Can someone help?

[jjr9]

I am a cradle Catholic and have had difficulty receiving a response from the Church on what I believe to be a serious error by
the Church. The Church makes the claim that a group of people “experience an exclusive or predominate sexual attraction
toward persons of the same sex”. I believe this defines two types of “homosexual persons” those with an “exclusive sexual
attraction toward persons of the same sex” and those with a “predominate sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex”.
I believe this is a “new” teaching by the Church circa 1993 with the new CCC. I cannot quantify what a predominate “homosexual
person” is, the exclusive “homosexual person” is clear they are not capable of sexual attraction towards persons of the opposite
sex. For the past eleven years I have been seeking answers for this “new” teaching from Catholic clergy and scholars most do not
respond, for the rest it ultimately comes down to go away kid and don’t bother me without providing a truly right and just reason
for this “new” teaching. I believe the “homosexual person”(as defined by the Church) to be a false premise that is a stumbling
block that has been laid on the path of confused people. I believe that accepting the false premise of the “homosexual person”
keeps souls from the Father Almighty, and turns them over to Satan. Does anyone know of a truly right and just reason for this
“new” teaching?

God bless and thanks

 

[1ke]

For the past eleven years I have been seeking answers for this “new” teaching

The confusion most likely lies in the fact that there is no new teaching.

I believe the “homosexual person”(as defined by the Church)

The Church has no such definition, so again I see there is confusion but the reason is because you are concerned about a nonexistent teaching.

I believe that accepting the false premise of the “homosexual person” keeps souls from the Father Almighty, and turns them over to Satan. Does anyone know of a truly right and just reason for this “new” teaching?

There is no teaching about a “homosexual person” and certainly nothing new. So there isn’t anything to “justify”.

 

[Thorolfr]

There is no teaching about a “homosexual person” and certainly nothing new. So there isn’t anything to “justify”.

Actually, there are Church documents that use the term “homosexual persons”. For example, there is the “Letter to the Bishops on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons” which was issued in 1986 by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. This document uses this term throughout to refer to people with same-sex attraction:

“The issue of homosexuality and the moral evaluation of homosexual acts have increasingly become a matter of public debate, even in Catholic circles. Since this debate often advances arguments and makes assertions inconsistent with the teaching of the Catholic Church, it is quite rightly a cause for concern to all engaged in the pastoral ministry, and this Congregation has judged it to be of sufficiently grave and widespread importance to address to the Bishops of the Catholic Church this Letter on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons.”

“Homosexual activity is not a complementary union, able to transmit life; and so it thwarts the call to a life of that form of self-giving which the Gospel says is the essence of Christian living. This does not mean that homosexual persons are not often generous and giving of themselves; but when they engage in homosexual activity they confirm within themselves a disordered sexual inclination which is essentially self-indulgent.”

“The Church’s ministers must ensure that homosexual persons in their care will not be misled by this point of view, so profoundly opposed to the teaching of the Church.”

“The movement within the Church, which takes the form of pressure groups of various names and sizes, attempts to give the impression that it represents all homosexual persons who are Catholics. As a matter of fact, its membership is by and large restricted to those who either ignore the teaching of the Church or seek somehow to undermine it. It brings together under the aegis of Catholicism homosexual persons who have no intention of abandoning their homosexual behaviour.”

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html

 

[Rau]

I am a cradle Catholic and have had difficulty receiving a response from the Church on what I believe to be a serious error by the Church. The Church makes the claim that a group of people “experience an exclusive or predominate sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex”…

Perhaps you could elaborate on the “truth” of the matter as you see it, thus making the “alleged” error clearer?

…I believe the “homosexual person”(as defined by the Church) to be a false premise that is a stumbling block that has been laid on the path of confused people. I believe that accepting the false premise of the “homosexual person” keeps souls from the Father Almighty, and turns them over to Satan. Does anyone know of a truly right and just reason for this “new” teaching?

If I understand you, you reject the idea that some people discover (rather than choose) that they have a homosexual inclination. Is that what you deem a false premise? The fact of the matter is that the Church does not teach anything about the etiology of homosexuality - that is a scientific question outside its expertise. The Catechism merely identifies that some people do experience such an attraction. The fact that many will admit to such attractions (including those who strive to reject them and remain chaste), and many actually choose to accede to or embrace such attractions seems pretty compelling evidence that these folks actually experience the attraction.

Now, as to the expression “homosexual persons”, this term does appear once in the Catechism (2359):

Chastity and homosexuality

*2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 **Homosexual persons **are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection. *

Is the Church declaring some unique kind of person, perhaps with impaired capacity for good? No, of course not. If it makes you more comfortable, substitute the words “Persons experiencing sexual attraction to the same sex”… which I think is preferable language (IMHO) because it avoids giving the impression of a complete reduction of the person to this characteristic. In addition, it also uses less verbiage - noting that it occurs 19 times in the document referenced by Thorolfr!

 

[Rau]

To clarify the last remark in my previous post, I’m saying the expression “homosexual persons” is shortened verbiage for “persons who experience sexual attraction to the same sex” - relevant I suppose in a document that uses the expression 19 times.

 

[1ke]

Thanks for the quotes above re: “homosexual persons”. I was thinking more along the lines of the idea that “being” homosexual is a sin versus the act being sinful… I am wondering if the OP is interpreting Church teaching to be about the attraction rather than the action, something the Church does not teach. But, yes, you are correct, the Church does use the term “homosexual persons”.

 

[Rau]

Thanks for the quotes above re: “homosexual persons”. I was thinking more along the lines of the idea that “being” homosexual is a sin versus the act being sinful… I am wondering if the OP is interpreting Church teaching to be about the attraction rather than the action, something the Church does not teach. But, yes, you are correct, the Church does use the term “homosexual persons”.

I believe the OP (erroneously) perceives the term “homosexual person” to assert innateness of the inclination, and perhaps implying a certain permanence and/or inevitability of consequence.

 

[jjr9]

Thank you all for taking time to reply.

I am aware that the Church has mentioned the “homosexual person” before the new CCC I don’t believe that this
acknowledgment occurs prior to the 1960’s if someone has a reference prior to this please let me know. Prior to
the new CCC the Church had not defined what it understood the the “homosexual person” to be, as far as I know.
I believe the Church’s definition to be in error.

I believe going down the path of accepting people “self identifying” their nature is one the Church should not go down.

I had a Priest in our Diocese tell me “It is an ‘earthly fact’ that there are homosexual people,” I think he is correct
but just because something is an ‘earthly fact’ does not make it true, the world is not flat and the sun does not circle
the earth.

If anyone ever comes across 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” please let me know.

God bless

 

[Rau]

…If anyone ever comes across a substantial right and just reason for the Church’s claim that a group of people experience -]are capable of/-] “an exclusive or predominant… sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex” please let me know.

And if you can offer a reason for why a few percent of the population claim that they do in fact experience such attractions, and various medical professions hold that these people are truthfully reporting what they experience, please let us know.

 

[jjr9]

And if you can offer a reason for why a few percent of the population claim that they do in fact experience such attractions,

I believe it is temptation I can not tell you what brings any particular person to any specific temptation but I
will say that I believe Satan to be a convincing liar. Just because someone is attracted to immoral behavior
it does not necessarily follow that they cannot be attracted to moral behavior.

and various medical professions hold that these people are truthfully reporting what they experience, please let us know.

If by this you are referring to psychology. I believe that psychology helps many people but I believe it is a soft
science that is hard to prove. Some in psychology tell us that God is a delusion.

God bless

 

[jjr9]

Originally Posted by jjr9 View Post
…If anyone ever comes across a substantial right and just reason for the Church’s claim that a group of people experience are capable of “an exclusive or predominant… sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex” please let me know.

I would appreciate that you do not edit my words. What I said was:

If anyone ever comes across 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” please let me know.

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?

 

[Rau]

I would appreciate that you do not edit my words. What I said was:

If anyone ever comes across 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” please let me know.

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?

I edited you words - visibly so with strike-through and red font - so they match the Catechism which you criticize. Your original remained for all to see.

 

[Rau]

I believe it is temptation I can not tell you what brings any particular person to any specific temptation but I will say that I believe Satan to be a convincing liar. Just because someone is attracted to immoral behavior it does not necessarily follow that they cannot be attracted to moral behavior.

Satan also tells them they have no attraction to the opposite sex and they dutifully believe that too! That sure is an impressive lie! Curious that you believe this unprovable assertion (it’s all Satan’s work), rather then the word of those good Catholics (and others) who suffer the trial of same sex attraction and the lack of attraction to the opposite sex, and who strive each day to reject it.

 

[jjr9]

Curious that you believe this unprovable assertion (it’s all Satan’s work),

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

 

[Rau]

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

The Church doesn’t claim it. It observes it. It makes no claim as to etiology and its moral teaching is not subject to etiology.

I refer you to the remainder of my posts and if you have any substantial right snd just responses, I’d be pleased to hear them.

 

[jjr9]

The Church doesn’t claim it. It observes it.

The Church presents this as true. Can you cite the disclaimer you refer to by the Church?

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

 

[Rau]

The Church presents this as true. Can you cite the disclaimer you refer to by the Church?

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

See post #16.

 

[jjr9]

I refer you to the remainder of my posts and if you have any substantial right snd just responses, I’d be pleased to hear them.

I will be happy to try and answer any questions you have related to the Church’s claim that a group of people
have the capacity to “experience an exclusive … sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex”.

I do not know what you have said that you need clarification of my view on. I would prefer one question at a time
and specificity would be appreciated.

At this time I only have one question for you. If you want to wait till I have answered all your questions that is
fine with me. If you cannot or don’t want to answer my question that is fine too.

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

God bless

 

[MarkInOregon]

The Church presents this as true. Can you cite the disclaimer you refer to by the Church?

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

Do you know of a right and just reason to deny this observation of the Church? Do you view this observation as a teaching on faith and morals that is not subject to change? I don’t. The Church has always taught that homosexual activity is wrong–that’s the teaching on faith and morals 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.

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

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[MarkInOregon]

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

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