Can someone help?

[jjr9]

It does not surprise me that the Church has not addressed this point historically

St. Paul teaches on this issue of SSA and same sex behavior in Romans 1:24-28:

24Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of
their bodies. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than
the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. 26Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their
females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 27and the males likewise gave up natural relations with
females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their
own persons the due penalty for their perversity. 28And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God
handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper.

 I believe this “new” Church teaching inconsistent with St. Paul’s teaching. I believe St. Paul doesn’t allow

for a “homosexual person” (as defined by the Church) this “new” Church teaching endorses the “homosexual person”.
I believe that St. Paul makes it clear that this sort of immoral behavior is driven by a separation from the Lord and
succumbing to temptation from Satan not some sort of different nature.

God bless

 

[Rau]

St. Paul teaches on this issue of SSA and same sex behavior in Romans 1:24-28:

24Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of
their bodies. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than
the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. 26Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their
females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 27and the males likewise gave up natural relations with
females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their
own persons the due penalty for their perversity. 28And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God
handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper.

 I believe this “new” Church teaching inconsistent with St. Paul’s teaching. I believe St. Paul doesn’t allow

for a “homosexual person” (as defined by the Church) this “new” Church teaching endorses the “homosexual person”.
I believe that St. Paul makes it clear that this sort of immoral behavior is driven by a separation from the Lord and
succumbing to temptation from Satan not some sort of different nature.

God bless

St Paul saw immoral acts and condemned them. He was critical of those whose chose to engage in them. In this, he taught on morals.

St Paul would have no insight into how anyone came to be attracted to such acts, given I assume he, like me, would be repulsed. Whether or not something about the person renders them particularly prone to certain temptations to act immorally is of no concern to the morality of the act and the actor’s responsibility so long as the one experiencing the temptation retains freedom to choose his actions.

We should remember that faithful Catholics also face unwanted SSA. It is a great trial for them, as they struggle to avoid wrong and focus their time and effort on living a good life. I am certain that their daily struggle places them very close to the Lord.

 

[jjr9]

St Paul would have no insight into how anyone came to be attracted to such acts.

I agree with St Paul’s insight:

“And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning
mind to do what is improper”

You are free to disagree with St Paul’s insight but I think you are wrong to deny it.

There is nothing new about SSA or same sex behavior what is new the Church accepting what I believe to
be the false premiss of the “homosexual person”.

Jesus personally chose Saul to be St. Paul see Acts 26:15-18:

15And I said, ‘Who are you, sir?’ And the Lord replied, ‘I am Jesus whom you are persecuting. 16Get
up now, and stand on your feet. I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you as a servant and
witness of what you have seen [of me] and what you will be shown. 17I shall deliver you from this people
and from the Gentiles to whom I send you, 18to open their eyes that they may turn from darkness to light
and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may obtain forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among
those who have been consecrated by faith in me.’

When Jesus said “what you will be shown” I believe that it is most likely that St Paul’s insight comes
directly from our Lord and Savoir Jesus Christ. You can believe whatever you like I believe that when the
Lord said “I send you, 18to open their eyes that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power
of Satan to God,” ideas such as the “homosexual person” is what the Lord had in mind.

God bless

 

[Rau]

I agree with St Paul’s insight:

“And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning
mind to do what is improper”

You are free to disagree with St Paul’s insight but I think you are wrong to deny it.

There is nothing new about SSA or same sex behavior what is new the Church accepting what I believe to
be the false premiss of the “homosexual person”.

Jesus personally chose Saul to be St. Paul see Acts 26:15-18:

15And I said, ‘Who are you, sir?’ And the Lord replied, ‘I am Jesus whom you are persecuting. 16Get
up now, and stand on your feet. I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you as a servant and
witness of what you have seen [of me] and what you will be shown. 17I shall deliver you from this people
and from the Gentiles to whom I send you, 18to open their eyes that they may turn from darkness to light
and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may obtain forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among
those who have been consecrated by faith in me.’

When Jesus said “what you will be shown” I believe that it is most likely that St Paul’s insight comes
directly from our Lord and Savoir Jesus Christ. You can believe whatever you like I believe that when the
Lord said “I send you, 18to open their eyes that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power
of Satan to God,” ideas such as the “homosexual person” is what the Lord had in mind.

God bless

You are welcome to your speculation about what St Paul knew or did not know. I believe the Church is also familiar with St Paul.

The observation that some individuals experience a predominant or exclusive attraction to the same sex is a matter of science, not of faith. If you have some scientific data, we could discuss this point further…

 

[jjr9]

You are welcome to your speculation about what St Paul knew or did not know.

It is not speculation as to what St Paul knew he wrote it himself.

I believe the Church is also familiar with St Paul.

Which makes the claim so odd.

The observation that some individuals experience a predominant or exclusive attraction to the same sex is a matter of science, not of faith. If you have some scientific data, we could discuss this point further…

I cannot not evaluate what a “predominant homosexual person” is. Is a person with a 49.9% "sexual attraction toward
persons of the same sex” a “heterosexual person” and a person with 50.1% a “homosexual person”. For me this is a
bit absurd. How is this determined? You did not answer this earlier can you now?

I do not know how to prove something does not exist do you? Since you claim “exclusive attraction to the same sex is
a matter of science” the implication is that it is a proven fact my understanding is that it is disputed. I believe that St Paul’s
view has stood the test of time and will continue to.

God bless

 

[jjr9]

St Paul clearly speaks for himself “Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions”

I agree that Church teaching is consistent with St Paul when it comes to same sex behavior what is inconsistent is the
Church accepting what I believe to be the false premiss of the “homosexual person”.

I will not judge you please do not judge me. I will leave judgement to the Lord.

Emotions and feelings can be sinful if we allow them to dominate us Jesus said Matt 5:27-28:
"You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you, everyone
who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”

I am sorry that you misunderstand, I have never spoke of a “new church” I am talking about the “new” Church teaching
accepting what I believe is a false premiss the “homosexual person”. I believe that all members of the Church have an
obligation to the Lord to point out an error by the Church if they see one I believe the Church has an obligation to the
Lord to show why the member is in error or correct the error. I have not found a truly right and just reason for the “new”
Church teaching.

What do you believe 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

 

[at9009]

What do you believe 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

Just a question. What about the Catholics who do experience exclusive sexual attraction to the same sex? Just look at Courage who help many in that position live a chaste, holy, and virtuous life. They’re not giviing into these desires but resisting them and striving to follow God. You seem to be discounting their own existance and experiences. I think the Church is recongnizing their existance in the Catechsim. The Church doesn’t claim to know the cause of the attractions, whether or not the attractions are permanent, or whether or not it represents exlusive same sex attraction. The Church is recongnizing a cross that does exist.

I don’t see how admitting people can have these attractions is a serious false teaching. The Church still teaches that acting on the attractions, whether physical or mental is wrong. It still is an inclination towards an evil. That hasn’t changed.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to think even having the temptations itself is a sin?

 

[jjr9]

Just a question. What about the Catholics who do experience exclusive sexual attraction to the same sex? Just look at Courage who help many in that position live a chaste, holy, and virtuous life. They’re not giviing into these desires but resisting them and striving to follow God. You seem to be discounting their own existance and experiences. I think the Church is recongnizing their existance in the Catechsim. The Church doesn’t claim to know the cause of the attractions, whether or not the attractions are permanent, or whether or not it represents exlusive same sex attraction. The Church is recongnizing a cross that does exist.

I don’t see how admitting people can have these attractions is a serious false teaching. The Church still teaches that acting on the attractions, whether physical or mental is wrong. It still is an inclination towards an evil. That hasn’t changed.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to think even having the temptations itself is a sin?

Everyone has temptation, to allow oneself to get to the point of self-identifying as a “homosexual person” who is
incapable of attraction to persons of the opposite sex may very well be sinful I don’t know. My concern is not about
individuals although my heart breaks for those who miss eternal life caused by the stumbling block the Church has
put out in accepting what I believe to be the false premiss of the “homosexual person”.

The person I communicated with at Courage said:

“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 wish this was the case with the Church.

God bless

 

[jjr9]

I apologize I misunderstood what you said. I have no wish to silence you.

If you believe that “self-identification” is a truly right and just reason for this “new” Church teaching you and
I disagree I do not wish to be disagreeable.

God bless

 

[Rau]

Everyone has temptation, to allow oneself to get to the point of self-identifying as a “homosexual person” who is
incapable of attraction to persons of the opposite sex may very well be sinful I don’t know. My concern is not about
individuals although my heart breaks for those who miss eternal life caused by the stumbling block the Church has
put out in accepting what I believe to be the false premiss of the “homosexual person”.

The person I communicated with at Courage said:

“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 wish this was the case with the Church.

God bless

SSA is not itself temptation, but it provides a context for particular temptations.

Your idea that Church teaching (widely condemned for being harsh and cruel) gives a person an excuse to relinquish the battle to remain chaste is wrong. That authorization is blasted continuously in the media, from every news report, magazine, self-serving politician and TV sitcom. The church is essentially the lone voice for chastity.

Science concludes that SSA is a real phenomena and that some persons experience a strong sexual attraction to the same sex and no sexual attraction to the opposite sex - despite their body being equipped for sexual reproduction. Thousands of persons have given testimony to this effect, including Catholics who strive to be chaste. Are they lying?

 

[jjr9]

SSA is not itself temptation, but it provides a context for particular temptations.

I don’t know what point you are making.

Your idea that Church teaching (widely condemned for being harsh and cruel)

I have not seen any condemnation of the Church for its acceptance of what I believe to be the false premiss
of the “homosexual person” do you have any examples?

gives a person an excuse to relinquish the battle to remain chaste is wrong.

I believe it is perfectly reasonable that 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. I think it is an error for the Church to tell people they are something that doesn’t
exist.

That authorization is blasted continuously in the media, from every news report, magazine, self-serving politician and TV sitcom. The church is essentially the lone voice for chastity.

I am encouraged that the Church is holding the line on this point.

Science concludes that SSA is a real phenomena and that some persons experience a strong sexual attraction to the same sex and no sexual attraction to the opposite sex - despite their body being equipped for sexual reproduction. Thousands of persons have given testimony to this effect, including Catholics who strive to be chaste.

I believe “self-identification” is not part of the scientific method.

Are they lying?

Just because someone is confused does not mean they are lying. As you point out “That authorization
is blasted continuously in the media, from every news report, magazine, self-serving politician and TV
sitcom.” it is not surprising that many are confused. I believe that if one puts their trust in the Lord He
will lead us to a Holy and Eternal Life.

God bless

 

[at9009]

I don’t know what point you are making.
I believe it is perfectly reasonable that 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. I think it is an error for the Church to tell people they are something that doesn’t exist.

Minor point of clarification. One can live a holy and fulfilled life without being in the vocation of marriage, not everyone is called to the vocation of marriage. One can live a holy fulfilled life in a religious order or even as a single lay person.

Also, no one here is saying a person with SSA cannot be called to marriage. Many are and have had successful marriage, but once again not everyone is called to marriage.

 

[Rau]

Minor point of clarification. One can live a holy and fulfilled life without being in the vocation of marriage, not everyone is called to the vocation of marriage. One can live a holy fulfilled life in a religious order or even as a single lay person.

Also, no one here is saying a person with SSA cannot be called to marriage. Many are and have had successful marriage, but once again not everyone is called to marriage.

That’s right. One can live a good and life while experiencing SSA for the entirety of one’s adult life. But I thinkjjr9 does not believe this.

 

[Rau]

…I have not seen any condemnation of the Church…

My goodness, you need to read CAF more.

I believe it is perfectly reasonable that 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. I think it is an error for the Church to tell people they are something that doesn’t exist.

About as reasonable as saying “I (a man) have an inbuilt sexual attraction to women, and I do not have free will to wait any longer for marriage, why don’t I just give in and indulge in the hook-up culture.” One’s inclinations say nothing about the morality of acts. And one need not purse marriage absent a desire to do so.

I believe “self-identification” is not part of the scientific method.

But detailed investigation, interview, testing and observation of thousands of persons is.

Just because someone is confused does not mean they are lying…

In this remark, you begin to acknowledge the reality of SSA for the person, and to seek a cause for it. Alas, none is known, nor is a cure known.

I believe that if one puts their trust in the Lord He will lead us to a Holy and Eternal Life.

Was this ever in doubt? But what has it to do with the scientific observation that some people experience no attraction to persons of the opposite sex, but do experience a strong attraction to persons of the same sex?

 

[jjr9]

Minor point of clarification. One can live a holy and fulfilled life without being in the vocation of marriage, not everyone is called to the vocation of marriage.

I agree.

One can live a holy fulfilled life in a religious order or even as a single lay person.

And I applaud those who follow this call by the Lord.

Also, no one here is saying a person with SSA cannot be called to marriage. Many are and have had successful marriage,

One who has a successful marriage of course does not “experience an exclusive … sexual attraction toward persons of
the same sex” or do you think this possible? You are not suggesting same sex marriage are you?

but once again not everyone is called to marriage.

I do not intend to suggest this but this does raise another point. Can the Church limit freewill?
I don’t think that is in the Church charter, yet to accommodate this “new” teaching the CCC says:

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity.

So the “homosexual person” would not have freewill to have a holy fulfilled life in marriage this is not the
same as people who are called to vocations involving celibacy these choices are the freewill of these people
the Church is saying that by their nature the “homosexual person” does not have freewill to have a holy
fulfilled life in marriage. I believe this shows there is no truly right and just reason to believe that a person
can have the capacity to “experience an exclusive … sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex”

God bless

 

[jjr9]

That’s right. One can live a good and life while experiencing SSA for the entirety of one’s adult life. But I thinkjjr9 does not believe this.

With freewill one can do whatever one would like. It does not follow that anyone has the capacity
to “experience an exclusive … sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex”.

Do you believe anyone is incapable of attraction to persons of the opposite sex? I do not.

God bless

 

[jjr9]

My goodness, you need to read CAF more.

You can quote me out of context if you like. For me it makes no sense.

About as reasonable as saying “I (a man) have an inbuilt sexual attraction to women, and I do not have free will to wait any longer for marriage, why don’t I just give in and indulge in the hook-up culture.” One’s inclinations say nothing about the morality of acts. And one need not purse marriage absent a desire to do so.

Can you cite reference to the Church claiming someone does not " have free will to wait any longer for marriage".

But detailed investigation, interview, testing and observation of thousands of persons is.

For an opinion survey of course not a serious analytical investigation. What “testing” are you referring to?

In this remark, you begin to acknowledge the reality of SSA for the person, and to seek a cause for it. Alas, none is known, nor is a cure known.

I have never disputed the temptation of SSA what I do not acknowledge is that anyone has the capacity to
“experience an exclusive … sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex”.

Was this ever in doubt? But what has it to do with the scientific observation that some people experience no attraction to persons of the opposite sex, but do experience a strong attraction to persons of the same sex?

Again you can quote me out of context if you like. For me it makes no sense.

God bless

 

[Rau]

…Can you cite reference to the Church claiming someone does not " have free will to wait any longer for marriage".

I know of no situation at all where the Church claims people have no free will. That is why it call everyone to chastity!

 

[at9009]

I don’t think that is in the Church charter, yet to accommodate this “new” teaching the CCC says:

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity.

So the “homosexual person” would not have freewill to have a holy fulfilled life in marriage this is not the
same as people who are called to vocations involving celibacy these choices are the freewill of these people
the Church is saying that by their nature the “homosexual person” does not have freewill to have a holy
fulfilled life in marriage. I believe this shows there is no truly right and just reason to believe that a person
can have the capacity to “experience an exclusive … sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex”

God bless

Ummm, correct me if I am wrong, but chastity doesn’t automatically mean celibacy. Chastity exists for all, including those in marriages. I don’t see how this statement is saying that some of them aren’t called to marriage?

Also when I say marriage, I am referring to traditional marriage (I thought that was obvious but I’ll reemphasize that here).

Also, we have freewill. But that relates to the freewill to choose own actions. We don’t have the freewill to choose our temptations (which it seems like you imply). We also should acknowledge of our brokedness in this world. You wouldn’t tell a blind person they’re not blind that they should be able to see because there is no just reason for them not to see or even tell an alcoholic that they’re not an alcoholic but should be able to socially drink because there is no just reason for them to not be able to. We live in a broken world and that world isn’t always fair. Some struggle more than others, but our lives shouldn’t and aren’t about this world anyway. It’s about living out our lives for Christ and ultimatlely spending eternity with him.

I hope this better helps with my perspective. God Bless.

 

[jjr9]

Ummm, correct me if I am wrong, but chastity doesn’t automatically mean celibacy. Chastity exists for all, including those in marriages. I don’t see how this statement is saying that some of them aren’t called to marriage?

I didn’t realize the complexity of the Church’s view of chastity the CCC says:

2337 Chastity means the successful integration of sexuality within the person and thus the inner unity of man in his bodily and spiritual being. Sexuality, in which man’s belonging to the bodily and biological world is expressed, becomes personal and truly human when it is integrated into the relationship of one person to another, in the complete and lifelong mutual gift of a man and a woman.

So if all are called to chastity and with this definition I agree. Why does the Church need to say “2359 Homosexual persons
are called to chastity”?

I don’t believe that this negates my point that if there were a “homosexual person” they would not have freewill to have a
Holy and fulfilled life in marriage.

Also when I say marriage, I am referring to traditional marriage (I thought that was obvious but I’ll reemphasize that here).

Unfortunately in today’s world this is no longer a given.

Also, we have freewill. But that relates to the freewill to choose own actions. We don’t have the freewill to choose our temptations (which it seems like you imply).

I do not intend to suggest we chose our temptations but I do believe that with the Grace the Lord is willing to give but will
not force us to take our temptations do not define who we are.

We also should acknowledge of our brokedness in this world. You wouldn’t tell a blind person they’re not blind that they should be able to see because there is no just reason for them not to see or even tell an alcoholic that they’re not an alcoholic but should be able to socially drink because there is no just reason for them to not be able to. We live in a broken world and that world isn’t always fair. Some struggle more than others, but our lives shouldn’t and aren’t about this world anyway. It’s about living out our lives for Christ and ultimatlely spending eternity with him.

I hope this better helps with my perspective. God Bless.

I am still not clear on your perspective. Do you believe that anyone is incapable of attraction to
persons of the opposite sex? I do not.

God bless