Gay, Catholic, struggling with conversion

[Dakota_Roberts]

I understand that these terms exist to differentiate between different attractions. However it doesn’t stop with attraction, but also includes identity. In other-words society has assumed that if you are attracted to men then it is your sexual identity to be with a man. They think that the object of attraction determines the purpose of attraction. The problem is, homosexuality is not a sexuality or true sexual identity anymore than being attracted to animals is a sexuality or identity. The differentiation itself is built on a false premise; the idea that sexual identity is defined by attraction as opposed to gender.

My sexuality is defined first and foremost by the intrinsic meaning of my gender; not my attraction.

The purpose of our gender is necessarily heterosexual in its nature and meaning. That is not to say however that other goods which transcend the purpose of sexuality do not arise. It is not immoral to be celibate if by doing so you are serving a greater good than sexuality. It is our moral duty to find a partner and bring new life into the world, unless circumstances are as such that this is not possible or not appropriate. Sometimes its not appropriate to have a partner in some circumstances, in which case celibacy is morally valid given those circumstances. Outside these circumstances choosing to be single is a selfish act. Sometimes a greater good can nullify our duty to lesser goods. Being a priest nullifies the duty to get married.
While the nature of our gender may not be fulfilled by being unmarried, it is not the same thing as contradicting your nature (as is the case with homosexual behavior), if you understand that the absolute purpose of nature is to serve God. To be unfulfilled in some respect is not necessarily the same as contradicting your nature if we do in fact exist for purposes that are higher in function and importance than the fulfillment of our sexuality.

I am not confusing the two terms but rather i am saying that one naturally and meaningfully follows from the other; and thus in that respect it is warranted to describe all men and women as heterosexual in so far as that is the natural essential end of being a man or a women. Manhood is intrinsically heterosexual in function, regardless of whether one has the accompanying attractions or not.

I have not said that celibacy is wrong. However celibacy and chastity is only valid within a certain context.

You are correct insofar as the political use of the term is concerned.

That understanding is only meaningful if you understand heterosexuality to be intrinsic to gender identity.

This makes no rational sense if the church does not truly believe that heterosexuality is the natural end of our gender identity.

I don’t define heterosexuality as one sexuality among others. There is no such thing as homosexuality or bisexuality, because sexual identity does not begin with attraction, it begins with your gender.

If heterosexuality is only meaningful in terms of having a particular attraction, then i would have to agree that the absence of that attraction would mean that you are not heterosexual. But i understand heterosexuality to be more than an attraction.

The definition stems from the object of attraction. Sexuality is defined by the attraction, homosexuality and same sex attraction mean the same thing for example.

I… what… confuzed… Are you actually saying that continence is inherently bad except for some people? Where did you get this bizarre idea that everyone should get married with few exceptions? It sounds so… Protestant.

That’s neither logically nor theologically sound

Could you please explain your logic on that?

Sexuality is defined by what sex you are attracted to

And homosexuality is more than an attraction. Your point is?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

The definition stems from the object of attraction. Sexuality is defined by the attraction, homosexuality and same sex attraction mean the same thing for example.

I… what… confuzed… Are you actually saying that continence is inherently bad except for some people? Where did you get this bizarre idea that everyone should get married with few exceptions? It sounds so… Protestant.

That’s neither logically nor theologically sound

Could you please explain your logic on that?

Sexuality is defined by what sex you are attracted to

And homosexuality is more than an attraction. Your point is?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

The definition stems from the object of attraction. Sexuality is defined by the attraction, homosexuality and same sex attraction mean the same thing for example.

The definition of homosexuality doesn’t simply stem from the idea of attraction (although it certainly begins with it), but rather it is also founded on the belief that such is your identity because its your attraction. Its the idea that you don’t just simply have homosexual attractions, but rather you are a “homosexual”. But homosexuality is not the natural expression of our gender identity. Heterosexuality is. If a person is born with no legs or losses his limbs in a war, nobody is going to say that it is the identity of this person to have no limbs and live in wheel chair. Its evident that to have no limbs is not the true nature of that person, and it would be offensive to say to that person that such is his identity. I would never say to somebody that its their sexual identity to be attracted to animals or children. Why? Because it is not their true sexual identity as human beings; regardless of the fact that they may or may not be sexually attracted to such things. Those things are a deformity of their identity; a distortion of what they truly are. That is why the term homosexuality is offensive because it does not express the true identity of a man or a women. Heterosexuality does.

I… what… confuzed… Are you actually saying that continence is inherently bad except for some people? Where did you get this bizarre idea that everyone should get married with few exceptions? It sounds so… Protestant.

No. I am saying that our default nature is to multiply. However their are greater goods or circumstances that does not enable us to full-fill the duty of being a proper husband and a father, such as being a priest for example.

That’s neither logically nor theologically sound

Then you can explain why, instead of asserting that it is. I am calling your bluff

Could you please explain your logic on that?

It becomes evidently clear once you accept the fact that Catholic morality is intrinsically teleological in nature (a fact that you seem blissfully unaware of) and that teleology is one of the fundamental reasons why the Catholic church rejects homosexual behaviour. Good by definition is to fulfill the nature that God gave you. To not do so is by definition a selfish act unless a greater good or events beyond your control stop you from doing so. Sexuality is apart of our natural identity. It is our moral duty to fulfil it. If homosexuality was your true nature, it would be good to full-fill it.

If these ideas seem peculiar to you, it is because you have not properly educated your self in these matters.

Sexuality is defined by what sex you are attracted to

No. The true definition of human sexuality begins with your gender identity, not attraction. You are a man before you have attractions as a man. Attraction is first and foremost an expression of our being men or women. Attraction begins with and serves the purpose of being a man or a women: it is not something extraneous to the fact or arbitrarily attached to it. Therefore we cannot reasonably treat them as separate categories or exclude gender identity from the fact of having attractions. And thus as Catholics we must include “gender identity” and begin with that fact when defining what human sexuality is, objectively speaking.

And homosexuality is more than an attraction. Your point is?

Homosexuality evidently becomes a fallacious concept as soon as you accept that your sexual identity begins with and includes your gender identity. You evidently want to keep the fallacy alive.

 

[DevotedChild]

The definition of homosexuality doesn’t simply stem from the idea of attraction (although it certainly begins with it), but rather it is also founded on the belief that such is your identity because its your attraction. Its the idea that you don’t just simply have homosexual attractions, but rather you are a “homosexual”. But homosexuality is not the natural expression of our gender identity. Heterosexuality is. If a person is born with no legs or losses his limbs in a war, nobody is going to say that it is the identity of this person to have no limbs and live in wheel chair. Its evident that to have no limbs is not the true nature of that person, and it would be offensive to say to that person that such is his identity. I would never say to somebody that its their sexual identity to be attracted to animals or children. Why? Because it is not their true sexual identity as human beings; regardless of the fact that they may or may not be sexually attracted to such things. Those things are a deformity of their identity; a distortion of what they truly are. That is why the term homosexuality is offensive because it does not express the true identity of a man or a women. Heterosexuality does.

No. I am saying that our default nature is to multiply. However their are greater goods or circumstances that does not enable us to full-fill the duty of being a proper husband and a father, such as being a priest for example.

Then you can explain why, instead of asserting that it is. I am calling your bluff

It becomes evidently clear once you accept the fact that Catholic morality is intrinsically teleological in nature (a fact that you seem blissfully unaware of) and that teleology is one of the fundamental reasons why the Catholic church rejects homosexual behaviour. Good by definition is to fulfill the nature that God gave you. To not do so is by definition a selfish act unless a greater good or events beyond your control stop you from doing so. Sexuality is apart of our natural identity. It is our moral duty to fulfil it. If homosexuality was your true nature, it would be good to full-fill it.

If these ideas seem peculiar to you, it is because you have not properly educated your self in these matters.

No. The true definition of human sexuality begins with your gender identity, not attraction. You are a man before you have attractions as a man. Attraction is first and foremost an expression of our being men or women. Attraction begins with and serves the purpose of being a man or a women: it is not something extraneous to the fact or arbitrarily attached to it. Therefore we cannot reasonably treat them as separate categories or exclude gender identity from the fact of having attractions. And thus as Catholics we must include “gender identity” and begin with that fact when defining what human sexuality is, objectively speaking.

The fact that you say that sexuality=gender identity is not factual based for they do not have the same definition, it is just something that you are implying. Sexuality is all about attractions and nothing else, that it means more than that is not factual for it is not listed as such in any dictionary or encyclopedia. Unless you provide some actual evidence that this is true, then what you say has no value.

BTW this is not what the OP was talking/asking about, so I must ask that you please take this conversation elsewhere.

God Bless
Homosexuality evidently becomes a fallacious concept as soon as you accept that your sexual identity begins with and includes your gender identity. You evidently want to keep the fallacy alive.

 

[DevotedChild]

The definition of homosexuality doesn’t simply stem from the idea of attraction (although it certainly begins with it), but rather it is also founded on the belief that such is your identity because its your attraction. Its the idea that you don’t just simply have homosexual attractions, but rather you are a “homosexual”. But homosexuality is not the natural expression of our gender identity. Heterosexuality is. If a person is born with no legs or losses his limbs in a war, nobody is going to say that it is the identity of this person to have no limbs and live in wheel chair. Its evident that to have no limbs is not the true nature of that person, and it would be offensive to say to that person that such is his identity. I would never say to somebody that its their sexual identity to be attracted to animals or children. Why? Because it is not their true sexual identity as human beings; regardless of the fact that they may or may not be sexually attracted to such things. Those things are a deformity of their identity; a distortion of what they truly are. That is why the term homosexuality is offensive because it does not express the true identity of a man or a women. Heterosexuality does.

No. I am saying that our default nature is to multiply. However their are greater goods or circumstances that does not enable us to full-fill the duty of being a proper husband and a father, such as being a priest for example.

Then you can explain why, instead of asserting that it is. I am calling your bluff

It becomes evidently clear once you accept the fact that Catholic morality is intrinsically teleological in nature (a fact that you seem blissfully unaware of) and that teleology is one of the fundamental reasons why the Catholic church rejects homosexual behaviour. Good by definition is to fulfill the nature that God gave you. To not do so is by definition a selfish act unless a greater good or events beyond your control stop you from doing so. Sexuality is apart of our natural identity. It is our moral duty to fulfil it. If homosexuality was your true nature, it would be good to full-fill it.

If these ideas seem peculiar to you, it is because you have not properly educated your self in these matters.

No. The true definition of human sexuality begins with your gender identity, not attraction. You are a man before you have attractions as a man. Attraction is first and foremost an expression of our being men or women. Attraction begins with and serves the purpose of being a man or a women: it is not something extraneous to the fact or arbitrarily attached to it. Therefore we cannot reasonably treat them as separate categories or exclude gender identity from the fact of having attractions. And thus as Catholics we must include “gender identity” and begin with that fact when defining what human sexuality is, objectively speaking.

Homosexuality evidently becomes a fallacious concept as soon as you accept that your sexual identity begins with and includes your gender identity. You evidently want to keep the fallacy alive.

The fact that you say that sexuality=gender identity is not factual based for they do not have the same definition, it is just something that you are implying. Sexuality is all about attractions and nothing else, that it means more than that is not factual for it is not listed as such in any dictionary or encyclopedia. Unless you provide some actual evidence that this is true, then what you say has no value.

BTW this is not what the OP was talking/asking about, so I must ask that you please take this conversation elsewhere.

God Bless

 

[Holly3278]

Have you looked into the Courage Apostolate? It is a ministry for those who struggle with same sex attraction. Here is a link to their site:

couragerc.net/

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Sexuality is all about attractions and nothing else, that it means more than that is not factual for it is not listed as such in any dictionary or encyclopedia. Unless you provide some actual evidence that this is true, then what you say has no value.

God Bless

This has got to be a joke. I have rationally demonstrated my position as true, and you can read my last post as evidence of that fact. This is a philosophy forum. Since you are moved by authority, are you going to say that Church teaching has no value? lol, as if being in the dictionary is what necessarily defines something as being true! Western society thinks that a human embryo doesn’t have the same value as a born person and that its okay to abort babies. I say that’s evidently wrong and against Church teachings. Are you going to present government law as a rebuttal? Western society says that homosexuality is not intrinsically disordered. I say that’s evidently wrong and against church teaching. I suppose you are going to site some definition you found in a pro-gay pamflet. I really don’t think the authorities which you site are a good enough representative of truth as they tend only to reflect the ideology of the times. Gods existence is not listed as factual in any modern dictionary or encyclopaedia and yet both these facts which I defend can be rationally demonstrated as reasonable positions to hold.

You have arrogantly dismissed everything I have said without any comparative rebuttal. So I will not be joining you in another thread because you are evidently a dishonest person.

While my posts do not directly reflect the OP’s concerns, he will always be in conflict with his faith until he realises and accepts the fact that he is not a “gay”; but rather is a “man” with disordered attractions towards other men.

It disturbs me that Catholics on this forum are trying to stop him from seeing that fact.

I really don’t care if my definition is not in the encyclopaedia.

Good bye and God bless.

 

[Rossignol]

First of all, you are very brave to be so incredibly open and honest. It’s humbling to hear your story.

Second of all, you are very blessed. Not only do you have a difficult cross to bear, but you are experiencing what many saints have described as “dark night of the soul.” I don’t know too much about it, but it’s basically the feeling of doubt and absence you described. Don’t worry, this is normal. And God is certainly with you, He hasn’t gone anywhere.

My only suggestion would be to do some fun research (yes, research can be fun) on the aspect of the dark night of the soul. Even Blessed Mother Theresa had this for many years. You might find it comforting.

God bless you and your brave heart.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

The definition of homosexuality doesn’t simply stem from the idea of attraction (although it certainly begins with it), but rather it is also founded on the belief that such is your identity because its your attraction. Its the idea that you don’t just simply have homosexual attractions, but rather you are a “homosexual”. But homosexuality is not the natural expression of our gender identity. Heterosexuality is. If a person is born with no legs or losses his limbs in a war, nobody is going to say that it is the identity of this person to have no limbs and live in wheel chair. Its evident that to have no limbs is not the true nature of that person, and it would be offensive to say to that person that such is his identity. I would never say to somebody that its their sexual identity to be attracted to animals or children. Why? Because it is not their true sexual identity as human beings; regardless of the fact that they may or may not be sexually attracted to such things. Those things are a deformity of their identity; a distortion of what they truly are. That is why the term homosexuality is offensive because it does not express the true identity of a man or a women. Heterosexuality does.

No. I am saying that our default nature is to multiply. However their are greater goods or circumstances that does not enable us to full-fill the duty of being a proper husband and a father, such as being a priest for example.

Then you can explain why, instead of asserting that it is. I am calling your bluff

It becomes evidently clear once you accept the fact that Catholic morality is intrinsically teleological in nature (a fact that you seem blissfully unaware of) and that teleology is one of the fundamental reasons why the Catholic church rejects homosexual behaviour. Good by definition is to fulfill the nature that God gave you. To not do so is by definition a selfish act unless a greater good or events beyond your control stop you from doing so. Sexuality is apart of our natural identity. It is our moral duty to fulfil it. If homosexuality was your true nature, it would be good to full-fill it.

If these ideas seem peculiar to you, it is because you have not properly educated your self in these matters.

No. The true definition of human sexuality begins with your gender identity, not attraction. You are a man before you have attractions as a man. Attraction is first and foremost an expression of our being men or women. Attraction begins with and serves the purpose of being a man or a women: it is not something extraneous to the fact or arbitrarily attached to it. Therefore we cannot reasonably treat them as separate categories or exclude gender identity from the fact of having attractions. And thus as Catholics we must include “gender identity” and begin with that fact when defining what human sexuality is, objectively speaking.

Homosexuality evidently becomes a fallacious concept as soon as you accept that your sexual identity begins with and includes your gender identity. You evidently want to keep the fallacy alive.

tl;dr English sucks, but y’know what? It’s the language we are currently using.

Historically the Church going back to St. Paul has held celibacy as superior to marriage and that anyone who can take it should thus I find it baffling that you would suggest that everyone barring exceptional circumstances should reproduce. Homosexual acts are distinct from fornication because it is fundamentally different fornication. Sins are the corruptions and virtues and the reason homosexual acts are so much worse than fornication is because they are the corruption of a far higher good. The better the virtue the worse the sin. Homosexual acts would actually be a corruption of agape love in contrast to fornication/adultery being the corruption of eros. Agape love was the bond between David and Jonathan, it surpasses the love between a man and a woman by it’s very nature, instead of having carnal roots it is rooted in the spirit, it is like a fresh snowflake, immaculate and dazzling in its beauty.

Sexual feelings are not intrinsic to the soul, they are begotten of the flesh.