Being gay is in your genes

[gilliam]

I’m kind of confused.

The Church claims that its Catechism “opposed Catholic teachings?” That makes me more uncomfortable than anything I’ve ever read about the Church. There has to be something deeper I’m not getting. I thought the Catechism only included infallible language from the Church? Is it not? If not, does this mean we have to actually research all ex cathedra statements ourselves to find out what has and hasn’t been declaratively said as part of Tradition? You can see why this is upsetting to see for the Church. I won’t let it shake my faith in the Church, but how could its Catechism, even a fallible one, OPPOSE Catholic teachings?

III. The Aim and Intended Readership of this Catechism

11 This catechism aims at presenting an organic synthesis of the essential and fundamental contents of Catholic doctrine, as regards both faith and morals, in the light of the Second Vatican Council and the whole of the Church’s Tradition. Its principal sources are the Sacred Scriptures, the Fathers of the Church, the liturgy, and the Church’s Magisterium. It is intended to serve “as a point of reference for the catechisms or compendia that are composed in the various countries.”

12 This work is intended primarily for those responsible for catechesis: first of all the bishops, as teachers of the faith and pastors of the Church. It is offered to them as an instrument in fulfilling their responsibility of teaching the People of God. Through the bishops, it is addressed to redactors of catechisms, to priests, and to catechists. It will also be useful reading for all other Christian faithful.

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm

If you have a question about what something in the Catechism says, you should ask your local priest. I wouldn’t be guided by what some anonymous person on the Internet says it says, even me

 

[gilliam]

Think about it, when the CC removed the words “They do not choose their condition” it implies that we do choose our condition and since we choose being gay we are intrinsically evil. I am sure the CC has wordsmiths that can layer a few levels of complexity to smooth things over.

The catechism doesn’t say anyone is intrinsically evil. And it definitely doesn’t say that someone who is tempted with homosexual desires is intrinsically evil, with or without that condition being a choice or inbred.

Read the words of what the CCC says, and don’t add more then what is there. The clause that mentions intrinsic talks about acts being intrinsically disordered and is: “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”

Here is the paragraph:

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

 

[SMGS127]

III. The Aim and Intended Readership of this Catechism

11 This catechism aims at presenting an organic synthesis of the essential and fundamental contents of Catholic doctrine, as regards both faith and morals, in the light of the Second Vatican Council and the whole of the Church’s Tradition. Its principal sources are the Sacred Scriptures, the Fathers of the Church, the liturgy, and the Church’s Magisterium. It is intended to serve “as a point of reference for the catechisms or compendia that are composed in the various countries.”

12 This work is intended primarily for those responsible for catechesis: first of all the bishops, as teachers of the faith and pastors of the Church. It is offered to them as an instrument in fulfilling their responsibility of teaching the People of God. Through the bishops, it is addressed to redactors of catechisms, to priests, and to catechists. It will also be useful reading for all other Christian faithful.

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm

If you have a question about what something in the Catechism says, you should ask your local priest. I wouldn’t be guided by what some anonymous person on the Internet says it says, even me

But…the original text was from the Vatican website too. Why would the Vatican change it? It just seems so…political, in a way the Church isn’t. That why it upsets me. I know Christ is real and I know the Church is real. I will never leave the Church. But it makes me upset that the Vatican changes wording with such political reasoning behind it. It reminds me of the “Conservative Bible Project” and similar seriously-concerning politicizing of things that should never be politicized. At the very least, it seems irresponsible to cause such doubt by changing the Catechism this way. Can you imagine if someone in the Vatican decided that they were going to whitewash the word abortion and replace it with “end of a pregnancy” in all documents? There would be RIOTS, even though the position of the Church would be unchanged by such a revision. So why is it okay to make the wording more politically conservative in nature? I’m not happy about this.

We should not, as a Church, be changing language specifically to fit personal beliefs that have nothing to do with doctrine (the origin of homosexuality). It creates doubt where none should exist. Again, I consider it irresponsible. This is why I’m very upset and confused why they would change it at all.

 

[gilliam]

But…the original text was from the Vatican website too. Why would the Vatican change it? It just seems so…political, in a way the Church isn’t. That why it upsets me. I know Christ is real and I know the Church is real. I will never leave the Church. But it makes me upset that the Vatican changes wording with such political reasoning behind it. It reminds me of the “Conservative Bible Project” and similar seriously-concerning politicizing of things that should never be politicized. At the very least, it seems irresponsible to cause such doubt by changing the Catechism this way. Can you imagine if someone in the Vatican decided that they were going to whitewash the word abortion and replace it with “end of a pregnancy” in all documents? There would be RIOTS, even though the position of the Church would be unchanged by such a revision. So why is it okay to make the wording more politically conservative in nature? I’m not happy about this.

We should not, as a Church, be changing language specifically to fit personal beliefs that have nothing to do with doctrine (the origin of homosexuality). It creates doubt where none should exist. Again, I consider it irresponsible. This is why I’m very upset and confused why they would change it at all.

What doubt? The basic teaching has not changed. The Church never really taught that we are born to have homosexual desires, and it certainly wasn’t dogma. Basically, because we don’t know, the science isn’t clear. It isn’t and wasn’t dogma that a person’s sexual desires were inbred or not inbred. Our genetic make up could have an effect on if we are more predisposed to addictions, for example. The science is still out on homosexuality. However that doesn’t make an act that is sinful any less sinful. It really doesn’t make any difference what your genes are; you have free will (that is dogma) and you can either sin or not sin, your choice in the matter (that is also dogma.) Look up what sin is:

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a8.htm

 

[SMGS127]

What doubt? The basic teaching has not changed. The Church never really taught that we are born to have homosexual desires, and it certainly wasn’t dogma. Basically, because we don’t know, the science isn’t clear. It isn’t and wasn’t dogma that a person’s sexual desires were inbred or not inbred. Our genetic make up could have an effect on if we are more predisposed to addictions, for example. The science is still out on homosexuality. However that doesn’t make an act that is sinful any less sinful. It really doesn’t make any difference what your genes are; you have free will (that is dogma) and you can either sin or not sin, your choice in the matter (that is also dogma.) Look up what sin is:

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a8.htm

I know what the Church teaches; I study theology. I’m saying it gives the appearance of change that needs not be there for those who are not fully educated on the faith. As I said, it would be like abortion being whitewashed to “termination of a pregnancy.” While technically true, there would be riots over the politicization of language. It’s very frustrating for me. Any changes the Church does, even purely of language, invites doubt in the larger public. Sure, I’ll always know the Church’s teaching, but will the kid whose mom was an Easter/Christmas Catholic?

 

[gilliam]

I know what the Church teaches; I study theology. I’m saying it gives the appearance of change that needs not be there for those who are not fully educated on the faith. As I said, it would be like abortion being whitewashed to “termination of a pregnancy.” While technically true, there would be riots over the politicization of language. It’s very frustrating for me. Any changes the Church does, even purely of language, invites doubt in the larger public. Sure, I’ll always know the Church’s teaching, but will the kid whose mom was an Easter/Christmas Catholic?

You need to look at catechisms as a teaching tool; like a textbook. They aren’t definitive documents. They refer to those. Textbooks get updated to be able to talk to a new generation. The dogma and doctrine don’t change though. The CCC is primarily intended for Catholic teachers (e.g., priests, bishops, etc.) see my previous quote from the 1st chapter of the CCC. If anyone has questions about the faith they are suppose to go to them for instruction.

 

[SMGS127]

You need to look at catechisms as a teaching tool; like a textbook. They aren’t definitive documents. They refer to those. The CCC is primarily intended for Catholic teachers (e.g., priests, bishops, etc.) see my previous quote from the 1st chapter of the CCC. If anyone has questions about the faith they are suppose to go to them for instruction.

So instead of referring to the Catechism, I should be referring inquisitive minds to specific documents instead?

 

[gilliam]

So instead of referring to the Catechism, I should be referring inquisitive minds to specific documents instead?

I’m not a spiritual director. I like looking at the CCC. But if I really have a question, I ask a priest.

 

[frobert]

The catechism doesn’t say anyone is intrinsically evil. And it definitely doesn’t say that someone who is tempted with homosexual desires is intrinsically evil, with or without that condition being a choice or inbred.

Read the words of what the CCC says, and don’t add more then what is there. The clause that mentions intrinsic talks about acts being intrinsically disordered and is: “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”

Here is the paragraph:

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

I was commenting on what was removed and the reason given. You appear to be indicating it was removed for consolidation rather than of teachings?

What I am getting at is when something was removed that stated a teaching in an understandable and less complex manner, there was no need to add layers of complexity to make a case to get back to something similar to the original and then place it away from the original. I have the feeling I am jumping though hoops. Perhaps SMGS127 is saying the same thing but in a simpler and more understandable way than I am capable.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

I really wish the language would be more specific.

“Condition” – attraction, or engaging in same-sex activity and living in “the lifestyle”?

Yes, people choose to engage in activity. But is the Catholic Church now teaching that one chooses who they’re physically attracted to?

It refers to attraction.

Appears that they changed a teaching once again. It is unintelligible to me how they can change something then change it something else and call it a tune up. I think it had more to do with their de-liberation and re-consevatization.

I think the removed it because it was being treated as a blanket statement.

Think about it, when the CC removed the words “They do not choose their condition” it implies that we do choose our condition and since we choose being gay we are intrinsically evil. I am sure the CC has wordsmiths that can layer a few levels of complexity to smooth things over.

It doesn’t, it more means it is possible that some may choose their condition.

But…the original text was from the Vatican website too. Why would the Vatican change it? It just seems so…political, in a way the Church isn’t. That why it upsets me. I know Christ is real and I know the Church is real. I will never leave the Church. But it makes me upset that the Vatican changes wording with such political reasoning behind it. It reminds me of the “Conservative Bible Project” and similar seriously-concerning politicizing of things that should never be politicized. At the very least, it seems irresponsible to cause such doubt by changing the Catechism this way. Can you imagine if someone in the Vatican decided that they were going to whitewash the word abortion and replace it with “end of a pregnancy” in all documents? There would be RIOTS, even though the position of the Church would be unchanged by such a revision. So why is it okay to make the wording more politically conservative in nature? I’m not happy about this.

We should not, as a Church, be changing language specifically to fit personal beliefs that have nothing to do with doctrine (the origin of homosexuality). It creates doubt where none should exist. Again, I consider it irresponsible. This is why I’m very upset and confused why they would change it at all.

That statement didn’t have any theological backing so it doesn’t represent a change of teaching. The lack doesn’t mean gay people choose it, it means that it isn’t universally without choice, indeed Catolico (sp?) comes to mind as he chose to convince himself he was gay causing him to psychosomatically* experience the attractions.

*I can’t think of a more proper word.

I know what the Church teaches; I study theology. I’m saying it gives the appearance of change that needs not be there for those who are not fully educated on the faith. As I said, it would be like abortion being whitewashed to “termination of a pregnancy.” While technically true, there would be riots over the politicization of language. It’s very frustrating for me. Any changes the Church does, even purely of language, invites doubt in the larger public. Sure, I’ll always know the Church’s teaching, but will the kid whose mom was an Easter/Christmas Catholic?

Would that mother actually be reading the Catechism?

 

[gilliam]

The bottom line is that no matter how the temptations originate, we are accountable for our actions.

 

[Catolico65]

What doubt? The basic teaching has not changed. The Church never really taught that we are born to have homosexual desires, and it certainly wasn’t dogma. Basically, because we don’t know, the science isn’t clear. It isn’t and wasn’t dogma that a person’s sexual desires were inbred or not inbred. Our genetic make up could have an effect on if we are more predisposed to addictions, for example. The science is still out on homosexuality. However that doesn’t make an act that is sinful any less sinful. It really doesn’t make any difference what your genes are; you have free will (that is dogma) and you can either sin or not sin, your choice in the matter (that is also dogma.) Look up what sin is:

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a8.htm

The science really isn’t “still out” on homosexuality but unfortunately it has become such a politically charged topic that good research goes unacknowledged. The fact is a strong secular and liberal faction has infiltrated itself into the science worldwide where anything that goes agaisnt pc issues gets ignored. Case in point, Dr. Whitehead’s longstanding study of homosexuality has all but been ignoired by the major presses because of it’s controversial conclusion, logical and sound as the are. Here is a link to the report.

mygenes.co.nz/

 

[EIF5A]

The bottom line is that no matter how the temptations originate, we are accountable for our actions.

Of course we are accountable for actions. No one is arguing about the acceptability of sin.

But the removal of the sentence makes it appear as though the Church has changed its teaching. It also gives people the wrong impression that people choose their attraction (or “condition” as it is written out).

If something isn’t wrong, why remove it?

If the reason is further explanation or clarification, then more words could have been added for clarity. But it was just removed.

As for the possible reason being that it wasn’t a theological point: How can the body and theology be separated? The body is the physical partner of the soul.

I know the Church isn’t perfect as it’s made up of individuals…but I was always taught that Church teachings are infallible…

This unexplained backtracking is indeed puzzling to say the least…

 

[gilliam]

Your looking at the CCC as a definitive document. It is not a definitive document. It is a text book. It references definitive documents. The doctrine didn’t change. The textbook was clarified. Happens all the time in many different fields. That is why it is important to bounce your ideas off someone who has studied the definitive documents and has authority to be a teacher in the Church on theology and doctrine (like your priest.)

 

[Catolico65]

Regarding the now defunct statement in the Catechism

“They do not choose their homosexual condition.”

people should not be surprised that conservative elements in the Church saw the real danger in statements like this. Unfortunately, many don’t and continue to promote by inference that people are born homosexuality.

However, this is false logic to assume that if people have desires for other people of the same sex even though they may not want them does not mean their actions and behavior could have caused their condition. The Bible clearly teaches us that being turned over to homosexual desires can be a consequence of a proud heart. It is a historical fact that as decadence and arrogance grow in society so too does homosexuality. Greece, Rome and now the West are all perfect examples.

Furthermore, another reason that assuming the fallacy homosexuality is an innate condition because people who have SSA can’t seem to help themselves are the fact that many people have compelling sexual desires for children, animals, dead people and not to mention all types of fetishes. These people do not want their desires either yet they have them.

Also, maybe the greatest danger in continuing to liberally interpret the Catechism and pastoral teaching and “assuming” that the Church could be teaching that homosexuality is innately biological is that this is not logical and is fact has been used to turn millions of people from God either by distorting His Word or a complete disassociation from Him.

Finally, another fallacy are the pastoral “benefits” of teaching that homosexuality is innate to people who suffer from SSA, after all we don’t teach it is not people’s to lust in their heart because God gave them natural desires for the opposite sex.

 

[Catolico65]

Your looking at the CCC as a definitive document. It is not a definitive document. It is a text book. It references definitive documents. The doctrine didn’t change. The textbook was clarified. Happens all the time in many different fields. That is why it is important to bounce your ideas off someone who has studied the definitive documents and has authority to be a teacher in the Church on theology and doctrine (like your priest.)

The fact is, as is clearly evident on many threads here on CAF, that many Catholics have been liberally interpreting the Catechism and pastoral teachings with the purpose of justifying their interpretation that homosexuality is indeed innate and biological.

The consequences of this false interpretation on a personal level can cause a person not to ask to be healed and on a social level many people can be misled to the point that they leave the Church or try to push for homosexuality to be accepted based on the theory that it is innate, as have so many Christian churches recently.

 

[EIF5A]

Your looking at the CCC as a definitive document. It is not a definitive document. It is a text book. It references definitive documents. The doctrine didn’t change. The textbook was clarified. Happens all the time in many different fields. That is why it is important to bounce your ideas off someone who has studied the definitive documents and has authority to be a teacher in the Church on theology and doctrine (like your priest.)

How does removing something constitute clarification? Nothing was expounded upon…just deleted.

So why do many Catholics (even here on CAF) copy and paste the Catechism if it’s “only” a textbook and not definitive? It’s often cited as if it is definitive — the end of a discussion.

 

[gilliam]

How does removing something constitute clarification? Nothing was expounded upon…just deleted.

As was explained before it was misunderstood, so best left out of the revision.

So why do many Catholics (even here on CAF) copy and paste the Catechism if it’s “only” a textbook and not definitive? It’s often cited as if it is definitive — the end of a discussion.

It’s the textbook. People point to textbooks all the time. Especially when the definitive documents are written in technical language the layman probably would not understand. That is one of the reasons we have textbooks.

 

[EIF5A]

As was explained before it was misunderstood, so best left out of the revision.

It’s the textbook. People point to textbooks all the time. Especially when the definitive documents are written in technical language the layman probably would not understand. That is one of the reasons we have textbooks.

If something is misunderstood, the logical thing would be to explain in greater clarity, not remove it entirely and leave people guessing and second-guessing, especially with a controversial subject.

I didn’t know the difference between choosing versus not choosing who you’re attracted to was as complicated as quantum mechanics.

And people throw a conniption over homosexuality being removed from the DSM…which is secular and not even claimed as being infallible.

 

[Ridgerunner]

So instead of referring to the Catechism, I should be referring inquisitive minds to specific documents instead?

I’m not sure I’m addressing the concern here, but perhaps that is what one needs to do.

The catechism is a concise statement of what the Church teaches. But it’s fairly heavily footnoted. If one goes to something footnoted, that thing is footnoted too. On and on. Two thousand years of writings and tradition is a lot of stuff. Even the best of it is. And yes, if a person wants a fuller understanding, the initial references are right there in the footnotes, but it’s a very deep well for most things.

It’s like reading Eliot’s “Waste Land”. If you read the poem by itself, you sort of get it (though a lot of people don’t). Takes maybe ten minutes to read it. If you have a footnoted edition, and read those, it takes longer. If you really look up every reference in it and study those and their backgrounds and context as well, it would take years.

If you read a footnoted edition to the Catechism, there are references, for instance, to St. Thomas Aquinas. If you go to his works, you will find that he’s footnoted too, in that he cites other authoritative persons. If you look up and read all of those, ultimately you’ll become a true Aquinas scholar, but it would take years to do it.

Most of us don’t have years to study something in that kind of depth, so it’s truncated in the Catechism itself so we can at least know what the Church teaches on a basic level.