Homosexuality disordered/if you speak a foreign language please read this

[Kia ora]

1 corinthians7:

Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is well for a man not to touch a woman.” But because of cases of sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another except perhaps by agreement for a set time, to devote yourselves to prayer, and then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. This I say by way of concession, not of command. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has a particular gift from God, one having one kind and another a different kind.

To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain unmarried as I am. But if they are not practicing self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.

i take this to mean that marriage is not the order to which all of us are called anyway. marriage is a concession to our weakness. better to give up our weakness to god and sacrifice it. if the ability to conform our suffering to Christ is one of the greatest gifts we have been given, then let's suffer like christ in celibacy.

[PhuturePriest]

Well, isn't this just a cesspool of confusion and hostility.

I missed this on Phatmass.

[Ark]

[Norseman82]

 

​I would take his words a little differently, not as referring to celibacy as a set-apart calling, but referring to the radical acceptance of the coming of the kingdom. If you notice, his saying about eunuchs is in the context of his Apostles saying it is better not to marry than to bind yourself to one person forever, no matter what.:

 

I don't think he's saying that some are called to marriage and some aren't (the first two groups of eunuchs don't have a choice, even if they become Christian). I think he's saying that to be a eunuch for the kingdom is to sacrifice what is most dear to you...there are many people who may desperately want to marry, but can't for some reason or another (can't find a spouse, have their own problems, whatever). For them to become eunuchs (sacrifice what they most desire and can't have) is the greatest sacrifice. After all, if you become a celibate just because it is easy for you or because it fits in with the kind of life you want to lead, what have you really sacrificed? But if you desire marriage, and can't have it, then that it's truly a sacrifice to accept the situation for the kingdom. The Apostles are saying, why get married if you may have to remain celibate for the rest of your life (because you can't remarry if something happens)? And Christ is saying, the man who gets married and is not willing to sacrifice his marriage, is not willing to live for the kingdom, is not receiving the radical calling which Christ is placing on discipleship. I don't think this passage is in defense of marriage so much as it is putting Christ even above marriage, saying that marriage too passes away. St. Paul says this more clearly in 1Corinthians 7:29-31:

 

​And still Christ stated that not everyone can accept it, so let those that can accept it accept it.

[Norseman82]

​I think we also need to consider that whether God gives this gift may depend a great deal upon whether we truly desire it, and pray fervently for it to be given us.

​While we're at it, the next time I see a homeless hungry person on the street, instead of giving him a gift card to Subway so he can get a sandwich, I'll just tell him that his problem is that he did not desire and pray fervently for the gift of acedia.

Gee, I wonder where THAT will land me on judgment day - the sheep or the goats?

[Norseman82]

1 corinthians7:

i take this to mean that marriage is not the order to which all of us are called anyway. marriage is a concession to our weakness. better to give up our weakness to god and sacrifice it. if the ability to conform our suffering to Christ is one of the greatest gifts we have been given, then let's suffer like christ in celibacy.

God said (see Genesis 2) that it is not good for man to be alone, and CCC 1603 states that the vocation to marriage is written into our very nature.

[Era Might]

​And still Christ stated that not everyone can accept it, so let those that can accept it accept it.

​Ok, but IMO that's a sad way to go through life, making someone's happiness dependent on whether they find someone to marry, or whether they remain married. The people who are poorest at a relationship are the ones who are so attached to it that they have no self outside of it, they cannot even imagine not being with someone. Marriage is a coming together of two people who have made choices that led them to each other, sometimes good choices, sometimes bad choices, but life's choices do not cease once someone is married. The choices become complicated with two people instead of one. The paradox of marriage is that two people make each other better individuals, but that requires them to have a sense of self that is not defined by that other person. When they lack that selfhood, that independence, then marriage has the opposite effect, they chase after fantasies and delusions and cling stronger to something other than themselves, because they have no self to hold them down. I'm sympathetic with the despair of not having someone to hold and live with/for, but that despair is not real, and begins to burn out as a person gains knowledge of self and life. And that knowledge is not easy to come by, so maybe marriage saves some people from falling off the face of the earth, but I see those people compassionately, not as a model for what is true and best about being human. Marriage being written in the nature of man does not mean that man must be married to be human, but that marriage is a primordial expression of man's duality, male and female. Marriage is not the only expression of that, however, it is also expressed in ritual, art, myth, etc.

[Ark]

The OP sounds very jaded, I'm not quite sure what they mean by "acceptance" but it seems it might be in a way that is wholly inconsistent with the Way of our Lord.

I am a great sinner, have found myself in many a dark place -- both literally and metaphorically -- and can personally attest that my jadedness was related to my sin. When I began to live a truly chaste life of mind and body suddenly my thinking was clearer, my will stronger, and my body more energized. 

Remember that according to the Apostle, sin precedes heresy. And so anyone who finds themselves struggling with Church teaching I advise to forget the books and take on some simple spiritual remedies.  

(1) Purity of mind and body: this means no sex, no porn, no self-abuse, and also maintaining a pure-mind -- sexual thoughts are natural, but we don't have to cultivate them or entertain them, and certainly not create them -- furthermore avoid worldly music, movies, and talk as much as you can and is reasonable for your state of life. Avoid processed foods, high carbs, sugars, etc. Simplify your way of life. If you are entrenched in sin try this for at least 2 weeks.

(2) Perform mental prayer for at least 10-15 minutes every day. Prior to beginning start with meditations that will arise a fire in your will to love God. Adore and petition the Lord, enjoy the happiness and peace of being in His presence. And I'm not advocating lunacy here, but mental prayer is a conversation, so be sure to take a moment of silence to listen and an answer may come to you in a way that is not necessarily audible.

(3) Partake in the Sacraments, especially confession and the Eucharist. The practices above in no way supersede a life in the Sacraments but rather add as adjuncts to them, making us more disposed into receiving the Lord's grace. Praying the rosary and addicting an Act of Contrition at the end of every decade is also very helpful.

(4) Towards the end of two weeks one may begin to engage in philosophical / intellectual pursuits of the dilemma, if they feel it necessary.

Just the two cents of a sinner

 

[Norseman82]

​Ok, but IMO that's a sad way to go through life, making someone's happiness dependent on whether they find someone to marry, or whether they remain married. The people who are poorest at a relationship are the ones who are so attached to it that they have no self outside of it, they cannot even imagine not being with someone. Marriage is a coming together of two people who have made choices that led them to each other, sometimes good choices, sometimes bad choices, but life's choices do not cease once someone is married. The choices become complicated with two people instead of one. The paradox of marriage is that two people make each other better individuals, but that requires them to have a sense of self that is not defined by that other person. When they lack that selfhood, that independence, then marriage has the opposite effect, they chase after fantasies and delusions and cling stronger to something other than themselves, because they have no self to hold them down. I'm sympathetic with the despair of not having someone to hold and live with/for, but that despair is not real, and begins to burn out as a person gains knowledge of self and life. And that knowledge is not easy to come by, so maybe marriage saves some people from falling off the face of the earth, but I see those people compassionately, not as a model for what is true and best about being human. Marriage being written in the nature of man does not mean that man must be married to be human, but that marriage is a primordial expression of man's duality, male and female. Marriage is not the only expression of that, however, it is also expressed in ritual, art, myth, etc.

God said "It is not good for the man to be alone".  That's why he created an opposite-gender spouse.  Except for those given th egift of celibacy, we were not built to be alone.  We need to stop running away from that truth.

Plus, St. Paul referred to the forbidding of marriage as a later-day demonic teaching (1 Timothy 4:1-3).

[Era Might]

God said "It is not good for the man to be alone".  That's why he created an opposite-gender spouse.  Except for those given th egift of celibacy, we were not built to be alone.  We need to stop running away from that truth.

Plus, St. Paul referred to the forbidding of marriage as a later-day demonic teaching (1 Timothy 4:1-3).

I'm not forbidding marriage, but I don't think it is an idealistic answer to people's problems. Marriage is not a commodity where you can fit any man or woman and boom they're not lonely and lead happy lives. You can be married and alone, then what? You can't get married again, according to Christ's words, so building your happiness on some abstract ideal of marriage is not very wise, because marriage is not a magic act where your loneliness and aloneness are solved. Jim Croce had a song, "I can't hang on no lover's cross for you." You have to be you always, only then can you help someone be them.

[Luigi]

Some of the ambiguity in this discussion involves definitions of marriage - or at least expectations of what one is supposed to get out of marriage, achieve through marriage, etc. - and some of those expectations are culturally-based. The definition of marriage and the cultural expectations of the benefits of marriage are changing very rapidly in American culture.

If modern-day Americans are looking for and-they-lived-happily-ever-after marriages such as are depicted in fairy tales (and the modern fairy tales we call "the movies"), then many people will be disappointed in their marriages, and Era Might may have some valid points.

But most marriages in most countries over most of the course of human history have not been of the fairy tale/movie type: Search assiduously until you find the exact right person who can fulfill your every need and wish, sweep her off her feet (because in the traditional fairy tales, it's always the man who does the sweeping), carry her off into the sunset, and live the rest of your lives staring deeply into each others eyes while you declare your undying love.       SIGH.

Most marriages have been arranged by the parents of the young couple - even in modern-day India, most young Indians prefer that their parents arrange the marriage (if you believe the story I heard on NPR). In those societies, marriage had a more widely accepted definition, the goals of marriage were accepted by all parties involved, the roles of wife and husband were accepted across the culture, and so forth. The goals had to do with keeping a roof over your head, a steadier supply of food, procreation, increased protection from a dangerous world through group affiliation, division of labor, and lots of stuff like that. 

And it worked. At least for most people most of the time. Find on YouTube the song "Do You Love Me" from "Fiddler on the Roof".

Where does the Church come down in all this? As you might expect, the Church supports the more traditional approach to marriage, its goals, its roles, etc.

[Norseman82]

Some of the ambiguity in this discussion involves definitions of marriage - or at least expectations of what one is supposed to get out of marriage, achieve through marriage, etc. - and some of those expectations are culturally-based. The definition of marriage and the cultural expectations of the benefits of marriage are changing very rapidly in American culture.

If modern-day Americans are looking for and-they-lived-happily-ever-after marriages such as are depicted in fairy tales (and the modern fairy tales we call "the movies"), then many people will be disappointed in their marriages, and Era Might may have some valid points.

But most marriages in most countries over most of the course of human history have not been of the fairy tale/movie type: Search assiduously until you find the exact right person who can fulfill your every need and wish, sweep her off her feet (because in the traditional fairy tales, it's always the man who does the sweeping), carry her off into the sunset, and live the rest of your lives staring deeply into each others eyes while you declare your undying love.       SIGH.

Most marriages have been arranged by the parents of the young couple - even in modern-day India, most young Indians prefer that their parents arrange the marriage (if you believe the story I heard on NPR). In those societies, marriage had a more widely accepted definition, the goals of marriage were accepted by all parties involved, the roles of wife and husband were accepted across the culture, and so forth. The goals had to do with keeping a roof over your head, a steadier supply of food, procreation, increased protection from a dangerous world through group affiliation, division of labor, and lots of stuff like that.

And it worked. At least for most people most of the time. Find on YouTube the song "Do You Love Me" from "Fiddler on the Roof".

Where does the Church come down in all this? As you might expect, the Church supports the more traditional approach to marriage, its goals, its roles, etc.

​Exactly.  It's about "settling down and starting a family" (or at least trying).  The CCC in its sections on the fourth commandment and the sacrament of matrimony make constant references as to how the family is the domestic church, the original cell of society, and stresses that the well being of society is based on a healthy conjugal and family life.  And the USCCB published a document on "Why Marriage is good for Men and Women":

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/marriage-and-family/marriage/upload/USCCB-FLWY-Why-is-Marriage-Good-for-Men-and-Women.pdf

Interesting note:  regarding arranged marriages in India, I spoke with some of my coworkers who are from India.  Typically, at a certain age, the parents have a little sit-down with the son/daughter and ask if they have anyone they are interested in marrying.  If they do not have someone in mind, the parents offer assistance in findng someone, but he young person is free to still say "I don't like this one" (although I don't know how much pressure there may be from families in this regard).  I don't know if this is for all Indians, or limited to the professional/educated classes/castes, or if this is more of a northern/southern Indian thing.

Also, I have been told about a birth order, so a younger sibling normally waits until an older sibling marries before he/she marries (this may add to "encouragement" to an older sibling to marry).

And engagements are not long - I've heard of cases that within two months of the engagement the couple is married.  And I've also heard of entire villages being invited to the wedding, with the parents picking up the tab for all the family/guests (which can number in the thousands of people), to which my manager made a comment that there must be familial "encouragement" to not divorce!

[Era Might]

Some of the ambiguity in this discussion involves definitions of marriage - or at least expectations of what one is supposed to get out of marriage, achieve through marriage, etc. - and some of those expectations are culturally-based. The definition of marriage and the cultural expectations of the benefits of marriage are changing very rapidly in American culture.

If modern-day Americans are looking for and-they-lived-happily-ever-after marriages such as are depicted in fairy tales (and the modern fairy tales we call "the movies"), then many people will be disappointed in their marriages, and Era Might may have some valid points.

But most marriages in most countries over most of the course of human history have not been of the fairy tale/movie type: Search assiduously until you find the exact right person who can fulfill your every need and wish, sweep her off her feet (because in the traditional fairy tales, it's always the man who does the sweeping), carry her off into the sunset, and live the rest of your lives staring deeply into each others eyes while you declare your undying love.       SIGH.

Most marriages have been arranged by the parents of the young couple - even in modern-day India, most young Indians prefer that their parents arrange the marriage (if you believe the story I heard on NPR). In those societies, marriage had a more widely accepted definition, the goals of marriage were accepted by all parties involved, the roles of wife and husband were accepted across the culture, and so forth. The goals had to do with keeping a roof over your head, a steadier supply of food, procreation, increased protection from a dangerous world through group affiliation, division of labor, and lots of stuff like that. 

And it worked. At least for most people most of the time. Find on YouTube the song "Do You Love Me" from "Fiddler on the Roof".

Where does the Church come down in all this? As you might expect, the Church supports the more traditional approach to marriage, its goals, its roles, etc.

​I completely agree with what you're saying about marriage being socially determined. I do not like the modern romantic conception of marriage. However, I don't think a romantic idea of the other kind of marriage is going to solve things. I am not familiar with India, but I am familiar with Latin American culture, and the more practical/traditional idea of marriage is still strong, but it's a very different worldview from what most Americans will be comfortable with. It's all well to say the church supports traditional approach to marriage, but that requires (very seriously) a revolution in economics, society, etc. The church is not reactionary in this way, though it used to be. And in those traditional marriages you will find less opportunity for many values that we take for granted, such as personality, individual growth, education, etc. I do not think the idea of marriage in the New Testament lines up particularly well with the traditional social structure of marriage that you are referring to. The idea of self-sacrificial love in St. Paul is of a very different order than the practical business of marriage that you find in history. And that traditional idea of marriage mostly depends on a pre-modern economic and social structure. The middle class family today also has very practical concerns: make sure your kids go to school, get an education, have some money for vacations, get a job when they grow up, etc. But me personally, I find that American dream hollow and subservient to economic and commercial interests (even though the families have the best of intentions, they are living the dreams manufactured for them).

A good novel on this topic is "Middlemarch" by George Eliot, which takes place in early 19th century England and is a study of provincial life. Marriage is one of the big themes, because it was one of your main social concerns to make a good marriage...with all the practical considerations that entails. One of the main characters, Dorothea, early in the novel has this sort of self-sacrificial religious ideal of marrying a man of learning who she can be a helpmate to, and she marries an old scholar, Mr. Casaubon, thinking that her religious idealism will find a perfect outlet. Needless to say, her yearning for a meaningful life is soon frustrated when she discovers that her husband is completely lacking in the emotional life necessary for such a young bride, and other younger characters in the novel try to stop the marriage beforehand. They go on a honeymoon to Rome, and Dorothea is sort of scandalized to discover this passionate world of art that contrasts sharply with her dour marriage that she thought was what she wanted, and while her husband has everything to provide a life for her, the fire burning in her soul is being slowly extinguished, and it's a great agony for her. It's an amazing novel and takes a real look at all the different kinds of marriages...there is no "traditional" marriage, although there are marriages that conform to a social ideal, but as Tolstoy famously noted, every happy family is alike, but every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way. I am against romanticizing marriage either in modern individual terms or in the traditional social institutional sense. It's a complicated business, and my advice is to stay out of it until you realize that (of course, that's silly advice, because everyone is on their own journey, they can only discover for themselves how complicated life is, but there's a reason why so much art is devoted to frustrated love, unhappy marriages, mismatched lovers, illicit affairs...that's the stuff the human heart is made of).

Marriage is not for the immature, and if it is going to have any future for two people, they have to mature together...what usually happens is they mature apart, and their marriage falls apart. The traditional idea is to smell of elderberries it up and sacrifice your happiness for marriage, and if that's how you want to live, I won't tell you otherwise, but I can only point out the disastrous results throughout history.

[Era Might]

Here's a small sample from Middlemarch, an unbelievably brilliant study of human nature and society:

All these are crushing questions; but whatever else remained the same, the light had changed, and you cannot find the pearly dawn at noonday. The fact is unalterable, that a fellow-mortal with whose nature you are acquainted solely through the brief entrances and exits of a few imaginative weeks called courtship, may, when seen in the continuity of married companionship, be disclosed as something better or worse than what you have preconceived, but will certainly not appear altogether the same. And it would be astonishing to find how soon the change is felt if we had no kindred changes to compare with it. To share lodgings with a brilliant dinner-companion, or to see your favorite politician in the Ministry, may bring about changes quite as rapid: in these cases too we begin by knowing little and believing much, and we sometimes end by inverting the quantities.

But was not Mr. Casaubon just as learned as before? Had his forms of expression changed, or his sentiments become less laudable? Oh waywardness of womanhood! did his chronology fail him, or his ability to state not only a theory but the names of those who held it; or his provision for giving the heads of any subject on demand? And was not Rome the place in all the world to give free play to such accomplishments? Besides, had not Dorothea's enthusiasm especially dwelt on the prospect of relieving the weight and perhaps the sadness with which great tasks lie on him who has to achieve them?— And that such weight pressed on Mr. Casaubon was only plainer than before.

However, Dorothea was crying, and if she had been required to state the cause, she could only have done so in some such general words as I have already used: to have been driven to be more particular would have been like trying to give a history of the lights and shadows, for that new real future which was replacing the imaginary drew its material from the endless minutiae by which her view of Mr. Casaubon and her wifely relation, now that she was married to him, was gradually changing with the secret motion of a watch-hand from what it had been in her maiden dream. It was too early yet for her fully to recognize or at least admit the change, still more for her to have readjusted that devotedness which was so necessary a part of her mental life that she was almost sure sooner or later to recover it. Permanent rebellion, the disorder of a life without some loving reverent resolve, was not possible to her; but she was now in an interval when the very force of her nature heightened its confusion. In this way, the early months of marriage often are times of critical tumult—whether that of a shrimp-pool or of deeper waters—which afterwards subsides into cheerful peace.

[Era Might]

The CCC in its sections on the fourth commandment and the sacrament of matrimony make constant references as to how the family is the domestic church, the original cell of society, and stresses that the well being of society is based on a healthy conjugal and family life.

Ah, but that's exactly why the Apostles said it is better not to marry. You can't have your cake and eat it too, you can't say that marriage is not about the individuals, but then talk about "happy and healthy." ​Happy and healthy by whose standards? It is society itself that provides those standards, and the personal happiness of either spouse is hardly necessary for a socially well-functioning marriage.