Can someone help?

[jjr9]

Yet you have not presented evidence other than your own feelings that it is false.

You are welcome to your view.

My concern is that the Church makes a claim that a group of people has the capacity to “experience
an exclusive … sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex”. Is this statement true or false?
I believe the statement is false.

God bless

 

[davidv]

You are welcome to your view.

So? Why is my view discounted?

My concern is that the Church makes a claim that a group of people has the capacity to “experience
an exclusive … sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex”. Is this statement true or false?
I believe the statement is false.

God bless

 

[jjr9]

So? Why is my view discounted?

It is not clear to me what your view is. Please share.

If someone is in a cesspool is it charitable to throw a lifeline so they can climb out if they like or a lounge
chair to be comfortable in the filth?

For me the false premise of the “homosexual person” is the lounge chair and the Church is ultimately
cruel to claim a group of people has the capacity to “experience an exclusive … sexual attraction toward
persons of the same sex”.

God bless

 

[at9009]

It is not clear to me what your view is. Please share.

If someone is in a cesspool is it charitable to throw a lifeline so they can climb out if they like or a lounge
chair to be comfortable in the filth?

For me the false premise of the “homosexual person” is the lounge chair and the Church is ultimately
cruel to claim a group of people has the capacity to “experience an exclusive … sexual attraction toward
persons of the same sex”.

God bless

I still don’t understand why you view the capacity of exclusive sexual attraction as false. We live in a broken and fallen world and because of that, people often deal with difficult and challenging crosses.

You say what is true and just for the Church to recognize the possibility of exclusive same sex attraction. Well, let me ask this, would is true and just about recognizing depression, blindness, alcoholism, deafness, etc. None of these are just, but we recognize they exist in this broken world. By recognizing our own fallen nature and inclination to sin, we can better resist and move towards a life and vocation that glorifies God. You seem to believe that simply having the exclusive same sex attraction makes a person living in a cesspool? I think that is kind of uncharitable and sin only comes in when one indulges their temptations not because of the mere presence of them.

Does that make sense? I think your difference with the Church is over how vastly the fall affects us. Should we be only attracted to the opposite sex. Yes, but for whatever reason some people aren’t and some are just attracted to the same sex. That doesn’t mean its good or just, we are just recognizing a reality. We can then support those persons in their pursuit of holy life that glorifies God. Where that life takes them? Only God knows. It could include removal of the attractions and a vocation of marriage, the attractions could remain as a thorn in that person’s side, or something else that the Lord is uniquely calling them too. However, either way, they can still pursue and live a holy life.

Hope my long ramble helps a little.
God bless.

 

[davidv]

It is not clear to me what your view is. Please share.

If someone is in a cesspool is it charitable to throw a lifeline so they can climb out if they like or a lounge
chair to be comfortable in the filth?

For me the false premise of the “homosexual person” is the lounge chair and the Church is ultimately
cruel to claim a group of people has the capacity to “experience an exclusive … sexual attraction toward
persons of the same sex”.

God bless

My view should be clear. The Church is not wrong in citing current scientific understanding in the promulgation the truths of faith and morality. I find your stance on this specific topic to be egotistical. Your argument should be against the scientific community, not the Church.

 

[jjr9]

I still don’t understand why you view the capacity of exclusive sexual attraction as false. We live in a broken and fallen world and because of that, people often deal with difficult and challenging crosses.

Temptation has been with us forever this is the first time the Church has said a group of people has
a specific temptation in their nature.

What do you thinks is different now from when St Paul taught about same sex behavior and SSA?

You say what is true and just for the Church to recognize the possibility of exclusive same sex attraction. Well, let me ask this, would is true and just about recognizing depression, blindness, alcoholism, deafness, etc. None of these are just, but we recognize they exist in this broken world. By recognizing our own fallen nature and inclination to sin, we can better resist and move towards a life and vocation that glorifies God. You seem to believe that simply having the exclusive same sex attraction makes a person living in a cesspool? I think that is kind of uncharitable and sin only comes in when one indulges their temptations not because of the mere presence of them.Does that make sense?

You can believe what you like I believe believing oneself a “homosexual person” is not a health
spiritual situation practicing or not.

I think your difference with the Church is over how vastly the fall affects us. Should we be only attracted to the opposite sex. Yes, but for whatever reason some people aren’t and some are just attracted to the same sex. That doesn’t mean its good or just, we are just recognizing a reality. We can then support those persons in their pursuit of holy life that glorifies God. Where that life takes them? Only God knows. It could include removal of the attractions and a vocation of marriage, the attractions could remain as a thorn in that person’s side, or something else that the Lord is uniquely calling them too. However, either way, they can still pursue and live a holy life.

I don’t believe the Lord calls everyone to marriage but I am certain the Lord calls no one to be a
“homosexual person”.

Hope my long ramble helps a little.
God bless.

I do appreciate you sharing your thoughts even if we don’t see eye to eye.

God bless

 

[jjr9]

My view should be clear. The Church is not wrong in citing current scientific understanding in the promulgation the truths of faith and morality. I find your stance on this specific topic to be egotistical. Your argument should be against the scientific community, not the Church.

I believe you cannot supply “scientific” proof of the “homosexual person”. Feel free to prove me wrong.

You are welcome to your view.

My concern is that the Church makes a claim that a group of people has the capacity to “experience
an exclusive … sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex”. Is this statement true or false?
I believe the statement is false.

God bless

 

[Rau]

Please continue misrepresenting what I say and respond to your misrepresentation if that is
helpful for you.

Feel free to demonstrate that I have misrepresented you. I have not.

 

[Rau]

…If someone is in a cesspool is it charitable to throw a lifeline so they can climb out if they like or a lounge chair to be comfortable in the filth?

How did the experience of SSA, perhaps by a person who strives to live chastely, place that person in a “cesspool”? Do you understand that persons experiencing SSA may still live chastely?

What is the right lifeline for a person experiencing SSA, and what impact will it have on that person? Do you have first hand experience of this to report?

Or is the aim of lifelines to in fact help one to live chastely?

 

[Huiou_Theou]

You are correct to be more precise I don’t believe anyone is incapable of being attracted to persons of the opposite sex.

God bless

That goes against what Jesus himself testifies, for sometimes people are naturally unable to marry.

Matthew 19:12, “Some people are enuchs from birth.”

Jesus is not speaking of people who have their genitals removed, for those are listed separately: “Some are made enuchs”

Jesus is not speaking of people who choose not to marry,“And some live like enuchs for the sake of the kingdom of God.”

Jesus is clearly alluding to natural defects in the body which preclude the ability to have sexual attraction to the opposite sex.

I also think you are being extraordinarily shallow when you claim that “he who looks on a woman lustfully has already committed adultery in his heart.” is about a mere feeling.

For the sentence clearly includes a verb, “looks on”, and a clarifying adverb “lustfully”.
Jesus is talking about going out actively into public looking for women to gaze at in an excess of appetite. That’s not a feeling, it’s an activity. The activity could precede any feeling at all, and may be done in order to become aroused because the person likes the feeling that they get from the activity.

The former is caused by a person exercising their free will, the later is merely a result.
Gluttony is a sin relating to eating food in excess, because of a feeling that is given as a result of eating. But the sin is not in the feeling, the sin is in the excessive eating/binging/vomiting all of which are acts of the will in relation to the feeling.

Tim Staples already conceded that the use of the words “Homosexual person” may have been imprudent because of how people will read the text, so don’t bother harping on that with me. That’s not the issue here. The CCC isn’t an infallible document, either. But the church has consistently taught that God created only males and females. As is said in Pope John Paul’s wednesday audiences on the theology of the body.

However you’re being very naieve about how God thinks if you restrict your biblical analysis to only what St. Paul said in only one passage. In the resurrection, we will all be one flesh with Jesus Christ. Not the through the use of the genitals, but we will all be the same flesh, and as Paul says “Neither male nor female”

There is no actual female principle revealed in God that is traceable all the way back to the beginning. There is no history of church teaching of a female principle that can even be traced back to the time of Jesus the Christ. St. Aquinas’s speculations are not original, infallible church teaching.

God in himself is Father, Son, and Spirit. But no wife. The Father is male, the Son is Male, the Paraclete, when revealed as a person and not raw power, is male. ( John 14:17 )
biblehub.com/interlinear/john/14-16.htm

The attraction between persons certainly can clearly be between males; so long as it is not genitally active. In a certain sense, God created an imperfect image of himself in flesh, male and female so that he could marry (yes MARRY) all males and females in an eternal covenant. The intention being that through spiritual union, which is analogous to sexual union, we might be one with him. That our flesh might mirror the spiritual aspect of God’s internal union. The greatest mystery is how we will be united to him, and share in the hypostatic union. Or as the Easterner’s call it, Theosis.

Do not be surprised at this; For all false God’s which people worship, God demands that he himself replace. The ancients worshiped the sun, and if you read Revelation; God clearly got rid of the Sun and he himself will be the light. Many other such allusions are made, but even in the case of sexual union – God himself will become our communion.
There will not even be the possibility of false God’s in God’s eternal presence.

Yet the attraction between males will be made pure, and non sexual. The attraction between males and females will also be purified and made non sexual.

 

[jjr9]

How did the experience of SSA, perhaps by a person who strives to live chastely, place that person in a “cesspool”?

I cannot tell you what brings any particular person to any specific temptation or sinful behavior .

Do you understand that persons experiencing SSA may still live chastely?

I do understand what freewill is.

What is the right lifeline for a person experiencing SSA,

Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

and what impact will it have on that person?Or is the aim of lifelines to in fact help one to live chastely?

That would be between the individual and the Lord not me or you.

God bless

 

[jjr9]

Thank you for taking time to reply

That goes against what Jesus himself testifies, for sometimes people are naturally unable to marry.

Matthew 19:12, “Some people are enuchs from birth.”

Jesus is not speaking of people who have their genitals removed, for those are listed separately: “Some are made enuchs”

Jesus is not speaking of people who choose not to marry,“And some live like enuchs for the sake of the kingdom of God.”

I believe you are mistaken.

Jesus is clearly alluding to natural defects in the body which preclude the ability to have sexual attraction to the opposite sex.

I believe you are mistaken I believe that Jesus is talking about the physical ability of someone to
engage in sexual activity if you look at the context of the discussion, marriage and divorce, the
idea of same sex marriage was an anathema at that time and would not be discussed.

I also think you are being extraordinarily shallow when you claim that “he who looks on a woman lustfully has already committed adultery in his heart.” is about a mere feeling.

I believe someone so confused that they believe they are incapable of sexual attraction to persons of the
opposite sex is not having a mere feeling.

For the sentence clearly includes a verb, “looks on”, and a clarifying adverb “lustfully”.
Jesus is talking about going out actively into public looking for women to gaze at in an excess of appetite. That’s not a feeling, it’s an activity. The activity could precede any feeling at all, and may be done in order to become aroused because the person likes the feeling that they get from the activity.

The former is caused by a person exercising their free will, the later is merely a result.
Gluttony is a sin relating to eating food in excess, because of a feeling that is given as a result of eating. But the sin is not in the feeling, the sin is in the excessive eating/binging/vomiting all of which are acts of the will in relation to the feeling.

Tim Staples already conceded that the use of the words “Homosexual person” may have been imprudent because of how people will read the text, so don’t bother harping on that with me. That’s not the issue here. The CCC isn’t an infallible document, either. But the church has consistently taught that God created only males and females. As is said in Pope John Paul’s wednesday audiences on the theology of the body.

However you’re being very naieve about how God thinks if you restrict your biblical analysis to only what St. Paul said in only one passage. In the resurrection, we will all be one flesh with Jesus Christ. Not the through the use of the genitals, but we will all be the same flesh, and as Paul says “Neither male nor female”

There is no actual female principle revealed in God that is traceable all the way back to the beginning. There is no history of church teaching of a female principle that can even be traced back to the time of Jesus the Christ. St. Aquinas’s speculations are not original, infallible church teaching.

God in himself is Father, Son, and Spirit. But no wife. The Father is male, the Son is Male, the Paraclete, when revealed as a person and not raw power, is male. ( John 14:17 )
biblehub.com/interlinear/john/14-16.htm

The attraction between persons certainly can clearly be between males; so long as it is not genitally active. In a certain sense, God created an imperfect image of himself in flesh, male and female so that he could marry (yes MARRY) all males and females in an eternal covenant. The intention being that through spiritual union, which is analogous to sexual union, we might be one with him. That our flesh might mirror the spiritual aspect of God’s internal union. The greatest mystery is how we will be united to him, and share in the hypostatic union. Or as the Easterner’s call it, Theosis.

Do not be surprised at this; For all false God’s which people worship, God demands that he himself replace. The ancients worshiped the sun, and if you read Revelation; God clearly got rid of the Sun and he himself will be the light. Many other such allusions are made, but even in the case of sexual union – God himself will become our communion.
There will not even be the possibility of false God’s in God’s eternal presence.

Yet the attraction between males will be made pure, and non sexual. The attraction between males and females will also be purified and made non sexual.

You are welcome to your view.

My concern is that the Church makes a claim that a group of people has the capacity to “experience
an exclusive … sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex”. Is this statement true or false?
I believe the statement is false.

God bless

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Thank you for taking time to reply

I believe you are mistaken I believe that Jesus is talking about the physical ability of someone to
engage in sexual activity if you look at the context of the discussion, marriage and divorce, the
idea of same sex marriage was an anathema at that time and would not be discussed.

That’s irrelevant. Some people who are unable to engage in the activity, obviously do not feel attraction to the opposite sex. eg: They either do not have the organ to obtain arousal, or else it does not function. Mental ability to feel aroused is a physical aspect of the body, it has NEVER been claimed by the church to be part of the intellectual soul. Damage to certain parts of the brain can also make both attraction and sexual arousal impossible. IT’s purely physical even if in the brain. Those are demonstrated scientific facts supported by biblical revelation. By themselves they already prove the point that your original statement was false. Not everyone can feel a natural attraction to the opposite sex let alone get a sexual arousal.

You’re changing the subject when you bring up same sex marriage; unless you mean heaven, and then in fact you are wrong. Everyone who goes to heaven enters a wedding/marrige with the Lamb of God. Even men do. So unless you wish to deny that Jesus is a man in heaven, or claim that his male body did not rise, you’re stuck. Marriage is permitted even if sexual intercourse is not. Men and women are not given in marriage to each other in heaven, for they all belong to Jesus alone.

I believe someone so confused that they believe they are incapable of sexual attraction to persons of the opposite sex is not having a mere feeling.

I believe that people in heaven who are male, will no longer feel sexual attraction in the sense of lust for women. For there is no sexual relationships in heaven. I don’t believe people in heaven are confused. So I find your responses nonsensical.

My concern is that the Church makes a claim that a group of people has the capacity to “experience
an exclusive … sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex”. Is this statement true or false?
I believe the statement is false.

God bless

I believe it’s true. We will all be attracted to Jesus in Heaven for eternity. All saints (including males) that I have ever read about who experience a vision of heaven confirm that they felt the attraction to our Lord. There is no lustful interest in engaging in sexual activity, but they are interested in becoming one flesh with him. Becoming one flesh is exactly what marriage is about. That is exactly why Revelation calls the entering of heaven,“The wedding feast of the Lamb.”

 

[jjr9]

That’s irrelevant. Some people who are unable to engage in the activity, obviously do not feel attraction to the opposite sex. eg: They either do not have the organ to obtain arousal, or else it does not function. Mental ability to feel aroused is a physical aspect of the body, it has NEVER been claimed by the church to be part of the intellectual soul. Damage to certain parts of the brain can also make both attraction and sexual arousal impossible. IT’s purely physical even if in the brain. Those are demonstrated scientific facts supported by biblical revelation. By themselves they already prove the point that your original statement was false. Not everyone can feel a natural attraction to the opposite sex let alone get a sexual arousal.

I agree this is irrelevant I was responding to you.

You’re changing the subject when you bring up same sex marriage; unless you mean heaven, and then in fact you are wrong. Everyone who goes to heaven enters a wedding/marrige with the Lamb of God. Even men do. So unless you wish to deny that Jesus is a man in heaven, or claim that his male body did not rise, you’re stuck. Marriage is permitted even if sexual intercourse is not. Men and women are not given in marriage to each other in heaven, for they all belong to Jesus alone.

Are you suggesting our communion with the Lord in Heaven is equivalent to a marriage between a man and
woman on earth? If so I believe you are mistaken.

I believe that people in heaven who are male, will no longer feel sexual attraction in the sense of lust for women. For there is no sexual relationships in heaven. I don’t believe people in heaven are confused. So I find your responses nonsensical.

You can believe what you like I have not been to Heaven and believe it incomprehensible I am sure it is
better than one can imagine I look forward to it and am willing to wait without speculation.

I believe it’s true. We will all be attracted to Jesus in Heaven for eternity. All saints (including males) that I have ever read about who experience a vision of heaven confirm that they felt the attraction to our Lord. There is no lustful interest in engaging in sexual activity, but they are interested in becoming one flesh with him. Becoming one flesh is exactly what marriage is about. That is exactly why Revelation calls the entering of heaven,“The wedding feast of the Lamb.”

Are you asserting a parity between SSA and love for the Lord?

Do you believe Agape and Eros love the same?

What do you consider a truly right and just reason for the Church’s claim that a group of people has the capacity
to “experience an exclusive … sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex”?

God bless

 

[Rau]

…I believe someone so confused that they believe they are incapable of sexual attraction to persons of the opposite sex is not having a mere feeling.

But it is in fact this “mere feeling” that we speak about when we refer to SSA. It is no more “wrong in itself” than the “mere feeling” of delight I may have felt in younger days toward girls in my circle. Now, if that “mere feeling” is born out of “confusion” or some other circumstance not of the individual’s making, how much less of a wrong can it, “in itself”, be?

Your concern appears to be whether the “confusion” to which you refer is permanent or transient or can be eliminated. On this point, I don’t know. Limiting consideration just to people of good will, we know there is great variability - eg. happily married persons who admit that they also feel attractions to persons of the same sex, and do not embrace them, and others who are not attracted by the opposite sex at all.

The Church does not know the future of people experiencing SSA either, other than to say they are able to live a good life by committing to chastity. We are all called to that. Beyond that, the Church refers to their “present” circumstances - be that “exclusively same sex attracted” or “predominantly” so. Perhaps you misunderstand these descriptors as to refer to a fixed future, rather than their current experience? If so, I believe you have created a straw man.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Are you suggesting our communion with the Lord in Heaven is equivalent to a marriage between a man and
woman on earth? If so I believe you are mistaken.

Scritpure has revealed God’s intention to marry us in Heaven. St. Paul has explicitly stated it will be so. The Catholic church has defined it to be so. The CCC has passages stating exactly what you are denying. Therefore, yes, I believe it is true; God will marry the very people inside that church including MEN. Our bodies are the temple his is building in order to marry us. And the two will become one flesh, including MEN with Christ Jesus. Human marriage is a mere IMAGE of God’s marriage; human marriage is a lesser thing than what God will do. Marriage in heaven with God alone, will have all that human marriage has and more; I firmly believe all that I am saying through the revelation of scripture and the church: Human marriage in an ICON through which we see a glimpse of what heaven will be like.

usccb.org/bible/isaiah/62/
Isaiah 62:5 For as a young man marries a virgin, your Builder shall marry you; And as a bridegroom rejoices in his bride so shall your God rejoice in you.

CCC 1617; The entire Christian life bears the mark of the spousal love of Christ and the Church. Already Baptism, the entry into the People of God is a nuptial mystery; it is so to speak then nuptial bath which preceeds the wedding feast, the Eucharist.

Anything else is heresy.

Are you asserting a parity between SSA and love for the Lord?
Do you believe Agape and Eros love the same?

Agape can include Eros, but Eros alone can not be Agape.
That which is greater contains that which is lesser; but the reverse is not true.

You appear to be confounding lust with attraction in order to sustain your point.

What do you consider a truly right and just reason for the Church’s claim that a group of people has the capacity
to “experience an exclusive … sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex”?

The church has the authority to make decisions as they see fit. That is reason enough.

However, there is a great deal more that can be said. First: There is lack of divine revelation to the contrary. Second, scientific experiments where functional magnetic resonance directly watch the brain show that many “feelings” are measurable activations in the human body associated with involuntary neural pathways. Therefore, attraction is not a function of the intellectual soul. Use your brain: Animals have no intellectual soul whatsoever; yet animals clearly experience attraction. Attraction does not require an immortal soul but can be a purely physical aspect of a material body. Anything which is not part of an immortal soul is subject to disease, and being modified physically. Lab experiments can clearly demonstrate that electronic stimulation of animal brains using electronic circuitry can cause them to be attracted to ANYTHING the person programming the electronic circuit WANTS them to be attracted to. Although there are are ethical reasons that the full experiments are not done in humans, none the less many of the same neural pathways found in the human brain are also found in chimpanzies and other mammals. There is no reason to believe they operate differently.

The human soul allows man to be greater than an animal, for man can over-ride his instincts and decide when and where he will mate; but there are very good scientific reasons for believing that involuntary feelings exist in man which are caused by the neural pathways in the body, and not decisions of the intellect.

Earlier in the thread, another poster already gave links to some scientific studies in humans. I see you are ignoring them or don’t understand the implications. Human beings are greater than animals, but our bodies which are composites of Spirit and flesh, do have some things in common with mere animals.

 

[jjr9]

But it is in fact this “mere feeling” that we speak about when we refer to SSA. It is no more “wrong in itself” than the “mere feeling” of delight I may have felt in younger days toward girls in my circle. Now, if that “mere feeling” is born out of “confusion” or some other circumstance not of the individual’s making, how much less of a wrong can it, “in itself”, be?

Your concern appears to be whether the “confusion” to which you refer is permanent or transient or can be eliminated. On this point, I don’t know. Limiting consideration just to people of good will, we know there is great variability - eg. happily married persons who admit that they also feel attractions to persons of the same sex, and do not embrace them, and others who are not attracted by the opposite sex at all.

The Church does not know the future of people experiencing SSA either, other than to say they are able to live a good life by committing to chastity. We are all called to that. Beyond that, the Church refers to their “present” circumstances - be that “exclusively same sex attracted” or “predominantly” so. Perhaps you misunderstand these descriptors as to refer to a fixed future, rather than their current experience? If so, I believe you have created a straw man.

You are welcome to your view.

My concern is that the Church makes a claim that a group of people has the capacity to “experience
an exclusive … sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex”. Is this statement true or false?
I believe the statement is false.

God bless
Reply With Quote

 

[jjr9]

First: There is lack of divine revelation to the contrary.

You can believe that St. Paul was uninspired by the Lord if you like I believe that he was. See post forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13260261&postcount=198

The church has the authority to make decisions as they see fit. That is reason enough

I believe that you are mistaken. I believe the Church does not have authority to claim what is false to be true.
That is why I believe the Church is in error to claim that a group of people has the capacity to “experience an
exclusive … sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex”

Second, scientific experiments where functional magnetic resonance directly watch the brain show that many “feelings” are measurable activations in the human body associated with involuntary neural pathways. …

Earlier in the thread, another poster already gave links to some scientific studies in humans. I see you are ignoring them or don’t understand the implications.

You are mistaken see forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13271032&postcount=218

I believe it much more likely the difference in brain activity is do to de-sensitivity to shame rather that the
mythical “homosexual person”.

Do you have “scientific research” beyond erotica, self-identification or wishful thinking?

God bless

 

[Oneofthewomen]

You are welcome to your view.

My concern is that the Church makes a claim that a group of people has the capacity to “experience
an exclusive … sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex”. Is this statement true or false?
I believe the statement is false.

God bless
Reply With Quote

Just because you believe or don’t believe something does not make it true.

People used to believe that the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around it.
We now know that is not true, because our technology has advanced.

FWIW, I do believe that people can be “exclusively attracted” to one sex or the other, or to even both, or none. In the long run, it has no bearing what-so-ever on my belief in God or Church.
To be honest, with all the challenges facing our world & Church, do you really think this is a good use of your time & energy?

 

[Huiou_Theou]

You can believe that St. Paul was uninspired by the Lord if you like I believe that he was. See post forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13260261&postcount=198

JJR,
St. Paul does not treat of same sex attraction in that passage. He speaks of lust and passion. You have just proved my point that you are confounding lust with attraction in order to hold your position. St. Paul nowhere says that men can’t be attracted to men. St. Paul does say that lust is a sin. There is a very distinct difference between the two.

I believe that you are mistaken. I believe the Church does not have authority to claim what is false to be true.
That is why I believe the Church is in error to claim that a group of people has the capacity to “experience an
exclusive … sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex”

JJR, The moment you say the church is in error, you have put yourself in the position of juding the Holy Spirit. There is no point to continuing this part of the conversation. @Tim Staples has already admitted that the particular way the catechism is phrased could be misleading. That is as far as I am willing to go as well. I would never be so crazy to claim that the church itself is in error as you are doing.

You are mistaken see forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13271032&postcount=218

I believe it much more likely the difference in brain activity is do to de-sensitivity to shame rather that the
mythical “homosexual person”.

Do you have “scientific research” beyond erotica, self-identification or wishful thinking?

God bless

JJR, Animals feel attraction. Animals do not have immortal souls. Attraction is therefore part of the body, not part of the immortal soul. What you are doing is rationalizing and disputing over issues which can not possibly prove your point.

You are the one showing wishful thinking and trying to project your own faults onto everyone else who talks with you.

Lab experiments on animals obviously goes FAR beyond erotica and self identification.
If you can’t grasp the basic points I’m making, but continue to misinterpret the clearest of arguments, then there is no reason to continue to the conversation.