Can someone help?

[jjr9]

Mark thank you for taking time to respond

Do you know of a right and just reason to deny this observation of the Church?

What do you believe the Church has observed exactly?
Anyone including the Church can claim anything they would like to exist. I do not know how to prove that something
does not exist. I believe it is incumbent on the person claiming something to exist to prove it. My right and just reason
to deny the claim by the Church is that no tangible proof has been offered.

Do you view this observation as a teaching on faith and morals that is not subject to change? I don’t.

Again when you say “observation” I don’t know what you mean.

The Church has always taught that homosexual activity is wrong-- that’s the teaching on faith and morals

I have no dispute with this.

and that teaching is not effected by whether or not homosexuality is a condition someone is born with,
is a condition caused by environmental factors, is a temptation from Satan or is some combination of all three.

I believe that the “homosexual person”(as defined by the Church) is a false premise. I agree that same sex behavior
is a temptation.

We live in a fallen world. I don’t understand why you see this as such a problem.

I live in this world saved by Christ and His Church. I believe that acceptance of the existence of the
concept of a “homosexual person” as fact is an evil pervasive in the world today. I believe that next to
spreading the Gospel in the world standing against and exposing evil in the world is the Church’s
highest obligation to the Lord. I believe the Lord gave us His Church to be a pillar of truth in a world full
of temptation not to be a barometer of the current secular consensus as it has in this instance.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

God bless

 

[jjr9]

Why does it matter whether they do or not? Doesn’t this come under the purview of science and not faith? Do you think that if they actually experience an exclusive sexual attraction towards persons of the same sex–that it will somehow effect Church teaching on the morality of homosexual activity? Perhaps you can explain more fully what you believe the problem is?

The peace of Christ,
Mark

If we lived in a vacuum I would be silly pursuing this but we do not. I believe the Lord has purpose
for his Church in the real world. I believe that action or lack of action by the Church has consequence.
I believe if the Church had stood up 50 years ago and properly said that the “homosexual person”
(as defined by the Church) does not exist the reality of same-sex “marriage” in the secular world
would not be accepted today. I believe the Lord established His Church to give direction to the world
not to look to the world for direction. Moments after your post our Supreme Court subverted our
constitution and made same sex “marriage” the law of our land. It saddens me that the Lord’s Church
had not made the moral stand a long time ago and reject this false premise of the “homosexual person”
rather than embrace it. I believe it is never too late to correct an error the Lord is forgiving.

God bless

 

[Casilda]

If we lived in a vacuum I would be silly pursuing this but we do not. I believe the Lord has purpose
for his Church in the real world. I believe that action or lack of action by the Church has consequence.
I believe if the Church had stood up 50 years ago and properly said that the “homosexual person”
(as defined by the Church) does not exist the reality of same-sex “marriage” in the secular world
would not be accepted today. I believe the Lord established His Church to give direction to the world
not to look to the world for direction. Moments after your post our Supreme Court subverted our
constitution and made same sex “marriage” the law of our land. It saddens me that the Lord’s Church
had not made the moral stand a long time ago and reject this false premise of the “homosexual person”
rather than embrace it. I believe it is never too late to correct an error the Lord is forgiving.

God bless

After reading this further explanation I finally understand what you mean, and what you are asking. Are you stating, that basically the church has legitimized the disordered condition, acknowledging that it could be a genetic condition, thereby making it beyond one’s control to suppress it? That is what society is saying. I do believe the church should maintain a hard line against any and all sin (abomination is a hard line word).

What I believe has cause this mess in our society, is the lack of love Christians show towards sinners. We are to love the sinner but hate the sin. We can love someone who has sinned and bring them to repent of that sin and restore them to the church. Jesus did not give the example of shunning sinners.

 

[jjr9]

After reading this further explanation I finally understand what you mean, and what you are asking. Are you stating, that basically the church has legitimized the disordered condition, acknowledging that it could be a genetic condition, thereby making it beyond one’s control to suppress it? That is what society is saying. I do believe the church should maintain a hard line against any and all sin (abomination is a hard line word).

What I believe has cause this mess in our society, is the lack of love Christians show towards sinners. We are to love the sinner but hate the sin. We can love someone who has sinned and bring them to repent of that sin and restore them to the church. Jesus did not give the example of shunning sinners.

What I am saying is that I believe no one has the capacity to “experience an exclusive … sexual attraction toward
persons of the same sex” and the Church is in error to make the claim.

Your view is not clear to me can you clarify?

God bless

 

[Thorolfr]

What I am saying is that I believe no one has the capacity to “experience an exclusive … sexual attraction toward
persons of the same sex” and the Church is in error to make the claim.

Your view is not clear to me can you clarify?

God bless

You can believe whatever you want, but you must not have talked to any actual gay people, many of whom do indeed “experience an exclusive … sexual attraction toward
persons of the same sex”. Or maybe you just think they’re all lying…

 

[jjr9]

You can believe whatever you want, but you must not have talked to any actual gay people, many of whom do indeed “experience an exclusive … sexual attraction toward
persons of the same sex”. Or maybe you just think they’re all lying…

Thank you for recognizing my freewill that the Lord has given.

I bear no one ill-will but my heart breaks for those confused souls lost to the false premiss of the “homosexual
person”. I believe it is a serious error by the Church to promote this false premiss and put stumbling blocks on
their path to Eternal Life.

2358(CCC) originally said:

“They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial”

The present version says:

“This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial”

Clearly the church recognized the error of the overt statement but left the obvious sentiment that is in 2357-2359
of the CCC.

God bless

 

[Rau]

You can believe whatever you want, but you must not have talked to any actual gay people, many of whom do indeed “experience an exclusive … sexual attraction toward
persons of the same sex”. Or maybe you just think they’re all lying…

So there you are Thor, they are all confused about their sexual inclinations, but not liars!

 

[jjr9]

Who do you serve?

I believe it wrong for the Church make the claim that anyone has the capacity to “experience an exclusive …
sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex” I believe this only serves the evil one not the Lord. I do not
have the privilege to know God’s full plan for man but what I do know tells me that this claim by the Church is
not in harmony with God’s plan.

Please serve the Lord and help the Church correct this error for the Lord.

God bless

 

[Tim_Staples]

Dear Jjr9,

Thank you for your question, John. It is a good one. While certainly not a dogmatic definition, the Catechism of the Catholic Church 2357, which you cite, uses the language you quoted for good and pastoral reasons rooted in years of pastoral experience (see also Persona Humana – Declaration on Certain Questions Related to Sexual Ethics, Dec. 29, 1975, para. 8). As you know, in that same paragraph of the Catechism, the Church also makes clear that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered” and “under no circumstances can they be approved.” So the Church’s position on homosexual acts could not be clearer. However, and to your point, in the next paragraph (2358) the Church also acknowledges rightly that “the number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible.” And the bottom line is this: Those who suffer with this disorder have testified by the hundreds, and more, that the level of SSA they experience in their lives varies.
I personally have a male friend that I helped to come to the Catholic Church who would tell you that sexual relations with a woman is repugnant to him. His sexual attraction is purely toward men. Now, this fellow has all sorts of problems and abuse in his background that most likely contributes to his disordered state, but it is difficult not to acknowledge that this disordered state is a real possibility. I have another dear friend who has attempted to be “cured” of his SSA, even visiting our friend Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, but to no avail. As you know, John, curing this disorder is a real possibility, and there are many such documented cases, but that is not always the case. In the case of this second friend of mine, he was sexually abused by two of his older brothers, neither of whom knew the other was also abusing their little brother. It was a horrible situation that my friend knows has left what seem to be indelible scars in his psyche. My wife and I have tried to set him up with women, and he has even dated a few of them. But each time, he tells me, “there is just no attraction to women there.” His attraction as well is toward men alone. He now lives a consecrated single life and is at peace with his calling to be celibate.
I know these are just two anecdotal cases to undergird the Church’s choice of language in the Catechism and in Persona Humana, but for more reasons behind the teaching, I recommend the ministry of “Courage” at couragerc.org/ In fact, Fr. Paul Check, the brother of our own president here at Catholic Answers, Mr. Christopher Check, could help you with this question in a much more complete way than I can.
Tim Staples

 

[lileli]

I don’t know where to even begin…Gay people exist and they always have. The Church has recognized that there are people that are only attracted to the same sex. This varied sexual attraction is consistent with the rest of higher order mammals that God created. Peace be with you.

 

[jjr9]

Dear Jjr9,
Thank you for your question, John. It is a good one.

Thank you for your answer. I appreciate your time.

While certainly not a dogmatic definition, the Catechism of the Catholic Church 2357, which you cite, uses the language you quoted for good and pastoral reasons rooted in years of pastoral experience (see also Persona Humana – Declaration on Certain Questions Related to Sexual Ethics, Dec. 29, 1975, para. 8).

I believe if the Church puts something in the CCC that reads as a definition the Church believes
it to be true so I believe that the Church presents as true a group of people has the capacity to
“experience an exclusive … sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex”. I believe that the
“homosexual person” is a myth that unfortunately the Church has bought into.

As for the reference you cite I see this as accepting the “homosexual person” but not directly
defining the “homosexual person” as the CCC does. I note that your reference does say “This
judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from
this anomaly are personally responsible for it” which I suppose let to:

2358(CCC) originally saying:

“They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial”

The present version says:

“This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial”

I don’t get your point. If this error by the Church goes back 40 years instead of 20 it is still
an error. I don’t believe that you can cite Church acceptance of the “homosexual person”
much before this and certainly not back to the Apostles to whom the Church must always
remain faithful.

As you know, in that same paragraph of the Catechism, the Church also makes clear that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered” and “under no circumstances can they be approved.” So the Church’s position on homosexual acts could not be clearer.

I have never said that the Church condones same sex behavior however I did have a priest
tell me:

“In my own experience of prayer and in 30 years of pastoral ministry I believe that the Church’s
teaching (summarized in the Catechism) is incorrect but in a direction opposite of your own
conclusions. Sexual orientation is not chosen by men and women. The best scientific and
religious minds agree that the genesis of sexual orientation is settled early in a child’s
physiological and psychological development. This is why the Church rightly states that sexual
orientation is not personally culpable. If orientation is a created aspect of an individual (which is
my personal belief) then the Church does a disservice describing all homosexual people as
“intrinsically disordered.” The ramifications of such an uncharitable and, to my mind,
scientifically unsupported slur are devastating: broken spirits, depressed individuals, pointless
suicides, anger and bitterness.”

I believe that this Priest is clinging to the original version of the CCC “This is why the Church
rightly states that sexual orientation is not personally culpable”. I believe this helps illustrate how
corrosive this error by the Church is not just for confused individuals but also the Priesthood.

However, and to your point, in the next paragraph (2358) the Church also acknowledges rightly that “the number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible.” And the bottom line is this: Those who suffer with this disorder have testified by the hundreds, and more, that the level of SSA they experience in their lives varies.

I believe it is wrong for the Church to go down the path of accepting “self-identification” of
their nature, by individuals. Where would this stop? People rationalize their behavior all the time
I know that I do. I believe that the Church should not hand out a tool for rationalization of this
sinful behavior or any sinful behavior. IE: One could say I am a “homosexual person” I do not
have freewill to have a holy fulfilled life in marriage why don’t I just give into what the Church
says that I am.

There are many temptations in the world do you know of any other temptation given similar
treatment by the Church?

I believe that for many Satan is an abstract, I believe that Satan is an active participant in the
world. I believe it doesn’t matter to Satan which temptation causes us to fall from Grace with
the Lord no matter the apparent gravity of the temptation; without the Grace the Lord is willing
to give but will not force us to take I believe ultimately we cannot resist any temptation.

 

[jjr9]

I personally have a male friend that I helped to come to the Catholic Church who would tell you that sexual relations with a woman is repugnant to him. His sexual attraction is purely toward men. Now, this fellow has all sorts of problems and abuse in his background that most likely contributes to his disordered state, but it is difficult not to acknowledge that this disordered state is a real possibility. I have another dear friend who has attempted to be “cured” of his SSA, even visiting our friend Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, but to no avail.

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

As you know, John, curing this disorder is a real possibility, and there are many such documented cases, but that is not always the case.

I do not believe that the Church suggests that this transitory, so one must believe the Church
accepts this as intrinsic and permanent.

In the case of this second friend of mine, he was sexually abused by two of his older brothers, neither of whom knew the other was also abusing their little brother. It was a horrible situation that my friend knows has left what seem to be indelible scars in his psyche. My wife and I have tried to set him up with women, and he has even dated a few of them. But each time, he tells me, “there is just no attraction to women there.” His attraction as well is toward men alone. He now lives a consecrated single life and is at peace with his calling to be celibate.
I know these are just two anecdotal cases to undergird the Church’s choice of language in the Catechism and in Persona Humana,

It is my understanding that people claiming to be a “homosexual person” often have had a very
abused life but I believe this does not give them license to “self-identify” their own nature.

but for more reasons behind the teaching, I recommend the ministry of “Courage” at couragerc.org/ In fact, Fr. Paul Check, the brother of our own president here at Catholic Answers, Mr. Christopher Check, could help you with this question in a much more complete way than I can.
Tim Staples

I have contacted the Courage ministry and believe they do good work in helping confused
individuals. The person who responded said:

“The human person, made in the image and likeness of God, can hardly be adequately described by a reductionist reference to his or her sexual orientation. Every one living on the face of the earth has personal problems and difficulties, but challenges to growth, strengths, talents and gifts as well. Today, the Church provides a badly needed context for the care of the human person when she refuses to consider the person as a “heterosexual” or a “homosexual” and insists that every person has a fundamental Identity: the creature of God, and by grace, his child and heir to eternal life.”

I wish that this person was correct in their assessment and that “the Church provides a badly
needed context for the care of the human person when she refuses to consider the person as a
“heterosexual” or a “homosexual””. I believe the Church is promoting the idea that persons are
“heterosexual” or “homosexual”.

God bless

 

[jjr9]

I don’t know where to even begin…Gay people exist and they always have. The Church has recognized that there are people that are only attracted to the same sex. This varied sexual attraction is consistent with the rest of higher order mammals that God created. Peace be with you.

Thank you for taking time to respond. Do you believe that some are incapable of attraction to persons of
the opposite sex and Why? When did the Church first recognize this and for what truly right and just reason
do you think?

God bless

 

[at9009]

These are your words not my belief. I believe that Satan puts temptations before us all, we all have freewill to
succumb to these temptations or accept the Grace required to resist that the Lord is willing to give but will not
force us to take.

Do you know of a substantial right and just reason for the Church’s claim that a group of people are capable of
“an exclusive … sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex”?

God bless

Couldn’t it just fit under as one of the manifestations of brokedness due to original sin which has nothing to do with Satan at all. It just represents a person’s unique concupiscence.

 

[Thorolfr]

It is my understanding that people claiming to be a “homosexual person” often have had a very
abused life but I believe this does not give them license to “self-identify” their own nature.

So who do you think should identify what a person’s nature is?

 

[jjr9]

Couldn’t it just fit under as one of the manifestations of brokedness due to original sin which has nothing to do with Satan at all. It just represents a person’s unique concupiscence.

Doesn’t original sin have everything to do with temptation by Satan?

God bless

 

[jjr9]

So who do you think should identify what a person’s nature is?

I believe the Lord created our nature we have freewill to behave any way we would like. If you
have a truly right and just reason to believe that anyone has the capacity to have an “an exclusive …
sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex” I would like to know what it is.

God bless

 

[lileli]

Thank you for taking time to respond. Do you believe that some are incapable of attraction to persons of
the opposite sex and Why? When did the Church first recognize this and for what truly right and just reason
do you think?

God bless

Yes I do believe there are people who are only attracted to the same sex and can never be attracted to the opposite sex. Now that doesn’t mean that gay people can’t have heterosexual sex, they can. Sexual actions are different from orientation. Why does this happen? Who knows. It seems to be a variant of sexuality that is all.

 

[Rau]

Yes I do believe there are people who are only attracted to the same sex and can never be attracted to the opposite sex. Now that doesn’t mean that gay people can’t have heterosexual sex, they can. Sexual actions are different from orientation. Why does this happen? Who knows. It seems to be a variant of sexuality that is all.

A “variant…, that is all”? A severely flawed one I would have thought. It renders ineffective the reproductive drive of the person.

 

[lileli]

A “variant…, that is all”? A severely flawed one I would have thought. It renders ineffective the reproductive drive of the person.

Not it doesn’t and you know that. A gay man can and has fathered children and vice versa.