Comment in textbook (Catholicism & homosexuality)

[Revelation]

Good evening everyone,
I came across this statement in a book that I’m reading for an education course on race, class, and gender.

Although the Catholic Church accepts that homosexuality is a natural predisposition (that is, one is born with it), the Church continues to denounce homosexual activitity as a sin – the only instance of the church forbidding something it admits to be natural. The struggle within the Catholic Church over this issue is reflected in a letter from American bishops urging Catholic parents to accept and love their gay and lesbian children regardless of whether they refrain from acting on their homosexuality (Christian Century Foundation, 1997)

My understanding is that the Church does not have a definite teaching on the issue of homosexuality in the sense of whether it’s cause is biological or not. I thought that the Church had somewhere stated that it is open to the possibility that homosexuality could be caused by physiological factors. Regardless of whether this proves to be true or not, homosexual acts would be sinful as they are not part of God’s design.

Any insights would be helpful (especially with documents from the Church).

The name of the book is “Understanding Human Differences” by Kent Koppelman

 

[marty1818]

This tract is might be helpful, specifically the part “I Was Born This Way”.
catholic.com/tracts/homosexuality

the only instance of the church forbidding something it admits to be natural.

Homosexual orientation/acts are not natural and the Church does not say they are.

The struggle within the Catholic Church over this issue is reflected in a letter from American bishops urging Catholic parents to accept and love their gay and lesbian children regardless of whether they refrain from acting on their homosexuality (Christian Century Foundation, 1997)

I find it odd that they cite a protestant publication as the source, and it’s a secondary source.

 

[Equites_Christi]

The passage starts out well but quickly becomes misleading.

The first problem word is ‘natural’. Here the author is using ‘natural’ in connection to mean ‘something one is born with’, but it gives the sense of good, wholesome, etc.

There are plenty of examples of behaviors that people are indeed born with, but are not good or wholesome. They are ‘natural’ in the sense of being in-born, but nonetheless they are not alright to encourage, for the good of that person.

The other problem word is ‘love’, which poses a big stumbling block for communication between Catholics and secular people. Catholics do not conceive as love as simply approving anything that something does, but rather willing the good of the other person, even if their own will is not in line with their own good. Therefore Catholics can and must love all people, while this does not at all mean approving of sins.

 

[St_Francis]

Revelation,
In the Catechism of the Catholic Church there is a paragraph stating the Church’s position, which is that we do not know the genesis of homosexuality.

Marty,
If that is the same letter that I recall, it was put out by a committee of low-level folks at the USCCB. It caused a bit if a scandal because it was the first that people onew of the committees writing letters and then putting them out as USCCB documents. IIRC, the letter was withdrawn (which would explain why it can only be found on a Protestant site…)

 

[TomD123]

Good evening everyone,
I came across this statement in a book that I’m reading for an education course on race, class, and gender.

My understanding is that the Church does not have a definite teaching on the issue of homosexuality in the sense of whether it’s cause is biological or not. I thought that the Church had somewhere stated that it is open to the possibility that homosexuality could be caused by physiological factors. Regardless of whether this proves to be true or not, homosexual acts would be sinful as they are not part of God’s design.

Any insights would be helpful (especially with documents from the Church).

The name of the book is “Understanding Human Differences” by Kent Koppelman

The Church teaches that the desire for intimacy with people of the same sex is an unnatural desire meaning that it is not ordered the way it should be. We should (as in human nature’s norm) desire the opposite sex because this is how our biological systems are oriented. If our desires aren’t in line with this, they aren’t in line with our biology and what the reproductive system was meant for hence the desires are intrinsically dissordered or unnatural. The Church says they are not sinful because people do not willingly take on these desires but through no fault of their own find themselves with them…or at least that is the case in most situations.

Anyway, the Church does not have a teaching on the cause of these desires (same sex attraction). The Church wouldn’t have a teaching on this, its more of a scientific question. The Church basically says though that it doesn’t matter how these desires come about, whatever their cause they still are not natural or ordered towards their proper end.

It also doesn’t effect the fact that homosexual acts remain sinful

 

[marty1818]

Marty,
If that is the same letter that I recall, it was put out by a committee of low-level folks at the USCCB. It caused a bit if a scandal because it was the first that people onew of the committees writing letters and then putting them out as USCCB documents. IIRC, the letter was withdrawn (which would explain why it can only be found on a Protestant site…)

Interesting. Thanks for posting that.

 

[manualman]

The church has done a very good job in recent centuries of making it’s jurisdiction clear and not being tempted to cross the line and make statements in areas where there is no infallible protections.

It’s an infallible church teaching that sodomy is an innately sinful behavior. But God hasn’t directly revealed to us where that inclination comes from in those who desire it. We’re left to apply reason and the evidene is far from conclusive at this date.

There are plenty on both sides of the issue willing to assert to the death that they KNOW that homosexuality is/isn’t an inborn trait. IMHO, they’re both missing the point.

ALL of us have inclinations towards evil. It’s part of being a fallen and sinful human in need of a Savior. Some people DO have inborn inclinations towards sinful and self destructive behaviors. I’ve know Native Americans with a profound weakness for alcohol, for example that doesn’t seem to be merely behavioral. That doesn’t make it healthy for them to be perpetually drunken. I’m mystified why gay activists think that convincing people that homosexuality is “inborn” should automatically make people affirm it as healthy. Other people seem innately prone to obesity in ways that others aren’t. The clogged arteries don’t care and will kill them anyways. Some inclinations just need to be resisted because they are harmful.

Maybe it’s genetic, maybe it’s learned, maybe gay people aren’t as homogenous as ideologues would prefer them to be! In deciding what means to employ in coping with those attractions, perhaps it matters where it comes from In deciding whether or not to resist those inclinations, it doesn’t matter at all.

 

[Newbie2]

The Church teaches that the desire for intimacy with people of the same sex is an unnatural desire meaning that it is not ordered the way it should be.

I would be careful to specify “physical intimacy”. Intimacy can be “platonic”, in a sense, between two close friends or siblings of the same gender.

 

[markomalley]

The Church does not attest one way or the other whether same sex attraction is caused through genetic or environmental factors (or a combination thereof).

The Church clearly teaches that same sex attraction is objectively disordered (that is, if it is acted upon, it will, in all cases, lead to grave sin).

The Church teaches that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. By that, it is meant that there are no circumstances where homosexual acts are not gravely evil. There is nothing that can mitigate the gravity of the act.

There is a canard put out by libertines (to which, if your account is accurate, the author of this book appears to play right into) that states that there is no difference between homosexual sex and heterosexual sex outside of marriagfe. That is simply untrue. Heterosexual sex outside of marriage is extrinsically disordered, in as much as the circumstances determine whether it is a grave evil or is a moral good (the circumstances being that if the couple are married and that the sexual act is open to life, it is a good act…)

I would be very cautious about this textbook. While I recognize that you must use it as part of the requirements for a class, I would not attempt, in any way, to inculcate its information into your psyche, as the agenda of the author is absolutely apparent. From the outline of the book on Amazon:

• long-term effects of preschool education and the influence of attendance for low-income students in middle schools
• important issues dealing with social media and other forms of digital media
• the practices stemming from anti-Muslim attitudes
• why zero tolerance policies don’t work in K-12 schools
• civil implications of racial profiling
• how anti-immigrant activities effect all immigrants
• the concept of** white privilege**
• the needs of homeless and low-income children
• the consequences of racial disparities for people of color
• how **changing attitudes among younger Americans **has become a major factor behind shifts in federal policy
• the rights of students with disabilities

It appears that the author (and the professor who uses it in his/her class) is attempting to use this book as a tool of brainwashing.

 

[catholictiger]

this comment in the textbook is very close to what the church teaches, but what it got wrong is that Catholic’s consider homosexuality as natural. That is far from the truth of Catholic teaching.

being born with something doesn’t make it “natural” we are all born with the stain of original sin but sin is not natural to human nature.

the Church sees homosexual tendencies as disordered. The CCC doesn’t say this explicitly but if you look at 2357-2359 it is clear that homosexual acts are not natural.

here is one quote

“homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”

 

[fix]

Good evening everyone,
I came across this statement in a book that I’m reading for an education course on race, class, and gender.

My understanding is that the Church does not have a definite teaching on the issue of homosexuality in the sense of whether it’s cause is biological or not. I thought that the Church had somewhere stated that it is open to the possibility that homosexuality could be caused by physiological factors. Regardless of whether this proves to be true or not, homosexual acts would be sinful as they are not part of God’s design.

Any insights would be helpful (especially with documents from the Church).

The name of the book is “Understanding Human Differences” by Kent Koppelman

The quote is quite wrong. Not only is the use of the term “natural” incorrect in that context but it is wrong to claim the Church teaches something “natural” is wrong.

The inclination is dis-ordered. It is not ordered toward the good. It is not natural in any sense unless one means simply that it occurs in nature.