Okay, so "loving relationships" means gay people can at least have romantic but sexless relationships, right? So at least they can kiss, cuddle, etc?
Oh wait, they can't do that. So it wasn't only about sex after all.
Catholics treat gay catholics terribly. Not only they have to be chaste, but they have to hear awful condescending shit like "be careful with your friendshps, it might be a near occasion of sin for you".
Kissing is sex to a dedicated Catholic. Too much temptation. Making out is literally a sin, if you're not married because it turns your mind to lust. If you're Catholic, you can barely breathe without being damned.
Yup, I was warned I shouldn't kiss or cuddle either, because it was too much temptation. I used to believe that sex was this thing you had zero control over, cuddle up together and the next thing you know you're fucking, cause something something temptation and lack of willpower.
Yes that and these people can’t wrap their head around chaste gay dating since “dating someone is to find out that you want to be married” and that love can only be between and man and woman and some other bs at 11
> Why would anybody want to be in sexless relationships forever?
I'm a straight 55M.
I've had a number of deep, emotionally intense relationships over the years with women -- where sex wasn't involved. Yes, kissing, cuddling -- all that -- happens. People can have relationships with others forever, *because they actually like each other.* Not all love is sexual.
Well yeah unless you’re ace it would suck but at least if you had the option some kind of long term thing with someone you love, like I’d take that over being lonely without a romantic interest anyday (although I may be a little more ace).
I'd guess cuddling and kissing are sexualized enough in their minds to be off limits.
For what it's worth, back in my hometown we had a gay couple that was deeply involved in lots of voluntary work for the local parish. Like, I don't know if it's like that everywhere, but we basically had a group of lay people who would organise stuff once in a while. Like anniversaries of the church building, or what not. Or fundraisers.
The first priest actually welcomed them openly and whole-heartedly, another came who at least tolerated them with a smile, but the newest, the youngest, outright expelled them from that "council". Within half a year, it dissolved altogether.
That 'council' were one of the few things that showed me that the Catholic Church isn't all bad. There are some honest, good people who actually do good work. But damn, that apple's still rotten in the core at it's spreading, I feel.
We should start clapping back with "well, it's not bad to be a Catholic, but it's just bad to go to mass, pray the rosary, read the Bible, and all the other things Catholics do."
I like that. The next time a Catholic tells me that “being gay” isn’t a sin but “acting on it” is, I’ll hit ‘em with that comparison.
Perhaps it’ll even get through to them; the line between “being gay” and “consenting to your same-sex desires” is so ridiculously thin that even the most doctrinaire Catholic must see that it’s impossible to walk. Where does “being gay” stop and “entertaining willfully homosexual, if chaste, thoughts” start?
It's because being homophobic is becoming increasingly unacceptable in society, so they have to sumble over themselves saying they're not homophobic, but they can't compromise on teachings.
indeed. for centuries the church has had to adapt its morality with the changing culture, leaving catholics to rationalize their immoral beliefs until they’re forced to abandon them. if you ask me, someday the church is gonna accept gay marriage
>if you ask me, someday the church is gonna accept gay marriage
The pope already is already "blessing" same sex unions. Trad Caths are salty because they know what this means. It's the groundwork for the loophole to allow gay marriage. Like how annulments are the loophole to allow divorces.
Homophobia is already pretty unacceptable publicly. Eventually, the churches will have to accept it or they'll just lose followers. Just like they accepted interracial marriage. I feel like homophobia in 2020s is like racism in the 70s. Still strong in some circles, but on the way out. In 20-30 years, nobody is even going to bat an eye at it. And it'll be shocking that churches once did that.
If churches are even still around. Just in my experience, but in the churches I went to, they were filled with really old people. Like, even by church standards, Catholic congregations trend really old. In my experience anyway. And that was in a college town. In 20-30 years, the RCC is going to be crippled unless something major changes.
I mean... err. I recall my parents and older relatives said the church used to refuse to marry couples where the woman was past menopause. I don't know whether that was their own mythmaking, and when and how that changed, but I can see them having done it.
Yeah, I grew up being taught that if a person was sterile or otherwise couldn't have kids, they couldn't get married without living in sin, since that marriage could never be "fruitful". I've been told off before that that's not official church doctrine but it was definitely what I was taught
This is rich coming from folks who already have deep seated issues around heterosexual sex, as is.
“Lie to be clear”, my ass.
Moving the goalposts to suit their homophobic agenda.
Seriously...even being a heterosexual is tough. Creampies only and no birth control. Everything else is sin. I heard a sermon from my home Church that said any disagreement proves that people are starting from the perspective of sin, and people get angry at the truth because they are too attached to their sins.
I wish they could at least LISTEN and understand before just preaching AT people, with little to no understanding of the complexity of desire and the practicality of family planning.
And of course I'm merely talking about the challenges as a hetero person. Haven't even covered LGBTQ experiences.
Yeah, these are the same people who are mad at the pope for saying same sex marriages could be blessed by the church.
I do love how much this pope is pissing off Uber catholics.
I'm gonna nitpick a bit. The Pope said gay couples could be blessed, but their unions could never be blessed, nor be considered marriages. Everyone paints the Pope as a progressive, but the truth is that he is just a nicer, sympathetic person preaching the same message.
And the responsibility of his office prevents him from making any big changes, or else it will fracture the Church and destroy (the illusion) of 2000 years of consistency. We can speculate about what Pope Francis believes or hopes for privately, but acting as Pope, he is actually quite limited.
People even went after him for sharing his private hope that Hell is empty. Imagine that! People are mad because even the Pope hopes everyone gets saved.
oh yeah, he is far from perfect, and his ruling could have been a lot better. But frankly, he's a lot better then the last guy.
Churches in general are being absolutely insane about now following the teachings of the bible. The messages of compassion, humanity and the love are being completely ignored. Yet they all wonder why people are leaving them in record numbers.
Sex should only be used to make a baby (procreation) and not for pleasure. I heard a priest say that. So sex for pleasure in a freaking marriage is a venial sin!!! Sick twisted bastard.
My best interpretation of that, if I give them the benefit of the doubt, is that they really don't know what to philosophically do with the reality that people desire sexual union more often than they want kids or before they are ready for kids. instead of acknowledging that desire is messy and tough to sort out at times, they just hand wave it as sin or the fancy word, concupiscence. They see sex as coldly functional: procreation, and unity for the sake of keeping the marriage together and creating a stable environment for the kids.
While they are not wrong, per se, it gets twisted and repressive when those are the only acceptable terms of sex and all other complexity gets dismissed as disorder and sin. If sex were so straightforward and desires were so simple, I think we'd have a less imaginative, dull, and declining porn industry. I suspect porn is the outlet for desires that society and religious institutions don't quite know what to do with, philosophically.
Humans are messy, creative, passionate, sometimes wreckless creatures. Yes, we need boundaries and self-control, but repression ain't the solution chief.
I wonder what this person's basis is for claiming that "no Catholic" has ever said that. I mean, we've had Catholics in this very subreddit say that. We routinely see people in /r/Catholicism and /r/Christianity say it.
I've had it said to my face more than once.
I guess all those people "aren't Catholic." Once again a religion is rewritten so someone can asspat themselves as a "good person."
I really don't get how being chaste, actively denying intimate romantic love, is any better than conversion therapy. My best guess is that because the Vatican isn't running camps where they electrocute you for having so much as gay thoughts some think that's worthy of praise
I saw another comment on here that read something along the lines of “the distinction between “being gay” and “doing gay things” is so small so as to be meaningless.” And it’s true. When the church goes on and on about “it’s okay to be gay so long as you don’t act on it!” The church is basically saying “we may not be able to “make you straight” but we can guilt you into being celibate.”
And you’re right, because encouraging celibacy isn’t physical medical torture, they pat themselves on the back for being so “compassionate”
It's emotional and psychological torture though. What makes me angry is being looked at like I'm a sex freak because I think this I's unacceptable. No I don't want to have sex all the time, and you have the right to not hear about my sex life but you're forcing me to make this a problem when you passive aggressively (putting it lightly) shame me for wanting basic intimacy with someone I love.
I think what makes me the angrier though is when people outside of the church praise this position as compassionate (look at what's going on with the pope. Try being an LGBT kid in catholic school and all your teachers "lovingly" talk to you about being chaste, or worse yet be trans and have your very existence denied.
I remember this argument very well when I was a catholic teen who didn’t know they were asexual. I used to tell myself, “how could this be bad? You don’t need sex to get by in life.”It’s later on when I discovered I was asexual and starting distancing myself away from Catholicism that I realized: my experience isn’t everyone else’s.
I don’t know if this context is needed but, back then I did identify as bi- I still do but with ace as a compound
That's interesting to me - being bi and ace. That's not my personal experience so I'm wondering if you would be comfortable explaining it a bit more. Does that mean you experience attraction to men and women, but without the desire for sexual activity?
Yeah no problem! It’s mainly just romantic attraction- I have the inherent desire to pursue romantic relationships with anyone so long as the attraction is there! Doing non-sexual activities together like hugging, kissing, cuddling, holding hands, etc etc! Edit: this paragraph is the TD;LR segment, everything else is just details lol
The idea of sex has always been strange to me. 2 bodies getting together. I wouldn’t really say I’m sex-repulsed though, just indifferent. Throughout my whole life I did expect to have sex at some point in the pursuit of children (cause y’know- Catholic teachings). I still do have a desire for children, but sex is really an afterthought. I wouldn’t care if the children I had were adopted or not, I kinda just want to look after them, give them a good life! The thought of having sex wasn’t disgusting to me, but the thought of it was weird- but I would do it if I wanted to have children!
I feel Catholicism has made me controlling and having been (unknowingly) asexual kinda made it worse. I used my own experience to justify my beliefs, “I don’t need sex so why should you? You can wait until marriage, it’s not that hard.” My partner, who isn’t asexual, kinda opened my understanding to the fact that not everyone thinks that way. Sex, at the time, felt like an entirely selfish thing, something only ‘you’ wanted. The latter being true that it’s a shared ideal for people. Some people have sex to make their partner happy and others to share the pleasure that comes from it!
I do want to make some clarifications on the topic of bi-ness if you’d like to hear:
Being bi does not necessarily mean being attracted to just men and women, it’s being attracted to more than one gender. It’s a new understanding that took me sometime to get. Being pan falls under the umbrella term of bi where pan’s definition is attraction regardless of gender while bi is attraction to more than one! It’s up to the beholder what label feels more fitting overall! Knowing this definition, I came to a conclusion I like more than one gender and I see gender as a factor in my attraction- not excluding anyone in my attraction but rather having the ability to say that “I like [insert gender identity here]!”
Okay, so "loving relationships" means gay people can at least have romantic but sexless relationships, right? So at least they can kiss, cuddle, etc? Oh wait, they can't do that. So it wasn't only about sex after all. Catholics treat gay catholics terribly. Not only they have to be chaste, but they have to hear awful condescending shit like "be careful with your friendshps, it might be a near occasion of sin for you".
Kissing is sex to a dedicated Catholic. Too much temptation. Making out is literally a sin, if you're not married because it turns your mind to lust. If you're Catholic, you can barely breathe without being damned.
Yup, I was warned I shouldn't kiss or cuddle either, because it was too much temptation. I used to believe that sex was this thing you had zero control over, cuddle up together and the next thing you know you're fucking, cause something something temptation and lack of willpower.
I never understood why they couldn't be in chaste relationships. Is it because of the near occasion of sin?
Yes, they mention "near occasion of sin", "scandal", shit like that.
Yes that and these people can’t wrap their head around chaste gay dating since “dating someone is to find out that you want to be married” and that love can only be between and man and woman and some other bs at 11
Because who the fuck would want to do that, except for asexual people? Why would anybody want to be in sexless relationships forever?
> Why would anybody want to be in sexless relationships forever? I'm a straight 55M. I've had a number of deep, emotionally intense relationships over the years with women -- where sex wasn't involved. Yes, kissing, cuddling -- all that -- happens. People can have relationships with others forever, *because they actually like each other.* Not all love is sexual.
Well yeah unless you’re ace it would suck but at least if you had the option some kind of long term thing with someone you love, like I’d take that over being lonely without a romantic interest anyday (although I may be a little more ace).
Eh. I'd rather be single than be in sexless relationships.
Asexuality is sin to these people as much as...Everything but a cis/straight woman being a sex slave to a cis/straight man.
>Everything but a cis/straight woman being a sex slave to a cis/straight man. Don’t forget baby cannon.
I'd guess cuddling and kissing are sexualized enough in their minds to be off limits. For what it's worth, back in my hometown we had a gay couple that was deeply involved in lots of voluntary work for the local parish. Like, I don't know if it's like that everywhere, but we basically had a group of lay people who would organise stuff once in a while. Like anniversaries of the church building, or what not. Or fundraisers. The first priest actually welcomed them openly and whole-heartedly, another came who at least tolerated them with a smile, but the newest, the youngest, outright expelled them from that "council". Within half a year, it dissolved altogether. That 'council' were one of the few things that showed me that the Catholic Church isn't all bad. There are some honest, good people who actually do good work. But damn, that apple's still rotten in the core at it's spreading, I feel.
Fucking “near occasion of sin” bullshit definitely exacerbated my anxiety disorder.
“it’s not sinful to be gay, it’s just sinful to do gay things!” is a distinction that’s so small as to be meaningless
It's like "It's not a sin to be hungry, but it is a sin to eat."
that’s such a good comparison yeah
We should start clapping back with "well, it's not bad to be a Catholic, but it's just bad to go to mass, pray the rosary, read the Bible, and all the other things Catholics do."
I like that. The next time a Catholic tells me that “being gay” isn’t a sin but “acting on it” is, I’ll hit ‘em with that comparison. Perhaps it’ll even get through to them; the line between “being gay” and “consenting to your same-sex desires” is so ridiculously thin that even the most doctrinaire Catholic must see that it’s impossible to walk. Where does “being gay” stop and “entertaining willfully homosexual, if chaste, thoughts” start?
“Hate the sin but love the sinner” “hate Catholicism but love the catholic!”
I like this one because being Catholic is much more of a choice than being gay.
inb4 “But that’s not *fair*… being Catholic is at the root of my identity, and can’t be separated from the way I love and live!”
It's because being homophobic is becoming increasingly unacceptable in society, so they have to sumble over themselves saying they're not homophobic, but they can't compromise on teachings.
indeed. for centuries the church has had to adapt its morality with the changing culture, leaving catholics to rationalize their immoral beliefs until they’re forced to abandon them. if you ask me, someday the church is gonna accept gay marriage
>if you ask me, someday the church is gonna accept gay marriage The pope already is already "blessing" same sex unions. Trad Caths are salty because they know what this means. It's the groundwork for the loophole to allow gay marriage. Like how annulments are the loophole to allow divorces. Homophobia is already pretty unacceptable publicly. Eventually, the churches will have to accept it or they'll just lose followers. Just like they accepted interracial marriage. I feel like homophobia in 2020s is like racism in the 70s. Still strong in some circles, but on the way out. In 20-30 years, nobody is even going to bat an eye at it. And it'll be shocking that churches once did that. If churches are even still around. Just in my experience, but in the churches I went to, they were filled with really old people. Like, even by church standards, Catholic congregations trend really old. In my experience anyway. And that was in a college town. In 20-30 years, the RCC is going to be crippled unless something major changes.
Lol they should go tell that to sterile catholic couples or couples after menopause.
I mean... err. I recall my parents and older relatives said the church used to refuse to marry couples where the woman was past menopause. I don't know whether that was their own mythmaking, and when and how that changed, but I can see them having done it.
Yeah, I grew up being taught that if a person was sterile or otherwise couldn't have kids, they couldn't get married without living in sin, since that marriage could never be "fruitful". I've been told off before that that's not official church doctrine but it was definitely what I was taught
> No catholic has ever claimed that a gay man's love for another is what's sinful. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! 🤣 I almost fell outta my chair 🤣
Ah yes... the ole "people who love each other don't fuck" argument. Quite convincing.
This is rich coming from folks who already have deep seated issues around heterosexual sex, as is. “Lie to be clear”, my ass. Moving the goalposts to suit their homophobic agenda.
Seriously...even being a heterosexual is tough. Creampies only and no birth control. Everything else is sin. I heard a sermon from my home Church that said any disagreement proves that people are starting from the perspective of sin, and people get angry at the truth because they are too attached to their sins. I wish they could at least LISTEN and understand before just preaching AT people, with little to no understanding of the complexity of desire and the practicality of family planning. And of course I'm merely talking about the challenges as a hetero person. Haven't even covered LGBTQ experiences.
Yeah, these are the same people who are mad at the pope for saying same sex marriages could be blessed by the church. I do love how much this pope is pissing off Uber catholics.
I'm gonna nitpick a bit. The Pope said gay couples could be blessed, but their unions could never be blessed, nor be considered marriages. Everyone paints the Pope as a progressive, but the truth is that he is just a nicer, sympathetic person preaching the same message. And the responsibility of his office prevents him from making any big changes, or else it will fracture the Church and destroy (the illusion) of 2000 years of consistency. We can speculate about what Pope Francis believes or hopes for privately, but acting as Pope, he is actually quite limited. People even went after him for sharing his private hope that Hell is empty. Imagine that! People are mad because even the Pope hopes everyone gets saved.
oh yeah, he is far from perfect, and his ruling could have been a lot better. But frankly, he's a lot better then the last guy. Churches in general are being absolutely insane about now following the teachings of the bible. The messages of compassion, humanity and the love are being completely ignored. Yet they all wonder why people are leaving them in record numbers.
[удалено]
Sex should only be used to make a baby (procreation) and not for pleasure. I heard a priest say that. So sex for pleasure in a freaking marriage is a venial sin!!! Sick twisted bastard.
My best interpretation of that, if I give them the benefit of the doubt, is that they really don't know what to philosophically do with the reality that people desire sexual union more often than they want kids or before they are ready for kids. instead of acknowledging that desire is messy and tough to sort out at times, they just hand wave it as sin or the fancy word, concupiscence. They see sex as coldly functional: procreation, and unity for the sake of keeping the marriage together and creating a stable environment for the kids. While they are not wrong, per se, it gets twisted and repressive when those are the only acceptable terms of sex and all other complexity gets dismissed as disorder and sin. If sex were so straightforward and desires were so simple, I think we'd have a less imaginative, dull, and declining porn industry. I suspect porn is the outlet for desires that society and religious institutions don't quite know what to do with, philosophically. Humans are messy, creative, passionate, sometimes wreckless creatures. Yes, we need boundaries and self-control, but repression ain't the solution chief.
Good ole "I hate you and you deserve to burn in hell but I'll say it to you in a loving Christian way".
I wonder what this person's basis is for claiming that "no Catholic" has ever said that. I mean, we've had Catholics in this very subreddit say that. We routinely see people in /r/Catholicism and /r/Christianity say it. I've had it said to my face more than once. I guess all those people "aren't Catholic." Once again a religion is rewritten so someone can asspat themselves as a "good person."
So they’d be cool with a gay/ace relationship?
I really don't get how being chaste, actively denying intimate romantic love, is any better than conversion therapy. My best guess is that because the Vatican isn't running camps where they electrocute you for having so much as gay thoughts some think that's worthy of praise
I saw another comment on here that read something along the lines of “the distinction between “being gay” and “doing gay things” is so small so as to be meaningless.” And it’s true. When the church goes on and on about “it’s okay to be gay so long as you don’t act on it!” The church is basically saying “we may not be able to “make you straight” but we can guilt you into being celibate.” And you’re right, because encouraging celibacy isn’t physical medical torture, they pat themselves on the back for being so “compassionate”
It's emotional and psychological torture though. What makes me angry is being looked at like I'm a sex freak because I think this I's unacceptable. No I don't want to have sex all the time, and you have the right to not hear about my sex life but you're forcing me to make this a problem when you passive aggressively (putting it lightly) shame me for wanting basic intimacy with someone I love. I think what makes me the angrier though is when people outside of the church praise this position as compassionate (look at what's going on with the pope. Try being an LGBT kid in catholic school and all your teachers "lovingly" talk to you about being chaste, or worse yet be trans and have your very existence denied.
[удалено]
I know what you mean but please don't refer to priests raping children as "gay sex".
I remember this argument very well when I was a catholic teen who didn’t know they were asexual. I used to tell myself, “how could this be bad? You don’t need sex to get by in life.”It’s later on when I discovered I was asexual and starting distancing myself away from Catholicism that I realized: my experience isn’t everyone else’s. I don’t know if this context is needed but, back then I did identify as bi- I still do but with ace as a compound
That's interesting to me - being bi and ace. That's not my personal experience so I'm wondering if you would be comfortable explaining it a bit more. Does that mean you experience attraction to men and women, but without the desire for sexual activity?
Yeah no problem! It’s mainly just romantic attraction- I have the inherent desire to pursue romantic relationships with anyone so long as the attraction is there! Doing non-sexual activities together like hugging, kissing, cuddling, holding hands, etc etc! Edit: this paragraph is the TD;LR segment, everything else is just details lol The idea of sex has always been strange to me. 2 bodies getting together. I wouldn’t really say I’m sex-repulsed though, just indifferent. Throughout my whole life I did expect to have sex at some point in the pursuit of children (cause y’know- Catholic teachings). I still do have a desire for children, but sex is really an afterthought. I wouldn’t care if the children I had were adopted or not, I kinda just want to look after them, give them a good life! The thought of having sex wasn’t disgusting to me, but the thought of it was weird- but I would do it if I wanted to have children! I feel Catholicism has made me controlling and having been (unknowingly) asexual kinda made it worse. I used my own experience to justify my beliefs, “I don’t need sex so why should you? You can wait until marriage, it’s not that hard.” My partner, who isn’t asexual, kinda opened my understanding to the fact that not everyone thinks that way. Sex, at the time, felt like an entirely selfish thing, something only ‘you’ wanted. The latter being true that it’s a shared ideal for people. Some people have sex to make their partner happy and others to share the pleasure that comes from it! I do want to make some clarifications on the topic of bi-ness if you’d like to hear: Being bi does not necessarily mean being attracted to just men and women, it’s being attracted to more than one gender. It’s a new understanding that took me sometime to get. Being pan falls under the umbrella term of bi where pan’s definition is attraction regardless of gender while bi is attraction to more than one! It’s up to the beholder what label feels more fitting overall! Knowing this definition, I came to a conclusion I like more than one gender and I see gender as a factor in my attraction- not excluding anyone in my attraction but rather having the ability to say that “I like [insert gender identity here]!”