Father Martin’s ‘LGBT’ Approach Sparks Concerns Critics say it fails to communicate Catholic truths

[Gertabelle]

Well, to be fair “actual Church teaching” can be confusing. Although, the sinfulness of actually having sex outside of marriage including with the same sex, and the idea that same sex marriage is an oxymoron, is fairly clear.

But is it a sin to identify as a homosexual, or not? The US literature from the “traditional” or “conservative” Catholic angle, strongly implies that it is at least a near occasion of sin to do so, and that there is no such thing as a homosexual or even a bisexual, merely heterosexuals with SSA, as Father Murray states. If so, then to even identify as “LGBT” is to diverge from Church teaching, and that at best such an identity is imprudent.

Yet the words used by the Pope himself and even** the Catechism** seem to suggest it is perfectly fine to identify as “homosexual” or “gay”.

It is important to differentiate between “actual Church teaching” and the thoughts and opinions expressed outside of official Church teaching.

In Catholicism, the official Church teachings can be found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Everything else – writings by priests, bishops, random bloggers, people here on CAF – is in no way official Church teaching. Now these authors may agree with the Catechism, may quote it, may defend it, or may do just the opposite.

But the official Church teachings remain, and they are found in the Catechism.

Don’t let the rest of it confuse you. If you’re looking for “actual Church teaching” then look to the Catechism.

 

[randomuser]

Yet the words used by the Pope himself and even the Catechism seem to suggest it is perfectly fine to identify as “homosexual” or “gay.”

Yes, it is. And the pro-“SSA” folks are insistent that “SSA” isn’t a euphemism for gay or homosexual. Therefore, I’m a little confused as to how “SSA” got interjected into this story when “SSA” is not a part of Fr. Martin’s work.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

Yes, it is. And the pro-“SSA” folks are insistent that “SSA” isn’t a euphemism for gay or homosexual. Therefore, I’m a little confused as to how “SSA” got interjected into this story when “SSA” is not a part of Fr. Martin’s work.

“SSA” is not, but when a priest rebutting Father Martin, Father Murray, puts forth that “Everyone is heterosexual by nature. Some heterosexuals have a problem with homosexual attraction.” and has his review of Father Martin’s book quoted approvingly by yet another priest, Father Z, and then by a CAF poster, then I think discussing this issue isn’t totally off topic.

Now, I get the feeling Father Murray might have just meant to rebut the popular idea that “some people are just born gay, that’s how God made them” and that, if God deliberately made someone to be gay, then He would be cruel and unfair to expect that person to NOT express how he or she is made by having same sex sexual relationships. I understand why he’d want to rebut that, and to frame instead the state of “having SSA” as a result of the Fall, not how God designed it.

However, while I do think that Father Martin’s take on this is not quite Catholic, if Father Z is right that:

The thesis of this book is that lesbians, gays, bisexual persons and transsexual/transgendered persons have been made to be such by God, [wrong] and thus they should gladly live and express their God-given, differently ordered sexuality in a differently ordered way.

I am not sure this means “it is wrong for anyone to identify as lesbians, gays, bisexual persons and transsexual/transgendered”.

Father Z doesn’t state that, but he does seem to imply that with this:

Inclinations or tendencies toward sexual acts that are neither procreative or unitive, and thus inherently immoral, do not represent who we are or how we were made by God. They are deficits, ultimately traceable to original sin, which need to be dealt with by God’s grace and our willingness to believe firmly that God’s law is good and will produce the greatest happiness in our lives.

I mean, without even using an incomplete analogy between LGBT identity with other “identities” such as “alcoholic”, and to get at the basic concept, I’m sure most priests would also agree that God did not create or design humans to sin, yet no one would therefore state “it is wrong for anyone to identify as a sinner”. Of course it would be wrong to take PRIDE in that identity, but not all who identify as LGBT take part in the “gay pride” movement.

 

[Padres1969]

I feel like I hear a lot of wishy-washy langiage, but SSA seems like a perfectly clear and precisely defined term.

Except for it being a term I’ve never heard anyone outside Catholic Answers use to describe homosexuality. If it’s not a term anyone understands or uses, why use it?

 

[Padres1969]

At best, this causes confusion, perhaps to scandal.

As a former Catholic I’m inclined to agree. I saw similar priests all through high school and college that used the same somewhat wishy washy take on theology and it really did spread confusion on the issues among 5hose the priests were teaching. I’ve seen Fr Martin have the same effect on Catholics I know today as well. Including some who are well known Catholic bloggers.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

**A good many people concerned who are seeking chastity prefer to use it, they invented the term, I am an eyewitness to that having mixed with numbers of such over a long period in several locations. I agree with Exnihilo and Wesrock.

For the reference of Randomuser, it got “interjected” because it refers to who this is about, and the statements of the CDF and USCCB are not applicable in this context.

Padres, please allow for people you don’t happen to have mixed with.

1. They are not “using it as their main definition”, only in the context where it is relevant.
2. “Homosexual” means what it usually means.
3. “Gay” means my friend’s 9-year old, so he was informed. It also means those who claim they can’t control themselves hence they need that right (I cite a frequently documented testimony, I can’t give a link but we have heard that - I am not specifically alleging how often). (I believe some can control themselves.)

Oh yes and I used to hear that good etiquette was not to call someone else “gay” but only allow someone to use it about themselves if they want to. Of course etiquette is now out for Catholics.**

Please don’t join in the thread if you can’t follow the point, except to ask questions or elicit explanations.

The moderators have a history of deleting threads outright, when posters have troubled to post to them, when such threads ought to be informative to non-posters also.

As for Catechism, I wish the Church would give us one with more about Holy Spirit gifts!

 

[Brendan]

Except for it being a term I’ve never heard anyone outside Catholic Answers use to describe homosexuality. If it’s not a term anyone understands or uses, why use it?

It is a scientific term, so why not use it?

science20.com/news_articles/evolutionary_role_samesex_attraction

[psychology.org.au/publications/(name removed by moderator)sych/samesex/](http://www.psychology.org.au/publications/(name removed by moderator)sych/samesex/)

soc.duke.edu/~jmoody77/205a/ecp/bearman_bruckner_ajs.pdf

 

[Peter_J]

What I object to is the insistence that “SSA” be interjected into any discussion of LGBT

Considering that I pretty much never even hear that term whenever I get off the Catholic Answers Forum and talk to people in real life (Edit: It seems that Padres beat me to the punch on that point ) I’m thinking that it isn’t nearly as much of an issue as you think it is.

 

[randomuser]

It is a scientific term, so why not use it?

Because “gay” and “homosexuality” are clearer and easier-to-understand, that’s why.

 

[randomuser]

Except for it being a term I’ve never heard anyone outside Catholic Answers use to describe homosexuality. If it’s not a term anyone understands or uses, why use it?

Exactly. This whole “SSA” thing will never be common usage. Ever.

 

[Padres1969]

It is a scientific term, so why not use it?

science20.com/news_articles/evolutionary_role_samesex_attraction

[psychology.org.au/publications/(name removed by moderator)sych/samesex/](http://www.psychology.org.au/publications/(name removed by moderator)sych/samesex/)

soc.duke.edu/~jmoody77/205a/ecp/bearman_bruckner_ajs.pdf

For the same reason you don’t call a house cat a “Felis catus”. Yes it’s a scientific term that’s not necessarily wrong. But it’s also not a term most people would know. Homosexual is equally as scientific, and is very well known.

 

[Joe_5859]

Because “gay” and “homosexuality” are clearer and easier-to-understand, that’s why.

Exactly. This whole “SSA” thing will never be common usage. Ever.

It depends who you’re talking to. It seems unlikely to become widely used at this particular moment, but never say never. I’m sure there was a time in the not too distant past where the thought of using the term “gay” and “homosexual” interchangeably would have elicited comments of “that will never happen.”

 

[Joe_5859]

For the same reason you don’t call a house cat a “Felis catus”. Yes it’s a scientific term that’s not necessarily wrong. But it’s also not a term most people would know. Homosexual is equally as scientific, and is very well known.

I don’t think this is quite the same thing considering these are English words, not Latin words. Isn’t it pretty obvious what “same sex attraction” means, even if a person has not encountered the phrase before?

For me, the distinction between the term “homosexual” and the term “same sex attraction” is between what a person is and what a person experiences. That’s why I tend to gravitate towards using SSA because I prefer to speak generally about human experiences rather than pointing a finger at an individuals.

SSA doesn’t lend itself to personal identity in the same way as “gay” or “homosexual”. A person can say “I am gay” or “I am a homosexual.” But they can’t say “I am same sex attraction.” They can only say “I have” or “I experience same sex attraction.”

Thus, when speaking of the Catholic natural moral law teaching that same sex attraction is intrinsically disordered, it seems like less of a personal insult to a person’s core identity.

That’s why I prefer using SSA anyway. But it’s not something I insist upon rigidly to the point where I would correct people every time I hear them use the word “gay” or “homosexual”. Those are the words that are commonly used. So I’ll use whatever is less distracting to the point being made in the conversation.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

SSA doesn’t lend itself to personal identity in the same way as “gay” or “homosexual”. A person can say “I am gay” or “I am a homosexual.” But they can’t say “I am same sex attraction.” They can only say “I have” or “I experience same sex attraction.”

Thus, when speaking of the Catholic natural moral law teaching that same sex attraction is intrinsically disordered, it seems like less of a personal insult to a person’s core identity.

The problem is that your refusal to call someone “gay” or “homosexual” is also insulting that person’s core identity, because you are refusing to even acknowledge it exists.

I recall a president of Iran once denied any homosexuals existed in his country, and actually did get his share of derision for it.

Again, I make the comparison to someone saying “I am a sinner”. No one would say “that’s insulting to call yourself a sinner, and you shouldn’t identify as a sinner, you should call yourself sin-attracted instead”.

Of course if someone said “I am a sinner, I was born that way, and I’m proud of it” that would be different. The problem is that most conservative Catholics hear someone saying “I am gay” and assume that person is also stating “I was born that way, and I’m proud of it”.

Since I know there indeed gay people on CAF who have nothing to do with the “gay pride” movement, I can’t justify assuming “anyone who claims to be gay is a hardened sinner who lives a certain gay lifestyle”.

That’s why I prefer using SSA anyway. But it’s not something I insist upon rigidly to the point where I would correct people every time I hear them use the word “gay” or “homosexual”. Those are the words that are commonly used. So I’ll use whatever is less distracting to the point being made in the conversation.

I think there is some role to the concept of SSA and it does help some people who do have such attractions and do NOT identify as gay and are committed to Church teaching about the sinfulness of gay sex, as Father Murray did note.

But it’s also the case that many people who do have such attractions and DO identify as gay and are committed to Church teaching about the sinfulness of gay sex. But it seems many people assume “such people are such a tiny minority that they’re irrelevant in the large picture” and essentially treat them as collateral damage in the Culture War.

 

[Joe_5859]

The problem is that your refusal to call someone “gay” or “homosexual” is also insulting that person’s core identity, because you are refusing to even acknowledge it exists.

I recall a president of Iran once denied any homosexuals existed in his country, and actually did get his share of derision for it.

Again, I make the comparison to someone saying “I am a sinner”. No one would say “that’s insulting to call yourself a sinner, and you shouldn’t identify as a sinner, you should call yourself sin-attracted instead”.

Of course if someone said “I am a sinner, I was born that way, and I’m proud of it” that would be different. The problem is that most conservative Catholics hear someone saying “I am gay” and assume that person is also stating “I was born that way, and I’m proud of it”.

Since I know there indeed gay people on CAF who have nothing to do with the “gay pride” movement, I can’t justify assuming “anyone who claims to be gay is a hardened sinner who lives a certain gay lifestyle”.

I think there is some role to the concept of SSA and it does help some people who do have such attractions and do NOT identify as gay and are committed to Church teaching about the sinfulness of gay sex, as Father Murray did note.

But it’s also the case that many people who do have such attractions and DO identify as gay and are committed to Church teaching about the sinfulness of gay sex. But it seems many people assume “such people are such a tiny minority that they’re irrelevant in the large picture” and essentially treat them as collateral damage in the Culture War.

Fair enough. That’s why I said I don’t stick to the term rigidly.

 

[polki]

What I object to is the insistence that “SSA” be interjected into any discussion of LGBT, as though the very word used in the Catechism - homosexuality - is somehow so uncomfortable to use, and we can’t use the word “gay” because that inexplicably means we’re celebrating the “gay lifestyle” (whatever that means.) What about celibate/chaste gay and lesbians? What sin are celibate/chaste gays and lesbians committing if they’re not actually engaged in any sinful behavior?

I think because in today’s secular culture, gay and homosexual are celebrated, and in the Church, it is not considered something to celebrate. In Church teachings, being attracted to the same sex is seen more as a cross to bear than something to be proud of. Maybe that is why they choose different words?

If any individual, whether homosexual or heterosexual, is celibate/chaste, then no there are no sexual sins being committed. Therefore not sure what bridge building would be necessary in this area at least.

 

[StudentMI]

The point of using the term SSA in lieu of “homosexual” is that the former refers to a feeling and/or behavior, while the latter suggests an inherent identity. SSA, while possibly a little b it cumbersome, is the more accurate term IMO.

Give me a break. Church documents use homosexual. The Pope used the word gay. Get over this losing battle to make SSA common parlance. Ain’t gonna happen.

Even the very conservative priest who ran the Courage group I attended had no problem with homosexual and gay. I never heard him use same sex attraction or SSA.

 

[JimG]

Archbishop Chaput comments on Fr. Martin’s book in a recent column:

In his recent book Building a Bridge (HarperOne), Father James Martin, S.J., calls the Church to a spirit of respect, compassion and sensitivity in dealing with persons with same-sex attraction. This is good advice. It makes obvious sense. He asks the same spirit from persons in the LGBT community when dealing with the Church. Father Martin is a man whose work I often admire.*Building a Bridge, though brief, is written with skill and good will.

But what the text regrettably lacks is an engagement with the substance of what divides faithful Christians from those who see no sin in active same-sex relationships. The Church is not simply about unity – as valuable as that is – but about unity in God’s love rooted in truth. If the Letter to the Romans is true, then persons in unchaste relationships (whether homosexual or heterosexual) need conversion, not merely affirmation. If the Letter to the Romans is false, then Christian teaching is not only wrong but a wicked lie. Dealing with this frankly is the only way an honest discussion can be had.

archphila.org/archbishop-chaputs-column-a-letter-to-the-romans/

 

[Peter_J]

Now who wants to be the first to talk about how outraged they are that Archbishop Chaput often admires Fr. Martin’s work?

 

[10gr8kids]

It is important to differentiate between “actual Church teaching” and the thoughts and opinions expressed outside of official Church teaching.

In Catholicism, the official Church teachings can be found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Everything else – writings by priests, bishops, random bloggers, people here on CAF – is in no way official Church teaching. Now these authors may agree with the Catechism, may quote it, may defend it, or may do just the opposite.

But the official Church teachings remain, and they are found in the Catechism.

Don’t let the rest of it confuse you. If you’re looking for “actual Church teaching” then look to the Catechism.

This needs to be reposted often.