Gods view in homosexuality

[fix]

Basically it is only an ideology to people who the term is functionally irrelevant to.

No, it is an ideology whether those who promote it understand that or admit it.

 

[fix]

As I’ve said countless times now already… I know what the Church means when it says words like “disordered” because I speak the Church’s language. The world doesn’t. The world, and especially same-sex attracted people, hears us saying “all gay people are disordered”. They don’t hear “homosexual attraction is not ordered in the correct way for the objective design of the human being”. They hear that homosexual persons are disordered. That the whole person is disordered. That that person is, essentially, irredeemable. And that is an appalling awful thing to hear, especially if you’re that terrified 13 year old boy at Church who interprets the Church’s words (and those who unthinkingly parrot them to real people without considering the impact of the way in which they say them).

You state that this forum is a place where troubled homosexual people should be able to find guidance and counsel. While there are people on this forum who propose that to simply “be gay” is a deliberate active choice to live an immoral, disordered life, I would have to say that this is the last place a troubled homosexual should come if he (or she) wants to find a way to come to a peaceful acceptance of their condition and to live out their lives in loving chastity for the world. Why? Because they would forever be being told that their entire identity, their entire personhood, was evil and hell-bound because of the uncharitable and incorrect designations that people place on words that, in common usage, mean something different from how they are used by people on here.

If people want to terrify homosexual people, including those that are vulnerable, if they want to brow-beat them into abject despair (and to cause someone to fall into despair would be the gravest of sins - look up the religious meaning of despair if you don’t know what I mean), if they want to rip their self-identity to shreds, if they want to tell them that they are that which they are not, then they can count on me and people like me to oppose them. I don’t oppose the Church, I am not opposing doctrine or anything that the Church teaches on what is called for in living a good and holy life if one is a homosexual. What I am, is charitable about it, loving, caring. To me it doesn’t matter what a person calls him or herself. I don’t care about whether a term might be loaded to someone else. What matters is the person before me, the immortal soul that might be at risk if I say something to harm it.

I will say this, and I mean it: if by intransigence and a lack of willingness to meet people on their terms (linguistic or otherwise), we wittingly or unwittingly drive a person to believe that there’s nothing they can do to avoid damnation, then we commit the gravest of grave sins: we lead that person into a state of despair where, by our actions or words, we induce in that person a belief that they can never be reconciled to God because they are irredeemable.

They say “the road to Hell is paved with good intentions”. We must never be so stubborn and prideful about the ‘correctness’ of our language that we fail to see the damage we do to those most vulnerable to being detached from the loving embrace of Our Lord. What a terrible, awful, ghastly thing to do to a person!

What a lopsided understanding. You load your entire piece here with slanted language and ideas. It is not this false choice where either we adopt propagandist language or we “drive away” people from the Church. Meeting people where they are includes the truth in charity, not obfuscation and conforming ourselves to the world. Keep in mind that we are not only speaking to this one subset but to all the population. I keep hearing about this group that refuses to hear what is true yet I barely hear how this ideology is affecting the rest of the culture where souls are at risk too especially children.

 

[Seeker1961]

As I’ve said countless times now already… I know what the Church means when it says words like “disordered” because I speak the Church’s language. The world doesn’t. The world, and especially same-sex attracted people, hears us saying “all gay people are disordered”. They don’t hear “homosexual attraction is not ordered in the correct way for the objective design of the human being”. They hear that homosexual persons are disordered. That the whole person is disordered. That that person is, essentially, irredeemable. And that is an appalling awful thing to hear, especially if you’re that terrified 13 year old boy at Church who interprets the Church’s words (and those who unthinkingly parrot them to real people without considering the impact of the way in which they say them).

You state that this forum is a place where troubled homosexual people should be able to find guidance and counsel. While there are people on this forum who propose that to simply “be gay” is a deliberate active choice to live an immoral, disordered life, I would have to say that this is the last place a troubled homosexual should come if he (or she) wants to find a way to come to a peaceful acceptance of their condition and to live out their lives in loving chastity for the world. Why? Because they would forever be being told that their entire identity, their entire personhood, was evil and hell-bound because of the uncharitable and incorrect designations that people place on words that, in common usage, mean something different from how they are used by people on here.

If people want to terrify homosexual people, including those that are vulnerable, if they want to brow-beat them into abject despair (and to cause someone to fall into despair would be the gravest of sins - look up the religious meaning of despair if you don’t know what I mean), if they want to rip their self-identity to shreds, if they want to tell them that they are that which they are not, then they can count on me and people like me to oppose them. I don’t oppose the Church, I am not opposing doctrine or anything that the Church teaches on what is called for in living a good and holy life if one is a homosexual. What I am, is charitable about it, loving, caring. To me it doesn’t matter what a person calls him or herself. I don’t care about whether a term might be loaded to someone else. What matters is the person before me, the immortal soul that might be at risk if I say something to harm it.

I will say this, and I mean it: if by intransigence and a lack of willingness to meet people on their terms (linguistic or otherwise), we wittingly or unwittingly drive a person to believe that there’s nothing they can do to avoid damnation, then we commit the gravest of grave sins: we lead that person into a state of despair where, by our actions or words, we induce in that person a belief that they can never be reconciled to God because they are irredeemable.

They say “the road to Hell is paved with good intentions”. We must never be so stubborn and prideful about the ‘correctness’ of our language that we fail to see the damage we do to those most vulnerable to being detached from the loving embrace of Our Lord. What a terrible, awful, ghastly thing to do to a person!

There is exactly how I feel-I could not have put it any better.

 

[DexUK]

What a lopsided understanding. You load your entire piece here with slanted language and ideas. It is not this false choice where either we adopt propagandist language or we “drive away” people from the Church. Meeting people where they are includes the truth in charity, not obfuscation and conforming ourselves to the world. Keep in mind that we are not only speaking to this one subset but to all the population. I keep hearing about this group that refuses to hear what is true yet I barely hear how this ideology is affecting the rest of the culture where souls are at risk too especially children.

The world already talks a different language to that which you do. You don’t have to like it, but you do need to accept it.

So far, you and others here, seem unwilling to accept reality as it is, and cling to old definitions for the moral ‘high ground’ that you think they represent. The trouble is, you’re clinging to what appears to be a mirage to the rest of the world. It’s not “refusing” to hear our message - it listens and understands it differently to how we intend it to be understood. No amount of complaining about ‘slanted’ this and ‘propagandised’ that will change that fundamental truth about where the world is now.

You can stick in the mud if you want, but you’re not going to help anyone if you do. You’re just going to be judged incorrectly about what you stand for, and you seem to be unwilling to help yourself be understood better. And that’s a shame, for what it means to you - since you’re constantly fighting battles that don’t need to be fought - and for the people you reach out to who reject you on the basis of the seemingly out-of-date language and understandings that you use.

It’s no wonder the Church is seen as a hostile place for homosexual people.

 

[Elizabeth502]

As I’ve said countless times now already… I know what the Church means when it says words like “disordered” because I speak the Church’s language. The world doesn’t. The world, and especially same-sex attracted people, hears us saying “all gay people are disordered”. They don’t hear “homosexual attraction is not ordered in the correct way for the objective design of the human being”. They hear that homosexual persons are disordered. That the whole person is disordered. That that person is, essentially, irredeemable.

Do you seriously think that Catholics go out into the street and declare to homosexuals that “they” (the persons) are “disordered?” Language of order and disorder (you should know this, because you claim that you understand the context for this language) is philosophical language It’s the foundation for how Catholic theology is framed & explained. CAF discussions are often (especially in this, the Apologetics section) intellectual discussions. The Church does not propose a pastoral approach to homosexuality based on language of order & disorder. That’s not in their pastoral documents. It’s brought up here because within Catholic discussions, terms are important.

And in terms of self-concept, as growing Catholics, terms are also important. I need to know myself where I am on my pilgrim journey. Words frame that. I need to know, when I go to confession, not just a technical “list” of sins from some “catalog” of sins, but how most accurately to name how & why I have offended, and precise words are important for that. Catholicism, both in its theology & spirituality, depends on words & the precise use of those for purposes of clarification, common understanding, and moving forward individually and as a whole Church.

To the extent that words in the secular & Catholic spheres are synonymous, I don’t see the problem. To the extent that highly ambiguous words (of whatever category – doesn’t have to be sexual expliclty), or misleading words are imported – either from the secular, libertine culture or from a different religious tradition for which the word means or suggests something different, or many different things, then the practice of borrowing becomes sloppy and useless.

Thus, as I’ve already explained, 'gay" means many, many things, and to the homosexual community near me, it also means, internally, many things. If I walked into that community today, and announced, “I am a gay Catholic,” the immediate reaction would be, “Really? Wow. I didn’t know the Catholic Church now allows gays to be sexually active. Great! What a step forward.” Now, maybe you think that going through the next phase (contradicting everyone, possibly one by one) is better than simply saying, “I am Catholic,” but I see it as both misleading and inefficient.

But again, the more important point, both from the standpoint of evangelizing and from the standpoint of accuracy, is that there is no such thing as “a gay person” in Catholic theology. This was brought up once again, just this week, on Catholic Answers Live. There is no theology of “sexual” personhood, per se. The dogma of sexual personhood arose in the secular world. It is part and parcel of the “identity politics” movement which refuses to acknowledge our fundamental community of personhood (“The Family of Man”). It is a vocabulary which divides and Balkanizes. It has become built into political rhetoric, into pressure to create separate “laws” for all kinds of categories, into educational curriculum, into city council meetings where random Citizen X becomes enraged that someone dared to call him a person and neglected to put an adjective in front of the word “person” or “man,” etc. Somehow a person with an adjective in front of their name “thinks differently,” “feels differently” than someone not from that category will ever be able to experience or even understand. Because it is so profoundly a ‘distinction’ model, it is also much more potentially, and even actually, a conflict model.

Some of us have been discussing conflict modeling over on the “Feminine Mystique” thread.

 

[fix]

Do you seriously think that Catholics go out into the street and declare to homosexuals that “they” (the persons) are “disordered?” Language of order and disorder (you should know this, because you claim that you understand the context for this language) is philosophical language It’s the foundation for how Catholic theology is framed & explained. CAF discussions are often (especially in this, the Apologetics section) intellectual discussions. The Church does not propose a pastoral approach to homosexuality based on language of order & disorder. That’s not in their pastoral documents. It’s brought up here because within Catholic discussions, terms are important.

And in terms of self-concept, as growing Catholics, terms are also important. I need to know myself where I am on my pilgrim journey. Words frame that. I need to know, when I go to confession, not just a technical “list” of sins from some “catalog” of sins, but how most accurately to name how & why I have offended, and precise words are important for that. Catholicism, both in its theology & spirituality, depends on words & the precise use of those for purposes of clarification, common understanding, and moving forward individually and as a whole Church.

To the extent that words in the secular & Catholic spheres are synonymous, I don’t see the problem. To the extent that highly ambiguous words (of whatever category – doesn’t have to be sexual expliclty), or misleading words are imported – either from the secular, libertine culture or from a different religious tradition for which the word means or suggests something different, or many different things, then the practice of borrowing becomes sloppy and useless.

Thus, as I’ve already explained, 'gay" means many, many things, and to the homosexual community near me, it also means, internally, many things. If I walked into that community today, and announced, “I am a gay Catholic,” the immediate reaction would be, “Really? Wow. I didn’t know the Catholic Church now allows gays to be sexually active. Great! What a step forward.” Now, maybe you think that going through the next phase (contradicting everyone, possibly one by one) is better than simply saying, “I am Catholic,” but I see it as both misleading and inefficient.

But again, the more important point, both from the standpoint of evangelizing and from the standpoint of accuracy, is that there is no such thing as “a gay person” in Catholic theology. This was brought up once again, just this week, on Catholic Answers Live. There is no theology of “sexual” personhood, per se. The dogma of sexual personhood arose in the secular world. It is part and parcel of the “identity politics” movement which refuses to acknowledge our fundamental community of personhood (“The Family of Man”). It is a vocabulary which divides and Balkanizes. It has become built into political rhetoric, into pressure to create separate “laws” for all kinds of categories, into educational curriculum, into city council meetings where random Citizen X becomes enraged that someone dared to call him a person and neglected to put an adjective in front of the word “person” or “man,” etc. Somehow a person with an adjective in front of their name “thinks differently,” “feels differently” than someone not from that category will ever be able to experience or even understand. Because it is so profoundly a ‘distinction’ model, it is also much more potentially, and even actually, a conflict model.

Some of us have been discussing conflict modeling over on the “Feminine Mystique” thread.

If there were an icon for standing ovation I would give you 20.

:clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping:

 

[pete_29]

I have a question regarding the bible verse from Leviticus. It says that a man should not lie with another man otherwise it’s an abomination. Firstly, what about women and women? Also, if God created everything, then why did he create something he is against? It seemed God was very stern in the OT and in the NT he seems so kind, always sending angels saying don’t be afraid.

I feel God loves me, despite me being gay.

I have a terrible temper. It has caused myself pain as well as it has caused pain to others. Is God happy with my temper? I don’t think so. It is my responsibility to control my temper. I think the same can be said about any human condition. We are called to put God before ourselves. Do we always do this? No, we are human. All we can do is pray and do the best we can.

 

[Kolbe300]

You say here in effect that the only sensible explanation to my argument is that my “entire goal is to fight over a word”, in other words to gain linguistic advantage as the only goal.

Hi ISOG. That’s correct. While I know your personal goal is more than gaining linguistic advantage, the arguments made here only seem sensible to me if that were a person’s only goal. That, of course, is my personal opinion.

You accepted it, never mind if “gay” is in fact a loaded term, and never mind if leaders associated with the Church advise Catholics with homosexuality issues not to identify as “gay” unless one wants his homosexual orientation and homosexuality to define his person.

I’ve accepted gay as a word capable of describing a sexual orientation. Nothing more. I’ve never met a person who views their sexuality as the definition of their personhood. I’ve met and seen a lot of people who assume that of others, though. You mention leaders associated with the Church. I’ve had three spiritual directors in my time as an adult Catholic (all priests). They have never recommended the above, and to be honest, we never talk about the word. The word has never been an issue. We talk about the person, me.

When Catholics follow said advice and make a stand not to use “gay” in referring to their chaste homosexual brethren, that is not being stubborn for no reason nor being uncharitable, ridiculous or unwilling to help and listen to their homosexual brothers and sisters, as seems implied.

I think you’re right. It’s not uncharitable for a person to refuse to use the word gay if they don’t want to use the word gay. What I think is uncharitable and ridiculous is when people assume a person identifying as gay comes with all that “baggage.”

Ok, that sentence is worded indelicately, but the first part of the post is consistent with my message objecting to the “gay” label, as below, which I think should not be dismissed because of the post ending.

If you saw that sentence as just “indelicate,” then we are obviously approaching this subject from vastly different perspectives. I saw that sentence as crude, disgusting, and offensive.

I don’t have time to check your old posts, but I recall you making lengthy or numerous posts explaining your resentment to the word “disorder”, just that you did come around after much thought, or perhaps persuaded to think otherwise.

You are right, I have seen that word as offensive and have said that before. No need to go searching for proof. I’m still not a fan of the word because it’s so often misunderstood, but I do understand what the Church is trying to get at. Spiritual direction has helped me immensely in that regard.

You would not recommend CAF to young people seeking guidance and counsel? PMs from those who stumbled on CAF and a conclusion that they are worse off for coming to CAF? Wow. Houston, do you copy?

I get the sense that you think I’m being dishonest. Is that correct? If you think I’m being dishonest there isn’t much I can do to change your mind. All I can say is I cherish honesty. Some of the private messages I’ve received have been heartbreaking. As a fan of aviation, I do appreciate the Houston reference! Houston, we do have a problem here.

Somehow, Kolbe, your stance comes across as a bit combative. Not what I remember in our exchanges in the forum. But then, I have not been checking in at CAF to read current threads and posts for six weeks until a few days ago as I’ve been away for a while.

Guilty as charged. I’m certainly more combative then I used to be, though I certainly try not to be mean or disrespectful. I think one must be a full-fledged saint to not get irritated at times on this board. I’d say we’re all a bit guilty of that (being combative, not a saint).

Peace to you, as well.

Thank you, and peace to you!

 

[Kolbe300]

As I’ve said countless times now already… I know what the Church means when it says words like “disordered” because I speak the Church’s language. The world doesn’t. The world, and especially same-sex attracted people, hears us saying “all gay people are disordered”. They don’t hear “homosexual attraction is not ordered in the correct way for the objective design of the human being”. They hear that homosexual persons are disordered. That the whole person is disordered. That that person is, essentially, irredeemable. And that is an appalling awful thing to hear, especially if you’re that terrified 13 year old boy at Church who interprets the Church’s words (and those who unthinkingly parrot them to real people without considering the impact of the way in which they say them).

You state that this forum is a place where troubled homosexual people should be able to find guidance and counsel. While there are people on this forum who propose that to simply “be gay” is a deliberate active choice to live an immoral, disordered life, I would have to say that this is the last place a troubled homosexual should come if he (or she) wants to find a way to come to a peaceful acceptance of their condition and to live out their lives in loving chastity for the world. Why? Because they would forever be being told that their entire identity, their entire personhood, was evil and hell-bound because of the uncharitable and incorrect designations that people place on words that, in common usage, mean something different from how they are used by people on here.

If people want to terrify homosexual people, including those that are vulnerable, if they want to brow-beat them into abject despair (and to cause someone to fall into despair would be the gravest of sins - look up the religious meaning of despair if you don’t know what I mean), if they want to rip their self-identity to shreds, if they want to tell them that they are that which they are not, then they can count on me and people like me to oppose them. I don’t oppose the Church, I am not opposing doctrine or anything that the Church teaches on what is called for in living a good and holy life if one is a homosexual. What I am, is charitable about it, loving, caring. To me it doesn’t matter what a person calls him or herself. I don’t care about whether a term might be loaded to someone else. What matters is the person before me, the immortal soul that might be at risk if I say something to harm it.

I will say this, and I mean it: if by intransigence and a lack of willingness to meet people on their terms (linguistic or otherwise), we wittingly or unwittingly drive a person to believe that there’s nothing they can do to avoid damnation, then we commit the gravest of grave sins: we lead that person into a state of despair where, by our actions or words, we induce in that person a belief that they can never be reconciled to God because they are irredeemable.

They say “the road to Hell is paved with good intentions”. We must never be so stubborn and prideful about the ‘correctness’ of our language that we fail to see the damage we do to those most vulnerable to being detached from the loving embrace of Our Lord. What a terrible, awful, ghastly thing to do to a person!

Very well said. Thank you, Dex

 

[Kolbe300]

Thus, as I’ve already explained, 'gay" means many, many things, and to the homosexual community near me, it also means, internally, many things. If I walked into that community today, and announced, “I am a gay Catholic,” the immediate reaction would be, “Really? Wow. I didn’t know the Catholic Church now allows gays to be sexually active. Great! What a step forward.” Now, maybe you think that going through the next phase (contradicting everyone, possibly one by one) is better than simply saying, “I am Catholic,” but I see it as both misleading and inefficient.

Hi Elizabeth. You make some great points in your post, which is appreciated. As far as the scenario described above, I see some problems. If I were to go talk to a group of gay men and women about homosexuality and the Catholic Church, my stating simply that I’m a Catholic, would be leaving out an important part of my ability to identify and empathize with gay men and women. I could certainly say, “Hello, I am Catholic and also same sex attracted.” Now, while I can’t know this for certain, I’d bet every dollar I have that the response to my statement would be, “So…you’re gay?” That’s because “gay” is the word people usually use whether we agree with it or not.

They may then go on to say (though I doubt they would), “Wow, I didn’t know the Catholic Church now allows gays to be sexually active.” I wouldn’t have a hard time explaining how that isn’t the case, and I doubt I’d have to do it one person at a time.

I have had these discussions. There has never been some massive misunderstanding. I’ve found people respond very kindly. They don’t always agree, but they’re willing to listen and to discuss. I think maybe we make this out to be far more complicated and difficult than it really is. That could simply be because this is an apologetics board, but I don’t think so.

 

[fix]

The world already talks a different language to that which you do. You don’t have to like it, but you do need to accept it.

We have already agreed that not every use of every word is good.

So far, you and others here, seem unwilling to accept reality as it is, and cling to old definitions for the moral ‘high ground’ that you think they represent. The trouble is, you’re clinging to what appears to be a mirage to the rest of the world. It’s not “refusing” to hear our message - it listens and understands it differently to how we intend it to be understood. No amount of complaining about ‘slanted’ this and ‘propagandised’ that will change that fundamental truth about where the world is now.

Things will not change if people hold the view you do.

You can stick in the mud if you want, but you’re not going to help anyone if you do

Elizabeth answered this charge in her post.

You’re just going to be judged incorrectly about what you stand for, and you seem to be unwilling to help yourself be understood better. And that’s a shame, for what it means to you - since you’re constantly fighting battles that don’t need to be fought - and for the people you reach out to who reject you on the basis of the seemingly out-of-date language and understandings that you use.

It’s no wonder the Church is seen as a hostile place for homosexual people.

My posts are quite understandable. The problem is you just do not like it.

 

[DexUK]

My posts are quite understandable. The problem is you just do not like it.

Sigh

I understand you. But I can assure you that there are many homosexuals who wouldn’t. Why can I be so sure? Because I have participated in what you might describe as an ‘out-reach’ effort to the homosexual community. With only one or two exceptions (these being people who have a background in ‘church language’) they all perceive themselves to be outright condemned by the Church for simply being homosexual, let alone acting on it. And it’s a very hard task indeed to persuade them that they are loved by God, and valued as human beings - because they don’t trust a single word the Church says.

What I don’t like is that you and others refuse to accept that we have to see things from others’ points of view. You’re only looking at it through your own prism. It patently** isn’t **bringing people into the arms of the Church. If your language and your approach worked, there’d be lines of homosexuals breaking down our doors asking to be let in.

When something doesn’t work, you either fix it or replace it. Since our language isn’t working, we need to replace it with language that does work.

How is it that you can’t see things from the other person’s perspective?

 

[fix]

Same-Sex Attractions

As regards language we should keep another phrase in mind: All social engineering is preceded by verbal engineering…We see this truth already in the abortion debate. The promoters of abortion on demand coined the phrase pro-choice to cloak the slaughter of the unborn under the very palatable concept of choice. So also the promoters of euthanasia talk about end of life choices and compassion in dying.

A similar phenomenon is at play as regards the issue of homosexuality. We must recognize that particular words that in some quarters are innocent and perhaps years ago were benign now carry a certain political and/or cultural meaning. Gay and lesbian, for example, are politically charged terms indicating not simply attractions but a particular philosophy and way of life. Orientation, as we saw last week, is also charged with political meaning because it conveys that sexuality has no clear purpose and can be used any way we desire.

In discussing homosexuality we must therefore strive for precision in terms. This may be at the cost of linguistic convenience. Popular culture and ease of speech make the less accurate words more attractive. Nevertheless, it is better to speak of same-sex attractions, homosexual inclinations or tendencies.

 

[fix]

Sigh

I understand you. But I can assure you that there are many homosexuals who wouldn’t.

They, like all people, can seek clarification. Only one way is correct in every case?

Why can I be so sure? Because I have participated in what you might describe as an ‘out-reach’ effort to the homosexual community. With only one or two exceptions (these being people who have a background in ‘church language’) they all perceive themselves to be outright condemned by the Church for simply being homosexual, let alone acting on it. And it’s a very hard task indeed to persuade them that they are loved by God, and valued as human beings - because they don’t trust a single word the Church says.

As I have said, multiple times now, We must not seek to speak to only one small subset that refuses to listen. Our words can reach many ears and each venue is different. There is no reason to assert that because one subgroup demands something one must act a particular way in every single circumstance. We are not talking about homosexual outreach programs only here in this thread. Why do you want to limit it?

What I don’t like is that you and others refuse to accept that we have to see things from others’ points of view. You’re only looking at it through your own prism. It patently** isn’t **bringing people into the arms of the Church. If your language and your approach worked, there’d be lines of homosexuals breaking down our doors asking to be let in.

A lot of drama here. You want to paint others into a corner. Basically you seem to be claiming we need to tailor every single utterance to this one group you claim refuses to hear anything they do not like.

When something doesn’t work, you either fix it or replace it. Since our language isn’t working, we need to replace it with language that does work.

I reject this assertion. The language can and does work. The hearer is at times the problem no matter the words used.

How is it that you can’t see things from the other person’s perspective?

I can ask you the same thing? How is it you only view this topic from one myopic position?

 

[Catholic80]

I feel God loves me, despite me being gay.

Yes, God will never stop loving you. Even the worst sin cannot stop God’s love for us.

if God created everything, then why did he create something he is against?

How do you assume that God created SSA? We are living in a fallen state due to sin. God created everything good and with a purpose and order. However, much of our fallen world is disordered. It is ordered that a man and a woman should unite and produce a child. Two persons of the same gender cannot do this, hence, it goes against the natural order of things… it is disordered.
Many things in this life are disordered as a result of sin. That does not mean that they are good or okay. God gave Moses the 10 commandments to make this clearer.

It seemed God was very stern in the OT and in the NT he seems so kind, always sending angels saying don’t be afraid

And yet, God in the OT is the same God in the NT. God does not change, but our understanding of who God is can change. Remember that the Bible is divinely INSPIRED, but written by humans from an enlightened human perspective. I emphasize “enlightened” to make a point. We can’t simply say, “well, I am going to interpret the Bible as I see fit,” or “the Bible isn’t true, then.” The Bible is true and is the living Word of God. One must take all of this into account when reading it. God of the OT, is often depicted as the Just Judge, and God in the OT is often depicted as merciful. So which is it? He is BOTH Just and Merciful. He cannot be one without the other because BOTH attributes are fully God, not 50-50. God is 100% Just and 100% Merciful.

While on earth, His “punishments” are always an act of mercy because they are always for our good and with the intention to bring us ever closer to Him. A loving parent spanks a child who runs into the street. The parent wants to make a memorable impression on the child so they don’t get seriously hurt or killed. If the parent didn’t cause this small pain for the child, the child might run out in the street again and get killed. A small hurt is to prevent a big one. God wants ALL of us in heaven… even the worst of sinners. And if that means that we may suffer for a time, then all the better for us! One day we will be so happy that we suffered and didn’t end up in hell we will love God all the more for saving us.

In short, God loves you! No matter how much we sin, God is always calling us back to Him. He wants to be our friend and He wants us to accept His friendship. Sin makes it harder for us to have this friendship because it prevents us from seeing God’s intense love for us and His desire for our good.

 

[DexUK]

Same-Sex Attractions

Actually I’m not worried about the phrase “pro choice” as per your quote: since everyone knows it pertains to abortion, I think it throws into very stark relief the fact that a person actively chooses to end a life. If anything, to me, it’s even more shocking since I could never choose to kill.

Anyway, that’s off at somewhat of a tangent. As you can no doubt already tell, I profoundly disagree with the conclusion that the words “gay” and “lesbian” denote a particular philosophy and way of life. I disagree not for any political reason of my own but because all those who I have met who personally identify as ‘gay’ simply do NOT share the same philosophies or ways of life. Some are celibate. Others aren’t. Some struggle, some don’t. Some are atheists, some Christian and some are Catholic or High Church Anglican. Some believe in ‘gay marriage’, other’s don’t. The proposition that to be “gay” is to be some sort of identikit homosexual person is absolutely nonsense and that is born out in real objective fact.

 

[DexUK]

They, like all people, can seek clarification. Only one way is correct in every case?

As I have said, multiple times now, We must not seek to speak to only one small subset that refuses to listen. Our words can reach many ears and each venue is different. There is no reason to assert that because one subgroup demands something one must act a particular way in every single circumstance. We are not talking about homosexual outreach programs only here in this thread. Why do you want to limit it?

A lot of drama here. You want to paint others into a corner. Basically you seem to be claiming we need to tailor every single utterance to this one group you claim refuses to hear anything they do not like.

I reject this assertion. The language can and does work. The hearer is at times the problem no matter the words used.

I can ask you the same thing? How is it you only view this topic from one myopic position?

You argument about a ‘refusing to listen’ group is a straw man argument. There is no such group when you’re talking about ‘gay people’. There are just people. In my ‘out-reach’ efforts I meet and communicate with many different people with many different philosophies of life including, as I say, some gay people who identify as Christian but cannot approach the Catholic Church because of how they perceive they are judged.

And I’m not the one being myopic. I can see what you want to say. I understand it. I just know that you’re not being understood by the people you want to talk to. How is that myopic?

Mind you, I do think that if you say that it’s not your problem, it’s the hearer’s problem that they don’t understand what you’re saying is rather shockingly uncharitable.

For me to blame someone for not understanding or misunderstanding my words is wrong. The onus is on me as a teacher to make myself understood, not the other way around.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Hi Elizabeth. You make some great points in your post, which is appreciated. As far as the scenario described above, I see some problems. If I were to go talk to a group of gay men and women about homosexuality and the Catholic Church, my stating simply that I’m a Catholic, would be leaving out an important part of my ability to identify and empathize with gay men and women. I could certainly say, “Hello, I am Catholic and also same sex attracted.” Now, while I can’t know this for certain, I’d bet every dollar I have that the response to my statement would be, “So…you’re gay?” That’s because “gay” is the word people usually use whether we agree with it or not.

They may then go on to say (though I doubt they would), “Wow, I didn’t know the Catholic Church now allows gays to be sexually active.” I wouldn’t have a hard time explaining how that isn’t the case, and I doubt I’d have to do it one person at a time.

I have had these discussions. There has never been some massive misunderstanding. I’ve found people respond very kindly. They don’t always agree, but they’re willing to listen and to discuss. I think maybe we make this out to be far more complicated and difficult than it really is. That could simply be because this is an apologetics board, but I don’t think so.

Kolbe, thanks for your respectful and open reply. I take issue with only one aspect, which is this portion:

stating simply that I’m a Catholic, would be leaving out an important part of my ability to identify and empathize with gay men and women.

I’ll buy the empathy, but I stop short of “identifying with” unless you’re able to suspend that concept in the present tense. One central part of the Christian journey is, as St. Paul tells us, “to put on the New Man.” That’s not a surface journey, but a deep, revolutionary, profound new identity, requiring radical choices, including rejections of lifestyles and attractions which do not promote the Christian pilgrimage.

Let’s take a different example. Let’s say that I have enjoyed Satanic music – i.e., hard-core rock with diabolical references, and the reason that I have been attracted to this music in the past is because (say, theoretically) it “speaks” to me on some level. It’s part and parcel of my entire love of music. (Real musicians like all good music, by the way, from all eras and genres, as long as there is musical quality to it, and I am a musician. You could say that musicianship is part of my identity.) Let’s say I hung out with those drawn to that music. Let’s say I formed some tight emotional bonds with them, and that it did something for my psyche and theirs, subjectively speaking, which no one on the outside really “understood” in any intimate way.

Now, obviously, I don’t hang out with those people, so I don’t know the internal lingo, but let’s pretend they call themselves “satanics.” And let’s say that although I am no longer actively involved with them, I still enjoy pursuits which sometimes overlap with theirs: let’s say I’m an edgy gamer and have a fondness, even an “addiction” to gothic horror, as in movies, novels, dress, video games, and that in these pursuits I run into ‘satanics’ now and then, whom I used to hang with.

The Catholic Church has been clear that Satanic music is unhealthy and a near occasion of sin. If I were on a genuine, committed Christian journey, I would be two-faced to continue to hang with my former satanics in a way that implied identification. I would consider that deceitful toward others and being untrue to myself. Either I have or have not “put on the new woman” (which means effort, not perfection). If I haven’t made such a radical decision, I am playing games or putting off the journey. If I needed to “identify as a satanic” in order to have a conversation with them, I would consider that conversation compromised from the start, because such an identification does not reflect who I am today. It reflects who I was yesterday. Otherwise, I am actually still attached to Satanic music and feel ambivalent about letting go.

Does that make sense?

 

[fix]

Actually I’m not worried about the phrase “pro choice” as per your quote: since everyone knows it pertains to abortion, I think it throws into very stark relief the fact that a person actively chooses to end a life. If anything, to me, it’s even more shocking since I could never choose to kill.

I am concerned as it obfuscates what is being committed. Just like “marriage equality” is a lie.

Anyway, that’s off at somewhat of a tangent. As you can no doubt already tell, I profoundly disagree with the conclusion that the words “gay” and “lesbian” denote a particular philosophy and way of life. I disagree not for any political reason of my own but because all those who I have met who personally identify as ‘gay’ simply do NOT share the same philosophies or ways of life.

They self identify by their sexual urges. That is an ideology whether they are self aware or not.

Some are celibate. Others aren’t. Some struggle, some don’t. Some are atheists, some Christian and some are Catholic or High Church Anglican. Some believe in ‘gay marriage’, other’s don’t. The proposition that to be “gay” is to be some sort of identikit homosexual person is absolutely nonsense and that is born out in real objective fact.

That is beyond belief. I can accept that people are confused or ignorant, or indoctrinated, or some such thing but objectively they are identifying by their sexual inclinations which is dehumanizing.

 

[fix]

Kolbe, thanks for your respectful and open reply. I take issue with only one aspect, which is this portion:

I’ll buy the empathy, but I stop short of “identifying with” unless you’re able to suspend that concept in the present tense. One central part of the Christian journey is, as St. Paul tells us, “to put on the New Man.” That’s not a surface journey, but a deep, revolutionary, profound new identity, requiring radical choices, including rejections of lifestyles and attractions which do not promote the Christian pilgrimage.

Let’s take a different example. Let’s say that I have enjoyed Satanic music – i.e., hard-core rock with diabolical references, and the reason that I have been attracted to this music in the past is because (say, theoretically) it “speaks” to me on some level. It’s part and parcel of my entire love of music. (Real musicians like all good music, by the way, from all eras and genres, as long as there is musical quality to it, and I am a musician. You could say that musicianship is part of my identity.) Let’s say I hung out with those drawn to that music. Let’s say I formed some tight emotional bonds with them, and that it did something for my psyche and theirs, subjectively speaking, which no one on the outside really “understood” in any intimate way.

Now, obviously, I don’t hang out with those people, so I don’t know the internal lingo, but let’s pretend they call themselves “satanics.” And let’s say that although I am no longer actively involved with them, I still enjoy pursuits which sometimes overlap with theirs: let’s say I’m an edgy gamer and have a fondness, even an “addiction” to gothic horror, as in movies, novels, dress, video games, and that in these pursuits I run into ‘satanics’ now and then, whom I used to hang with.

The Catholic Church has been clear that Satanic music is unhealthy and a near occasion of sin. If I were on a genuine, committed Christian journey, I would be two-faced to continue to hang with my former satanics in a way that implied identification. I would consider that deceitful toward others and being untrue to myself. Either I have or have not “put on the new woman” (which means effort, not perfection). If I haven’t made such a radical decision, I am playing games or putting off the journey. If I needed to “identify as a satanic” in order to have a conversation with them, I would consider that conversation compromised from the start, because such an identificaiton does not reflect who I am today. It reflects who I was yesterday. Otherwise, I am actually still attached to Satanic music and feel ambivalent about letting go.

Does that make sense?

Again I applaud. The irony is I am being accused of not understanding the opposing point. The problem is actually those that support the use of these political tools do not get it. Some perhaps are too close to that population for various reason, some are to emotionally attached for some reason, but as you point out it is no service to continue to use these terms as if this is some tool of conversion.