10 Rules for Talking to Gays

[OraLabora]

Ay, there’s the rub

Many people here seem to believe that “homosexuality” corrupts everything it touches. Tell me this, if homosexuality corrupts everything if I nurse a man back to health because I love him, because I care deeply for him have I done some terrible act that I should hang my head in shame for or have I done an act of love? What are sins? Sins are the corruption of goodness. Why is sexual expression of a man’s love for a man wrong? Because it corrupts agape love, the love like a new snowflake so dazzlingly beautiful and immaculate.

http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/snowcrystals/photos/x031230b033.jpg

I wouldn’t say homosexuality corrupts everything it touches; we are all corrupt in some manner or other, gay or straight. It’s not fair to say that a single weak area destroys the entire person. Sometimes it does (e.g. drug or alcohol addiction), mostly it doesn’t.

I would say though that I have learned over time that love and sexuality are not the same thing, and nor does one imply the other. Often love and lust are confused especially by today’s society that thinks the only outlet for expressing love is through sex.

Learning to detach love from sexuality is not necessarily an easy thing to do, but once learned, love acquires great beauty. It’s especially hard to do when it involves people we are naturally attracted to.

Straight men, honest with themselves, will admit that with respect to women, it’s not easy to acquire this form of detachment. I can imagine for gays, it’s just as tough.

 

[John21652]

What percentage of the population would you say is a homosexual male? 5%? 3%? 1%?

I’m not talking about the percentage, I’m talking about sheer numbers here.

To talk about homosexual sodomy and yet never talk about heterosexual sodomy smells strongly of hypocrisy, sodomy is sodomy.

You didn’t read my post. The thread topic is homosexuality, so why on earth would any of us want to talk about heterosexual sodomy? And, because we stay on topic, you then suggest we are hypocritical. Yeah, right.

Go start a sodomy thread if that’s what you want.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

I wouldn’t say homosexuality corrupts everything it touches; we are all corrupt in some manner or other, gay or straight. It’s not fair to say that a single weak area destroys the entire person. Sometimes it does (e.g. drug or alcohol addiction), mostly it doesn’t.

I would say though that I have learned over time that love and sexuality are not the same thing, and nor does one imply the other. Often love and lust are confused especially by today’s society that thinks the only outlet for expressing love is through sex.

Learning to detach love from sexuality is not necessarily an easy thing to do, but once learned, love acquires great beauty. It’s especially hard to do when it involves people we are naturally attracted to.

Straight men, honest with themselves, will admit that with respect to women, it’s not easy to acquire this form of detachment. I can imagine for gays, it’s just as tough.

And that is what a lot of people don’t get.

That is one of the reasons people no longer have friendships as deep as in the past, can you name any friendships you’ve seen as deep as Naomi and Ruth or Jonathan and David?

And this is what people have lost in the last two hundred years

 

[Kolbe300]

I recently heard a great priest give a homily on how none of us are special. It was fantastic, and I think it’s relevant to our discussion. His point was that there isn’t a human being on the planet that is more special than another. God loves the murderer sitting on death row not an ounce less than he loves me or you. The priest mentioned that 99% of the problems in this world are due to a person or a people believing they are superior to another when, in fact, no one is superior to another. If you stop and think about it, it’s absolutely true. No one is “special.” Not even a little bit. God didn’t love Mother Teresa more than he loves me. She may have loved* Him *more than I do, and she may have showed it better than I do, but the same can’t be said for God. While that can be hard to swallow, it’s even harder to imitate.

I think if we were able to grasp that and to actually believe it, any “chastisement” of ours would be done in a way that draws people in rather than pushes them away. It would have to. Imagine how you would chastise the person who struggles with the exact same sin you do. I think for most of us, that would look different than the chastisement we might offer a person who struggles with something much worse than we do. In reality, though, it really shouldn’t look different. I think we often compare the gravity of the sins of others against our own because sometimes it makes us feel better about ourselves. Anyone can deny this, but they’d be lying. We’ve all done it. I think it’s just a part of our brokenness as human beings.

It’s something I’ve thought about a lot since I heard the homily. Could I sit down with the vilest of sinners and see that person as my equal? Would our encounter be different if I could do that? The answer, I believe, is yes. Peppered throughout this forum is the statement, “we are all sinners.” There’s nothing more true than that. But can we really believe it? Can I see myself as no more special than a murderer? It can be a hard thing to do, but it’s necessary. That murderer and I won’t be judged against each other, we’ll be judged against Jesus Christ. And both of us will fall woefully short. Somehow, God loves both of us the same. Exactly the same. It’s certainly something to think about the next time we wish to correct anyone.

 

[John21652]

I recently heard a great priest give a homily on how none of us are special. It was fantastic, and I think it’s relevant to our discussion. His point was that there isn’t a human being on the planet that is more special than another. God loves the murderer sitting on death row not an ounce less than he loves me or you. The priest mentioned that 99% of the problems in this world are due to a person or a people believing they are superior to another when, in fact, no one is superior to another. If you stop and think about it, it’s absolutely true. No one is “special.” Not even a little bit. God didn’t love Mother Teresa more than he loves me. She may have loved* Him *more than I do, and she may have showed it better than I do, but the same can’t be said for God. While that can be hard to swallow, it’s even harder to imitate.

I think if we were able to grasp that and to actually believe it, any “chastisement” of ours would be done in a way that draws people in rather than pushes them away. It would have to. Imagine how you would chastise the person who struggles with the exact same sin you do. I think for most of us, that would look different than the chastisement we might offer a person who struggles with something much worse than we do. In reality, though, it really shouldn’t look different. I think we often compare the gravity of the sins of others against our own because sometimes it makes us feel better about ourselves. Anyone can deny this, but they’d be lying. We’ve all done it. I think it’s just a part of our brokenness as human beings.

It’s something I’ve thought about a lot since I heard the homily. Could I sit down with the vilest of sinners and see that person as my equal? Would our encounter be different if I could do that? The answer, I believe, is yes. Peppered throughout this forum is the statement, “we are all sinners.” There’s nothing more true than that. But can we really believe it? Can I see myself as no more special than a murderer? It can be a hard thing to do, but it’s necessary. That murderer and I won’t be judged against each other, we’ll be judged against Jesus Christ. And both of us will fall woefully short. Somehow, God loves both of us the same. Exactly the same. It’s certainly something to think about the next time we wish to correct anyone.

My binitial reaction to the homily you tell us about here is “piffle”. Downright utter piffle.

Some people are indeed more “special” that others.Spouses and children, for one. Extended family, for another. God even enjoins us to cleave to those who are special.

The Bible, in 1 Tomothy 5:1-2 even tells us to treat the elderly with special respect. Here’s the full text -

“Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren; The elder women as mothers; the younger as sisters, with all purity.”

That passage speaks of rebuking and of a class of people to whom the rebukes must be softened. It differentiates between people according to their social status. Try 1 Peter 1:5-5 where the young are called to submit to the elders.

That passgae is also telling us that those in positions of authority are also “special” and to be treated with extra respect.

There is only one recorded “philosophy” that has gone around trying to convince people that no-one is special and that is communism. Utilitarianism also only ascribes to people “specialness” according to their utility to society. Sorry, but that’s not Christianity.

What Christianity does tell us is that we are all special in the eyes of God. We are equal in the eyes of God. However, that is a whole lot different to an homily that seeks o lower the human race to a lowest common denominator by attempting to paint us all as something ‘not special’, even in a temporal sense. You are linking this argument to the temporal by using it to suggest we should temper our chastisement of others, because of the ‘brokeness’ of people. Not all people are “broken” and not all people are as bad as other people. That is another common tactic to drag everyone down to a low, common standard. I find that argument an affront to the dignity of man.

I’d suggest that what your priest was referring to was the sin of pride, against which we must all guard ourselves. The ones who must guard against it the most are those who are in special positions, within families, within societies and within, and, I’d suggest, the Church itself. Hubris is the greatest crime against the Christian notion of Charity and it reflects a grave distortion of the sense of self pride. The greatest of men are humble and that makes them even more special.

 

[michelleds]

Another idea brought to mind by the homily Kolbe refers to is that frequently in discussing homosexuality, the charge is made that homosexuality is different from other sins, i.e., special. I’ve seen claims of homosexuality going to the core of one’s being, that denying homosexual actions denies that person’s ability to love and be loved, and more in that same vein. Underlying these arguments is the idea that the person who experiences homosexual inclinations is special in the cross they are asked to bear, so special that it’s just too much to ask.

I read a book by a priest who said that asking people with homosexual inclinations to be chaste was asking too much. That implies, again, that there is something special about someone with homosexual inclinations when compared to a heterosexual. I reject that idea.

I would suggest that whenever we start thinking that we are special, that our sin or cross is special, that we stop and think about that. It’s highly unlikely that it’s true.

The corollary to this is when we demand that someone who is calling us to holiness be special. Oftentimes the charge is leveled that if a person isn’t perfect, he or she can’t talk to someone else about sin. If that were true, no one could talk to anyone else. I will certainly concede that hypocrisy exists. I will also concur with the thought that someone who is going out of their way to call someone else to holiness must surely be “working their program” (to steal some language from the 12-step programs), but it is not necessarily necessary.

God can and does use even the unrepentant to assist His children. Be willing to be used by God AND be willing to listen to God even when He speaks to you from the mouths of hypocrites, babes, and sinners.

 

[melt7355]

Absolutely. This is the whole crux of the matter. We are all sinners. The Bible tells us that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. We have no right sit in judgment of our neighbor when perhaps we have worse sin in our own life. After all, there are ten commendments, not just one or two.

 

[OraLabora]

My binitial reaction to the homily you tell us about here is “piffle”. Downright utter piffle.

Some people are indeed more “special” that others.Spouses and children, for one. Extended family, for another. God even enjoins us to cleave to those who are special.

The Bible, in 1 Tomothy 5:1-2 even tells us to treat the elderly with special respect. Here’s the full text -
That passage speaks of rebuking and of a class of people to whom the rebukes must be softened. It differentiates between people according to their social status. Try 1 Peter 1:5-5 where the young are called to submit to the elders.

That passgae is also telling us that those in positions of authority are also “special” and to be treated with extra respect.

There is only one recorded “philosophy” that has gone around trying to convince people that no-one is special and that is communism. Utilitarianism also only ascribes to people “specialness” according to their utility to society. Sorry, but that’s not Christianity.

What Christianity does tell us is that we are all special in the eyes of God. We are equal in the eyes of God. However, that is a whole lot different to an homily that seeks o lower the human race to a lowest common denominator by attempting to paint us all as something ‘not special’, even in a temporal sense. You are linking this argument to the temporal by using it to suggest we should temper our chastisement of others, because of the ‘brokeness’ of people. Not all people are “broken” and not all people are as bad as other people. That is another common tactic to drag everyone down to a low, common standard. I find that argument an affront to the dignity of man.

I’d suggest that what your priest was referring to was the sin of pride, against which we must all guard ourselves. The ones who must guard against it the most are those who are in special positions, within families, within societies and within, and, I’d suggest, the Church itself. Hubris is the greatest crime against the Christian notion of Charity and it reflects a grave distortion of the sense of self pride. The greatest of men are humble and that makes them even more special.

Actually there is one such philosophy that unlike communism has survived 1500 years in its Benedictine form: monasticism.

 

[Jeremiah1278]

I heard an excellent homily similar to the one mentioned above. It was different in that it didn’t claim that nobody is special. The one I heard described how we are so very similar. And what makes us identical (being God’s beloved creation) outweighs any of our differences. He also drew a nice contrast with worldviews that celebrate differences to the point where folks forget that what is important is our sameness. Differences are great, but what makes us all identical is what we should really be celebrating. I loved that homily.

 

[Kolbe300]

My binitial reaction to the homily you tell us about here is “piffle”. Downright utter piffle.

Why doesn’t that surprise me?

Some people are indeed more “special” that others.Spouses and children, for one. Extended family, for another. God even enjoins us to cleave to those who are special.

Of course there are people in our lives who are more special than others. The key is, they’re more special to us. Not to God. That was the priest’s point. We are all special to God. No one is more special than another.

What Christianity does tell us is that we are all special in the eyes of God. We are equal in the eyes of God.

That is it! You summed up the homily in two sentences. He wasn’t talking about social status, communism, or family hierarchy. We are equal in the eyes of God. Every single one of us. I worded it poorly, which is my bad. He didn’t say we aren’t special, he said we aren’t that special, meaning we aren’t more special to God than anyone else.

However, that is a whole lot different to an homily that seeks o lower the human race to a lowest common denominator by attempting to paint us all as something ‘not special’, even in a temporal sense.

He wasn’t painting us as “not special.” Again, my wording was bad. We are all special to God, equally so. I don’t think it was a lowering of the common demonimator, I think it was a raising of the common denominator because the common denominator is God’s love for each of us.

That is another common tactic to drag everyone down to a low, common standard. I find that argument an affront to the dignity of man.

I would too, if I thought he was speaking about bringing us all down to a low, common standard.

I’d suggest that what your priest was referring to was the sin of pride, against which we must all guard ourselves. The ones who must guard against it the most are those who are in special positions, within families, within societies and within, and, I’d suggest, the Church itself. Hubris is the greatest crime against the Christian notion of Charity and it reflects a grave distortion of the sense of self pride.

I agree. Pondering the way God loves each of us equally is a great way to destroy pride. Pride is pointless in light of God’s love.

The greatest of men are humble and that makes them even more special.

More special to us? Certainly. More special to God? No. It’s something to think about. And I apologize for wording it as if the priest was saying we aren’t special.

Peace!

 

[francisca]

God chose Israel among other nations.

Jesus had “favorite deciples” who are peter, james, and john.

Noah was God’s favorite among all men on earth.

God chose Ishak over Ismael, Sarah over Hagar, David over his brothers.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…What chafes, insofar as anything chafes, is the subtle or subtextual assumption that because I’m a homosexual, I have a very specific subversive agenda and a very specific set of values that is handed to me by my controllers in the vast homosexual lobby/conspiracy …

Just quickly on the part of your post above: the subtextual assumption is not because you are a homosexual who, using your own words in a thread also on homosexuality, is not a ‘card carrying’ member of the homosexual movement and that you do not march in gay pride parades demanding that SSM be legalized in the whole U.S. of A. However, it is clear in your fully articulated views you reached a justification for same sex relations as it applies to you, and is of the belief that there is nothing wrong with it.

This forum is visited by young Catholic males who look to answers on how to make sense of their unwanted same sex attractions. You convey sweetness and light in your posts but at the same time, when it comes to your personal view on the (non)sinfulness of living a homosexual life, regardless if it involves a loving and exclusive same sex relationship, it is against Catholic teaching on homosexuality. Do you see where and when some of us here get a sense of unease especially in threads opened by young same sex attracted Catholics in this forum where you offer advice?

I am not worried about you, because you are enough to worry about you. I worry about others who may pick up affirmation whether it is intentional or not on your part, that, bottom line, homosexuality, if it bears ‘good fruit,’ is okay. It does not and would never bear good fruit.

On this note, I hope CAF members who are quick to dismiss fraternal correction and chastisement as not appropriate in any circumstance in witnessing to gays, also realize that the forum attracts gays who are non-militant but are propagating the concept that homosexual sins are not that serious and dabbling in it now and then could not be harmful. From enough accounts, acting on homosexual urges has a powerful draw, just as fornication and drugs have on addictive type of personalities. There is no way for anyone on the internet to gauge if the sincere seeker for guidance within the Catholic faith is addictive or not. Remember the stated mission of this forum:

Catholic Answers is an apostolate dedicated to serving Christ by bringing the fullness of Catholic truth to the world. We help good Catholics become better Catholics, bring former Catholics “home,” and lead non-Catholics into the fullness of the faith.

 

[Catholicpotato]

Just quickly on the part of your post above: the subtextual assumption is not because you are a homosexual who, using your own words in a thread also on homosexuality, is not a ‘card carrying’ member of the homosexual movement and that you do not march in gay pride parades demanding that SSM be legalized in the whole U.S. of A. However, it is clear in your fully articulated views you reached a justification for same sex relations as it applies to you, and is of the belief that there is nothing wrong with it.

This forum is visited by young Catholic males who look to answers on how to make sense of their unwanted same sex attractions. You convey sweetness and light in your posts but at the same time, when it comes to your personal view on the (non)sinfulness of living a homosexual life, regardless if it involves a loving and exclusive same sex relationship, it is against Catholic teaching on homosexuality. Do you see where and when some of us here get a sense of great unease especially in threads opened by young same sex attracted Catholics in this forum where you offer advice?

I am not worried about you, because you are enough to worry about you. I worry about others who may pick up affirmation whether it is intentional or not on your part, that, bottom line, homosexuality, if it bears ‘good fruit,’ is okay. It does not and would never bear good fruit.

On this note, I hope CAF members who are quick to dismiss fraternal correction and chastisement as not appropriate in any circumstance in witnessing to gays, also realize that the forum attracts gays who are non-militant but are propagating the concept that homosexual sins are not that serious and dabbling in it now and then could not be harmful. From enough accounts, acting on homosexual urges has a powerful draw, just as fornication and drugs have on addictive type of personalities. Remember the stated mission of this forum:

Could not have said it better or more charitable myself. Bravo, friend:thumbsup:!

 

[Hadrianus]

Actually, the subject of the proper use of chastisement goes beyond this thread, and really is
itself a topic.

The chastisiing of sinners depends a great deal upon the station of the persons involved as well as their relationship. It is a prudential matter. The employment of chastisement is one thing when all involved are Christian, quite another when dealing with pagans, and most people today are, practically speaking, pagan.

St Paul in his letters was writing to Christian converts who were behaving badly. When dealing with modern secular people it seems to me that we must first give them an argument for Christianity before simply chastising them for their sins. Others may disagree with this approach; it is after all a prudential matter.

 

[Kolbe300]

This forum is visited by young Catholic males who look to answers on how to make sense of their unwanted same sex attractions…

This was the very reason I joined these forums a number of years ago. The overall tone towards homosexual persons was, and still is, more negative than not. Despite the intentions of many good people here, this isn’t a very welcoming place for those who may be struggling with same sex attractions. It just isn’t. I know not everyone agrees with that, but there are plenty that do. Unfortunately, most of them aren’t here any longer. Personally, I think most of this is because communication through a forum is difficult. It can’t replace one-on-one communication and discussion. A forum style of communication is a disadvantage right from the start, and I don’t think much can be done about that.

I worry about others who may pick up affirmation whether it is intentional or not on your part, that, bottom line, homosexuality, if it bears ‘good fruit,’ is okay. It does not and would never bear good fruit.

I have a similar worry, and it’s one that bugs me like an itch. Intentional or not, I worry that homosexual persons may stumble upon CAF, read one of the countless threads on homosexuality, and walk away feeling not only as if they don’t bear any good fruit, but that they never will.

ISoG, I think there is legitimacy to both of our worries. I don’t know what the answer is. I think maybe a forum just isn’t a good tool for this subject.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Just quickly on the part of your post above: the subtextual assumption is not because you are a homosexual who, using your own words in a thread also on homosexuality, is not a ‘card carrying’ member of the homosexual movement and that you do not march in gay pride parades demanding that SSM be legalized in the whole U.S. of A. However, it is clear in your fully articulated views you reached a justification for same sex relations as it applies to you, and is of the belief that there is nothing wrong with it.

This forum is visited by young Catholic males who look to answers on how to make sense of their unwanted same sex attractions. You convey sweetness and light in your posts but at the same time, when it comes to your personal view on the (non)sinfulness of living a homosexual life, regardless if it involves a loving and exclusive same sex relationship, it is against Catholic teaching on homosexuality. Do you see where and when some of us here get a sense of unease especially in threads opened by young same sex attracted Catholics in this forum where you offer advice?

I am not worried about you, because you are enough to worry about you. I worry about others who may pick up affirmation whether it is intentional or not on your part, that, bottom line, homosexuality, if it bears ‘good fruit,’ is okay. It does not and would never bear good fruit.

On this note, I hope CAF members who are quick to dismiss fraternal correction and chastisement as not appropriate in any circumstance in witnessing to gays, also realize that the forum attracts gays who are non-militant but are propagating the concept that homosexual sins are not that serious and dabbling in it now and then could not be harmful. From enough accounts, acting on homosexual urges has a powerful draw, just as fornication and drugs have on addictive type of personalities. There is no way for anyone on the internet to gauge if the sincere seeker for guidance within the Catholic faith is addictive or not. Remember the stated mission of this forum:

It is possible for a tree to be not corrupt while having a diseased limb. The love itself is at least morally neutral, but expressing it sexually is definitely wrong. That particular limb of course can not bear good fruit, but the tree itself is not prevented from bearing it.

 

[NeedImprovement]

The problem is that the term sodomy only ever comes up when discussing homosexuality despite the fact there are probably more heterosexuals who do it every month than there are homosexuals leading to it smelling like hypocrisy.
And what exactly do lesbians do since that is not sodomy?
“Homosexual lifestyle”? What exactly is the “Homosexual lifestyle”?

Before telling them what they are doing is evil and sick you should explain why what they are doing is evil and sick otherwise you’ll alienate them

Actually several dictionaries provide a more comprehensive definition of sodomy … - so many claims on these threads and so little substantiation .
Google it ! I'm tired of doing homework in response to purported arguments where I provide references:

SODOMY. In general, unnatural sexual relations. The term is derived from the biblical city of Sodom on the Dead Sea, destroyed with the city of Gomorrah because of the wickedness of the people (Genesis 13:10). More particularly, sodomy is homosexuality between male persons or between a human being and an animal. (Etym. French sodomie; from Latin Sodoma, Sodom.)

BTW , regarding this part -

The problem is that the term sodomy only ever comes up when discussing homosexuality despite the fact there are probably more heterosexuals who do it every month than there are homosexuals leading to it smelling like hypocrisy.

• **One cannot say **, " *despite the fact that there are probably more … * "

Either there are more and that is the fact , or there are not more and that is the fact instead. The word* probably *never even enters into it. The way probably has been used in the sentence, it negates the definition of the word fact…… handy.

So if

"more heterosexuals … do it (sodomy) every month than … homosexuals "

is really a fact , then there should obviously be some links available leading to credible scientific evidence to that effect.

May we see the links please ?

This is another prime example of what happens when misleading language is permitted to go unchallenged … all of which proves my earlier point that following rule number 3
The OP:

1. Agree to their terms: Truth is not a language game. If what you’re saying is true, you should be able to express it in any language. Insisting on terms like “homosexual inclination,” “lifestyle,” or “nature” (in the natural law sense) is basically a fancy form of begging the question. It’s good and right in theological documents from the Vatican, for the Bishops, but it is bad practice in practical evangelism. Figure out how to word your argument using their language, or neutral language that is not contested

= EXTREMELY FOOLISH IDEA !

And that Rule number 3 directly interferes with
Modern Catholic Dictionary ; Father John Hardon:

HOMOSEXUALITY. In general, some form of sexual relationship among members of the same sex. From a moral standpoint, three levels are to be distinguished: tendency, attraction, and activity. Homosexual tendencies in any person are within the normal range of human nature, whose fallen condition includes every conceivable kind of impulse that with sincere effort and divine grace can be controlled. Sexual attraction for members of the same sex may be partly due to the peculiar make-up of certain individuals or, more often, the result of indiscretion or seduction and presents a graver problem; yet this, too, is not by itself sinful and may in fact be an occasion for great supernatural merit. When the condition is pathological, it requires therapy. Active homosexuality is morally indefensible and has been many times forbidden in revelation and the teaching of the Church. The most extensive declaration on the subject was by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, approved by Pope Paul VI on November 7, 1975.

…

Father Hardon says we must differentiate between

• a) homosexual tendency
• b) homosexual attraction
• c) Active homosexual lifestyle ,

but rule # 3 answers to a) & b) : not to use terms such as “homosexual inclination” ;
and answers to c) : not to use terms such as “homosexual lifestyle”

Now if these terms had been meant exclusively for the “Vatican and for Bishops” , Father Hardon wouldn’t have deemed it necessary to put them in the Modern Catholic Dictionary so that everyone could understand them.

Clear language expresses clear ideas . Ambiguous language is breeding ground for prevarications, equivocations and their cousin – abstract arguments…

 

[HaveCourage]

Everyone has a lot to say here.
It is easy to see who has been on the inside of this issue, and who has not.
Put opinions aside and stick to the greatest fact: Our faith has been instituted by Christ, who Is God, therefore, our faith can contain no contradiction in teaching.

Everyone knows an emotional person is sold on emotion, and an intellectual person is sold on intellect. There is no “list” that will be perfect for every person. However, the list provided is very good, for the following reason: throughout the list, the person with SSA is never alientated. Remember, chances are they already “feel” alienated as it is. If you alienate, you have someone walk away, and often not come back. And alienation comes when some well-meaning Catholic comes to save the day but has no idea how to handle the situation properly. If you are hard-line? You alienate. If you deliver meaningless “lines”? You alienate. Unless a person is willing to understand the greater issue (including those with SSA), then you will get nowhere.

Think about this statement: “Bill is homosexual because he has homosexual attractions.”

You have two items here: homosexual identity and homosexual attraction. Homosexual identity is a conscientious choice. Homosexual attractions are not a conscientious choice. This one word has two contradictory underlying characteristics. Therefore one word “homosexual” (or “gay”) cannot be used to accurately teach any form of truth on this matter, unless there are clarifiers to describe which meaning of the word “homosexual” (or “gay”) it is.

But when you are talking to a person pastorally, you do not need to ram the truth of this down their throat. It will become clear to them, as you guide them into a relationship with Christ, and explore suffering, purpose, prayer and confession.

Discussion for this is always good, but the surest way to push people away from the church is to smack the gay out of them with fast lines and hard-lined perspectives that do not allow for a person to know that they are being listened to.

I know this sounds rather crass, but again, having been on the inside, I can tell you there are words and actions that turn people off faster than the speed of light - and they all stem back to the faith-guide not meeting the needs of the person who is coming for guidance.

 

[LVCIVS_DEI]

Personally i firmly believe with great fervor that sodomy is rape and not homosexuality.

 

[nickybr38]

Personally i firmly believe with great fervor that sodomy is rape and not homosexuality.

You might want to check the dictionary because I don’t believe it agrees with you.