This is a burning question of mine, which would lead to a heated debate. Please, only charitable comments.
Do you mean homosexual? I would suggest there are millions of homosexuals in the Church. Homosexuality in and of its self is not sinful. The unnatural acts (that goes for heterosexual couples too) associated with it can be sinful.
How would the church " supervise" two people attracted to each other living together?
Do you mean live together? I see nothing wrong with it, as long as they do not “mock the marriage bed” (have sex, etc). However, it could be a near occasion of sin for the two of them, so it could be a problem in that respect
Two people with explicit same sex attraction living together could pose major scandal even if they are not committing the sin of same sex acts. And as Bob said above, it would be an occasion of sin.
The same could be said for people committing adultery.
I find it interesting that many people choose to focus on this sin (the actual act) and it being “in” the church when in reality it is no worse than adultery, idolatry, stealing, drunkenness, and all the others mentioned in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.
Why must we focus on it and not just say “go and sin no more”? I think it would be much more beneficial to focus on the other sins committed and try to eradicate them from our society as I think Satan has tricked us into focusing on this and accepting the others…
What does living under the supervision of the church entail?
Homosexuals person should live celibate lives (i.e. as single people), and as lay people. Apart from refraining from sodomy, etc,. they need to try to repress tendencies to ‘gay culture’, which is wholly antithetical to God’s plan. ‘Gay culture’ includes the kind of ‘cosmopolitan Epicurianism’ which seems to flourish amongst homosexuals, talking and acting in an effeminate way, etc.,etc.
In other words, they need to be celibate, and also not to ‘act gay’. If they can get these things under control, they are welcome in the Church (but not to the priesthood or religious life).
This latter point is largely to do with celibacy. A normal man, in accepting celibacy, is actually sacrificing a good (i.e. normal marital relationships). Whereas a homosexual, in embracing celibacy, is refraining from an abomination. Therefore, the two are not comparable disciplines. One is a holy sacrifice- the other is simply accepting necessity in order to avoid damnation.
I hope this helps.
P. S. the fact that no one has attempted to answer that reinforces what I was already thinking: namely that the idea of " living under the supervision of the church" only comes up on internet discussion forums. It’s hard to imagine someone proposing it IRL or taking it seriously if someone else said it.
Okay, I could perhaps see the priest or whoever the supervisor is saying “You’re curfew is 8:00” but is a priest going to follow someone around to make sure he doesn’t act gay? :hmmm:
Wait, why couldn’t a man who experiences SSA but refrains from acting on it and commits to lifelong celibacy be a priest?
I don’t have any hard evidence of this, obviously, but I’d bet my left arm that there are tens of thousands of good priests who experience SSA.
I don’t have anything against your question, but to me the bigger question is: Do gay people feel like they need to be in the priesthood or religious life in order to be good Catholics?
I think that stems from the Church following society’s lead in its efforts. There is no major movement afoot to justify and legitimize theft, adultery, stealing, or idolatry.
However, you cannot turn around with being hit with propaganda legitimizing homosexual relations and transgender issues. Thus, the emphasis is not brought by us, but by those opposed to the Church’s teachings.
I don’t know, I’m not gay. But my first thought is that there isn’t some kind of gay hivemind: they’re not the Borg. I expect there are many reasons a gay man might enter the priesthood (hopefully the most common one being that he genuinely has a vocation that has nothing to do with his sexuality.)