Gay Catholic asks for help.

[CopticChristian]

Please excuse my ignorance. I can assure you that my hand is extrended only in the kindest means possible and I have no desire to give you or anyone else any false information, much less any reason to suspect I would do so intentionally.

The argument you supplied seems to me to be nothing more than suspicions stated as facts.

These statements are made as facts without any supporting evidence what so ever.

When correcting me in the future, or suggesting somehow that you have insight beyond any other person, it would probably be accepted more graciously if you used studied and empirical information, such as direct evidence in support of a suspicion, to state what is basically nothing more than your opinion.

That’s a bit of unpleasantry I hope to avoid in the future. So perhaps if my previous post wasn’t clear, let me concretely say now that if someone else WHO IS GAY should have had experiences with the Catholic Association for Gay and Lesbian Ministries and can attest to whether or not this association can be helpful or a hindrance, perhaps they could obligingly share that insight WITH THE ORIGINAL POSTER, who from what I can tell is in turmoil over this issue. I am not gay, but can certainly understand the frustration.

And off topic but important for this thread is my confession that I did not come here to play one-upmanship with other Catholics. I know that other boards are filled with people who seem to scour posts in order to find corrections they can make. I will not comment on what their lives must be filled with or lacking, as I think such rhetoric could only be hurtful to them. But I will add that I, myself, am hurt when someone who I was not even addressing chimes in to tell me that my opinion is useless when it was offered only from the purest empathy and heartfelt desire to reach out to someone who might need a hand to hold.

Jesus told a story once of a family who was invited to their neighbors religious gathering. Upon arrival they found a seat amongst the gathering, obviously an open field I have always presumed, and immediately felt ashamed because all of the other members had brought food, as was customary in their gatherings. While the others picnicked and frolicked, the new family sat alone and dejected.

Am I alone here? Am I the only one who believes that Christ was saying it doesn’t matter what a person’s religious beliefs are or the underlying church structure that brings them to worship God? What matters, guys, is accepting those people, taking your food and picnic blanket over to them and share with them your feast. That is what Christ is saying!

So please, take all the written laws and scribed traditions and shelve them. The Sauducees and Pharisees are no longer required as the Holy Spirit guides our hearts and minds and souls. Yes, that new family might be sinners according to the traditions of your faith. But you are not called to admonish them. Or me.

Before we comment on anothers advice, let’s first consider whether it is equivalent to carrying our picnic basket to him/her or if it is more like throwing our gnawed and stripped chicken bones at him. We are Catholic, which means we were called to this faith because we were ready for a higher understaning. I think it is important to practice this faith in all things we do. How does bickering and typo correcting appear to a poster who is honestly conflicted between his love for God and his steadfast faith and extreme feelings he is having that MAY be contrary? Let’s try to focus on his needs right now instead of trying to one-up each other.

Let us try to start with discontinuing to call people by their behavior and labeling people “Gay Catholic”…

I have no issue with your sincerity however your information is not helpful.

Here are some more reviews of the Dangerous group you refer to…

non-faithfulcatholicschools.blogspot.com/2011/07/bishop-hubbard-and-his-gay-and-lesbian.html

Fidelity: Danger!
Resources: Poor
Useability: Excellent
Strengths
None Reported.

Weaknesses
Fidelity: There is a consistent denial of the Church’s teaching on the objective sinfulness of homosexual acts. Example(s)

ncronline.org/news/spirituality/gay-ministry-group-refuses-sign-oath

Following a more than yearlong investigation into the group’s “adherence to the fullness of Catholic teaching,” the future of a national association of ministries to gay and lesbian Catholics is uncertain because its board members refused to sign an “oath of personal integrity” to Catholic teaching given to them by the local bishop.

Declining the oath could result in Bishop Salvatore Cordileone of Oakland, Calif., declaring the Catholic Association for Lesbian and Gay Ministry, or CALGM, as “not authentically Catholic,” a letter to its members from the association president warns.

Do some research before you recommend a site that is not helpful.

 

[StJudeprayforme]

Let us try to start with discontinuing to call people by their behavior and labeling people “Gay Catholic”…

I have no issue with your sincerity however your information is not helpful.

Yes. Let us stop using the language that everyone outside parts of the Catholic internet uses and instead use terminology that was invented by the Canadian bishops in the 1990s and has never really caught on, even in many Church circles. That will solve everything.

I just find it funny how people on CAF seem to be obsessive about the use of the word “gay” or “homosexual”. I believe the Catechism of the Catholic Church uses the phrase “homosexual persons”. It is a lot easier to say than “Person with same-sex attraction”.

 

[CopticChristian]

Yes. Let us stop using the language that everyone outside parts of the Catholic internet uses and instead use terminology that was invented by the Canadian bishops in the 1990s and has never really caught on, even in many Church circles. That will solve everything.

I just find it funny how people on CAF seem to be obsessive about the use of the word “gay” or “homosexual”. I believe the Catechism of the Catholic Church uses the phrase “homosexual persons”. It is a lot easier to say than “Person with same-sex attraction”.

how about

man
woman

we have problems?

 

[StJudeprayforme]

how about

man
woman

we have problems?

Both are acceptable. The issue arrises when one needs to express to others what sex one is physically attracted to. Languages are adaptive, and thus come up with terms to help express this in the easiest way possible. In English, we have the words “gay”, “straight”, “bi”, “homosexual”, “heterosexual”, “bisexual”. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with saying “I am a straight man.” just like their is nothing intrinsically wrong with saying “I am a left-handed man.” Both simply express a characteristic of the person. If there was something wrong with it, the Catechism wouldn’t use the phrase “homosexual person.”

 

[CopticChristian]

Both are acceptable. The issue arrises when one needs to express to others what sex one is physically attracted to. Languages are adaptive, and thus come up with terms to help express this in the easiest way possible. In English, we have the words “gay”, “straight”, “bi”, “homosexual”, “heterosexual”, “bisexual”. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with saying “I am a straight man.” just like their is nothing intrinsically wrong with saying “I am a left-handed man.” Both simply express a characteristic of the person. If there was something wrong with it, the Catechism wouldn’t use the phrase “homosexual person.”

how about

men
women

we have problems

some of those problems are potentially problem attractions that cause us concern at some time or other and at other times with the grace of God I am

man
woman

having problems.

 

[StJudeprayforme]

how about

men
women

we have problems

some of those problems are potentially problem attractions that cause us concern at some time or other and at other times with the grace of God I am

man
woman

having problems.

Yes, men and women who have problems. When we go to others asking for advice about our problems, how do we let them know the specific nature of these problems? What about when the Church has to formulate a response to the problems that people face, how does she address them?

Man was created male and female. We have blind men, sick women, fat men, mute women, gay men, lesbian women, straight men, bisexual women, etc. We all have issues. I don’t see why the issues in the realm of human sexuality for some reason should not be expressed with specific adjectives and nouns like the rest of the the issues that people have. None of these other adjectives undermine the maleness and femaleness of mankind.

 

[fix]

how about

men
women

we have problems

some of those problems are potentially problem attractions that cause us concern at some time or other and at other times with the grace of God I am

man
woman

having problems.

Interesting. We tend to under value the significance of terms we use. We lightly use “pro choice” as one example even though that greatly diminishes what we are actually talking about.

Few would use cripple or retarded these days, except on insurance forms or diagnostic notes.

Gay, not that long ago, was a name given to baby girls.

Now we are told “gay” is simply another word for homosexual. I mean it is widely accepted as such so it must be used that way. Your betters have spoken.

Do you think controlling the language controls the debate?

 

[StJudeprayforme]

Interesting. We tend to under value the significance of terms we use. We lightly use “pro choice” as one example even though that greatly diminishes what we are actually talking about.

Few would use cripple or retarded these days, except on insurance forms or diagnostic notes.

Gay, not that long ago, was a name given to baby girls.

Now we are told “gay” is simply another word for homosexual. I mean it is widely accepted as such so it must be used that way. Your betters have spoken.

Do you think controlling the language controls the debate?

Hmm, interesting points. Not sure I entirely agree with them at this point, but interesting nonetheless. I guess my biggest issue is with the hostility to the use of any adjective or noun to describe conditions of human sexuality by some people (who much prefer the prepositional phrase “with SSA”.) when the arguments against using the speech of everyday language are quite honestly not that great.

The one thing I could say in response to the controlling the language point is that where we are now, using phraseology that no one else uses doesn’t really help with the debate, and sets up a tone that honestly could turn people off. Something along the lines of “We reject how you chose to describe yourself.” I would compare it to going to a foreign country and telling them “I am going to call you Y, because that is what my culture calls you, even though you call yourselves X.” Even if saying that isn’t wrong in itself, it certainly doesn’t win you any friends.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Don’t all sinners have experience in ‘changing their ways’. And for help in that we have the saints to look to for inspiration and Christ to call upon with prayer.

A bicyclist has experience operating a bicycle, a form of transportation, but that does not mean he knows how to operate an airplane, another form of transportation.

No, it is irrational.

Obviously so because gerbils and people are the same thing

Interesting. We tend to under value the significance of terms we use. We lightly use “pro choice” as one example even though that greatly diminishes what we are actually talking about.

Few would use cripple or retarded these days, except on insurance forms or diagnostic notes.

Gay, not that long ago, was a name given to baby girls.

Now we are told “gay” is simply another word for homosexual. I mean it is widely accepted as such so it must be used that way. Your betters have spoken.

Do you think controlling the language controls the debate?

Some girls are still given the name gay.

Gay cat (younger hobo)> gay cat (younger homosexual boy)>gay (homosexual). It’s called linguistic drift.

 

[fix]

Gay cat (younger hobo)> gay cat (younger homosexual boy)>gay (homosexual). It’s called linguistic drift.

It is also called propaganda. It is a tool used to change the debate and gain support for your side. Direct murder is called “choice”. Being against unnatural acts is called “phobia”. Support for immoral unions is called “equality”. Homosexual desire is called “gay”.

You can minimize it by using “drift” and other pseudo academic jargon but in truth the issue is that controlling language controls the argument.

 

[fix]

Hmm, interesting points. Not sure I entirely agree with them at this point, but interesting nonetheless. I guess my biggest issue is with the hostility to the use of any adjective or noun to describe conditions of human sexuality by some people (who much prefer the prepositional phrase “with SSA”.) when the arguments against using the speech of everyday language are quite honestly not that great.

The one thing I could say in response to the controlling the language point is that where we are now, using phraseology that no one else uses doesn’t really help with the debate, and sets up a tone that honestly could turn people off. Something along the lines of “We reject how you chose to describe yourself.” I would compare it to going to a foreign country and telling them “I am going to call you Y, because that is what my culture calls you, even though you call yourselves X.” Even if saying that isn’t wrong in itself, it certainly doesn’t win you any friends.

That is the argument that is used but I am not buying it. Firstly, the audience can help determine what words we choose. No one disputes this. That does not mean anything goes. Secondly, your argument seems to have a built in bias that presumes the audience is always stupid. In some way the audience is incapable of hearing any nuance or explanation. Now if that is true then no words will work.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I guess my biggest issue is with the hostility to the use of any adjective or noun to describe conditions of human sexuality by some people

Some of us are not interested in “hostility,” but in accuracy.

The term “gay” in secular culture is most often used to imply a “gay psyche.” That directly opposes Roman Catholic Church theology. There is no such thing as “a gay psyche.” There is a core female psyche and a core male psyche (with variations along a spectrum; you can read about that in the classic secular study, Brain Sex). This is settled Church teaching: a male personhood, a female personhood. There is not a third personhood.

The Church does not subscribe to the concept of a heterosexual psyche. Therefore, the Church, being eminently logical in how she constructs her theology, could never entertain a ‘homosexual psyche.’ Yet the “gay culture” does.

Sexuality is merely one aspect of our amazingly complex psyches, and within that, attraction is a component of sexuality. Sexuality is not the dominant aspect of our psyche, unless that’s your private interpretation of Sigmund Freud. (There actually was a thread recently on the hypothesis of the id/ego/superego relative to the disproprotionate “gay identity” movement.) The Church does not teach that our sexuality controls our personhood, or is the most important dimension of our personhood. That is the opposite of what the secular “gay” culture teaches, and many Catholics, pathetically, buy the propaganda, which isn’t even very scientific. It’s invented science, junk science, pseudo-science. It’s the same faux “science” which then implies that it’s all just so determinisitic: the attraction, the activity, and eventually, the trajectory of a life, and which demands that the rest of society agree to such false premises. And when one states or implies determinisim and “personhood,” one has positioned oneself to argue for “rights,” no matter how weak the basis is for asserting that “right.”

 

[StJudeprayforme]

That is the argument that is used but I am not buying it. Firstly, the audience can help determine what words we choose. No one disputes this. That does not mean anything goes.

Absolutely right. Just because the person to whom I am talking is gay does not mean that I will ever say that homosexual intercourse is morally acceptable. Not everything goes. I am willing, however, to respect how they self-identify, because the attraction to people of the same-sex is not in itself a sin, and there is nothing wrong in using simple language to convey that.

Secondly, your argument seems to have a built in bias that presumes the audience is always stupid. In some way the audience is incapable of hearing any nuance or explanation. Now if that is true then no words will work.

It isn’t a bias against the audience. Most of them are quite intelligent, and thus able to see why using five words instead of one is silly. This audience also is able to understand the implication that if they use the terminology that they do use, they are incapable of seeing the distinction between sexual attraction and personhood, which they for good reason will likely find insulting.

The audience that I was thinking of was intelligent and able to grasp the condescension that is present in many of the arguments by people who think they are conveying the Church’s teaching, but aren’t actually.

 

[StJudeprayforme]

Some of us are not interested in “hostility,” but in accuracy.

The term “gay” in secular culture is most often used to imply a “gay psyche.” That directly opposes Roman Catholic Church theology. There is no such thing as “a gay psyche.” There is a core female psyche and a core male psyche (with variations along a spectrum; you can read about that in the classic secular study, Brain Sex). This is settled Church teaching: a male personhood, a female personhood. There is not a third personhood.

The vast majority of people who self-identify as gay would agree 100% with you. Most people who identify as gay males like being male, think like men, and are sexually attracted to other men because they are men. It kinda goes with the territory.

The Church does not subscribe to the concept of a heterosexual psyche. Therefore, the Church, being eminently logical in how she constructs her theology, could never entertain a ‘homosexual psyche.’ Yet the “gay culture” does.

Okay.

Sexuality is merely one aspect of our amazingly complex psyches, and within that, attraction is a component of sexuality. Sexuality is not the dominant aspect of our psyche, unless that’s your private interpretation of Sigmund Freud. (There actually was a thread recently on the hypothesis of the id/ego/superego relative to the disproprotionate “gay identity” movement.) The Church does not teach that our sexuality controls our personhood, or is the most important dimension of our personhood. That is the opposite of what the secular “gay” culture teaches, and many Catholics, pathetically, buy the propaganda, which isn’t even very scientific. It’s invented science, junk science, pseudo-science. It’s the same faux “science” which then implies that it’s all just so determinisitic: the attraction, the activity, and eventually, the trajectory of a life, and which demands that the rest of society agree to such false premises. And when one states or implies determinisim and “personhood,” one has positioned oneself to argue for “rights,” no matter how weak the basis is for asserting that “right.”

Yup. Just like being left-handed is just one aspect of our amazingly complex body. Let’s start using the terminology “A person who predominately uses his left-hand.” to express that our left-handedness does not control our personhood.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

It is also called propaganda. It is a tool used to change the debate and gain support for your side. Direct murder is called “choice”. Being against unnatural acts is called “phobia”. Support for immoral unions is called “equality”. Homosexual desire is called “gay”.

You can minimize it by using “drift” and other pseudo academic jargon but in truth the issue is that controlling language controls the argument.

Those are a matter of perspective; it is called pro-choice because it is advocating for the “right” to “choose” abortion; there are a lot of people who are opposed to gays because of irrational fear; No it’s not.

Sorry, I meant semantic drift which is a common term in the study of languages.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Just like being left-handed is just one aspect of our amazingly complex body.

No, because that is something which scientists agree is innate. Yet there is no agreement that sexual attraction is “innate.” Your so-called analogy is false.

So I will continue to use the Church’s terminology, not the terminology of an overly sexualized culture.

 

[StJudeprayforme]

No, because that is something which scientists agree is innate. Yet there is no agreement that sexual attraction is “innate.” Your so-called analogy is false.

Except you can teach someone to be ambidextrous and for a long time schools “taught” children to write with their right hand if they were left-handed.

Also, even if something is beyond the control of the individual, it does not mean we can reduce personhood to it. Skin colour is not something that an individual has control over, but were we to say “He is black.” and reduce him to the colour of his skin, we would certainly be wrong.

I renew my call, based on your logic, to stop using adjectives to describe people and only use the prepositional phrase “with X” so as to prevent all of society from reducing personhood to mere adjectives.

So I will continue to use the Church’s terminology, not the terminology of an overly sexualized culture.

So, the Catechism uses the phrase “homosexual persons” and “homosexuality”
Catechism of the Catholic Church:

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

…]

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.

You won’t find “SSA” or anything like it in there. Also, the Church cannot really rule on the appropriateness of vernacular language to express a concept that isn’t theological. It isn’t a matter of faith or morals. The Church is not competent to police the vernacular, and if she even tried to do it, she would fail.

What she can tell us is that a person should not reduce their identity to their sexual orientation, but the claims that the words “gay” or “homosexual” don’t come from the people who use them, but from the people who are opposed to their usage. I think the average self-identified gay male would probably be insulted if you implied that he thought the entirety of his personhood could be reduced to who he liked to sleep with.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Some of us are not interested in “hostility,” but in accuracy.

The term “gay” in secular culture is most often used to imply a “gay psyche.” That directly opposes Roman Catholic Church theology. There is no such thing as “a gay psyche.” There is a core female psyche and a core male psyche (with variations along a spectrum; you can read about that in the classic secular study, Brain Sex). This is settled Church teaching: a male personhood, a female personhood. There is not a third personhood.

The Church does not subscribe to the concept of a heterosexual psyche. Therefore, the Church, being eminently logical in how she constructs her theology, could never entertain a ‘homosexual psyche.’ Yet the “gay culture” does.

Sexuality is merely one aspect of our amazingly complex psyches, and within that, attraction is a component of sexuality. Sexuality is not the dominant aspect of our psyche, unless that’s your private interpretation of Sigmund Freud. (There actually was a thread recently on the hypothesis of the id/ego/superego relative to the disproprotionate “gay identity” movement.) The Church does not teach that our sexuality controls our personhood, or is the most important dimension of our personhood. That is the opposite of what the secular “gay” culture teaches, and many Catholics, pathetically, buy the propaganda, which isn’t even very scientific. It’s invented science, junk science, pseudo-science. It’s the same faux “science” which then implies that it’s all just so determinisitic: the attraction, the activity, and eventually, the trajectory of a life, and which demands that the rest of society agree to such false premises. And when one states or implies determinisim and “personhood,” one has positioned oneself to argue for “rights,” no matter how weak the basis is for asserting that “right.”

It’s true there is no “gay psyche”, Gay or Straight, A Male Is a Male Is a Male

 

[mugginsjr]

Let us try to start with discontinuing to call people by their behavior and labeling people “Gay Catholic”…

I have no issue with your sincerity however your information is not helpful.

non-faithfulcatholicschools.blogspot.com/2011/07/bishop-hubbard-and-his-gay-and-lesbian.html

ncronline.org/news/spirituality/gay-ministry-group-refuses-sign-oath

Do some research before you recommend a site that is not helpful.

I simply don’t know how to respond to this once again while maintaining some sort of charitable sense. Please refrain from insulting me. And it’s important for you to know that libel is still on the books in this country. Sir I know absolutely nothing about this organization other than they purport to help Catholics who are gay. But your posts and links here show not one example of what they have done to establish your claim that they are harmful to anyone seeking their help. If Christian charity is not enough to stop your incredibly insulting tones and slander, then I assume their lawsuit against you would.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I renew my call, based on your logic, to stop using adjectives to describe people and only use the prepositional phrase “with X” so as to prevent all of society from reducing personhood to mere adjectives.

And I will renew my call, whenever I see it challenged, to conform to the Church’s thinkning regarding sexuality, personhood, marriage, and the family, as our Baptismal vows and our Confirmation assent requires each of us to do. It requires us to oppose the secular “church” which opposes our Faith.

The ones applying inappropriate and misleading adjectives, and a false contemporary psychology, are those in the “gay community.” Have a nice day.

And thank you, Dakota.