Gay hostility in class

  • Thread starter Thread starter RachelG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Lifeisbeautiful3 said:
Thus, there can be ambiguity about one’s sexuality and corresponding orientation.
Click to expand...
A quick google search doesn’t relate the XXY and XYY to either sexual ambiguity or orientation. Most of these people are never diagnosed. Some have autism or some physical developmental differences (weak muscles, extra height, low fertility). I don’t remember ever reading X and Y chromosomes being identified one way or the other, in cases of babies born with ambiguous sex characteristics. Still lots of unanswered questions.
 
Last edited:
Here is my take on this. The Catholic Church teaches that homosexuality is an immoral and sinful activity. This means it is contrary to God’s will and causes us to lose grace.

However, the Church acknowledges there are individuals who have homosexual tendencies. The Church teaches we must always treat others with charity and compassion, while at the same time being truthful and loyal to Her teachings. So what we must do is to encourage those people to refrain from any homosexual activity, help them fight against their homosexual tendencies and encourage them to use the sacraments (Eucharist and Confession mainly) to remain strong and resolute in not falling to sin.

God Bless
 
Lifeisbeautiful3 said:
There are examples of xXY chromosomes (for a total of 47 instead of 46 in genetically normal humans. There’s also an XYY variant. Thus, there can be ambiguity about one’s sexuality and corresponding orientation.
Click to expand...
It’s also true that ambiguity doubt and skepticism create…ambiguity doubt and skepticism.
 
The Catechism describes homosexual acts as “intrinsically disordered.” It does not call homosexuality a “disorder” as to medicalized or depict it as a condition or disease. This is a common mistake made by catechists with little to no background in moral theology. They wrongly interpret the term “intrinsically disordered” as referring to the person and not the act. Thus, they errantly conclude this means the person has a disorder. Indeed, many acts may be intrinsically disordered but do not constitute one having a disorder. Rather, the term refers only to the moral quality of an act. The Catholic Church has never taught that homosexuality is a disease. You might charitably mention this to your teacher as to help improve the accuracy of what is being taught.
 
Last edited:
MiserereMei25 said:
Read what I said please. Sexual relation do not help us to understand a soul of a person. Our communion with a person does. Marital sex is also different because it is a sacramental sex. But I hope you don’t just use sex to know your spouses soul.
Click to expand...
When we got married in a civil ceremony, my husband was a non practicing Baptist and I was a fallen away Catholic.
When I decided to rejoin the Church, we had to have our marriage convalidated. (It was a sweet, small ceremony), but I think our marriage isn’t a sacramental one ( not sure what that means, exactly), so I guess we don’t have “sacramental sex.”
 
MiserereMei25 said:
If the church blessed it it is sacramental
Click to expand...
Well, it convalidated it, not sure if that equals “blessed” or not. The ceremony was performed by a priest.
My husband only attends church once a year, Mass with me on Christmas Eve, and practices no religion.
 
Last edited:
I would ask a priest! Doesn’t convalidation mean it was made valid? I could be wrong. Idk tho.
 
RachelG said:
she said homosexuality is a disorder.
Click to expand...
This is not quite consistent with what is written in the catechism, and is probably not the best way to express it, since this term is used to describe medical and mental conditions.

As has been mentioned in this thread, all human desires that are contrary to God’s plan for us constitute “disorder”. There are many ways that our urges are not ordered toward God’s intentions for us.
 
I’ve talked to a priest who said our marriage is valid and in good standing with the Church but that it isn’t a “sacramental” marriage.
I really don’t get it myself.
 
Last edited:
Is your husband Baptized? If not, that could be why the marriage isn’t sacramental.

Both need to be baptized for it to be a sacrament.
 
No, he isn’t. Now that you said that, i think thats what I was told at the time. Now, it IS a valid marriage according to the Church (and before anyone says it isn’t, I spoke with my then-pastor and another priest, twice, who say it is), so what means a marriage is or isn’t “sacramental?”
 
Last edited:
That’s totally sacramental! Though you didn’t have a standard catholic wedding, it is a sacramental marriage if valid in the Church.
 
No, it’s not…for it to be sacramental both parties need to be baptized Christians.

This would be a valid natural marriage.
 
So, what’s a “valid natural marriage?” I mean, the whole point of convalidating our marriage was so I could receive the Eucharist again, which I can and I do.
 
Last edited:
If he is a baptist and was baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity which is what I assume is the case, then it would be sacramental. Right?
 
If he’d have been Baptised, yes, but DH was never Baptised.
 
Last edited:
That sounds right, I mean he’s quoting Canon Law and the CCC, but I still don’t really get it. Anyway it really doesn’t matter - we did what Msgr. told us to do, had our ceremony with two devout Catholics standing up for us and I can receive the Sacraments again, plus I spoke to two other priests, one of them twice and it’s all good. That’s all that really matters to me.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top