Do conservative Christian teachings on homosexuality cause hatred and violence against the LGBT community?

[SecretCatholic]

You need to stop with the whole “mythical” thing, and I say this with love. You seem to have an obsession with this, and I don’t understand why?

I believe that what is being expressed here is that homosexuality, although it can be “deep-seated” (like any sin), is not ultimately a proper attribute of the real human person made in the image and likeness of God. Instead it’s a disordered behavior and SSA is a disordered tendency. And to identify yourself as a “homosexual person” is misleading and counter-productive to the proper understanding of your nature and function as a human being. You’re identifying with a disorder. And nobody is a disorder, even though we all have disordered behaviors.

I recently heard it said that all improper “I AM” statements where dangerous to our self-image and I agree. Even things like “I am an alcoholic” or even “I am a recovering alcoholic” can be very counter-productive. “I have abused alcohol” or “I have addictive cravings” are better statements. These are things that, as sinners, we all experience to some degree. I certainly experience many disordered temptations in life. But I don’t identify myself with them, even when I have indulged in them in the past- because that’s not me- that’s simply disordered behavior I have engaged in.

“…I’m gay”
No you’re not
“…yes I am”
No you’re not
“…am too!”
Are not…

Just because a person claims a certain identity doesn’t make it so- like a man who claims to be a woman. “Gay” may be a common way of identifying a man (or even woman) with same-sex attraction, but it is also an “I AM” statement that seems to mischaracterize this tendency as an integral part of the person. Most Christians who have SSA, but choose to live according to Jesus’ teachings reject this label.

The way you pose the argument may be fruitless, but not when followed with a proper explanation like the one I have laid out, at the prudent time and place, of course. If someone I just met or only have an acquaintance with identifies him or herself as “gay”, especially a non-Christian, I won’t normally challenge that identity, as it is the term the world uses and is easy to understand, but I know that it is wrong, and if I have a chance to evangelize, I will.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

This is not about vocabulary the Magisterium claims the mythical “homosexual person” real.

Is truth not important for you? Truth is important for me.

People will give emotional argument and rationalization and believe that is sufficient to resolve
the issue. It is not and no one has presented tangible proof of exclusive SSA or reference to exclusive
SSA in the Sacred Deposit of Faith. Do you have either of these?

God bless

Enough!!

 

[jjr9]

I believe that what is being expressed here is that homosexuality, although it can be “deep-seated” (like any sin), is not ultimately a proper attribute of the real human person made in the image and likeness of God. Instead it’s a disordered behavior and SSA is a disordered tendency. And to identify yourself as a “homosexual person” is misleading and counter-productive to the proper understanding of your nature and function as a human being. You’re identifying with a disorder. And nobody is a disorder, even though we all have disordered behaviors.

I recently heard it said that all improper “I AM” statements where dangerous to our self-image and I agree. Even things like “I am an alcoholic” or even “I am a recovering alcoholic” can be very counter-productive. “I have abused alcohol” or “I have addictive cravings” are better statements. These are things that, as sinners, we all experience to some degree. I certainly experience many disordered temptations in life. But I don’t identify myself with them, even when I have indulged in them in the past- because that’s not me- that’s simply disordered behavior I have engaged in.

Just because a person claims a certain identity doesn’t make it so- like a man who claims to be a woman. “Gay” may be a common way of identifying a man (or even woman) with same-sex attraction, but it is also an “I AM” statement that seems to mischaracterize this tendency as an integral part of the person. Most Christians who have SSA, but choose to live according to Jesus’ teachings reject this label.

The way you pose the argument may be fruitless, but not when followed with a proper explanation like the one I have laid out, at the prudent time and place, of course. If someone I just met or only have an acquaintance with identifies him or herself as “gay”, especially a non-Christian, I won’t normally challenge that identity, as it is the term the world uses and is easy to understand, but I know that it is wrong, and if I have a chance to evangelize, I will.

What do you believe the Magisterium is saying in the CCC 2357-2359?

Do you believe the Magisterium is not accepting the “homosexual person” as real?

God bless

 

[SecretCatholic]

What do you believe the Magisterium is saying in the CCC 2357-2359?

Do you believe the Magisterium is not accepting the “homosexual person” as real?

I only found one paragraph which explicitly uses the term “homosexual” (2359). Let’s see:
Catechism of the Catholic Church:

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.

I believe the Catechism is using the word “homosexual” as a short-hand for “strictly-same-sex attracted”. Though I do find the word choice here disappointing (the word itself is relatively new), I completely agree with what the paragraph is communicating.

What I and others in this thread are saying is that its incorrect to see a sexual disorientation as a fundamental part of you. It’s something you have to live with, to be sure. And it’s hard. But it’s not who you ARE or who you are really meant to be. So to use terms like “gay” in order to intimately identify with this disorder is wrong, damaging and in fact, as another poster wrote, “mythical” in that sense.

Though the Catechism uses the term “homosexual”, it certainly is not saying that same-sex attraction is part of any person’s true nature or identity. Otherwise it would be more than “deep-seated”.

This might seem like “splitting hairs” to some, but language and how we use it is important. Language affects how we see ourselves and others. One of the triumphs of the “gay rights” movement is to associate homosexual behavior with a person’s identity. For example, I can rightly identify being male as part of my identity. They have successfully sold the public that “being gay” is like “being male”. It’s just part of who you are- in fact, witness how the “you’re born that way” rhetoric (which actually contradicts the also popular “gender fluidity” argument, but we need not think about it too much!) has gained so much popularity.

Hey, you’re just born that way! Only a bigot would discriminate a person just because of how he was born- an accident of time and genetics, no fault of the individual. And so, we are bigots, because we say that it is wrong to be “gay”. But, we indeed do rightly distinguish between a behavior and a proper identity. A truthful and valuable distinction which goes against the mainstream narrative.

 

[truetofaith]

I only found one paragraph which explicitly uses the term “homosexual” (2359). Let’s see:

Hey, you’re just born that way! Only a bigot would discriminate a person just because of how he was born- an accident of time and genetics, no fault of the individual. And so, we are bigots, because we say that it is wrong to be “gay”. But, we indeed do rightly distinguish between a behavior and a proper identity. A truthful and valuable distinction which goes against the mainstream narrative.

If gays are “born that way”…then why would God condemn homosexual behavior in the Bible? He created them that way.

 

[kozlosap]

This is not about vocabulary the Magisterium claims the mythical “homosexual person” real.

Is truth not important for you? Truth is important for me.

People will give emotional argument and rationalization and believe that is sufficient to resolve
the issue. It is not and no one has presented tangible proof of exclusive SSA or reference to exclusive
SSA in the Sacred Deposit of Faith. Do you have either of these?

God bless

I’m so stumped as to your obsession with gay individuals being gay. Are you just trolling these many threads to get reactions from other posters? My first thought is that you must be gay yourself and trying to find anyway to delegitamize your sexual orientation, but making assumptions about another person is almost always out of line, so I’m just back to thinking that you like the discourse with very talented posters. God Bless!

 

[at9009]

If gays are “born that way”…then why would God condemn homosexual behavior in the Bible? He created them that way.

The logic they could mean is that, the same sex attraction is not due to any particular event in that person’s life but rather a manifestation of that person’s own concupiscence?

The statement would not be necessarily that God created them that way but rather allowed their own personal brokenness due to the fall manifest in that particular way.

However, regardless of the etiology or origin of same sex attraction (a separate discussion which is quite possible variable within different individuals), the teaching and morality of same sex sexual acts doesn’t change.

 

[jjr9]

Thank you for taking time to reply your view is still not clear for me. I hope you can spare
some time to clarify.

I only found one paragraph which explicitly uses the term “homosexual” (2359). Let’s see:

True but you overlook:

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

Up to this point in Church history so called “homosexuality” and the mythical “homosexual person” were not
considered, only SSA a temptation and SS behavior a sin and I believe rightfully so. If you are going to discuss
something it makes sense to define what you are talking about. The Magisterium for a couple of decades before
the new CCC(1993) had discussed “homosexuality” in several letters but without definition of exactly what
“homosexuality” is. Here I believe the Magisterium defines it’s view of “homosexuality” I believe “homosexuality”
a false premise and the Magisterium in error to accept the false premise of “homosexuality” as true.

Do you not believe the Magisterium when talking about men and women “who experience an exclusive or
predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex” are referring to the “Homosexual persons”
mentioned later in 2359?

I believe the Catechism is using the word “homosexual” as a short-hand for “strictly-same-sex attracted”. Though I do find the word choice here disappointing (the word itself is relatively new), I completely agree with what the paragraph is communicating.

Actually I believe the Magisterium references two distinct categories of “homosexual person” the predominate
which for me makes no sense at all. How can someone have SSA and OSA and be a “homosexual person”?

The exclusive “homosexual person” is the real issue this person is incapable of OSA. I believe this is an
error by the Magisterium to accept this as true.

What I and others in this thread are saying is that its incorrect to see a sexual disorientation as a fundamental part of you. It’s something you have to live with, to be sure. And it’s hard. But it’s not who you ARE or who you are really meant to be. So to use terms like “gay” in order to intimately identify with this disorder is wrong, damaging and in fact, as another poster wrote, “mythical” in that sense.

I am only going by what the Church says and the Magisterium claims the “homosexual person” real I
believe in error.

Though the Catechism uses the term “homosexual”, it certainly is not saying that same-sex attraction is part of any person’s true nature or identity. Otherwise it would be more than “deep-seated”.

Actually the Magisterium says in 2357:
“Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained”

I believe this is the only justification the Magisterium gives to accept the mythical "homosexual person
as real.

This might seem like “splitting hairs” to some, but language and how we use it is important. Language affects how we see ourselves and others. One of the triumphs of the “gay rights” movement is to associate homosexual behavior with a person’s identity. For example, I can rightly identify being male as part of my identity. They have successfully sold the public that “being gay” is like “being male”. It’s just part of who you are- in fact, witness how the “you’re born that way” rhetoric (which actually contradicts the also popular “gender fluidity” argument, but we need not think about it too much!) has gained so much popularity.

Hey, you’re just born that way! Only a bigot would discriminate a person just because of how he was born- an accident of time and genetics, no fault of the individual. And so, we are bigots, because we say that it is wrong to be “gay”. But, we indeed do rightly distinguish between a behavior and a proper identity. A truthful and valuable distinction which goes against the mainstream narrative.

I agree that language is important.

2358(CCC) originally said:
“They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial”
The present version says:
“This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial”
Clearly the Magisterium recognized the error of the overt statement but left the obvious sentiment that is
in 2357-2359 of the CCC.

God bless

 

[PRmerger]

This is not about vocabulary the Magisterium claims the mythical “homosexual person” real.

Is truth not important for you? Truth is important for me.

People will give emotional argument and rationalization and believe that is sufficient to resolve
the issue. It is not and no one has presented tangible proof of exclusive SSA or reference to exclusive
SSA in the Sacred Deposit of Faith. Do you have either of these?

God bless

jj: is someone you know personally suffering from SSA?

I simply cannot fathom this obsession with semantics of a magisterial teaching.

The only explanation is that this is deeply personal for you.

 

[jjr9]

I’m so stumped as to your obsession with gay individuals being gay. Are you just trolling these many threads to get reactions from other posters? My first thought is that you must be gay yourself and trying to find anyway to delegitamize your sexual orientation, but making assumptions about another person is almost always out of line, so I’m just back to thinking that you like the discourse with very talented posters. God Bless!

My only concern is that the Magisterium has made an error in claiming the mythical “homosexual
person” real. I am sorry if this is a disturbance for you.

If you believe the “homosexual person” real you should be able to provide tangible proof of exclusive
SSA or reference to exclusive SSA in the Sacred Deposit of Faith. Do you have either of these?

God bless

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

My only concern is that the Magisterium has made an error in claiming the mythical “homosexual
person” real. I am sorry if this is a disturbance for you.

If you believe the “homosexual person” real you should be able to provide tangible proof of exclusive
SSA or reference to exclusive SSA in the Sacred Deposit of Faith. Do you have either of these?

God bless

Quit it. Seriously, no one wants this.

 

[SecretCatholic]

If gays are “born that way”…then why would God condemn homosexual behavior in the Bible? He created them that way.

We’re all born with a predisposition to sin, yet God will condemn us if we do not repent of sin. We have the free will to accept or reject the predispositions we have, whether those predispositions are the result of our own actions or have come through no fault of our own.

Thank you for taking time to reply your view is still not clear for me. I hope you can spare
some time to clarify.

jjr9: Not everything in the Catechism is infallible. In fact, one of the flaws of the current catechism is that it does not distinguish between infallible teaching and philosophical speculation. The CCC states the teachings of the Catholic Church, but not all of those teachings are infallible nor have a capital “T”. Also remember that any matters outside of faith and morals cannot be defined infallible by the Church- so if the CCC speculates on psychological or biological causes, that should not be considered infallible.

I don’t know in what other documents the Magisterium has discussed this. You seem to be more versed in this matter than I am. I am sure, however, that whatever word is employed, properly or not, no person is meant to act on same-sex attraction, nor should they consider it an integral part of their identity. That is pretty clear to me.

In fact, if the Catholic Church ever infallibly defined that homosexuality should be considered a healthy identity or that homosexual acts were morally acceptable, I would leave the Church, for it would then be clear that it was not the true Church.

jjr9, you have to understand that there is a very strong push within the Church (as there is everywhere these days) to legitimize homosexuality. Those in the Magisterium may well be attempting to do that, incrementally. But I believe the Holt Spirit will not allow them to ever infallibly define it as such, in spite of all the twisted logic and all the inaccurate and wishy-washy language they might use.

 

[Nixbits]

jjr6:

The exclusive “homosexual person” is the real issue this person is incapable of OSA. I believe this is an error by the Magisterium to accept this as true.

If you met my friend Dave you might very well change your opinion.

 

[jjr9]

Thank you for your clarification.

jjr9: Not everything in the Catechism is infallible. In fact, one of the flaws of the current catechism is that it does not distinguish between infallible teaching and philosophical speculation. The CCC states the teachings of the Catholic Church, but not all of those teachings are infallible nor have a capital “T”. Also remember that any matters outside of faith and morals cannot be defined infallible by the Church- so if the CCC speculates on psychological or biological causes, that should not be considered infallible.

I understand that not all Church teaching is considered infallible. I also believe the Magisterium should not
present what is false as true.

Do you understand that the Magisterium is presenting the mythical “homosexual person” as real?

Do you know of any other current case where the Magisterium is presenting what is false as true? I do not.

I don’t know in what other documents the Magisterium has discussed this. You seem to be more versed in this matter than I am. I am sure, however, that whatever word is employed, properly or not, no person is meant to act on same-sex attraction, nor should they consider it an integral part of their identity. That is pretty clear to me.

When I contacted my Bishop about this concern he pointed to this:

usccb.org/about/doctrine/publications/homosexual-inclination-guidelines-pastoral-care.cfm

I have no problem with the Church having compassion and mercy for struggling individuals. I told my Bishop
that this document does not address my concern it just accepts the false premise of the “homosexual person”.

In fact, if the Catholic Church ever infallibly defined that homosexuality should be considered a healthy identity or that homosexual acts were morally acceptable, I would leave the Church, for it would then be clear that it was not the true Church.

jjr9, you have to understand that there is a very strong push within the Church (as there is everywhere these days) to legitimize homosexuality. Those in the Magisterium may well be attempting to do that, incrementally. But I believe the Holt Spirit will not allow them to ever infallibly define it as such, in spite of all the twisted logic and all the inaccurate and wishy-washy language they might use.

I have attempted to resolve this issue through the Magisterium unfortunately the Magisterium has shunned
me thus far without addressing the issue, I find this sad. I am left to bring my voice to the public square. I
find little support in the public square but I am confident the Lord will have the Magisterium correct its
error in His Time.

God bless

 

[jjr9]

If you met my friend Dave you might very well change your opinion.

I do not know Dave. Are you saying you believe Dave to be a “homosexual person”?
Is this a struggle for Dave? Dave has freewill, is Dave happy with his lifestyle? Dave
is your friend do you want to see Dave reach Eternal Life with the Lord?

I can assure you if Dave is consumed with SSA this is not from the Lord. I will pray that
Dave seeks the Grace he needs from the Lord.

God bless

 

[Nixbits]

jjr9:

I do not know Dave. Are you saying you believe Dave to be a “homosexual person”?

I believe Dave to be a person who exclusively experiences same-sex attraction and has done so since he was a child. This is what he has told me and, knowing him as I do, I have no reason to doubt him.

jjr9:

Is this a struggle for Dave? Dave has freewill, is Dave happy with his lifestyle?

His same-sex attraction is not a struggle for him, although the prejudice of others sometimes is. As far as I know he’s happy with his lifestyle; he works with computers, lives in a nice flat, travels a lot, enjoys living in a metropolitan city. I wouldn’t refer to his same-sex attraction as his ‘lifestyle’, if that’s what you meant.

jjr9:

As your friend do you want to see Dave reach Eternal Life with the Lord?

I don’t know that any such eternal life is a possibility. If it were, it would be up to Dave whether or not it’s something that he wants. As his friend my wish is that Dave lives a happy, healthy life and if that includes friendship with me then that’s a bonus, for me and I hope for him.

jjr9:

I can assure you if Dave is consumed with SSA this is not from the Lord. I will pray that Dave seeks the Grace he needs from the Lord.

I don’t know what you mean by ‘consumed with SSA’. He’s getting on with his life and seems more content than most. It seems a bit presumptuous of you to pray that Dave seeks ‘grace’ when you don’t even know him. Perhaps he already has all of the ‘grace’ he needs.

 

[jjr9]

If you met my friend Dave you might very well change your opinion.

I still don’t know Dave, from your observations I don’t think meeting Dave I would believe the mythical "homosexual
person " real.

If you believe the “homosexual person” real can you share tangible proof of exclusive SSA or reference to exclusive
SSA in the Sacred Deposit of Faith?

Sorry if you think me presumptuous I pray that all seek the Grace we need from the Lord myself included.

I pray that you come to believe that Eternal Life is indeed a possibility and worth seeking. That is up to you
of course, I believe the Lord is ready to give you the Grace you would need. No one can reach Eternal Life
on their own.

I will still pray for Dave and hope he comes to believe that Eternal Life is indeed a possibility.

God bless

 

[Bradski]

Teachings? No.

Attitudes? Yes.

 

[anon67074017]

Christian teachings on homosexuality are not supposed to cause hatred towards the LGBT community. Our mission is to treat them well so that they will know the love of God. For example, I do not hate crossdressers, but I take action against it so those who engage in crossdressing can change for the better.

 

[Nixbits]

jjr9:

If you believe the “homosexual person” real can you share tangible proof of exclusive SSA or reference to exclusive SSA in the Sacred Deposit of Faith?

I don’t know what tangible proof anyone could offer that demonstrates that any person experiences only SSA. Just as I don’t know what tangible proof could be offered to demonstrate exclusive opposite-sex attraction. From that point of view I suppose that the ‘homosexual person’ and the ‘straight person’ (and the ‘bisexual person’) will have to remain myths to you.

The Sacred Deposit of Faith is not an authority on what English words and phrases mean, so I don’t see its relevance. Unless of course your point is that the term ‘homosexual person’ is ill-defined or inaccurately defined solely within the context of Church teaching, in which case I have no more interest in the topic (just like most others on this thread, I suspect).