The Experiences of Homosexual Trads
(02-27-2014, 11:44 AM)loggats Wrote: At a tangent: "passing" is part of the problem, the internalized sense of shame, and partly why people with SSA leave the Church in such numbers. If an individual is not heterosexual, there should be no compunction to treat orientation as a role to be played. Actively seeking to pass is, I think, somewhat sinful behaviour in so far as it's lying - pure and simple.

BTW I know this is misdirected in so far as you (Ptochos) may not be working towards passing (by carefully controlling your identity performance in public... what a tiring and self-destructive exercise that can be) but people just "assume." That assumption is what I take issue with too though. It's part of the culture of hiding that keeps people with SSA from finding viable role models in the Catholic Church, and flourishing in their spiritual lives as part of the community. Because no matter what some may believe, SSA is not simply about sexual acts. It's an issue of identity too, and that shouldn't be a scary thing to admit.

Wow.. This thread's gotten busy since I've last had the chance to look at it (am babysitting today -- and my grandson took his first steps!)

First, I want to say, "Go, go, go!" to Heorot for starting a blog. You have so much going on in your life, a lot of "issues" (as a lot of us do!), that I am really glad to see you doing that -- branching out, opening yourself up, putting yourself "out there" some. GOOD stuff! With a blog and a Christian attitude, you can do a LOT to help other people!

I'm choosing this post to use to jump back into the thread because its topic is something that I think is crucial to anyone with SSA:  to "pass" and just shut up -- or to reveal who you are, what your struggles are?

Further down, Ptochos brought up the matter of violence and other types of abuse against folks who are "out." I don't think anyone would expect a person with SSA to risk that sort of thing. But for those for whom being "out" doesn't really carry that sort of risk, the question is still there:  to be "out" or not? 

Me, I tend to agree with Loggats, but I'm one of those touchy-feely INFJ types who likes the idea of people being "real" with each other, deeply knowing each other. That might be the result of one of my personal drives, which is to be UNDERSTOOD (and loved anyway), something that is rare for me and which I crave. What Loggats says about the exhaustion involved in feigning who you are, and how folks hiding themselves away deprives others in their situation of role models, etc -- I totally agree. Plus there's just the matter of basic honesty, of integrity and being integrated -- one and the same in public and in private, one and the same externally and internally (aside from the basic requirements of civilization, manners, and politness, obviously). And as was said further down in the thread, some folks will out and out ask, and when they do, should one lie? And many who wouldn't ask are making assumptions.

I'd guess that a lot of that, for a given individual, would go to how private they are about themselves, and that's all good. But I think, overall, that at LEAST homosexuals SHOULD be able to be forthright about what the deal is. One'd think that that should especially be so in a CHURCH -- THE Church. I find it disgusting that the opposite seems to be too often the case.

Then this all goes back to earlier posts that dealt with terminology and the concept that one shouldn't "identify oneself"  in terms of a given struggle. But, like I said, no one takes issue with a bipolar person saying, "I'm bipolar," or of a schizophrenic using the word "schizophrenic" to describe himself.  So I don't understand that sort of thinking.

I dunno... In my ideal world, people could just be who they are, and folks would have humility, empathy, and charity.

Also to Heorot:  my idea for building a community of celibates didn't entail their living together (at least not necessarily. At least, that's not what I was thinking). I was talking about my dream of having a bigger house (with a kitchen), etc. so we could have meetings in a cozy place, that's all. But the more I think about the idea of forming some sort of community for single people, the more I love the idea. If I had the resources, I would.

(02-27-2014, 12:39 PM)loggats Wrote: If I were you I'd go to the TLM, make no effort to hide the reality of the situation, and witness to those people by my presence. You may even provide a valuable example to young SSA people there undergoing whatever indoctrination leads to supposed Catholics "holding it against you." A homosexual living his faith in a holy life - a scandal to the homophobe, and a stumbling block to the trads. ;)

Alternatively, since that would be quite an undertaking, option 3 seems like it would be great too. We all need a welcoming community who'll know and love us for ourselves.

If personal safety isn't an issue, I'm once again with Loggats on this. I want homosexuals OUT of the closet, chaste, feeling totally unashamed for having a disorder, witnessing to each other and to straight folk, loving Christ, teaching others how to live chaste lives, feeling free to feel whole and loved for who they are, etc.  If I were in your position, I'd like to think I'd grab my friend and go to Mass with him, letting the busy-bodies make their sick assumptions, and being the best Christian I could be along the way. YOU be the friendly, welcoming one. Show 'em how it's done!

(02-27-2014, 12:46 PM)Heorot Wrote: It's really sad that we must see the Novus Ordo as the "welcoming", or even "pro-gay" Catholics, and the Trads as the "rejecting" and "anti-gay" Catholics. There's a strange dichotomy to what should just be unified Catholicism. I myself would not recommend going to a NO, because the theology behind that Mass, and the attitudes that have been formed around the whole procedure, have become liberal. Of course, I've never been to what I'd consider a reverent NO Mass, so perhaps I am not really one to speak here.

It's beyond "really sad"; it's a travesty that undoubtedly wounds His Sacred Heart. Authentic Catholicism -- i.e., traditional Catholicism -- is meant for everyone. I want your perception of the NO as being "welcoming" and Trads as "rejecting" to change -- without falling into the trap of altering Church teaching one wit, of condoning sin, etc.

(02-27-2014, 12:46 PM)Heorot Wrote: As for witnessing to trads, it is a good idea. Most of them would probably find the openness repugnant, however: "why should you even tell us that?" and "we don't want to know, okay?". It really is a private struggle, like those who struggle with porn or impurity or shoplifting. We don't need to say "I'm gay", just "I'm a sinner and I'm Catholic, thanks be to God". This is for trads as well as novus ordo! I don't understand people very well, though...

loggats, thank you for the charitable and patient feedback as well. I get what you're talking about.

I'm with Loggat on his take on all this (see his and my posts above). People need to be taught. They need to develop humility. They need to learn to love others.

Vox, your intentions are lovely... it's just that... trying to teach normal, heterosexual people to accept us sounds very familiar, if you know what I mean - and not in a positive Christian way. It's exactly what the gay lobby's being doing for so long. I'm not sure I even care to "claim" my identity back from the liberals and atheists, because it's not really right. I dunno. I'm confused in more ways than one. :P

It'd be nice if the world was sinless.

A post sent to me in an email from someone who wants to remain anonymous:

Anonymous Wrote:I have been following and posting on fisheaters for many years now, since [years removed by Vox], however I didn't want to post under my fisheaters account because I don't like to have my personal life broadcast.

I think your post is an interesting topic, especially since I have had SSA since I was about 13 and have been a traditional Catholic since at least 1987 when I was 19 and first discovered the TLM. I have a few general thoughts on the issue:

-SSA and related sins shouldn't be treated as anything different than other similar sexual sins.

-I don't think that using the term homosexual is useful because it hits at the concept of a seperate identity. I think SSA is better because it does not have the same identity-marking aspect. I think that since 'homosexual' has been used, it has created a different class of persons and that is what has given traction to the issue to become about human rights rather than about prohibited acts.

-I think the best solution to the problem is for people to just stop talking about it. In the ancient world I suppose it was quite public and as a result talked about publically, but what happened over time when the Chistian influence started to make inroads? It was not talked about very much, and eventually it went underground, to the point that I suppose many straight people never really thought much about it and rarely encountered it at all, up until perhaps the beginning of the last century. The reason that I think this is the best strategy is that it is not a problem that can easily be dealt with. Most people find their attractions unchangeable and as a result if it is given a public voice the only result is a demand for public expression, which effects the christian way of life, as we can see happening now.

I have lived in other parts of the world where it is not publically acknowleged, it is not criminal, but it is also not given any legal status. I found this was a great solution because it protected public morality while at the same time letting those with SSA avoid any kind of criminalization.

-regarding the recent laws in Uganda, I have no strong feelings either way. My assumption is that it is probably a law with no hooks, meaning that it is more a statement of a moral position by the government and the people than something they will seriously enforce. It is a way of at least keeping the problem from growing so bold as to organize and take foreign money for social agitation.

-perhaps the best solution at present is to follow the Polish or Russian example of prohibiting the promotion of the lifestyle, because it  really is a deathstyle, just like smoking. Where I live the government heavily taxes smoking and has many programs to discourage its continued use as  it leads to health problems. I wonder why they don't think the same way about gay sex since studies show regular use can lead to a shorter life expectency and other problems... if the problem was seen as an activity and not an identity perhaps this solution might get some notice... but as it is, in the western world where its all about human rights, this is not likely.

-personally, i find dealing with this temptation to be an ongoing struggle. however i find that i receive more descrimination from people that find out I am a traditional Catholic than from those that know about my SSA. Living a celibate lifestyle is lonely and difficult, and I find this new pope discouraging because he seems to want to belittle people making sacrifices to live the traditional Catholic faith.

But anyway this is my reality and I have to thank God for it even if I don't understand it because He is the best judge of what is good for me.

Thanks for the great site and for having concern for those that carry this particular cross.
(02-27-2014, 09:17 PM)Heorot Wrote: Vox, your intentions are lovely... it's just that... trying to teach normal, heterosexual people to accept us sounds very familiar, if you know what I mean - and not in a positive Christian way. It's exactly what the gay lobby's being doing for so long. I'm not sure I even care to "claim" my identity back from the liberals and atheists, because it's not really right. I dunno. I'm confused in more ways than one. :P

It'd be nice if the world was sinless.

What the present-day activists are doing is trying to normalize homosexuality and get folks to condone homosexual acts. I don't see trying to get people to understand homosexuality and to be empathetic and loving toward homosexuals as necessarily entailing either of the above at all.

You, of course, have your own decisions to make about how to describe yourself and whether to be "out," etc., and I wouldn't dream of saying that you, as an individual, should do this or that instead of the other! It's such a highly individualized thing and an outsider can't possibly know your particular situation. But I do agree with Loggats that, generally speaking, being "out" is a generally good thing, and my dream is for the trad world to be understanding of homosexuals who find it prudent, given the details of their lives, to be up front about it all. If I can tell the world I'm bipolar, a homosexual should be able to tell the world he's a homosexual without risking violence or being shunned, etc.

And again, to be very clear to folks reading over our shoulders, this is the Church's teaching on the topic of homosexuality:

From the Catechism Wrote:Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

IOW, being a homosexual is a "mere" disorder, and NOT a sin. It is NOT a sin to be a homosexual, to be honest and tell others you are homosexual, etc. What is sinful is acting on homosexual desires. The state of being homosexual needs to be accepted by others in the same way that the states of being bipolar or schizophrenic are accepted -- without shame, without risk of ridicule, shunning, or violence, etc.  Acting on homosexual desires is sinful -- and when talking about such sins, it's to be remembered that we're all sinners, that we can only judge acts but not souls, that we should remove the beams from our own eyes before engaging in fraternal correction (i.e., we should engage in fraternal correction with humility -- and with prudence), etc.

Just my two cents...

You are right, Vox.

My primary reason for wanting to remain "in", rather than "out", is simply because I hope beyond hope that I can become a priest one day. If I were to admit I have SSA to the degree that it is part of my very identity, I would never be able to become a priest. Once people know that sort of thing, they're not likely to believe you when you say it's been conquered - precisely because you made it part of your identity, publicly.

Not sure if I'm just deceiving myself as to the priesthood desire... if I knew definitively that it was not my path, I would not care who knew my secret disorders, to be honest. This is a big sorrow of many SSA trad men, I think. They simply aren't in a position to admit it.

Thanks for the constant encouragement. Your 2 cents are worth more than 2 dollars, surely.
(02-27-2014, 01:19 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(02-27-2014, 12:44 AM)A Catholic Thinker Wrote: If you google the phrase "objective mortal sin" you will see that all kinds of Catholics use it.  Here is one example:

I already acknowledged that, yes, I agree it is a misnomer, given that the qualifier "mortal" more or less implies the subjective - so to include "objective" in the same qualifier list is not sensible.

But, it is, as I said, a semantic issue, and not one that you or anyone else needs to use to draw subjective conclusions about somebody who used it.

I appreciate your agreement that its use is technically not sensible.  However, its use by all kinds of Catholics does not mean it is merely semantics; rather, it means all kinds of Catholics are ignorant of their own theology.

Or maybe it means you're hung-up on semantics.  You don't seem to understand the meaning of the word.  Look at it this way: people don't always mean something in exactly the way a direct literal interpretation of their words implies.  Again, the use of the qualifier "objective" makes the phrase mean something other than what you insist it does.

To the poster that questioned why terminology matters - are you serious?  Catholics live in the world and how we present ourselves and Catholic teaching matters.  I think the term "homosexual" is *insulting* to people who suffer from SSA because it *is* a term of the popular culture, and one that implies - at least to most of the culture - a person who acts on his disordered impulses.  This is precisely because the culture refuses with all the obstinance it can muster to make any distinction whatsoever between orientation and behavior.  The *good* Catholics I have known who suffer from SSA would never identify with the term "homosexual".  They do not call themselves "homosexuals".

The term also implies that the orientation is completely innate and unchangeable - anyone who knows anything of the facts knows that that is another lie.  As other posters have pointed out, in at least a great many case the root causes are psychological.  The overbearing other/distant father scenario leads to homosexual inclinations - this is a fact that the research bore out most clearly before such research was simply outlawed by political correctness.  Reparative therapy - also now all but outlawed by our diabolical culture - does have success stories.

(Why is homosexual behavior on the rise?  There's no doubt that it is.  Lesbian behavior is now completely accepted, and considered advante-garde, in entertainment.  Studies have shown that adopted children of gay "parents" are more likely to live homosexual lives, and that men who are introduced to homosexual behavior in prison are more likely to engage in it after prison than the norm.)

Finally, to call someone a "homosexual" is to identify them based on their sexual inclinations - isn't that incredibly shallow and worldly in itself?

The Catholic who suffers from SSA should not only maintain chastity but also strive to get to the bottom of his disordered inclinations and, if possible, marry.  Countless souls who do or once suffered from SSA have done this.

After all, is someone ever really completely gay in the sense that most men are - not gay at all?  My brother, who has lived an actively homosexual lifestyle for nearly 25 years now, was able to sleep with women to maintain appearances and popularity in high school (and college).  So, actually, despite seeming and being to be quite "gay", he was (and likely still is) much more "straight" than almost all "straight" men are "gay"!  No non-SSA man I know could have sex with another man even if there was a gun to his head.

(He was never bullied, as far as I know, but in college when someone called him a fag on the street near his home he beat him half to death.  Reminds me of the poor little old lady holding up a sign for true marriage in the Castro district of San Fran a few years ago who feared for her life - this was reported by LifeSiteNews...)

I'm actually not much for discussions of this type that tend to be fueled by emotions and littered with personal invective so this is my last contribution to the thread.  

Please do have compassion for those who struggle with SSA but please also make sure to ponder the phrase "sin that cries out to Heaven for vengeance" once in awhile.

And keep in mind Pius IX's lament (paraphrased): "We hear again and again of the rights of man; what of the rights of God?"  Homosexual acts are gravely offensive to our all-perfect, all-loving, all-holy God whether or not they are committed with knowledge & consent of the will.
There's so much wrong with the above post, the mind boggles. For starters though - if you're going to cite "studies," please provide links. Especially if you're trying to give credence to outrageous claims.
(02-27-2014, 11:01 PM)A Catholic Thinker Wrote: The Catholic who suffers from SSA should not only maintain chastity but also strive to get to the bottom of his disordered inclinations and, if possible, marry.  Countless souls who do or once suffered from SSA have done this.

I find the above especially astonishing.  I wonder if men would be so apt to give out the advice to lesbians to get married -- and then step up to be the ones to volunteer to marry a woman who has no sexual interest in them whatsoever.  I mean, if you were a woman, would you want to be married to a man who has no sexual interest in you? If not, then why wish it on anyone else?


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)