Being gay is in your genes

[EIF5A]

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.

This is very confusing to me. (Forgetting about the specific subject of biology of physical attraction for now.)

I thought saints are not infallible, but the Church’s declaration and interpretation on matters of faith and morals are infallible. So if we can’t take the Church’s teaching as stated in the Catechism as correct teaching, where are we supposed to go?

Isn’t the Church the final authority if/when she decides to declare something in the Catechism?

Back to the subject at hand: Does the Church teach that physical attraction is one’s willful, deliberate choice or not?

There are two options.

If the teaching itself hasn’t changed, then why was the particular statement removed without clarification, and what/who was the deciding factor that removed it completely?

I honestly do not understand the argument that “It was confusing so we got rid of it.”

There are people who still believe physical attraction (e.g., SSA) is a choice (NOT talking about activity). It wasn’t even saying SSA is completely genetic, caused by God, or anything like that. All it said was SSA is not chosen by those with the condition.

But was that even too “liberal”?

 

[estesbob]

This is very confusing to me. (Forgetting about the specific subject of biology of physical attraction for now.)

I thought saints are not infallible, but the Church’s declaration and interpretation on matters of faith and morals are infallible. So if we can’t take the Church’s teaching as stated in the Catechism as correct teaching, where are we supposed to go?

Isn’t the Church the final authority if/when she decides to declare something in the Catechism?

Back to the subject at hand: Does the Church teach that physical attraction is one’s willful, deliberate choice or not?

There are two options.

If the teaching itself hasn’t changed, then why was the particular statement removed without clarification, and what/who was the deciding factor that removed it completely?

I honestly do not understand the argument that “It was confusing so we got rid of it.”

There are people who still believe physical attraction (e.g., SSA) is a choice (NOT talking about activity). It wasn’t even saying SSA is completely genetic, caused by God, or anything like that. All it said was SSA is not chosen by those with the condition.

But was that even too “liberal”?

The original English version was mistranslated. They caught it. They fixed it. I really don’t see what the problem is ?

 

[Megan7]

With all due respect there is nothing that supports this claim. The fact is for the majority of people SSA is temporary.

The real tragedy is professionals like you and others telling people they were born to have SSA, when there is absolutely no definitive scientific evidence to sustain this theory, on the contrary. Jesus is not impressed that we are convincing people that God created people to sin, not at all.

Nicely said “Catolico65” Thanks & God bless you

 

[Megan7]

Aquinas did some great work on this exact point.

crisismagazine.com/2012/human-nature-and-aquinas-taxonomy-of-sexual-sins

From most serious to least serious:

Bestiality
Sodomy
Unnatural coitus (contraception)
Masturbation
Incest
Rape
Sacrilege (breaking vows of chastity)
Adultery
Seduction
Fornication

Thanks for the link.

 

[EIF5A]

The original English version was mistranslated. They caught it. They fixed it. I really don’t see what the problem is ?

Of course you don’t see the problem. The very fact that SSA may be due to factors outside of one’s control and that SSA is not chosen must be counterproductive to your view of homosexuals as more wicked and vile sinners than the rest.

I find it odd that the Vatican would mistranslate the Catechism on a simple yes/no statement. Did no one go over it in English? Surely, they didn’t just use Google Translate.

Fix. Remove. OK, just sweep it under the rug. Nothing to see here. Move along.

 

[EIF5A]

Nicely said “Catolico65” Thanks & God bless you

Honest question. You seem like a nice person with a good heart.

Do you believe that SSA can be prayed away for most people and that it’s just a phase that people can overcome in time?

 

[Catolico65]

Honest question. You seem like a nice person with a good heart.

Do you believe that SSA can be prayed away for most people and that it’s just a phase that people can overcome in time?

This has turned out to be a good thread because many have learned not to take singular expressions or even pastoral statements out of context, ie we need to understand the history of the Church and also God’s will from the beginning. What is clear is that God has reserved a special anger for homosexuality, among other things. Knowing this we should therefore by logical conclusion assume that God didn’t create people with desires that go completely against His own will but rather He has a solution that works. The truth is His solution has worked for millions but this information is suppressed by the gay lobby and their minions, the press and most governments. Evil is real my friend.

The problem with many people suffering from SSA, and other abnormal sexual desires is not a simple one. With regard to SSA, there are many factors that can hinder a person from truly being healed in a timely fashion some of which are the following:

1. Long term sexual abuse as a child.
2. Long term indifferent treatment of a child by his parents.
3. Societal factors, such as indoctrination and classification based on prejudices.
4. A rebellious heart, for adults.

We know from psychology that the mind of a child is very susceptible to suggestion and this is the mechanism behind factors 1-3. An example is the well documented phenomenon are that the children of alcoholics are much more likely to suffer from poor self esteem and similar condition can create havoc and confusion for a child who gets confused about their sexual identity at an early age.

Regarding #3, since we as a society have mostly accepted homosexuality as normal the obvious consequences are that children are getting classified by others such as peers and even worse adults, such as teachers, long before they are even pubescent, which is not even logical to say the least. In fact it is tragic and the fact that this type of indoctrination, even though well intentioned, is considered even an essential part of sexual education for children as young as 5 years old.

For children who suffer from what have explained it could be very difficult to truly believe God can help them not only because of what happened to them but also due to societies now constant affirmation and support of people suffering from SSA that they do not have an issue. Furthermore, this is even worsened when these people are told that it is a all but a scientific fact that they were born with this condition. In effect, societies erroneous labeling, indoctrination, classification and CONSTANT affirmation stand in the way of people being healed.

Regarding #4, adults who “take a stand” against God either by rejecting Him in whole or in part are susceptible to SSA as this is clearly explained is punishment for an arrogant and rebellious heart. Their solution is of course to submit completely to God instead of only part way.

BTW, I was sexually abused as a child and also was labeled as homosexual when I was in high school and given that my father was an alcoholic I had very low self esteem which only exacerbated my condition. Even though I wasn’t initially attracted to other men I was immensely preoccupied with admiration of what I considered were real men, something I assumed I could never attain. This constant doubt and normal attraction to women caused me to pursue women as objects even though I was raised Catholic. I had a crisis in college were my admiration for “real men” turned into something more, unwanted sexual thoughts and desires. I repented to God and asked for help and He did. I do see that could be infinitely much more difficult nowadays for young men who are never taught as children that homosexual desires are abnormal nor much less overtly effeminate mannerisms. Speaking of overly effeminate mannerisms, I am not speaking about being non assertive, speaking with a soft tone, being overtly shy or non athletic or physical as these are normal traits of many boys and shouldn’t be confused with effeminate traits, yet we as a society are using this to wrongly classify boys.

In summary, societies indoctrination from and early age and constant affirmations are what is making it difficult for people to change, nothing more, after all we are social beings.

 

[estesbob]

Of course you don’t see the problem. The very fact that SSA may be due to factors outside of one’s control and that SSA is not chosen must be counterproductive to your view of homosexuals as more wicked and vile sinners than the rest.

I find it odd that the Vatican would mistranslate the Catechism on a simple yes/no statement. Did no one go over it in English? Surely, they didn’t just use Google Translate.

Fix. Remove. OK, just sweep it under the rug. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Sweep what under the rug? None of the other translations included this wording nor was this the only correction made. There really is nothing to see here.

 

[Midwest88]

I’m not a geneticist or anything like it, but my senses tells me “No. It’s not in ‘your genes.’” Of course, I could be wrong … or I could be right.

 

[Midwest88]

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.

It also can bleed into different parts of their lives. If they’re really “Man is an island” type and practice the “As long as no one gets hurt” train of thought that can lead to many disconnected stances that may lead to chaos and moral ambiguity, which further makes living the Faith more isolated and stigmatized as it is.

 

[randomuser]

Of course you don’t see the problem. The very fact that SSA may be due to factors outside of one’s control and that SSA is not chosen must be counterproductive to your view of homosexuals as more wicked and vile sinners than the rest.

I find it odd that the Vatican would mistranslate the Catechism on a simple yes/no statement. Did no one go over it in English? Surely, they didn’t just use Google Translate.

Fix. Remove. OK, just sweep it under the rug. Nothing to see here. Move along.

SSA is apparently a pastoral term, not a clinic term that can be found in the DSM-IV. Accordingly, because there’s no actual medical diagnosis for “SSA,” yes, I suppose the rationale is that the “SSA” can be prayed away because it’s different than “homosexuality” which can’t be…? Or something like that? Things would so much simpler if we all stuck with the word “homosexuality” instead of trying to waffle around words like “SSA,” and then flip flop back to “Oh, no, I really meant homosexuality,” and then flip-flop back to using “SSA.” It’s gold-medal semantics.

 

[EIF5A]

SSA is apparently a pastoral term, not a clinic term that can be found in the DSM-IV. Accordingly, because there’s no actual medical diagnosis for “SSA,” yes, I suppose the rationale is that the “SSA” can be prayed away because it’s different than “homosexuality” which can’t be…? Or something like that? Things would so much simpler if we all stuck with the word “homosexuality” instead of trying to waffle around words like “SSA,” and then flip flop back to “Oh, no, I really meant homosexuality,” and then flip-flop back to using “SSA.” It’s gold-medal semantics.

I see no reason why the words “gay/bisexual/lesbian” are forbidden in Christianese. It’s a morally neutral term to describe being attracted to the same sex. If one should want to provide more specifics to identity with moral teachings, one can add the word “celibate” or “chaste” to them.

 

[randomuser]

I see no reason why the words “gay/bisexual/lesbian” are forbidden in Christianese. It’s a morally neutral term to describe being attracted to the same sex. If one should want to provide more specifics to identity with moral teachings, one can add the word “celibate” or “chaste” to them.

I agree, and EIF5A’s comment is more in line with the teachings of the Magisterium. I have yet to see “SSA” mentioned in the Catechism. The word used is “homosexuality.”

 

[EIF5A]

I agree, and EIF5A’s comment is more in line with the teachings of the Magisterium. I have yet to see “SSA” mentioned in the Catechism. The word used is “homosexuality.”

The reason I hear most often is that “gay” carries an ideological connotation and that by using that word, one gives the impression of aligning with the gay rights movement.

But most gay people are not involved “identity politics”. The word “gay” is just an adjective used in everyday language.

 

[JamesCaruso]

The reason I hear most often is that “gay” carries an ideological connotation and that by using that word, one gives the impression of aligning with the gay rights movement.

But most gay people are not involved “identity politics”. The word “gay” is just an adjective used in everyday language.

Not just an adjective used in everyday language, but one to which a certain violence has been done, as is going on with another word used in everyday language, a noun, “marriage”. Soon we will have to use other or additional words to describe what once required but a single word-- Holy Matrimony; marriage, the sacrament; heterosexual marriage; marriage between a man and a woman; traditional marriage, and so forth. Sorry, I couldn’t resist.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Not just an adjective used in everyday language, but one to which a certain violence has been done, as is going on with another word used in everyday language, a noun, “marriage”. Soon we will have to use other or additional words to describe what once required but a single word-- Holy Matrimony; marriage, the sacrament; heterosexual marriage; marriage between a man and a woman; traditional marriage, and so forth. Sorry, I couldn’t resist.

Once upon a time marriage referred to more things than just a man and a woman uniting together, as did wed/wedding/wedded.

 

[SMGS127]

Not just an adjective used in everyday language, but one to which a certain violence has been done, as is going on with another word used in everyday language, a noun, “marriage”. Soon we will have to use other or additional words to describe what once required but a single word-- Holy Matrimony; marriage, the sacrament; heterosexual marriage; marriage between a man and a woman; traditional marriage, and so forth. Sorry, I couldn’t resist.

They’re not equivalent.

“Gay” was first redefined as a hateful pejorative AGAINST homosexuals, and they successfully managed to turn it from a pejorative into a neutral adjective. If you’re so mad about the redefinition of “gay,” you should look at those who encouraged the police brutality of the 1960s, not the gay community.

 

[JamesCaruso]

Once upon a time marriage referred to more things than just a man and a woman uniting together, as did wed/wedding/wedded.

Words can have many meanings, but you know what I mean.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Words can have many meanings, but you know what I mean.

Once upon a time it included relationships between people of the same sex deeper than marriage (in a totally nonsexual way).

 

[SeannyM]

Jesus is not impressed that we are convincing people that God created people to sin, not at all.

Many of us (gay people) agree that God didn’t create us to sin. We believe that we aren’t sinning. Obviously, you will dispute that, but to me, the fact that we were born with an attraction to people of the same gender is proof that it’s not a sin. Our logic is that God created us to love in a different way than you, and that there are only a few logical options: 1. God created us with an attraction for a reason, and as long as we are truly loving to our spouse, then he blesses our love. Or option 2. He is sadistic, and created us with a desire to love someone that we shouldn’t… There is no reason why a just and loving God would do such a thing, so we keep faith that God blesses our love.

Your idea that there is somehow a choice about these attractions is simply not based on reality. As someone who experiences them, I can tell you that for a fact… but if that’s not enough, there are actually plenty of scientists who agree, and who have studied the subject in depth.