My friend wants to "come out"
#21
(08-05-2014, 09:14 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(08-05-2014, 12:40 PM)winoblue1 Wrote: -if same-sex attractions are experienced as a sinful temptation, letting others know your weaknesses is not a good idea.

And feigning strength where none exists is a good idea?

Quote:One could simply tell family and friends that one isn't interested in dating at the moment and is exploring a celibate lifestyle.

In other words, simply lie to everyone.

With corrupted morality such as this, it is no wonder Traditional Catholicism is having such problems with an educated, thinking public.  You can't effectively condemn hypocrites when you are one yourself.

I don't think not telling someone about your same sex attractions is feigning strength, because how often does one have such opportunities if one is in the closet? Only by telling people will these opportunities begin to appear, if they appear at all. What I was getting at was that if one tells people, if this person isn't a strong Catholic, he or she might be prone to counselling that  one is wasting one's life being celibate and that this kind of encouragement might lead to temptations.

And as to the second point, I don't see how saying one is interested in considering the celibate lifestyle that one is lying. After all that is what the church recommends to people with this problem. Also, does one have to tell one's family if one is attracted to a certain kind of sex act? After all same sex attractions are ultimately about an activity, I think certain conversations are left unspoken.

I think it is unfair to call someone a hypocrite for not recommending they share their personal temptations with the world. I may be wrong but I think my opinion has at least some merit beyond necessitating a personal attack.
Reply
#22
(08-05-2014, 10:00 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote:
(08-05-2014, 09:13 AM)Layman Wrote: No way in heck should one announce such a thing. It's like the old question: "Should I tell my wife I had an affair?"

Answer: Sure, if you want to wreck your life!

Let's think it through:

Your friend gathers his family together. They wait expectantly. His dear old dad, his careworn mother, his annoying younger brother, sitting on the couch and Dad's old easy chair ...

And says: "I've been struggling for a long time with these feelings. I just can't live with the lies any more. It's time I was honest with myself and with you all ...."

They wait expectantly.

"I'm a vampire".

"Oh, meine kinder" says Momma.
"Well done, son" says dad. "All those years rearing you, sacrificing, going without so that you could have a bit extra, you've made it all worthwhile. C'mere y' big goof ..."

And they all embrace and live happily ever after.

Yep, that's gonna happen, all righty.

Joking aside: Life should be lived strategically. I can't see any good coming out of what your friend wants to do and it will alter everyone's opinion of him forever. Also: he knows this, surely, on some level. So why does he want to tell people something bad about himself?

Mrs. Layman, warning:  Mr. Layman can't be trusted! Alert! Alert!

I wish I knew why you are comparing homosexuality with vampirism.  Vamipirism is pretty rare, but homosexuality is relatively common -- and, I'd guess, will become much, MUCH more common given the number of children growing up without fathers.

The point of a homosexual who's devoted to chastity "coming out" is to simply live his life with integrity, without lies, without feeling as if he's hiding, without having people try to get stuff to blackmail him with, to live without fear, to live honestly with regard to the answers to questions like "Why aren't you married?!" or ""I know this cute girl. Want me to set something up for you two, a blind date?"

As I've said, if I were homosexual, I hope I'd have the guts to just be straight-up about it, letting the chips fall where they may. I don't think I could bear to live without that sense of being a "whole person" with no big, scary secrets, and with being put in social situations in which I'd feel compelled to lie or BS my way out of.  How simple and pure and true to simply say, "I'm queer. No setting up of blind dates for me, but thanks :) "

Besides which, how are homosexuals supposed to get support if no one knows who they are? And if homosexuals are supposed to hide away like cockroaches, how are they to be kept out of seminaries?  If homosexuals are stuck in a culture that is so fear-filled they think they have to hide the Truth about their struggles, then marriage and seminaries will be used as hide-outs, to the detriment of the wives and parishioners involved.

And to the poster who said "there's no going back":  that simply isn't true. While most therapies don't work to "change a homosexual into a heterosexual," it does sometimes happen, and some homosexuals, who are honest about their issues, do marry low-libido women and go on to have children, the whole bit. If someone "out there" doesn't get it, the problem is really theirs, not the homosexual's.

Vox said:
"Besides which, how are homosexuals supposed to get support if no one knows who they are?"

People with same sex attractions should not be identified with their temptations. This is the whole gay identity thing that the Church pretty clearly condemns. Gay people are not any different than anyone else, except they have an certain temptation to a certain sin.
No more and no less and it is dangerous to hang a whole personal identity on a temptation to sin.
Reply
#23
(08-06-2014, 02:16 PM)winoblue1 Wrote: I don't think not telling someone about your same sex attractions is feigning strength, because how often does one have such opportunities if one is in the closet? Only by telling people will these opportunities begin to appear, if they appear at all. What I was getting at was that if one tells people, if this person isn't a strong Catholic, he or she might be prone to counselling that  one is wasting one's life being celibate and that this kind of encouragement might lead to temptations.

Actually, there are lots of opportunities.  One doesn't have to go around screaming his attractions from the rooftops for others to know.  If you spend a significant amount of time without dating someone of the opposite sex, it's only a matter of time before that rumor mill gets going.  I think it's naive to say that one can merely live a non-monastic, celibate life without the majority of the people they see on a regular basis coming to their own conclusions as to why.

Quote:And as to the second point, I don't see how saying one is interested in considering the celibate lifestyle that one is lying. After all that is what the church recommends to people with this problem. Also, does one have to tell one's family if one is attracted to a certain kind of sex act? After all same sex attractions are ultimately about an activity, I think certain conversations are left unspoken.

Because the person isn't really considering a celibate lifestyle, that is why it is lying.  A homosexually-oriented person who is trying to follow Church teaching is not often practicing celibacy out of interest in celibacy itself.  They are practicing it because it is the only option they believe they have to remain morally pure.  Monastics choose celibacy over marriage.  They are given an equal choice between the two.  Homosexuals are not.  Since a romantic relationship is not a viable option, they can't truly say they have chosen celibacy for celibacy's sake, as if they've given up a morally good romantic relationship in favor of it.  This is why it would be lying.  Also, same sex attractions are not ultimately, or even remotely, about an activity.  It's physical and emotional attraction.  When you seek out, or sought out, a wife, were you attracted to her because of the person she was, or because of the activities you wanted to do to her vagina?  I mean, seriously, is critical thought completely lost on heterosexuals?

Quote:I think it is unfair to call someone a hypocrite for not recommending they share their personal temptations with the world. I may be wrong but I think my opinion has at least some merit beyond necessitating a personal attack.

It was a general you, not a personal you.  Sorry for the confusion.  Advocating lying causes one to be a hypocrite, if you believe lying is immoral.  Whether your intentions are good or not, you are advocating homosexuals to be deceptive about their temptations if and when the issue arises.  This is hypocrisy.
Reply
#24
(08-06-2014, 02:23 PM)winoblue1 Wrote: Vox said:
"Besides which, how are homosexuals supposed to get support if no one knows who they are?"

People with same sex attractions should not be identified with their temptations. This is the whole gay identity thing that the Church pretty clearly condemns. Gay people are not any different than anyone else, except they have an certain temptation to a certain sin.
No more and no less and it is dangerous to hang a whole personal identity on a temptation to sin.

People should be "identified" according to who they are, what they are, what they like, what their struggles are, etc.  This "gay identity" thing is nowhere "condemned by the Church." Homosexuality is not a sin; acting on those desires is. So being gay just is what it is, and letting others know you are homosexual is just being honest (which, as MagisterMusicae said, doesn't mean that NOT telling others is "lying" in se. On one level, it's "no one's business" in that few, if any, people have some moral right to know what your deal is).

I've heard a lot of talk in trad circles about homosexual "identity" and the concept of people "reducing" their "identitites" to one aspect of their psychologies. But as I've said to that sort of thing before, no one would accuse me of "reducing my identity to a disorder" by saying "I'm bipolar." But when the topic is homosexuality, people get really weirded out and talk about "identities" and such.  "Homosexual" can be seen as an adjective, as are "bipolar," "blond," "obese," or "athletic.": Even in terms of nouns, if a football player were to tell others he's a football player, he's not "reducing his identity" to one aspect of himself. He is describing himself to others.

You said, "I don't think not telling someone about your same sex attractions is feigning strength, because how often does one have such opportunities if one is in the closet? Only by telling people will these opportunities begin to appear, if they appear at all. What I was getting at was that if one tells people, if this person isn't a strong Catholic, he or she might be prone to counselling that  one is wasting one's life being celibate and that this kind of encouragement might lead to temptations."  Here, it sounds as if you're saying that a homosexual person should "go it alone" and not tell even a counselor. Really?  I can see wisdom in the advice to deal only with (truly) Catholic counselors, but any notion that homosexuals should shut up, stay in the closet, go through life feeling as if they have to hide who they are and what their struggles are -- even to the point of not seeking professional counseling! -- sounds like very bad, potentially dangerous, and even cruel advice.  And the thing is this:  the more homosexuals hear this sort of thing from fellow Catholics, the LESS likely they are to come into contact with counselors and support groups that would help them stay sexually continent.  We need Catholic homosexuals OUT of the closet, unashamed about inclinations they did not choose, in the pews next to us, seeking God, and trying to please Him -- not hiding away as if their problems are too "whatever" to even mention.

And as to opportunities to discuss it all, I just related a story in this thread about how I found out a friend of mine was gay. Multiply that by a million and there are your opportunities. It's the sort of thing that comes up pretty frequently in very circuitous ways. Some guy at work: "Eh, you know women! Can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em, amiright?" The gay guy is, I guess, expected to wink-wink, nudge-nudge and play along with the joke, as if he, too, is exasperated by all the problems that go with getting along with the opposite sex. "Ohhh, just wait 'til YOU have kids someday! Then you'll know what I'm talking about!"  "So, how old were you when you first kissed a girl, huh?" About some guy's sister:  "So, is this your girlfriend? No? Good, 'cause I've got a girl I just know you'd hit if off with!" I mean, use the imagination and see "how life goes" conversation-wise, social situation-wise. Or imagine you were expected to hide everything about your spouse and kids and home life and sex and everything else that goes with being heterosexual. All the questions, all the jokes, all the little asides, all the assumptions --- no way would I want to live with being homosexual as a Big Secret, wondering who knows, who's guessing, who's talking, blah blah. I'd rather say a simple, "I'm as queer as a three-dollar bill" (which is probably exactly how I'd put it, knowing me) and be done with it.



Reply
#25
I totally don't agree with homosexuals, active or not, coming out publically.
It is a societal problem that has no solution other than turning a blind eye.
In fact this is what all societies have done, except for those that have fallen into decay.
Perhaps we could learn something from history?
Sex outside of marriage, any kind of sex, cannot be encouraged through public acceptance.
Creating a special class of persons, ie homosexuals, lubricates the slippery slope to the destruction of the family.
The evidence is quite clear from just looking at the last 150 years of western society.
Indeed I am a bit disappointed at the apparent comfort so many people on this message board have with this sin, do we really believe that it cries to heaven for vengeance?
Vengeance is in fact punishment, it is suffering.
In an age of faith we might blush at even the mention of this topic, but now it seems we think it needs to be publically admitted and discussed. 
I think the essence of the matter is the idea of hypocrisy. Should some people keep certain aspects of their personal life private and thus in certain situations accept hypocrisy.
Ancient societies around the world have and do accept hypocrisy as a normal part of life. North America on the other hand was founded on the desire to live without it. So much mischief has been caused by people wanting to avoid their own mental agonies by thrusting it upon society at large to accept and approve.
Sometimes things are just better left unsaid.

Reply
#26
(08-07-2014, 09:55 AM)winoblue1 Wrote: It is a societal problem that has no solution other than turning a blind eye.

Can you explain what you mean by this?  It is very easy to interpret from this that you believe Christ's redemptive power is limited and has no effect in this life for homosexuals.  Believing that would put you firmly outside of the bounds of the Church, so I just want to make sure if that is indeed what you mean.

Quote:Sex outside of marriage, any kind of sex, cannot be encouraged through public acceptance.

By suggesting homosexuals have people to talk to about their temptations and their weaknesses, it does not follow that they are encouraged to have sex outside of marriage.  It is baffling that you would jump to that conclusion.

Quote:Indeed I am a bit disappointed at the apparent comfort so many people on this message board have with this sin, do we really believe that it cries to heaven for vengeance?

I am one of many who believe the phrase "sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance" is nothing more than a literary device that is grossly exaggerated by people today as to its importance and uniquely focused onto homosexuality by those same people.

Quote:I think the essence of the matter is the idea of hypocrisy. Should some people keep certain aspects of their personal life private and thus in certain situations accept hypocrisy.
Ancient societies around the world have and do accept hypocrisy as a normal part of life. North America on the other hand was founded on the desire to live without it. So much mischief has been caused by people wanting to avoid their own mental agonies by thrusting it upon society at large to accept and approve.
Sometimes things are just better left unsaid.

Again, can you clarify?  Christ spoke quite forcefully of his hatred of hypocrisy.  Hypocrites, one can infer from the tone of voice recorded, are reserved the worst places in hell.  So it seems completely irreconcilable with orthodox Christianity to suggest that some should not only not detest hypocrisy, but actually practice it for the sake of people in society who are uncomfortable acknowledging the realities of a fallen world.  If tolerating hypocrisy is an important aspect of the faith of "traditional" Catholicism, (which, ironically on this, ignores and rejects the apostolic tradition which precedes it of denouncing hypocrisy in all its forms) then I find it hard to see "traditional" Catholicism as anything other than Newchurch which you loudly condemn.  In true hypocrite fashion, you would be condemning yourself by condemning others.
Reply
#27
(08-05-2014, 10:00 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: The point of a homosexual who's devoted to chastity "coming out" is to simply live his life with integrity, without lies, without feeling as if he's hiding, without having people try to get stuff to blackmail him with, to live without fear, to live honestly with regard to the answers to questions like "Why aren't you married?!" or ""I know this cute girl. Want me to set something up for you two, a blind date?"

As I've said, if I were homosexual, I hope I'd have the guts to just be straight-up about it, letting the chips fall where they may. I don't think I could bear to live without that sense of being a "whole person" with no big, scary secrets, and with being put in social situations in which I'd feel compelled to lie or BS my way out of.  How simple and pure and true to simply say, "I'm queer. No setting up of blind dates for me, biut thanks :) "

How about: "I don't feel called to marriage"? That's honest, and should provide enough information to settle any questions that come up. Anything else really is nobody's business.  :shrug:

As for te idea of "no secrets," I just can't understand such a mindset. Not that I'm leading a double life, but seriously: there are things about me that not even my priest knows, and I'm perectly fine keeping it that way. I guess I look at it as : "Why should I burden someone else with knowledge that it will probably be painful for him to have, if there's no benefit or other practical reason for doing so?" And that's what I think it really comes down to: whether or not there's a need to share certain information. Only the person in question can determine that.
Reply
#28
(08-07-2014, 10:55 AM)Deidre Wrote: How about: "I don't feel called to marriage"? That's honest, and should provide enough information to settle any questions that come up. Anything else really is nobody's business.  :shrug: 

That's one answer for one question, but there are a million little social scenarios aside from having to answer, "You want to go out with this chick?"

Quote: As for te idea of "no secrets," I just can't understand such a mindset. Not that I'm leading a double life, but seriously: there are things about me that not even my priest knows, and I'm perectly fine keeping it that way. I guess I look at it as : "Why should I burden someone else with knowledge that it will probably be painful for him to have, if there's no benefit or other practical reason for doing so?" And that's what I think it really comes down to: whether or not there's a need to share certain information. Only the person in question can determine that.

It's not a matter of "no secrets"; it's a matter of not HAVING to make who you are a secret, thereby opening yourself up to blackmail, whispering campaigns, having to deal with those aforementioned social scenarios, not being understood, not getting the help you might need to stay chaste,  etc.  Me, I'm a private person, but if I were homosexual, I'd want that part of me "out on the table," as it were --- which wouldn't mean I wouldn't have secrets.

Reply
#29
I agree with Vox because she said that a homosexual should not have to live feeling as if he's dirty or unmentionable.

I struggle with encouraging my friend because of the fact the way the Church is viewed in the modern world.

If he comes out as someone with an attraction to other men, then his choice to remain celibate because he's a  Catholic can cause others to say "well see!? The Church is outdated and denying people their right to happiness, giving him a miserable life. Stupid Church" and Charles (not his name) and anyone with sense won't always be there to clarify whoever says that.

If he DOES come out, it will certainly be only to his family. His mother and father are both half-intellectual people, upper middle class, though they are divorced. The last time I talked to them, they seemed pretty "in the know" and I don't think they'd be upset over it. There's other homosexual people in his family, so he told me today (I didn't know before) and they're out, so I doubt if a rumour spreads that he'll be rejected by his family and relations.

I just want to know that if I, as a Catholic, am doing the right thing by helping him in this; that if he, as a Catholic, will get the right encouragement from the people around him, and not be pressured into sin.

I didn't like the comparison to a man committing adultery, because they're completely unrelated and it's not fair to compare the choice of sin to the suffering of an otherwise innocent man.
Reply
#30
(08-07-2014, 09:55 AM)winoblue1 Wrote: I totally don't agree with homosexuals, active or not, coming out publically.
It is a societal problem that has no solution other than turning a blind eye.

I don't see any need to "turn a blind eye" any more than one would have to do that upon hearing someone is bipolar or what have you.

Quote: In fact this is what all societies have done, except for those that have fallen into decay.
Perhaps we could learn something from history?

No, it hasn't been done and there's nothing to learn from History in this regard. The desire is for homosexuals to be honest about who they are, not go to bathhouses for anonymous sex, which is what was going on in ancient Greece and such.

Quote: Sex outside of marriage, any kind of sex, cannot be encouraged through public acceptance.

Who's doing that here?

Quote: Creating a special class of persons, ie homosexuals, lubricates the slippery slope to the destruction of the family.
The evidence is quite clear from just looking at the last 150 years of western society.

No one has to "create" a "special class of persons, i.e., homosexuals" because homosexuals already exist. No one here is pushing homosexual sex, homosexual "marriage," or "special rights."

Quote: Indeed I am a bit disappointed at the apparent comfort so many people on this message board have with this sin, do we really believe that it cries to heaven for vengeance?

Being homosexual is not a sin. That's the problem; you're speaking as if it is. But it isn't. Acting on homosexual desires is sinful.

Quote: Vengeance is in fact punishment, it is suffering.
In an age of faith we might blush at even the mention of this topic, but now it seems we think it needs to be publically admitted and discussed. 

Anyone who'd "blush" at the mention that someone isn't attracted to members of the opposite sex, but to members of his own sex needs to get out more. The phenomenon has been known about forever. IMO, the last thing we need is any return to Victorian sexual prudery, with the hysteria, neurasthenia, swooning, fainting, blushing, refusal to correctly name body parts, and neuroses that go with it all. I'm way too Italian for that sort of thing. I think people need to "get real" about sex and sexuality -- and to stop confusing knowledge of something with a loss of innocence. 

And in "getting real" about sex, people have to get real about homosexuality and stop seeing it just in terms (always!) of "anal sex" (esp when 1/3 of homosexuals never engage in that, and esp when anal sex among heterosexuals is extremely common, esp now in our pornified world). Homosexuality is about MUCH more than sex; it's a huge psychological struggle to identify with one's own sex, a struggle that gets eroticized (not just "sexualized"). But when some people talk about it, they reduce homosexuals to homosexual acts (whether the homosexuals in question even engage in those acts in the first place) EVEN AS they accuse homosexuals of "identifying themselves only" (the "only" is almost always there) in terms of "sex." It's ridiculous and shows great ignorance about what homosexuality involves.

Quote: I think the essence of the matter is the idea of hypocrisy. Should some people keep certain aspects of their personal life private and thus in certain situations accept hypocrisy.
Ancient societies around the world have and do accept hypocrisy as a normal part of life. North America on the other hand was founded on the desire to live without it. So much mischief has been caused by people wanting to avoid their own mental agonies by thrusting it upon society at large to accept and approve.
Sometimes things are just better left unsaid.

It isn't hypocrisy to not reveal all about oneself. It is hypocrisy to judge others more harshly than one would judge oneself, which is what too often happens when some trads talk about homosexuals, and it's hypocrisy to pretend to be better than you actually are, to come off as superior to others, to have standards for others and judge them for it when you don't hold to those standards yourself, or judge others more harshly.  And as has been said earlier in this thread, Christ was VERY down on hypocrites.

What we're talking about isn't (necessarily) hypocrisy, but about being understood and honest and living with integrity in terms of harmonizing one's persona with one's psychology. It's also about avoiding all the things I've mentioned -- blackmail, getting "caught out" if you stumble and sin once (and then being accused of having "a double life" or being a dishonest liar, esp. if one is truly religious), whispering campaigns, having to feign heterosexuality in terms of all the little social norms and expectations and questions and joking around, and so forth. If you wouldn't mind living your life in such a way, that's fine and good and power to you. But I wouldn't want to, and I definitely wouldn't put that burden on others. There's simply no need for it in the first place if people could just get Church teaching straight: homosexuality is a disorder, NOT a sin. Acting on homosexual desires is sinful. Period, the end. Very simple. No scandal. So easy a 5 year old could understand it (even though a lot of trad adults can't seem to figure it out somehow).

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)