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

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

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.

I see what you mean. It cuts all ways really. Few people that I am aware of has really been sharp enough. It has to be made clear Jesus doesn’t recognise a caste system. It also has to be made clear that He doesn’t have a problem with individual members of whatever group calling themselves for example “chaste gay” (which appeals to some other gays) or “abstaining homosexual” - both of whom are known to me - and that such people shouldn’t be accused of not recognising either that Jesus isn’t putting them in a caste system NOR of insisting other members adopt the same labels as them. We have to acknowledge the multi layered nature of the situation.

Courage (whose UK branch was formerly called Encourage) tends to go for the format you mention. That’s OK as long as members are free to do as I recommend. A completely separate group I used to be aware of used “SSA” in its literature, making clear that was not a substitute for self description nor was it being imposed on members. During sessions members implicitly accepted the things I am pointing out. But in places where a lot of people haven’t thought, it pays to analyse this sharply - after all that’s what God gave us our minds for.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

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 agree with your last point entirely.

The CCC fudges what it apparently means by the word “homosexuality” from one minute to the next. (t b c)

 

[Joe_5859]

I don’t want to derail the thread, but I’m honestly curious. How strongly do people dislike the term “same sex attraction”? I use it a lot in these conversations, but I’m also not opposed to using “gay” or “homosexual” as I know those are more commonly used. But sometimes I get the impression that some people are actually offended at the use of “same sex attraction”. Am I wrong? If someone has strong opposition to the term, I’d be curious to know why.

I mean, I understand that the term doesn’t have as wide of use as the other terms, which would lead someone to have a preference to using the more common terms. But that doesn’t strike me as a reason—by itself—to have such a strong aversion to it. I feel like there is a deeper issue that I am totally missing. If so, I’d very much like to know.

 

[Brendan]

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.

The person’s core identity is not dependent on an orientation. It is something they HAVE not something they ARE.

And, no, it is not a refusal to acknowledge the existence of an orientation, no one would be denying that the person has it, so why would there be insult?

 

[Peter_J]

I don’t want to derail the thread, but I’m honestly curious. How strongly do people dislike the term “same sex attraction”? I use it a lot in these conversations, but I’m also not opposed to using “gay” or “homosexual” as I know those are more commonly used. But sometimes I get the impression that some people are actually offended at the use of “same sex attraction”. Am I wrong? If someone has strong opposition to the term, I’d be curious to know why.

I mean, I understand that the term doesn’t have as wide of use as the other terms, which would lead someone to have a preference to using the more common terms. But that doesn’t strike me as a reason—by itself—to have such a strong aversion to it. I feel like there is a deeper issue that I am totally missing. If so, I’d very much like to know.

I’ve been quietly listening to the discussion about that, but I’ll offer a response to your question: I find that discussion to be a little bit silly.

I say, if you don’t like saying “SSA” then just don’t say it. It’s so rarely used (Edit: If you go away from your computer and say to someone “What’s your position on people with SSA?” then I can practically guarantee that they’ll respond “What’s SSA?”) that using your energy to ask people not to say “SSA” is – at the very least – counter-productive as it draws attention to “SSA”.

 

[randomuser]

I don’t want to derail the thread, but I’m honestly curious. How strongly do people dislike the term “same sex attraction”? I use it a lot in these conversations, but I’m also not opposed to using “gay” or “homosexual” as I know those are more commonly used. But sometimes I get the impression that some people are actually offended at the use of “same sex attraction”. Am I wrong? If someone has strong opposition to the term, I’d be curious to know why.

I mean, I understand that the term doesn’t have as wide of use as the other terms, which would lead someone to have a preference to using the more common terms. But that doesn’t strike me as a reason—by itself—to have such a strong aversion to it. I feel like there is a deeper issue that I am totally missing. If so, I’d very much like to know.

The greater issue is the pro-“SSA” bandwagon’s refusal to utter the word “gay” or “homosexual.” What I find offensive is the notion that there’s such a thing as “ex-gay,” and nearly all proponents of “SSA” are the very same ones who think homosexuals really can go from gay from heterosexual (forgetting the obvious that such ‘ex-gay’ people were never homosexual to begin with.) Not coincidentally, the same ones who want to insist that “SSA” is even anywhere in the Catechism.

 

[Lea101]

I don’t want to derail the thread, but I’m honestly curious. How strongly do people dislike the term “same sex attraction”? I use it a lot in these conversations, but I’m also not opposed to using “gay” or “homosexual” as I know those are more commonly used. But sometimes I get the impression that some people are actually offended at the use of “same sex attraction”. Am I wrong? If someone has strong opposition to the term, I’d be curious to know why.

I mean, I understand that the term doesn’t have as wide of use as the other terms, which would lead someone to have a preference to using the more common terms. But that doesn’t strike me as a reason—by itself—to have such a strong aversion to it. I feel like there is a deeper issue that I am totally missing. If so, I’d very much like to know.

I use the terms interchangeably.

My liberal peers don’t immediately assume of a sexually active person when the word ‘gay’ or ‘lesbian’ is used. So I don’t understand why people insist on using SSA over L/G/B.

 

[Peter_J]

I’ve been quietly listening to the discussion about that, but I’ll offer a response to your question: I find that discussion to be a little bit silly.

I say, if you don’t like saying “SSA” then just don’t say it. It’s so rarely used (Edit: If you go away from your computer and say to someone “What’s your position on people with SSA?” then I can practically guarantee that they’ll respond “What’s SSA?”) that using your energy to ask people not to say “SSA” is – at the very least – counter-productive as it draws attention to “SSA”.

After posting that I was thinking further how to explain that last part. It occurred to me that if you were to tell a small child that he/she can’t say a certain word then he/she will suddenly want to say it. (I think anyone who’s a parent will relate to what I’m saying here.)

Or to take an example that’s closer in form to the “he has SSA” case, let’s say someone hears me talking about my friend Chris and says “Hold on, is Chris male or female?” then I would respond “Chris is male.” It probably wouldn’t even occur to me to put my answer in the form of “Chris has a penis.”

On the other hand, it probably would occur to me to put my answer in the form of “Chris has a penis” if the question had been “Is Chris male or female? You can answer with either ‘Chris is male’ or ‘Chris is female’. But whatever you do, don’t say ‘Chris has a penis’ or ‘Chris doesn’t have a penis’.”

(Of course, it cuts the other way too: most people aren’t offended by someone saying “SSA” … but they would likely become offended by it if they had an experience where someone told them “No, never say ‘I’m gay [or homosexual]’. Say ‘I have SSA’.” much like someone might become offended if someone told them “No, never say ‘I am male’. Say ‘I have a penis’.”)

 

[ToeInTheWater]

I don’t want to derail the thread, but I’m honestly curious. How strongly do people dislike the term “same sex attraction”? I use it a lot in these conversations, but I’m also not opposed to using “gay” or “homosexual” as I know those are more commonly used. But sometimes I get the impression that some people are actually offended at the use of “same sex attraction”. Am I wrong? If someone has strong opposition to the term, I’d be curious to know why.

I’m not personally offended by the term, as I do not identify as “same sex attracted” myself.

I’m not even opposed to people using the term, since there indeed people who don’t identify as “gay” or “homosexual” and do identify as “person with SSA”. I don’t want to ban the use of the term or anything. However, I do get perturbed when I encounter people who insist on never using “gay” or “homosexual”, or insist in defining the terms to apply only to “active” gay people, and refuse to acknowledge there are indeed those identify as “gay” yet are not sexually active.

Some even go further into assuming all who identify as “gay” are not only having sex, but practicing the “gay lifestyle” of promiscuous hedonism and are probably also using drugs and being lewd in public. Many who insist on “SSA” also subscribe to even worse stereotypes such as “gays are all infected with HIV and are to blame for the AIDS epidemic” or “gays are lusting after our youth and want to recruit them into the lifestyle”. To the point that one gay CAF poster is afraid to come out to his family because he knows he would be banned from seeing his niece.

So if the reason someone persist on using “SSA” is because “gay equals not only gay but an active promiscous gay”, that tends to be a signal that they are just lumping all gay people together as The Enemy and refusing to grant them any charity beyond Telling the Truth that “gays are all going to hell unless they repent and beg God to make then straight”.

The term just comes off to me the right-wing Christian equivalent of a lot of the Politically Correct verbiage that liberals are often justly mocked for using.

The person’s core identity is not dependent on an orientation. It is something they HAVE not something they ARE.

And, no, it is not a refusal to acknowledge the existence of an orientation, no one would be denying that the person has it, so why would there be insult?

But there indeed people whose core identity IS “gay” or “lesbian” or “queer” or what have you. Not all such people engage in gay sex, either. Refusing to accept that is somewhat like some liberal telling someone “no, don’t call yourself Black, call yourself African-American” or “don’t call yourself an American Indian, call yourself a Native American”, etc.

 

[Seamus_L]

Imagine if we all identified ourselves by the sin we struggle with the most.

 

[Joe_5859]

Thank you for the responses to my question. That helps.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

Imagine if we all identified ourselves by the sin we struggle with the most.

Well, I can think of a lot of straight men who are happy to identify themselves as sex or porn addicts, at least on-line. Even some of the most conservative male posters on CAF have done that. There seems to be this idea among SOME straight men (and women too I’m sure) that “God designed me this way, to want to have a lot of sex, since that was His plan”,that while sexual sin is technically grave matter, all you have to do is go to Confession after you inevitably fall. Of course, it’s fine to continue doing this while keeping your wife in the dark, to protect her from the temptation to divorce you and break up your perfect family.

Or even, “if my wife won’t fulfill my every sexual whim it’s her fault if I fall, God made me this way”!

But many such men would be the first to point fingers at homosexuals as reprobate sinners. (Exhibit A: Josh Duggar, who did admit to a porn addiction as well as cheating on his wife, then had his family members defend him by posting on social media about the evils of spouses withholding themselves sexually.)

 

[JimG]

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

I should note that in the same column evaluating Fr. Martin’s book, Archbishop Chaput goes on to praise Daniel Mattson’s recent book:

And that honesty is what makes another recent book – Why I Don’t Call Myself Gay, by Daniel Mattson (Ignatius) – so extraordinarily moving and powerful. As Cardinal Robert Sarah writes in the Foreword, Mattson’s candor about his own homosexuality, his struggles and failures, and his gradual transformation in Jesus Christ “bears witness to the mercy and goodness of God, to the efficacy of his grace, and to the veracity of the teachings of his Church.”

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

 

[Peter_J]

Thank you for the responses to my question. That helps.

I just hope no one was offended by my using the word penis.

 

[StudentMI]

Archbishop Chaput used the term homosexuality! Time for a protest.

 

[10gr8kids]

Imagine if we all identified ourselves by the sin we struggle with the most.

Exactly! How often do you hear someone saying…I’m a liar, or I’m an adulterer, I’m a Kleptomaniac, I’m a glutton, I’m a sloth

 

[StudentMI]

Exactly! How often do you hear someone saying…I’m a liar, or I’m an adulterer, I’m a Kleptomaniac, I’m a glutton, I’m a sloth

Having a homosexual orientation is not a sin so your comparison is pointless. And as it does necessitate arranging one’s life differently and facing hate and discrimination merely for being attracted to the same gender, it is an important thing in one’s life.

 

[10gr8kids]

Well, I can think of a lot of straight men who are happy to identify themselves as sex or porn addicts, at least on-line. Even some of the most conservative male posters on CAF have done that. There seems to be this idea among SOME straight men (and women too I’m sure) that “God designed me this way, to want to have a lot of sex, since that was His plan”,that while sexual sin is technically grave matter, all you have to do is go to Confession after you inevitably fall. Of course, it’s fine to continue doing this while keeping your wife in the dark, to protect her from the temptation to divorce you and break up your perfect family.

Or even, “if my wife won’t fulfill my every sexual whim it’s her fault if I fall, God made me this way”!

But many such men would be the first to point fingers at homosexuals as reprobate sinners. (Exhibit A: Josh Duggar, who did admit to a porn addiction as well as cheating on his wife, then had his family members defend him by posting on social media about the evils of spouses withholding themselves sexually.)

Maybe they only do it on-line because they aren’t really proud of the fact. As with Josh Duggar, I don’t believe he was proud of his sins, that’s why he didn’t go around referring to himself as a molester.

I agree their are many hypocrites, that will live in sexual sin and then call out others who do also. That does not negate the fact that it seems like it is the LGBTs who are the main people who are proud to be recognized by their sin.

Surely there are others who are proud to be recognized by their various sins, but I don’t see other large group of people wanting to be referred to by a particular sin. I mean there is AA, but why is it anonymous?

 

[10gr8kids]

Having a homosexual orientation is not a sin so your comparison is pointless. And as it does necessitate arranging one’s life differently and facing hate and discrimination merely for being attracted to the same gender, it is an important thing in one’s life.

Im sorry if anyone thought I’d claimed it was a sin. Can you please point out to me where you got that idea from so I may edit it.

I was talking about how others don’t care to be recognized by the sins we struggle with. Are you saying homosexuals do not struggle with sin; particularly homosexual acts?

 

[StudentMI]

Im sorry if anyone thought I’d claimed it was a sin. Can you please point out to me where you got that idea from so I may edit it.

I was talking about how others don’t care to be recognized by the sins we struggle with. Are you saying homosexuals do not struggle with sin; particularly homosexual acts?

By comparing it with adultery. I’m not going to answer the second part of your post as you know I didn’t say anything like that.