad gay man learning how to pray.
Rejoice with me
Jesus paid my frightful price -
Took me to Him – Into HIS Mystical Body -
That we shared in life the same tormented cry;
He had walked in His Way the same streets as I -
Insane – I was never at a total loss ;
I KNEW the Blessed Mother choose my Cross
In Her maternal love for me and for us all;
THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION -
Conceived In LOVE such a Holy Cross for me;
Through Mary Jesus was someone I could serve -
She knew it was the Cross that I deserved
And so did I – for over a quarter of a century
I stood with Her at Calvary – a wretched sentry
With the Communion of Saints, and Saint Kateri
Till Easter came for me-
Having carried my cross – He Now Carries me
But new Crosses will come until the end-
And If SHE ASKS I will carry the old cross I did again
And I will sing to Her – in praise of all that has been done
That we might all carry our Crosses for Her Son-
And I will gladly sing – that it never be forgot
That we pity only those that do not .
Impressive.
It’s hard to bring about change, but I think that I learned something from the conversation. Although we can never pressure them into changing beliefs regarding homosexuality. We can change their beliefs about us. He has to place you in the “crazy” category to make sense of you. If he wants to maintain the relationship, then he can’t really call you homophobic. This puts pressure on him. It indirectly forces him to change his views. Over time, it forces him to question what he has been told.
Eugene Wong recently posted..Making Progress With Hosiery Gift Site
Problem is with your personal religion and beliefs system your forgetting to obviously be in depth.
Let alone stand your ground or with scripture and or use any other means to express Gods Feelings on It Not Just Your Own; No Offense, You Did A Bad Job Of It On The Note: Catholics And Christians Scripturally And Based On Our Seperate Religion And Faith- Both Agree Without Repentance A Person Commiting Homosexual Sin Is Not Aloud In Heaven.
If Your Going To Argue / Or Say Why You Love Someone That Is Very Opposing To You On Many Levels Even With A Religion And Faith Based Reasoning.
You Have To Be Consistent.
You Should Of Used Political And Scientific Reasoning And Proof And Most Of All Biblical Scripture That Supports What Ever Standing You Have –
And Yours Leans Towards Against Same Sex Marriage But You Seem To Support Same Sex Lifestyle In General – - –
By Your Lack Of Scriptural Noting In Your Reasoning For Why Same Sex Marriage Is Wrong On Any Level In The First Place Even If Man Lawfully Ordains It As Okay etc.
I Think Your Argument Stood On Quick Stand As A Catholic
I Notice This With Most Of You.
You Seem To Have An Argument/ Belief Based On
The Opinion Of Same Sex Marriage Is Wrong, Something About Abstinence Of Sex, Reproducing To Keep A Balance Sustained Of Human Life Continuancey And That’s It.
No Scripture That Homosexuality Is Not Tolerated Ever Or Accepted By Christ Or In Heaven.
And You Didnt Describe Or Make Any Legit Other Standing Prinicples That Are Concrete Enough To Change And Stand Up After Any Criticism.
I’m Not Going To Give Pointers
I’m Just Saying Your Argument Or Reasoning For Your Beliefs On This Topic Didn’t Stand, That’s Why There Wasn’t A Change In Thought Process Or Outlook On Anything Related To This Lifestyle To Make Him Want To Change. You Had No Impact.
I’m An Ex Homosexual
I Don’t Support Anything On This Lifestyle
But I Don’t Hate Or Have Homophobic Attitudes Because Im A Christian And The Fact I’ve Been There Done That Lifestyle etc.
First of all, I think it’s clear that you’re not a homophobe, but a loving and caring friend. However I see so much of my former evangelical self in your views. I used to belong to a conservative evangelical Anglican church and believed as you do about homosexuality, albeit without the Catholic-specific beliefs about the theology of the body. But I didn’t want to believe this way! I believed this way because of the guilt heaped upon me about what would happen if I did not, but deep down I honestly had no problem with homosexuality – but did not want to compromise my own salvation. If that is you, do not be afraid – God loves everyone and I believe, saves everyone. Homosexuality is no more a sin than having brown hair. It is perfectly possible to be a faithful Christian and to be OK with homosexuality and marriage equality. I am now a liberal Anglo-Catholic (I would actually love to be a Catholic but do not believe in the authority of the Pope and magisterium which is, um, a problem for Catholics). My priest is gay. I am bisexual, yet God is still calling me to the priesthood (and yes, I am female). Has it not occured to you or any of the other Catholics here that in fact the Holy Spirit is speaking of God’s love and acceptance for LGBT people and marriage equality, but the Catholic church is just not listening? I do believe that ++Jefferts Schori, The Episcopal Church and other parts of the Anglican Communion (and others such as the ELCA and Methodist churches) are called to speak prophetically on love and justice for the LGBT community and others. The magisterium does NOT have an exclusive hotline to God that we don’t have. The Holy Spirit is indeed causing mischief.
This might seem like a negative comment – it’s not supposed to be. In your post I could clearly see the love you have for your friend. I haven’t read the rest of your blog (I will do so) but you are obviously a loving person. I just pray that the love God has for LGBT people AND their relationships (such as the eunuchs mentioned in Isaiah and Matthew, and Jesus’ blessing of a gay Centurion and his servant-lover) would be shown to you. I too am a convert from atheism to Christianity (and Anglo-Catholicism is functionally very similar to Catholicism, we love the Saints and Our Lady too for instance), we seem to have some things in common.
Have a blessed rest of Holy Week and Easter.
To keep my comment short and sweet: you’re not required as a Catholic to think a same-sex union is the “same thing” as a traditional marriage in order to grant it the same civil rights.
You sadden me. I have been married for going on 15 years and not a single act of sex between my husband and myself will ever bring forth a child.
Sex is about more than procreation, it brings a couple together in a way that nothing else can. It is an intimate and loving act between any two people who love one another.
I was raised Catholic, remained in the church for many years, but the way gays and lesbians are taught that they are wrong, that they should not be allowed the same rights as you and I, is one of the reasons I left the church.
Any two adults should have the right to make what is a legal contract, at least in the US, with one another. Marriage gives more than 1000 rights to couples. These rights shouldn’t be reserved for hetero couples.
Your religious beliefs shouldn’t be able to take away the rights of anyone else. Religion has no place within the law. Your religion shouldn’t be able to deny rights to me, and mine.
Now, I know the one thing religious people bring up is that churches will be required to marry gays, but that is not true. A minister/priest/pastor can say no to any coupe who approaches him.
In fact, that happened when my husband and I were planning our wedding. We lived together prior to marriage, the pastor we approached refused to marry us. That was fine, we went elsewhere and found someone else to do so.
Since church and state are supposed to be separate here, how does allowing two men, or two women affect you? Why should two legal adults be disallowed to have their relationship made legal?
Why can’t they inherit property without being taxes, like you and your spouse would? Why can they be denied the right to visit their partner in the hospital? Why can’t they file federal taxes in a join manner?
Seriously, there is no logical reason. There just isn’t.
Me: ‘Gay marriage’ is pure nonsense.
Tom: “I didn’t realize you were a homophobe.”
Me: You think I’m a homophobe? Please explain.
Tom: “How can I hear your statement as anything but anti-gay?”
Me: Tom, you don’t know me, but please be aware: I dont’ suffer fools gladly. Isn’t it obvious that ‘anti-gay marriage’ is different from ‘anti-gay’? Can you explain how the former is supposed to entail the latter? Are you aware that there are plenty of intelligent, articulate gays who oppose ‘gay marriage’?
Poor Andrew and Tom, they deserve better than you, Jennifer. As revealed in your last paragraph, you ultimately have no respect for them or any non-Catholic. You arrogantly believe that their lives are inferior to yours when you say “their lives would be better if they did” sign up for exactly what you “signed up” for. Of course, you’re entitled to any belief you hold, but the hubris you show is repulsive. Moreover, if you have to tell your friends that you’re not a homophobe, well maybe you are. If everything gay is so sub-standard in your worldview, why associate with gays at all? Considering your arrogance and hubris, maybe it’s because you see your “friendly” proselytizing as another punch on your ticket to heaven?
dear Jen
Great stuff. I’m in the U.K. The U.N. promotes gay mariage in Europe too, because it’s preparation for the New World Order.
What liberals don’t see, is that accepting ‘gender attachment disorder’ as totally normal, will bring great changes in society.
If gay ‘marriage’ is enshrined in the Law, the restraint will be off. It will become a politically incorrect offence to say that heterosex is normal, and homosex is a perversion of the sex act.
Hence teaching about gay sex will be compulsory in schools. Teachers will not be allowed to say heterosexuality is the norm, children will be told they can choose to be gay or straight.
All this will be reflected in the media, where gays have a powerful influence, and where writers are searching for new angles. Films, plays, magazines, will embrace this licence and there will be pressure to include gay/lesbian couples, gay/lesbian sex scenes. The seduction of straight people by gays, break-up of families for gay affairs, teen gay/lesbian frolics, bisexuality, it will all become normal entertainment.
If you brain-wash people to accept all this, then it will translate into everyday life – we see it already in the cities. Teenage boys will be especially vulnerable, and parents will wonder what the boys are doing with the boys. And what the boys are doing with the men..
The break-up of family life has promoted the causes of ‘gender attachment disorder’, i.e. failure to bond with the same sex parent, and seeking attachment elsewhere. Do absent fathers and working mothers explain this? Feelings of homosexuality from childhood, are caused by failure of the baby to bond with the mother.
(In Britain, it was always acknowledged that gay men were produced from the private boarding school situation.)
The next interference from the U.N. will concern INCEST. Journalists tell us that the U.N. is already looking at the topic: they want incest between consenting adults, and with consenting children, to be permissable.
Thank you for listening! Chris
What about people who don’t agree with you that this is the inherent social contract? Maybe your gay friends didn’t sign up for the same agreement you did. Yet you are still imposing your beliefs on them. The laws of human beings are so small compared to the laws of God, I think any wise person would be the least restrictive to their fellow human beings. Not allowing them to marry doesn’t help them in any way. It’s so unfair to make people who aren’t doing anything illegal abide by your rules. I just can’t imagine!