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 sex1]”. I believe this defines (5) two types of “homosexual persons2]” 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 3] 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 4]. Does anyone know of a truly right and just reason for this “new” teaching?
God bless and thanks
I am new to this thread in recent hours and there is a lot of very interesting nuances and I am working my way through some of them gradually. I hope my observations will be of help.
Statement 1 draws on the unfashionable first-hand testimony of whoever it draws on. Those testifying to my knowledge and observation have not inerrantly defined ex-their sitting areas that they are never going to have different attractions or non-attractions or emotions (which they just plain don’t know and just plain isn’t an issue
at all and see more on this below *), merely relating where they were at in it so far. This has the immense value of speaking to outsiders who can identify with some part of their life’s story. In a world where all authorities are shifting the goalposts it is unfashionably poignant to have to “to thyself be true” (like St Paul and Jeus Himself also enjoin us).
Phrase 2 occurs both in a document of B XVI and in the CCC. The phrase is copied from the world and does what John says it does in his point 4, because it tends to confirm the catechesis of the world that the person described’s actions, his desires (whether serious or not), his merest emotions and his identity are all the same thing.
Most of those John has enquired of probably have an institutional investment in the poor wording. I am surprise this wasn’t commented on earlier.
At the same time when John claims to be paraphasing himself he is often apparently making a different point (which doesn’t quite come over clearly) and it is this apparent second point that almost all the other posters have attempted to address, sometimes by invoking some form of “science” rather than calling for respect for unfashionable first-hand testimony.
John’s C-word (3) is will do fine as a vague word for where one has been and is at so far as far as one is aware, and for reasons I stated a few paragraphs back (*) the context is not appropriate for attempts to rigidly categorise matters of the internal forum such as emotions, by something like an additional canon law - not by Church authorities, not by John, not by the people concerned themselves, not by me, not by anybody.
For “defines” (5) a loose “alludes to” would be better suited to the reality.
I am beginning to wonder if in more than one part of this thread there isn’t a whiff of that commonplace but taken-for-granted species, SCRUPULOSITY-BY-PROXY !!!
Cheer up everybody!
:nope: :sad_yes:
