Fairly straight forward...what is the difference between a relationship characterised by brotherly philia and a relationship that is more properly amatory, conjugal or erotic?

In line with a letter I've just received, should a faithful SSA Catholic in a long-term same sex relationship break up with his boyfriend? Should he move out?

- JH

Why shouldn't they have boyfriends?

Hey Sacha,

It depends on what we mean by boyfriend.

If by boyfriend, we meant an individual selected as a necessary co-operator in homogenital acts, such a relationship would present an almost constant occasion for sin. Homogenital acts are, in Catholic teaching, 'intrinsically disordered':

http://johnheard.blogspot.com/2005/11/dreadtruth-what-does-catechism.html

It is not open to faithful Catholics to seek out, perpetuate and cultivate, etc. that sort of relationship.

A faithful SSA Catholic ought not have that sort of 'boyfriend'.

Although, it must be said, that sort of 'boyfriend' might be closer to a 'fuck buddy', which is something that is morally repugnant to most people regardless of sexual inclination.

The email came from someone in what was described as a loving relationship, where one party (the Catholic) had sworn off homogenital acts but they both wanted to continue to live together. What about that sort of boyfriend?

- JH

Hello everyone,

Father Benedict Groeschel in his book The Courage to be Chaste stated that he did not believe it would necessarily be improper for a same-sex couple who is living chastely to separate, provided they were able to live chastely. And as long as it didn't cause scandal. David Morrison, author of the book Beyond Gay (and who, alas! no longer blogs), is in such a relationship with his partner, who was recently received into the Church. If you go to Catholic Answers audio archives on the web and listen to the January 6, 2000 broadcast, David discusses this a little bit. I would like to have a "chaste boyfriend", but it would devastate my Fundamental Baptist father. The rest of my family would be okay with it. John, if it's not too personal, how do you view your relationship with "the Jew?"

I believe that to have a platonic relationship, i.e., with the redemptive loving objective of growing in faith and pure (chaste) love would be a true blessing. The temptation to sin would have to be honestly and faithfully addressed. I believe our Lord would have us rather embrace in holy love than hide in doubt-filled fear.

First, a disclaimer: I'm not a Catholic, but I do consider myself a Christian.<br /><br />There's a whole range of forms of intimacy between men. Many of those differ of what straight men would want from a friendship. Touching, carressing, kissing etc. It's in these subtle things that makes it clear that a same sex attracted man wants something more from a friendship than a heterosexual man. <br /><br />By the way, I do not advocate anal sex. I consider this a sexual act, and not a particularly homosexual act.

Similar discussion happening on the 'Side-B' (equivalent to orthodox Catholic) board on gaychristian.net. Here's what I wrote:

I've heard many people lament that we don't here about close friendships much 'any more'. I don't know if that's true, or if there aren't as many as there used to be.

Two of my closest friends, both female and straight, are very close roommates, even though their personalities don't quite perfectly 'click'. I'm certain that if they ever got married, their husbands would know them as well as they know each other. I don't know if they could even love them as much.

Another two friends, one my second-cousin, both male and straight, would probably spend every minute with each other if they lived in the same city. Whenever we meet, the two of them will inevitably split off into their own little space, whispering and giggling at their little in-jokes. Quite hilarious.
-----

As for physical closeness, it's often said that it's a matter of culture. Close 'non-sexual' friends will walk hand in hand and sleep together in many cultures. Things are different in the West, but then I suppose the need for physical intimacy may be culturally conditioned to be less, too.

"The email came from someone in what was described as a loving relationship, where one party (the Catholic) had sworn off homogenital acts but they both wanted to continue to live together. What about that sort of boyfriend?"

That's fine of course if the people involved are happy with that kind of relationship. For me, it's about what works for the individuals concerned.

The definition of "boyfriend" isn't important - aren't you asking what kind of activities would be ok? Romantic love doesn't necessarily involve sex, although it often does.

I would ask, do the teachings of a person's religion conflict with the way they would like to live? It's concerning if a person feels internally conflicted because of any such disjunction.

Hello,
It seems to me that most people who have posted are assuming that a commited relationship or 'boyfriend/girlfriend' type relationship is simply a close friendship with sex thrown in. If that were true then there trully would be no distinction between a 'fuck buddy' and a 'boyfriend'. But i think we all (should) know that a relationship is formed on some other, much deeper emotional attachment. This bond is related to friendship aswell as sexuality but is something unique in itself. It is why a homosexual is not simply a person who is sexually attracted to someone of the same gender but someone who is "attracted" in the whole of their being to someone of the same sex.

Now back more to the topic, from my understanding of scripture (which isn't that indepth i'm kind of still seeking out different religions) most of the 'homosexual' actions descrbed and condemned in the bible atleast are simply animalistic sexual acts (such as rape) which are devoid of any emotional pr intellectual layer. To me this would show an approval of loving relationships between people of the same sex as modern loving relationships are something above normal animalistic urges and are about deeper and more meaningful things. But anyway that is just my opinion.

One should feel conflicted if one finds oneself drawn to something one knows is wrong. Surely it is a good thing if a Christian feels internally conflicted about killing his/her boss. In such cases, dissonance should be dealt with, sure, but by removing the temptation - not by caving in to the same.

If two men live together, and there is a constant temptation to homogenital acts, sure they can throw off their faith and live like nihilists. But that's not going to help our 'faithful SSA Catholic' and - if Catholicism is true, it's not going to help our nihilists much either.

We want to be careful talking about sex acts as wrong if 'devoid of any emotional or intellectual layer'. This relies on a romantic view of love/sex that is hard to get a grip on.

Plain procreative sex is, in various ways, still good - even if it is neither cerebral nor particularly romantic.

The trouble with homogenital acts, however, is that the procreative, the properly conjugal end of the sex organs is subverted. It doesn't matter how much you love your buddy, he's not going to fulfil his telos by virtue of you inserting your penis is his digestive tract.

John,

I know this is the old point where I disagree with you, but I wish to say it once more.

"Plain procreative sex is, in various ways, still good - even if it is neither cerebral nor particularly romantic."

Only because the conjugal end of the sex organs is used in a biological way does not make it 'good'. And only because two penises cannot make babies does not make it 'wrong'.

I'm not sure it is romantic if you love someone with the whole of your being. It will also mean very trivial, boring, difficult etc. moments, but the soul connection is what makes us human. It is what would make a relationship something more than using your sex organs in a procreative way. If that were the summum, the ultimate criterion, than why not organise pairings based on genetic information? That would be quite nihilistic too, right?

Love is indeed hard 'to get a grip on'. But thank God love has never been proven scientifically. And love can be expressed sexually. Two male lovers are not nihilists simply because they're lovers.

And could you please, please stop reducing homosexuality to sticking a dick in an anus. It's not about that and you know it.

Some ramblings...

It seems to me that today's evolutionary anthropology asserts that people are programmed to 'pair off' as mates, and that this mate relationship has a sort of 'love' that cannot exist in the best platonic relationships. Just the same as what we see in the animal kingdom - in some cases, mates exhibit empathy and other behaviours that indicate 'love' towards each other that they do not towards others. Of course, this is all a product of evolutionary programming.

So the idea is that whether this pairing is same-sex or not, it fulfills people's basic need to pair off. There is the problem that same-sex pairings are slightly inferior in that they are not 'natural', but the need to pair off supersedes.

I think Christian anthropology says... be that as it may, Christian teaching contains specific instructions on governing our behaviours. The teachings on everything - from dropping everything and following Christ to marriage and sexuality - are hard and not necessarily in tune with our primal instincts. But they're there for a higher purpose. We are to master our primal instincts.

As many have said, 'love' can be present in many things, but its presence does not necessarily sanctify

Saul,

It is not an invention of 19th or 20th century science that people want to pair-off as mates. It's a very basic human need that has been there for milennia.

You also seem to suggest that if someone lives with someone of his own gender, that he does not 'govern his behaviors'. Everyone has to govern his behaviors. Just because sexuality is part of the relationship does not make such a relationship a primal instinct f***ing thing.

By the way, gay men do have platonic friendships.

Ramble continues...

The Secular would tell the Christian that denying SSA's the opportunity to pair off would be denying them the special kind of love that can only come from pairing off. To put it charitably, they are saying that the ideal eros rouses agape, philia, and storge to an extent nothing else can. Of course, this is all evolutionary programming.

I think the Christian answer is that the inability to 'achieve' agape without eros, if it is a natural instinct, is one we should overcome. People with SSA have been given the (unwanted!) opportunity to practice agape, non-exclusive agape, willed agape. Same for all those folks who for some reason or another are unable to pair off.

Saul,

It's not that there is no love without pairing off, it is the special kind of love that does happen between two people of the same gender that is denied. The secular will not deny love is possible without sex, it is the Christian that in many cases denies that love between two same sex people cannot have philia or agape, simply because there's eros involved. This is plain cruelty.

Vincent,

I just saw your post.

I wasn't suggesting it's completely new, but I think in the past, the single or polygamous life was seen as a viable alternative, whereas now, it is seen as a hopeless struggle against one's natural human desires. And I think this is felt with more certainty than it ever was, perhaps because of the scientific revolution and the existence of more 'certainty' than ever before in all matters.

I do not in the least suggest that someone living with someone of his own gender does not govern his behaviours. That would be absurd, wouldn't it? My apologies if my writing was not clear - like I said, I was rambling.

I am saying that there are specific Christian instructions on governing behaviour. There are other instructions elsewhere, of course, depending on what you believe.

And when I wrote 'primal instinct', I didn't mean sexual acts only. That wouldn't make sense in this context. I am talking about the whole thing, the instinct to pair off, to care for one's offspring, to 'love' one's mate exclusively in some sense - the 'natural loves'. These are the instinctive behaviours we see even among animals, not only humans.

They are not 'bad' things, but they must be sublimated by agape, and I believe that is the role of the Christian instructions - to help achieve agape to the fullest.

BTW, I am not trying to make a utilitarian case for the Christian instructions. It's much about faith in the end.

Oh, I've just seen your last post. I suppose we're both setting up strawmen! I disagree with the Christian who says same sex relationships cannot have agape. I believe the Christian view is that agape can exist anywhere, let alone in such relationships, but that same-sex eros is an impediment to a full realization. Just as many other things contrary to Christian instructions are an impediment.

The Secular, I believe, does insist that man lives an unfulfilled life without eros and pairing off.

Saul,

Many thanks for your response and sorry if i put things in your mouth you didn't mean to say.

Perhaps it is the "Christian view' that same-sex eros is an impediment per se, but I would say the Scriptural basis for that is very thin. We only have six bible verses, which can be interpreted in various ways. These verses only refer to male homosexuality, we do not know in what context. Not one single word in the Bible is about female homosexuality.

Then we have the ramblings of Church fathers against 'Sodomy', which implies a doubtful connection between anal sex (without any thinking made equivolent to homosexuality) and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Again, there is not a single piece of evidence to support that assertion.

You see my point? It seems like, in Christian theology, it doesn't seem to matter if I f*** my brains out with strangers, or if I love someone. I should suffer, but I am not sure why or what for.

Maybe it's about 'faith in the end'. With all due respect, that means in my view I should support man-made constructs, internalise it and think it is Christ that wants me to do something.

Vincent,

On the Scriptural basis for orthodox Christian teaching on sexuality, I think it's very strong. I'm no expert - there has been a lot written on this - and in my judgement, and in my heart, Scripture supports these teachings. I suppose we agree to disagree.

I get your point about both scripture and tradition talking about sexuality in a limited domain. Many would also add that in general, the ancients didn't know what we know today, which explains their limited perspective. I disagree with this. I think they knew quite well what they were saying.

This argument, of course, is extendible to all teachings in the Bible. They only thought Jesus was resurrected because they weren't scientifically aware, etc., etc. You know, those crazy man-made constructs!

My view - this is just intuition - is that it is much easier to believe orthodox teachings on sexuality than it is the resurrection.

In case you haven't read it:

http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/print_format.php?id_article=1957

I agree with Eve, of course.

Vincent,
I think I understand what you are saying about the way Christianity's objections to homosexuality seems rooted in scruptural exhortations against acts. It might appear as if, as you say, you could go at it with a stranger or your beloved and there is no difference.

But in Catholic theology of guilt and sin, there is a classical understanding of guilt - as in, how much the soul is damaged by sinful actions. Thomas Aquinas conceived of it as a moral triad: Each act has three moral dimensions: the primary determining factor being the action itself, and the other two are the intention and the circumstances. In Aquinas' formulation, an immoral act can not be made moral by either of the other two components. But the amount of "guilt" a soul carries can be mitigated to some extent by the intention and/or the circumstances. (Or, for that matter, increased!)

So, the anonymous f**k for self-gratification/fame/a job/ to relieve boredom -these exacerbate the harmful (according to the theology) sin in this action, because they are a terrible use of another human being, as well as an abuse of our own humanity. On the other hand, attempting to show love is an inherently good motivation. In the just universe, the Good has an effect, even on sin. But it cannot change the fact that the act itself is not properly ordered to G-d's divine purpose for creation.

Thanks Corita and Saul.

Let me say I never felt comfortable in what could be called 'liberal' churches, because what they preach to me is the same as putting a CD on and listen to poetic lyrics.

So it's orthodoxy nagging and pulling at me, but this aspect we discussed is very painful for me for several reasons. There's the rational aspect of Christian teaching (is it convincing for me?), and the faith aspect. I agree with Saul that even the Resurrection can be put into doubt if you put 'reason' to it. I believe the core of Christianity is Christ and His sacrifice. Everything else follows from that, but that doesn't mean one has to take everything any Christian says should be taken for granted or to be Truth.

To go back to the discussion topic: I am still not convinced same-sex eros is a sin per se. I do hope to find a partner someday, another guy, so I admit my ramblings are personally colored.

But let me say this: I do not categorically dismiss the Catholic Church's teachings on SSA as nonsense, just I express objections. Perhaps it's true and maybe I am wrong. Perhaps I cling to an idol. Perhaps I should just surrender.

The conjugal nature of marital love is, of course, two-part: the Church speaks of a biological and affective complementarity. The affective element of same sex friendships cannot, therefore, be re-imagined so as to approximate marriage. It's missing the necessary complement.

With regard to property rights, etc. I've written previously on humane legislative alternatives to 'gay marriage' and radical civil union schemes:

http://johnheard.blogspot.com/2007/01/dreadpublishing-being-heard-john-heard_30.html

The key thing is to take the sex test out, in favour of some definition of dependency. This opens the reform up to carers, cohabiting single friends, virgins, siblings, etc.

- JH

Killing someone is very different to having sex and feeling guilty about it. Killing someone adversely affects another person (dramatically). A man having sex with another man doesn't, by itself, have any impact on anyone else (barring extraneous matters such as STDs).

This argument comes down to what is seen as being authoritative, whether the Catholic Church or something else. I havn't seen any discussion of this that necessarily leads to one particular outcome. It is a mistake to appeal to logic in these matters. I do not see the need for a set of rights and wrongs to need to be given from outside (e.g. through a religious institution) - rights and wrongs can be (and are) internalised by individuals.

But of course, Sacha, a 'faithful SSA Catholic' finds Catholic teaching authoritative.

It is interesting to bring in logic. 'Truth As Predicated Of Moral Judgments' by David Wiggins and 'The Universalizability Of Moral Judgments' by Peter Winch are both illuminating on that score.

- JH

If a man finds Catholic teaching authoritative, then they would probably not have a boyfriend. But a question I'd like to posit is, why should any institution be taken to provide authoritative teachings? People, and institutions, can be wrong.

People can, and merely man-made institutions too. But that is where faith and revelation come into the mix. Catholics believe that the Church has both a human body (every Christian) and a Divine head (Christ). Christians err, and particular churches can stray, but the Church (as Spouse of Christ) is necessarily perfect:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Tradition#Sacred_Tradition_in_the_Roman_Catholic_Church

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_19921011_fidei-depositum_en.html

http://www.catholicfaithandreason.org/depositoffaith.htm

- JH

I would have to say that the belief in the authoritative nature of the church is what automatically turns me off catholicism. Especially consideing the church is mostly extrapolating from fairly limited (and possibly altered) reference material. This would not be an entirely bad practice aslong as the church was responsive to any stronger evidence that its conclusions were wrong. But the catholic church seems to try to alter or misrepresent the evidence to fit its own rules and not the other way around (eg. contraception and masturbation issues).

It might be time to start a new discussion topic. The question of authority is only tangentially related to this thread.

- JH

"People, and institutions, can be wrong."
But God cannot be wrong. Catholics believe that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ, i.e. God, and therefore entrusted it with the guardianship of His truth. The moral teaching of the Church - especially when seen as also guided by the Holy Spirit - is therefore not seen as a human invention, an institutional behavior code, but as the command of God himself.

Therefore, if one stipulates to the divinity of Christ and to the fact the He founded the Catholic Church, then the Church's teachings MUST be viewed as authoritative.

This does not mean that the Church has something to say on every little detail of life. For instance, it is clear that the Church teaches homogenital sex to be wrong. But the Church is silent on whether two men who are homosexually inclined can live together in chastity for the purposes of mutual love and support. In these cases the Church teaches the Christian to invoke prudential judgment and use his conscience - hopefully well formed - to make the best decision.

So there is considerable freedom to act within the Catholic moral framework, given that the intent of the one acting is in the spirit of Catholic moral teaching and for the greater glory of God. This is where a "faithful SSA Catholic" - or any faithful Catholic - can become mightily confused. It is expected that people of good will will disagree on many matters governed by "prudential judgment".

Having this "externally imposed" moral structure does not relieve the Catholic of making moral decisions for himself. On the contrary, in very real ways, it forces him to do so. And it is when a person is compelled to make moral decisions contrary to his personal will or physical appetites that, as a person, he asserts those qualitites of his human being - namely reason and rational will - which distinguish himself from the rest of the created world. Therefore, rather than robbing a Christian of his human dignitiy and self-determination, the Church actually demands it and provides us with the best means of achieving it.

The straight, quick answer would be, if those ssa Catholics are guys (so, girlfriends if they're girls), "No, they should not." Now, it seems you want to get all technical, which of course makes the answer vary. I don't know about you guys/ladies, but when I had girlfriends, I tried hard to follow the Church's teaching, and one thing I really enjoyed was making out! Now, kissing, for me, is pleasurable and exciting; nevertheless, because these girls eventually wanted and asked for sex (among other things), my relationships with them did not work out. I really enjoyed being their boyfriend in the way I thought was good and chaste, but I'm not going to lie when I say that I feel it's becoming more and more difficult to find a person who expects quite a bit of icing before having the cake. This goes for the one same-sex relationship I had, which I also saw myself leaving because of similar reasons. That's not so say that I didn't succumb to any temptation, of course.

Anyway, if I want to lie to myself a little more, I'd say that "homogenital acts" is a pretty straight-forward way of saying "any kind of gay sex"; unfortunately, where does that leave kissing, or holding hands, or caresses - the myriad of "other" things people in romantic relationships do? Why does it always have to be about sex? Well, this particular topic is about sex, of course, but, there are other things, right? My opinion is that some of us are trying to get off on technicalities and loopholes, and some of us really do see it that way. Sure, maybe things are not as black and white as some purists would like them to be, but can we afford, in a spiritual sense, to take such chances? That's a valid question, I think. We can't always straddle the fence...