Friendships, Love, and Partnerships

The Catholic Church has an extensive set of teachings about love, and marriage, and sexuality. These teachings are quite articulate. But again, they are vast because they are “extensive.” So, the summaries and impressions often shared about these teachings can easily go astray from what are our religious beliefs, or moral principles, really are in actuality.

For example, one very false impression would be this statement on the idea of attraction: “if you’re gay or lesbian the Church says your emotional attractions are disordered, but if you’re straight then Church says your emotional attractions are just fine.” You may freely substitute the word “sexual” or “romantic” in the place of emotional if you want. It doesn’t matter. This particular “summary” is at best a misleading oversimplification. At worst, it is a denial of the actual Christian belief in Original Sin.

Looking at the full array of Christian beliefs, the entire span of our life needs to be a training in emotional and relational virtues. In reality, every aspect of our mind and heart has been “messed up” by original sin. Yes, it is technically true that people with homosexual inclinations (technically called “same sex attractions”) have aspects of their emotional attractions that are disordered in certain ways. But so do those people with so-called “normal” heterosexual inclinations. Original Sin has infected all that should be normal.

Regarding so-called “straight” or so-called “gay” people, someone in either category will be tempted to prioritize emotional highs and lows over a prudent discernment about what is good for each healthy kind of human relationship. People in both categories will be tempted to seek personal pleasure in a way that selfishly drains the moral character of their own good will.

One last time, I state the belief that these pitfalls are due to original sin and are common to everyone to one degree or another, whether they feel attractions which are emotionally or sexually oriented in a same-sex direction or an opposite-sex direction.

Friendships and Love

Here I wish to use the theme of friendship to help make better sense of the Catholic Church’s stance on sexual attraction and relationships. Let me start with a classic definition of love, affirming that it is an appropriate definition to use for the friendships that enrich our lives. To love generally means “to will the good of the other person.” If I love someone, I want what is good for them regardless of whether I can get something from them.

Some who call themselves friends fill their so-called “friendships” with selfish interests. A predominance of self-interest is like the opposite of love, and it undermines true friendship. Other friends really do want what is best for each other and a kind of “godly” reverence is given to the friend, due to the history of their friendship, independent of any self-serving good things that might come from the friendship in the future.

In friendships the elements that strengthen the friendship may have many characteristics: shared experiences, shared interests, emotional support, affirmation of good qualities, appreciation of good works, appreciation of the time and presence of the friend, and to say the least, common values and common positive qualities. Here is precisely where we can start a consideration of the more distinct kinds of relationships that could be called “romantic.” With another oversimplification, our culture might call this “sexual attraction according to ones so-called orientation.” Among the characteristics of friendship listed above, sadly only a few are carried over into this realm. And on top of that, often a selfish element is encouraged in “romantic” relationships, with a kind of fake love which really judges the experience of the relationship on the satisfaction of one’s personal inclinations.

Our personal desires and inclinations can never be the essential elements to judge relationships. Personal desires and inclinations need to be distinguished carefully from the emotional support which is part of real friendships. The same emotional support should – yes it should – be part of romantic relationships. But it is different than the unqualified satisfaction of self-interested desires. The best I can say is that the positive emotions and experiences in a healthy relationship must be considered as good and appreciated but not “required” at all times to keep one’s path in life. The mindset that the positive emotions are not the real criteria for good friendship actually brings about greater emotional support and not lesser. 

Sometimes the right path, for friendship or for romance, cuts against out own emotions in a negative way, and the virtues of resilience and humility are needed to grow in a positive direction. Yes, we tend to feel good when connected to a friend or a romantic partner. This positive emotion is good under certain circumstances; the circumstances must be discerned. A pattern of needing the support of such good feelings cannot develop in the long run.

As best as I could describe it this should be thought of with a kind of religious faith. Take this perspective, “when I feel supported in life by this relationship, then that is a gift from God for this particular time. The feeling might not always come but I will support my friend even if for a time I don’t feel supported.” Here we recall the definition of love generally stated we need to think “what is truly good for my friend and for me?” not “what makes me happiest at this moment?”

If love is the basis for both friendship and for romantic relationships, then something more than feelings is needed to stay on the right track. “To will the good of the other person” requires both thoughtfulness, and virtuous discipline to practice consistently.

Marriage as a Partnership

Since we have opened up the discussion to romantic relationships, and talked about real love, we can try to describe the Catholic beliefs about marriage as a permanent partnership. The only kind of permanent partnerships that the Catholic Church approves really turn out to be the religious kind. The Church is pretty “hard core” when it comes to making permanent partnerships in life. I don’t think it’s misleading to say that, as far as a summary statement can go.

Marriage is a permanent partnership. But it is not just a permanent partnership. It is one that (to be “sacramental” for Catholics) absolutely must have the religious view about having children. The ability to engage in “that-kind-of-sex-which-makes-babies” is something that needs to be practiced with a religious attitude: “we will welcome the permanent commitment of raising a child/children if that is God’s will.” Couples are literally asked about this when they seek to get their Catholic wedding “booked” at a Catholic Church.

Next I should reinforce this religious view of marriage in terms of the sexual commandments. The Catholic Church still holds the rule that only married persons can morally engage in sex, and further that is has to be “that-kind-of-sex-which-makes-babies.” As I just said above, it is a kind of religious view that says couples should generally see getting pregnant as a good thing, and they should try for this at least once or twice as a minimum in the married life.

I need to add this note about marriage when seen as “heterosexual and religious” at the same time. Many people today have settled on an idea of heterosexual marriage that is not really religious, but is really overly-romantic as a substitute for religion. They worship their partner, or at least they place their romantic relationship in a place higher than God, as if the romance is the most fulfilling thing in life. They only think of children as a personal preference “if it pleases us we will think about.” Thus they don’t really think, “does God want to use our relationship to give the gift of a child as a permanent member of this family?” The Church does not really approve of this idea of marriage as exclusively “romantic.” In general, the Church only supports the religious view, where romance has a part to play, but it is underneath God and it obeys God’s rules. More specifically the saints speak in strong words about this, “keeping God first” even in a deeply committed, intimate marriage. Married saints and non-married saints agree.

Given all this I will reinforce more explicitly one of our controversial distinctions in the Catholic faith. There are kinds of religious partnerships formed on the basis of holy, chaste, same-sex friendships, but not on the basis of a sexual or romantic same-sex relationship. Religious values shared between two men, or between two women, could bring about a religious partnership. Public vows or private vows could make that partnership permanent. But this is a scenario right from the beginning which has ruled out romantic attraction.

There really have been religious communities formed that two people who felt so closely bound together in the path that God had set out for them, that they permanently committed to a joint mission in life. Only a few are known popularly – Benedict and Scholastica, Francis and Claire, Ignatius and Francis Xavier -but their religious vows coincided with deep friendships. This is analogous to marriage in its permanence. It is not like marriage in a domestic way. It could be like marriage in wanting the community to grow through recruitment (as opposed to sexual multiplication). But again, this is a partial apology. The element of sexuality is reserved exclusively for the commitment of marriage (in the way described above).

In the end the Church keeps these two kinds of vows completely separate. There are either the sexually-oriented permanent vows of husband and wife (which have children and family in view), or there are vows of permanent religious commitment to the exclusion of sexual or romantic activity (this forms a community that grows only by “imitation” of those vows made by more and more people). That’s why I say the Church is “hard core.” The rules on both of the possibilities for these life-long vows are pretty comprehensive, and have remained quite strong for centuries and centuries.

Conclusion

An appropriate conclusion here might be stressing there is a positive element along with the negative in the idea of “searching” for relationships in life. The negative is obvious. We lack and we need. Yet this thing we all experience – a need to search – indicates hope and possibility, by definition; otherwise there would be no searching, only despair. As much as I have made references to my own Catholic faith, I merely hope the reference is appreciated when I say I believe that God is “looking” to bring something good to us, in all these aspects of life, friendships, love and partnerships. I just don’t know who else is in the position to think that way, by faith.

So, my final word here: If a person doesn’t completely agree with the Catholic Church in the rules for the possibilities of partnerships, then going back to the general definition of love, and the theme of friendship, might be one way of finding what God is “looking” to do in this whole mess we call human life.

May God bless you!