Catholics are ceding too much ground to the homosexual agenda

[Crescentinus]

Everything except the phenomenon of physically asynchronous people (by virtue of sex organs, sex hormones, etc.) is Junk Science. There is no such thing as someone who is physically one gender but “mentally” another. If it’s “mental,” he or she needs a psychological clinician, not a surgeon or an exceptional identifier.

 

[april32010]

There is no such thing as a “transgendered” person. That is a recently invented concept in total contradiction to Catholic moral theology with respect to the ontological facts of gender. No Catholic is obligated to accept this concept. We are, in fact, obligated to reject it.

:clapping::clapping:

 

[Crescentinus]

There is no such thing as a “transgendered” person. That is a recently invented concept in total contradiction to Catholic moral theology with respect to the ontological facts of gender. No Catholic is obligated to accept this concept. We are, in fact, obligated to reject it.

 

[asd72]

There is no such thing as a “transgendered” person. That is a recently invented concept in total contradiction to Catholic moral theology with respect to the ontological facts of gender. No Catholic is obligated to accept this concept. We are, in fact, obligated to reject it.

I don’t think it is right to deny someone’s experience whatever the terminology, some people feel born into the wrong sex just like some people feel same sex attraction. It is just how we should respond to it as Catholics that is different.

We should of course acknowledge their suffering, feeling this way is not a sin. We believe it is something to be treated psychologically/spiritually rather than with trying to live as someone of the opposite sex, with dressing up/ surgical treatments etc.

 

[BTNYC]

I don’t think it is right to deny someone’s experience whatever the terminology, some people feel born into the wrong sex just like some people feel same sex attraction. It is just how we should respond to it as Catholics that is different.

We should of course acknowledge their suffering, feeling this way is not a sin. We believe it is something to be treated psychologically/spiritually rather than with trying to live as someone of the opposite sex, with dressing up/ surgical treatments etc.

The situation is comparable to a person who believes he is Napoleon. The person is suffering from a psychological disorder. The person is absolutely deserving of care and compassion. But care and compassion does not entail lending any legitimacy to the delusion. And it certainly doesn’t entail disfiguring, sterilizing surgery and / or hormone “therapy.”

Denial of objective truth is never compassionate.

 

[fix]

Again as the original idea of this thread is, the language is very important. Sounds like you are getting confused with the original and true meaning behind the language amd getting mixed up by the propganda that is spewed by the gay agenda.

Bingo

 

[fix]

I don’t think it is right to deny someone’s experience whatever the terminology, some people feel born into the wrong sex just like some people feel same sex attraction. It is just how we should respond to it as Catholics that is different.

Your position goes to the basis of the OP’s thread. It is exactly that people want to manipulate language that is the issue. Simple changing the name of something does not change reality. That is why terms like “gay”, “pro choice”, “homophobia”, and much more are so very problematic.

 

[Baelor]

As I’ve explained, the “concept represented by the word,” has been redefinied repeatedly, and in current political discourse, Merriam-Webster notwithstanding, it now means “any opposition to homosexuality,” including mere defense of traditional marriage. Search for news stories cross refernecing “Chick Fil A” and “homophobia” and see for yourself.

It can mean that, but it does not need to. “Racism” is also frequently misused; I do not hear anyone clamoring for its removal from the English language. Far better to use the term correctly.

Have you checked the glossary?

Nothing in the glossary about “homophobia,” though.

It is in dictionaries now. We are discussing modern language and how it is used.

2353 Fornication is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman. It is gravely contrary to the dignity of persons and of human sexuality which is naturally ordered to the good of spouses and the generation and education of children. Moreover, it is a grave scandal when there is corruption of the young.

So…it is grave and disordered, both of which you explicitly denied.

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex.

“Relations” in the broadest possible sense, i.e. the sexual attraction between them. If it referred to immoral conduct, then the Church would make that explicit by saying that homosexuality refers to “immoral sexual relations.” This is borne out by the rest of the paragraphs.

Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained.

i.e. homosexuality is a MENTAL state, not an action.

which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity

Homosexual ACTS, not homosexuality – the Church is very clear; I do not understand why you are fighting this or why you think that the Church believes homosexuality involves actions when it obviously does not.

homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”

Homosexual ACTS, not homosexuality.

Furthermore, reference the CCC quotations I posted in my above posts, which state clearly that for most homosexuals, it is not a choice. This very clearly precludes the possibility of homosexuality referring to actions.

Fornication is a grave sin. I never claimed otherwise.

BTNYC:

Propcreative heterosexual sex outside of marriage

is sinful by virtue of its being outside of marriage. It is neither gravely disordered nor intrinsically evil, however.

Please do not lie when there is a complete paper trail.

But, as per the CCC, it is not intrinsically disordered, because, while it is contrary to God’s ordering of sexuality for the good of spouses, it is not “contrary to natural law.”

Give it up. You are wrong. The very quotation you posted states that you are wrong.

CCC:

It is gravely contrary to the dignity of persons and of human sexuality which is naturally ordered to the good of spouses and the generation and education of children

It is contrary to natural law because natural law involves sex being ordered to the good of spouses, not just man and woman.

Also, as per the first line of CCC 2357, quoted above, in bold - homosexuality refers **not **

to people who experience same sex attraction, but rather to “relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex.” Going forward in this discussion, let us, as Catholics, hold consistently to this, the CCC’s definition of homosexuality.

I explained what that meant in conjunction with other excerpts from the CCC, which show clearly that the Church does not believe that homosexuality refers to actions, but rather relations in the broadest sense possible.

The existence of men and women who have overcome their homosexual inclinations, married, and raised children disproves the validity of your reasoning.

That does not mean that everyone is homosexual or the same reason, or that all homosexuals are able to become heterosexual.

This question is framed to lead me to accepting your / Merriam-Webster’s definition of the neologism “homophobia.”

Indeed it is. That does not change the fact that the definition, one consistent with the Church’s teaching, includes murdering homosexual teenagers because of their homosexuality.

No, it’s a matter of Catholic moral theology, natural law and common sense. Heterosexuality is the sole natural orientation of human sexuality.

The Church does not reject the possibility of disordered sexualities being conditions from birth.

Male and female sexual complimentarity is a biological, ontological and metaphysical fact.

No one is denying this.

The point of my repeatedly saying this is to illustrate the falsehood of the commonly held (thanks to concessions to the homosexualist lexicon ) notion that homosexuality and heterosexuality are merely “orientations” with one having no greater or lesser inherent value than the other.

I agree with you completely.

No, but when you misrepresent my usage of it, I will call you out on it.

I did not misrepresent your usage; I used it in a different context for my own purposes. There is a very big difference.

 

[Baelor]

Homosexually inclined persons have both options open to them.

See below.

The fact that there are formerly homosexual persons who have gone on to the vocation of Sacramental married life is evidence not only of the Church’s approval of such unions, but also of the fact that the homosexual inclination can be conquered just as other inclinations to sexual sin can be conquered.

If they conquered their homosexual inclination, they are not homosexuals.

The Church acknowledges that homosexual tendencies can be “deep-seated,”
no doubt to differing degrees according to each particular case, but it does not hold, as the homosexualist lobby does, and, apparently, as you do, that it is a “static” condition.

Nor does it reject the possibility of the condition being static in some cases.

I’m arguing that, because it is a term of questionable origin (in that it was coined by a homosexual activist)

This is irrelevant. “Hooligan” has a very questionable origin; no one cares anymore. The word can be appropriated however we wish. The idea of a taint by origin is bizarre when the definition can be completely divorced from that.

and questionable popular usage in themainstream (as a cudgel against Catholic moral teaching),

Something we should fight by adhering to a reasonable, moral definition.

that it ought not to be taken at face value by Catholics, and that Catholics are under no obligation to grant it the same legitimacy that non and/or anti Catholic institutions (Merriam-Webster, homosexual activists, the mainstream media, etc) are demanding it be granted.

That is correct, just as we are not required to accept the definitions of any word ever. But you have no presented any really compelling case as to why we should reject the word “homophobia” altogether instead of attempting to use it in a reasonable way, nor have you suggested an alternative.

It does not, however, see fit to attach a specific name to that scenario, even though “homophobia” existed as an option.

Because “treat unjustly” is more specific than “homophobia.” There is a very simple answer. The Church would then need to define “homophobia,” which it could have done, but the result would have been the same.

That is telling.

Consider the definition for racism. It would basically be the same as a Catholic definition of homophobia, i.e. unjust treatment.

I believe it means these potential injustices should be taken on a case-by-case basis, and that there is no clearly defined social evil of epidemic proportions to be identified and named, as there is in the case of racism.

I have plenty of evidence for the common occurrence of homophobia as I defined it. Let me get the correct evidence for you. Let me know what would meet your burden of proof. That is, what would it take for you to believe that homophobia is common?

If it “clearly stated” that, it would contain the phrase “morally impermissible.”

Are you saying that the Church condones unjust discrimination? There is no need to label this as “morally impermissible” because injustice is already known to be morally impermissible.

Note, in the last line of CCC 2358 that the imperative “must” is not repeated, but is dropped in favor of the weaker “should.” That is meaningful.

No, it is not. There is never an instance in which the correct action is different from what we “should” do by definition. It is as strong of a statement we all are always called to do what we should do. Furthermore, “every sign of unjust discrimination” is hardly a weak statement.

The Church is aware of the potential for exagerration and abuse in this regard and so specifically uses words to indicate the differnece in gravity and urgency between treating homosexual people with the dignity due to all people,

That does not make the teaching less binding, only that one is graver and more urgent than another.

Therefore, my paraphrase “advises us to avoid” is accurate.

It is a total misrepresentation unless you are defining it as a moral imperative to avoid.

CCC 2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex.

There is no indication this involves actions at all. I have relations with many persons; I have sex with none of them. If homosexuality referred to something inherently sinful, the CCC would tell us. Instead, it says that the homosexual condition is not a choice. If homosexuality referred to actions, then the “homosexual condition” would BE a choice because the Church accepts free will.
"CCC:

They do not choose their homosexual condition

If “homosexual” pertained only to actions between individuals, it could not be a condition.

Certainly, he is a damn sight more authoritative in this discussion than the Merriam-Webster publishing company.

Not on the issue of secular definitions.

 

[fix]

It can mean that, but it does not need to. “Racism” is also frequently misused; I do not hear anyone clamoring for its removal from the English language. Far better to use the term correctly.

It is decried all the time. Even the phrase “playing the race card” has come into usage to show how abused it is.

 

[Baelor]

To settle the discussion on the CCC, I have pulled every instance of “homosexual” and “homosexuality.”

CCC:

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,140 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."141 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.

CCC:

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is 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.

CCC:

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.

CCC:

2396 Among the sins gravely contrary to chastity are masturbation, fornication, pornography, and homosexual practices.

Several things may be noted:

1. There is no statement anywhere in the CCC that “homosexuality” is gravely evil or in any way immoral, only “homosexual acts/practices/etc.”. This suggests that homosexuality itself is not itself sinful. The only way this is possible is if “homosexuality” does not involve action. If homosexuality itself were sinful (i.e. involving action), surely the CCC would opt for succinctness and state that homosexuality is sinful.
2. There is an explicit statement that the “homosexual condition” is not a choice. “Homosexual” as an adjective, therefore, cannot involve action, but rather some mental state. It makes far more sense that “homosexual” as a noun is an extension of this definition than to add in a component of action without reason to do so. The CCC does not in any way suggest that it has taken this less likely route.
3. On the topic of relations, one may look to the other parts of the CCC containing that word used in a similar way:

CCC:

37…For the truths that concern the relations between God and man

CCC:

154…Even in human relations it is not contrary to our dignity to believe what other persons tell us about themselves and their intentions

CCC:

354 Respect for laws inscribed in creation and the relations which derive from the nature of things

CCC:

400…the union of man and woman becomes subject to tensions, their relations henceforth marked by lust and domination.

CCC:

500…They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression.

CCC:

575…To be sure, Christ’s relations with the Pharisees

CCC:

1607 According to faith the disorder we notice so painfully does not stem from the nature of man and woman, nor from the nature of their relations, but from sin. As a break with God, the first sin had for its first consequence the rupture of the original communion between man and woman. Their relations were distorted by mutual recriminations; their mutual attraction, the Creator’s own gift, changed into a relationship of domination and lust

There is a footnote after “recriminations” directing us to Genesis 3:12.

CCC:

2213…Right relations between employers and employees

CCC:

2380…When two partners, of whom at least one is married to another party, have sexual relations

CCC:

2388…Incest designates intimate relations between relatives or in-laws

CCC:

2391…engage in premature sexual relations

CCC:

2438…iniquitous commercial relations among nations

CCC:

2464…misrepresenting the truth in our relations with others

CCC:

2382…economic and international relations

The conclusion follows obviously, but to make it as clear as possible: none of the instances of relations without “sexual” or “intimate” have any connotations of sexual activity whatsoever. Even 400 and 1607 are unquestionably non-sexual, especially given the Genesis reference.

Thus, “relations” is used in the Catechism not to connote sexual activity, but rather it refers to interaction in the broadest possible sense, q.v. 2464, and is not even limited to human-human interaction.

Consequently the “relations” in 2357 cannot possibly be sexual, as all other instances of sexual relations are clearly labeled as such. Nor does the Catechism condemn these relations or homosexuality.

 

[Baelor]

It is decried all the time. Even the phrase “playing the race card” has come into usage to show how abused it is.

I do not see anyone clamoring for its eradication from the English language, only that it not be abused.

 

[fix]

I do not see anyone clamoring for its eradication from the English language, only that it not be abused.

Getting pedantic I think but I may as well mention that the word is racism, not race-ophobia.

 

[Elizabeth502]

There is an explicit statement that the “homosexual condition” is not a choice.

Not in the current Catechism there isn’t. The previous statement about “choice” was in the earlier edition and has been removed.

 

[edwest2]

There is no such thing as a “transgendered” person. That is a recently invented concept in total contradiction to Catholic moral theology with respect to the ontological facts of gender. No Catholic is obligated to accept this concept. We are, in fact, obligated to reject it.

Thank you for your well-reasoned, accurate and faithful witness. Too often, because of constant repetition, people are led astray, but the Bible tells us the people are destroyed through lack of knowledge - which includes natural, biological and metaphysical realities.

bible.cc/hosea/4-6.htm

Since all of us are bombarded by the constant repetition of false knowledge, we essentially meditate on it. We need to be aware of what the world is saying, but we must be aware of the fact that due to our desire to be compassionate, since our compassion, or sense of fairness, is often called into question, we need to guard ourselves by knowing the truth and passing it on to others. This is a work of charity, and a clearing away of the fog or double-mindedness that afflicts some of us; i.e. do I listen to the Church or do I listen to the world? In this case, because some do not know and/or fully accept what you’ve been writing about.

Thanks again,
Ed

 

[fix]

Not in the current Catechism there isn’t. The previous statement about “choice” was in the earlier edition and has been removed.

Indeed:

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.

 

[edwest2]

Everything except the phenomenon of physically asynchronous people (by virtue of sex organs, sex hormones, etc.) is Junk Science. There is no such thing as someone who is physically one gender but “mentally” another. If it’s “mental,” he or she needs a psychological clinician, not a surgeon or an exceptional identifier.

And everyone should know that those with certain mental associative issues, are beginning to be denied treatment, in one case, by force of law. Like a recent law put into effect of the Governor of California:

cnn.com/2012/10/01/us/california-gay-therapy-ban/index.html

Fortunately, a lawsuit was filed a few days later.

cnn.com/2012/10/04/us/california-gay-therapy/index.html

Peace,
Ed

 

[fix]

1. There is an explicit statement that the “homosexual condition” is not a choice.

That was an error in an earlier edition.

 

[Baelor]

Not in the current Catechism there isn’t. The previous statement about “choice” was in the earlier edition and has been removed.

You are correct; I was operating off the older version of the Catechism that was on the Vatican’s website.

That does not make my conclusion or the rest of my post any less true, however.

 

[edwest2]

It is decried all the time. Even the phrase “playing the race card” has come into usage to show how abused it is.

Racism is still very much alive. Unfortunately, it is used in political propaganda as well, but not to convey real knowledge, but usually to get an emotional reaction out of the reader/listener.

Peace,
Ed