Catholicism and the Gay Gene

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hope1960
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hope1960 said:
I just wanted to know if the Church believes homosexuality is a lifestyle choice or if it is genetic/biological/something that happened in utero etc.
Click to expand...
People choose to engage in particular kinds of sexual acts. Why some people are attracted to same sex acts, we do not know.
 
It matters insofar as we approach this in a pastoral and sensitive manner. It’s not enough to throw out terms like “mortal sin,” especially to people who are gay. We have to understand that they don’t choose to be gay. These strong feelings and attractions mitigate full responsibility.
 
Ok, the Church has no position on if there’s a GAY GENE, but does the Church have position on if it’s biological or something that happened in utero?

In other words, does the Catholic Church have a position, at all, on how someone becomes gay?
 
Last edited:
The catechism, at the time it was written acknowledges that its origin is mysterious but unchosen nevertheless. The Catholic Church is open to the findings of science.
 
From what I understand, the church has no official teaching on the science of homosexual attractions. It has the authority to define Faith and Morals, but its leaving this up to the scientific professions. The church doesn’t really define science. It is interesting in reading this vatican document: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html

I found this excerpt:
Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women. One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies.

Which while not teaching this, it would be easy to imagine that the author of this article understands homosexual attractions to not be 'a inconsuquential thing for the priesthood, because priests are celibate anyway", but a deeper disturbing problem on a social and phsycological level.

I am a struggler of homosexual attractions, and That is my point of view, so I could be reading it into the article, but that’s what i think personally.
 
Last edited:
Being gay’s origin is mysterious but unchosen?

If so, I didn’t know the Catichism addressed being gay.
 
Last edited:
I don’t know where that concept could be cited from, or if its in there, but here is what I found online from the catechism on homosexuality: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

scroll down to “Chastity and Homosexuality”

oh here’s one
“Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained”

I guess that’s not to say there isn’t one, but just that most people do not know of it. It does imply its a phsycological problem though.
 
Last edited:
Joe 73, what if it’s not a psychological problem but a genetic or biological one? Wouldn’t that mean the Catechism is in error?
 
Last edited:
Thistle in post #47, Joe 73 says the Catechism implies homosexuality is psychological. According to psychologists and psychiatrists, it’s not.

So is the Church wrong?
 
Last edited:
There’s a genetic component to height, but your height is not determined at birth.

Same-sex attraction is probably a combination of both genetics and other factors out of human control (e.g., prenatal hormones) and environmental upbringing and psychological development.

The cause of SSA is irrelevant to inherent sinfulness of committing sexual acts outside of marriage.

SSA by itself is not sin; it’s a condition some of us have to deal with.

“Being gay” is not sin insofar as “gay” is defined as having SSA. But “living that lifestyle” is sin. (This distinction is often not made, leading to great confusion and bitterness and claims of marginalization and hate and bigotry etc.)

It is the willful action that is sin, not the temptation for it.

The Church does not discriminate against gays and lesbians — NO ONE is excused from chastity.

We’re all in this together, the good, the bad, the easy, the difficult :hugs:
 
Yes, I belong to the Catholic Church. Even before I converted, I knew I was gay/SSA/whatever you want to call it.
 
I apologise if this is the most ignorant statement you’ve ever heard, but if you don’t mind me asking; is there any reason a SSA male and a SSA female couldn’t make a good couple? I know that sounds strange but you might be surprised how many heterosexual married couples have virtually non-existent sex lives! I guess what i’m saying is ‘is the companionship aspect of marriage with a female not enticing to a man with SSA, even if the physical side isn’t?’
 
You know, I thought about that, “Technically I can get married to a faithful Catholic woman with SSA. But she’ll have to kill the spiders.” (Aside from SSA, I have arachnophobia.)

But there are too many other factors involved and it just gets complicated.

So I’ll just try to stick with celibacy. Day by day.
 
Yeah maybe I’m just being simplistic. Thanks for your answer anyway and respect to you for your chastity. Your analysis of the ‘causes’ of SSA was spot on too. Sometimes it makes me feel like a hypocrite because I support the Church but I know SSA is not a choice. Therefore, if i had SSA then I really wondered if i could live the a life of chastity. I like to think that if I had everything but the sex (i.e.a female ‘wife’ / ‘friend’ that i slept with, ate with, shared things with etc) then hopefully I could do it. Joining CAF really makes me respect the people who have SSA and keep the faith.
 
Last edited:
Hope1960 said:
According to psychologists and psychiatrists, it’s not.
Click to expand...
What do psychologists and psychiatrists tell us is the cause? Answer: they have no clue either. What they tell us is that there is no point - pragmatically speaking - in regarding the condition as a mental illness.
 
Yes, but according to post # 47, the Catechism implies the Church thinks it’s psychological.
 
Last edited:
It speaks of a psychological genesis, taking that as a “given” (not something taught, or a diagnosis). To what else would one attribute odd feelings and behaviours? And our physical body (includes genetics) always plays a part. Have you noticed that drugs play a part in treating psychological conditions such as depression. And a heightened risk of depression runs in some families. Should we now say depression is caused by a gene? Everything about us derives in some (often small) way from our physical body.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top