Gods view in homosexuality

[DexUK]

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.

I’m going to have to ask you to clarify that.

Are you saying that I have NOT met various differing types of people who self-identify as ‘gay’?

Because when I say something is an objective reality, I’m talking about the fact that these are the people I have met, and that it is a fact that I have met them.

 

[Kolbe300]

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.

Putting on the “New Man” is indeed a deep journey, profound, and a new identity. I have also had to make some radical choices along the way. My new identity, however, has not included a new sexual orientation. I can reject lust and I can reject sex outside of marriage. What I can’t do is reject the fact that I am still a homosexual person. People so often describe homosexuality as if it’s just a collection of temptations. “We’re all tempted,” people say. Yes, we are. But we also all have a sexuality that includes far more than temptation to do something wrong. You say, “…rejections of lifestyles and attractions.” Rejecting an attraction is impossible. I can pretend I don’t find beauty where I find beauty, but I’m still only pretending.

Elizabeth, I do identify with many aspects of gay men and women. I completely understand why they desire marriage and to live a life with someone they love. I completely understand why the thought of a life without physical intimacy can seem like an impossible burden. I can and do identify with many aspects of their lives, and I am not ashamed to say that regardless of what umbrella the word “gay” may put them under.

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.

I love our gay brothers and sisters deeply. I am on a genuine Christian journey, and I would love for them to discover the things I have. I feel it would be two-faced to approach these people I love while pretending not to identify with them, or not identifying with them because I’m afraid someone might think I’m one of them. That would be deceitful and certainly untrue to myself. Do you see what I mean?

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.

But I was a homosexual person both yesterday* and *today. My Christian journey hasn’t changed that. And it doesn’t have to for me to continue. Peace!

 

[Elizabeth502]

I feel it would be two-faced to approach these people I love while pretending not to identify with them, or not identifying with them because I’m afraid someone might think I’m one of them. That would be deceitful and certainly untrue to myself. Do you see what I mean?

I haven 't suggested deceit. I have suggested honesty: i.e., I used to believe that being attracted to the same sex meant that I had to act on those attractions or forever be unhappy. Now I have a much deeper understanding of happiness.

But I was a homosexual person both yesterday* and *today. My Christian journey hasn’t changed that. And it doesn’t have to for me to continue. Peace!

As I explained,the Catholic Church radically disagrees with you that you are “a homosexual person.” They agree that you are a full person regardless of what you were or are attracted to, just as in my theoretical example I was not less a person when I was indulging in Satanic music. And perhaps I am still attracted to Satanic music, but Satanic music does not define my personhood, no matter how subjectively I “feel” that way, how strong the pull is, and how much my confreres would insist that attraction to Satanic music is an “identity” in itself. They would be wrong, iin that case. It’s very important to understand that in the Catholic worldview, personhood does not equal attractions, and is not predicated upon our attractions. To the extent that we indulge unhealthy or disordered attractions, eventually our characters can become defined by those behaviors, but even that is separate from personhood. Their is an integrity to the core of each person which rises above the attractions. (Substance vs. accidents.)

Part of this, for those who don’t thoroughly integrate the phlosophy within the theology, is the difference between objective and subjective. Subjectively, I may feel that an awful lot is “essential” to my identity, but objectively, I am most likely dead wrong. I also think there’s a difference between personality attributes as we understand that worldly phrase, and identity as the Church relates to that different term.

One more time, and I think this is important: It is not that in your case the attractions are considered “disordered” whereas my sexual attractions are considered “ordered,” that explains why you are not considered “a homosexual person” in Catholic understanding. I am also not considered “a heterosexual person.” I would be more accurate to define my identity as female than to define it as heterosexual or “straight.”

What’s theologically and philosophically essential about you, Kolbe, is that you are male and that you are an adopted son of God on a Christian journey to the fullness of charity. In your journey, and mine, we benefit from being singular, and we are hindered by being divided. That’s the Church’s understanding, not my private spin.

 

[speakttruth]

I don’t recall it being brought up at college and the local newspaper mentioned the President declaring June LGBT month and they mentioned a couple events, but that was it.

Dakota, why would the President declare LGBT month, what about straight month?
In my state of Mass it’s a huge event. Governor Deval Patrick walks in the Parade with his daughter that is living the life style. Now they just passed the bathroom bill that is allowing Transgenders to go into girls lockers and bathrooms. They have push more perversion in the schools, but people aren’t paying attention. I think that California has more laws pushing the Homosexual agenda except we had one judge who forced us to have SSM in our state. Did you see all the news about the Proposition 8? Maybe you don’t hear things in your school because it is already a law and you have to accept whatever the homosexual agenda is in your state. I get things all the time sent to me all over the world about what they are trying to push and they try and sneak things through so people aren’t paying attention. Now the president is pushing for the end of DOMA. Believe me behind the scenes they are very active with there agenda.

 

[speakttruth]

I haven 't suggested deceit. I have suggested honesty: i.e., I used to believe that being attracted to the same sex meant that I had to act on those attractions or forever be unhappy. Now I have a much deeper understanding of happiness.

As I explained,the Catholic Church radically disagrees with you that you are “a homosexual person.” They agree that you are a full person regardless of what you were or are attracted to, just as in my theoretical example I was not less a person when I was indulging in Satanic music. And perhaps I am still attracted to Satanic music, but Satanic music does not define my person hood, no matter how subjectively I “feel” that way, how strong the pull is, and how much my confrères would insist that attraction to Satanic music is an “identity” in itself. They would be wrong, in that case. It’s very important to understand that in the Catholic worldview, person hood does not equal attractions, and is not predicated upon our attractions. To the extent that we indulge unhealthy or disordered attractions, eventually our characters can become defined by those behaviors, but even that is separate from person hood. Their is an integrity to the core of each person which rises above the attractions. (Substance vs. accidents.)

Part of this, for those who don’t thoroughly integrate the philosophy within the theology, is the difference between objective and subjective. Subjectively, I may feel that an awful lot is “essential” to my identity, but objectively, I am most likely dead wrong. I also think there’s a difference between personality attributes as we understand that worldly phrase, and identity as the Church relates to that different term.

One more time, and I think this is important: It is not that in your case the attractions are considered “disordered” whereas my sexual attractions are considered “ordered,” that explains why you are not considered “a homosexual person” in Catholic understanding. I am also not considered “a heterosexual person.” I would be more accurate to define my identity as female than to define it as heterosexual or “straight.”

What’s theologically and philosophically essential about you, Kolbe, is that you are male and that you are an adopted son of God on a Christian journey to the fullness of charity. In your journey, and mine, we benefit from being singular, and we are hindered by being divided. That’s the Church’s understanding, not my private spin.

Very well stated. But it seems futile. They want to be in a different category because it makes them feel good instead of the reality that it is bad for them to identify themselves by with whom they want to have sex with. It is only about the sex that makes them call themselves gay. Nothing else.
I remember getting my hair cut and just going to a mall, not knowing any hair dressors and just was a walk in. A man came up to me to cut my hair. I knew the moment I saw this man he had this issue. As we got talking he had to tell me he was Gay. It wasn’t necessary to tell me in the conversation. He asked me why I was doing my hair the way I did and I said since I get up early for mass everymorning, I sometimes just like to put it up. As he got a little more out of me he told me that he hates the Catholic church because they don’t allow gays. I ended up explaining to him that it wasn’t true and about some of the teachings and why. Basically didn’t like the church telling him who he could have sex with. At the end he wanted to give me his card,which he went out of his way to give me, even though I told him the truth. I was out of town and knew I would never see him again, but before I left I told him that I loved him and gave him a hug. I have to say I was worried about how he was cutting my hair which didn’t come out to good because of the discussion. Over and over this is what I see, emotional issues that have not been dealt with. I see a lot of anger because they are screaming for love and they think by calling themselves gay, people will love them. But that is not real love they are getting unfortunately, but false empathy. As a Catholic that is not charitable for there salvation. We tell them the truth about it, not what they want to hear. That is what love really is and if you love someone you want what’s best for them. You do your best if they don’t want to listen, then shake your sandals off and move on.
There is a booklet the church’s puts out about Homosexuality and Hope. It’s very loving and informative for people who have SSA.
GB

 

[speakttruth]

What truth? It is a fact that many homosexuals despise the act of sodomy as much as the rest of the world.

Many heterosexuals practice sodomy as a primitive form of birth control.

Perhaps you could read in the Prophets where the sin of Sodom is defined. It is pride and lack of hospitality, not a word about any sexual activity.

Sorry but your not informed properly. Reread the passage about the men who wanted to have sex with the angels, that looked like men, not the women they were offered, it is clear homosexuality was a huge part of it, but not all of it. That in not the Catholic teaching your referring too. That is what Sodomy was referring to.
This is exactly what the homosexual activists version of the scriptures is to against the Catholic teachings.
Please buy a Catechism so you won’t spread heretical views.

GB

 

[Elizabeth502]

speaktruth,

Your post “speaks” to something I almost brought up, so now I will.

What is the point in “needing” to identify with a population whose focus is no longer your own? Is there guilt involved? (I’m not being smarmy or snarky; that’s a straightforward question.) I mean, there are “populations” I have left, and I feel no compulsion to revisit them, even though I can say that for a time in my life they contributed to my “identity.” Certainly they were a part of my journey, anyway.

It seems to me that the Christian, trying to live an upright life, is oriented not toward this or that sexual attraction, nor “loyalty” toward anyone on account of sexual attraction, but is oriented to this:

Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things. (Phlippians 4:8)

Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us. (1 Peter 2:12)

One doesn’t need to reject, expressly, a lifestyle. (“Tell someone off.” ) One needs only not to make such a lifestyle the motive for socializing. One’s sexual attractions, or even one’s asexuality (some are) should neither unite nor divide people, unless the attraction is between those two people!

When I intersect with homosexuals in various environments, it’s almost always a matter of happenstance. They don’t seek me out for any purpose of sharing sexual matters, nor I with them. We talk about what is common to humanity: how life is treating us (work, health, family, neighbors, that sort of thing). That is where we “connect,” as it should be. I do know their orientation, and most of the time they know miine, but not because I expressly discuss that with them: it’s because of other indicators that they assume that. It’s about friendship – the same kind of friendship I show to heterosexuals with whom I have no potential or real physical relationship.

It strikes me as odd that a homosexual would particularly need and value people who have left that lifestyle coming back to them and talking about a lifestyle which they no longer share in common. I can see discussing the issue if the person still in the lifestyle brings it up, such as: Q: ‘Have anyone special in your life?’ A: ‘No, I no longer am living that lifestyle, since I am living my faith.’ I would think, though, that most of the time, it would not necessarily come up. Do you not talk about other things you have in common, besides sexual attraction? Common interests & concerns that do not pertain to sexuality whatsoever?

Back to my experience:
I find that talking about matters completely separate from sexuality is a friendship-building and a trust-building experience. You guys keep talking about trust. Why is it necessary to introduce sex into the conversation in order to establish or confirm trust? I haven’t needed to, and I have no problem with gay people in the community trusting me. I do not make my respect for them contingent upon their or my sexuality, one way or the other. It’s not relevant.

And if the other person does bring up sexuality, I merely listen respectfully. And then at some point we return to topical matters and they can see that I have not rejected them for whatever “identity” they feel compelled to discuss.

 

[Kolbe300]

I haven 't suggested deceit. I have suggested honesty: i.e., I used to believe that being attracted to the same sex meant that I had to act on those attractions or forever be unhappy. Now I have a much deeper understanding of happiness.

But saying, “I used to believe that being gay meant that I had to act on those attractions or forever be unhappy,” would be deceitful to others and dishonest to my true self?

As I explained,the Catholic Church radically disagrees with you that you are “a homosexual person.” They agree that you are a full person regardless of what you were or are attracted to, just as in my theoretical example I was not less a person when I was indulging in Satanic music.

My goodness, this is so frustrating. I honestly think the only people who believe that placing “homosexual” in front of “person” means one has somehow chopped their true identity off at the knees or failed to realize they’re a “full person,” are those I’m debating with here. Elizabeth, the reason I called myself a homosexual person is because we are having a discussion about homosexuality. It is pertinent to the discussion!

One more time, and I think this is important: It is not that in your case the attractions are considered “disordered” whereas my sexual attractions are considered “ordered,” that explains why you are not considered “a homosexual person” in Catholic understanding.

Then why does the Church use the term **homosexual person **in the Catechism? If the Church believes I shouldn’t call myself a homosexual person because of the list of reasons you explain, why does the Church call others that? You argue that I shouldn’t call myself a homosexual person because the Church sees my “full person, regardless of what I am attracted to”. But I can call a homosexual person who is sexually active a homosexual person? In which case reducing their personhood is now okay? The Church says homosexual persons are called to chastity, as all of us are. The Church does not say that once chastity is achieved the homosexual person should no longer use the term “homosexual person.” I honestly believe you are giving these words SO much unneccesary power.

I am also not considered “a heterosexual person.” I would be more accurate to define my identity as female than to define it as heterosexual or “straight.”

And I’m guessing that will work out well for you. It’s difficult for me to have a discussion about my own sexuality, especially outside of CAF, without using the term homosexual.

Peace!

 

[Kolbe300]

They want to be in a different category because it makes them feel good instead of the reality that it is bad for them to identify themselves by with whom they want to have sex with. It is only about the sex that makes them call themselves gay. Nothing else.

You say something like that, and then actually wonder why they aren’t more receptive to your faith?

 

[Tony2255]

And I’m guessing that will work out well for you. It’s difficult for me to have a discussion about my own sexuality, especially outside of CAF, without using the term homosexual.

Peace!

This may come off as though I’m attacking you, but I don’t intend it that way. It is more out of curiosity. But why do you feel the need to be having discussion about your sexuality? Personally when I’m around friends the last thing I want to talk about is sexuality and I surely don’t want to hear about theirs. I guess I’m rather curious about why sexuality even needs to be a topic of discussion?

 

[DexUK]

This may come off as though I’m attacking you, but I don’t intend it that way. It is more out of curiosity. But why do you feel the need to be having discussion about your sexuality? Personally when I’m around friends the last thing I want to talk about is sexuality and I surely don’t want to hear about theirs. I guess I’m rather curious about why sexuality even needs to be a topic of discussion?

I’m not speaking for Kolbe, but if you were to ask me why I am exercised about this subject, it’s because I perceive in gay people a great need for God and also, in them, the perception that they are greatly rejected by the Church.

The idea that any human being should feel so condemned and rejected and despair of ever being able to be reconciled to God is horrific to me. It means that I will move mountains to try to illustrate why some people’s approaches are, even if their aims are laudable, self-defeating at best and potentially gravely sinful at worst. I am moved by charity and love and nothing more than that.

 

[Kolbe300]

This may come off as though I’m attacking you, but I don’t intend it that way. It is more out of curiosity. But why do you feel the need to be having discussion about your sexuality? Personally when I’m around friends the last thing I want to talk about is sexuality and I surely don’t want to hear about theirs. I guess I’m rather curious about why sexuality even needs to be a topic of discussion?

That doesn’t come off as an attack at all. I don’t ever feel a need to discuss my sexuality. I do, however, love to discuss faith. And when I have had those discussions with gay folks (and straight), sexuality sometimes comes up. They’re often curious about my beliefs and why I choose to be chaste. They’re curious about the Church as well. I’m 36, single, and never dating. People get curious about that, so it does come up.

Hope that helps. Peace!

 

[InSearchofGrace]

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.

A personal best post, Elizabeth. Incisive with big picture perspective a subset of posters on this thread with insular approach are missing.
,

 

[Linux]

And I did read Linux’s post. He ended with, “If you have true self respect you will not engage in homosexual activity any-more than you would engage in eating somebodies faecal matter.” Because of that, I chose not to respond because he/she lost all credibility with me. What he/she said prior to that lost any value or meaning.

In retrospect I can see that my choice of words wasn’t the most charitable; however what I was trying to explain is that you would not do anything that does not positively express your essential nature as a whole if you truly respected yourself. Now; I am sure that people who support the gay agenda think of themselves as helping people to respect themselves by encouraging them to believe that it is normal and positive to engage in an intimately loving sexual relationship with someone of the same gender; but this is clearly a philosophical belief and an unreasonable proposition once you acknowledge the inherent value of your gender identity. Objectively speaking, there is no such thing as a “homosexual person”; there are simply men and women whose attractions either reflect their nature as men and women, and the inherent value of those identities, or it doesn’t. Homosexual activity does not reflect the inherent value and dignity of our essential nature, and homosexual attraction impedes to varying degrees (unless one is attracted to both men and women) the human capacity to fully express the complimentary nature of men and women without strife. And it is very damaging and difficult for people who recognise this fact and have to deal with those attractions.

The gay agenda doesn’t help those people, it inflicts further damages and violence to their true identity and dignity as men and women.

As far as the word “sodomite” I don’t agree with its usage simply because it has derogatory connotations that will not help further the churches mission.

Those who support the gay agenda prefer the word gay, and it is simply a matter of common curtsey to accept that instead of causing further strife unnecessarily. I can demonstrate logically why I think that homosexual attraction is a disorder in ones essence, but I cannot demonstrate logically why I should use the word sodomite instead of gay. I just don’t see the point of getting into that debate. Gay is what they want to call themselves. I just want people to understand what is involved when they identify with that word.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I perceive in gay people a great need for God and also, in them, the perception that they are greatly rejected by the Church.

Not by my Church, they’re not. (the “rejection” part)

The idea that any human being should feel so condemned and rejected and despair of ever being able to be reconciled to God is horrific to me.

It’s horrific to me, too.

The Church does not reject homosexuals – including those who act out, any more than it rejects any other sinners. The Church teaches that God rejects no one who does not want to be rejected by God. But it is very uncomprising about the gravity of the sin itself, just as it uncompromising about abortion, adultery, many other very serious sins. It’s a category of sin that the Church is clear about, not the redeemability of any particular sinner (of any particular kind of sin).

It’s certain fundamentalist non-Catholic denominations which particularly have, or have had, a “rejection streak” toward those with SSA. That level of rejection does not emanate institutionally from the Roman Church. If particular individuals within that Church choose to over-identify and exaggerate & distort doctrine, the Church is not responsible for that, especially considering the contrary advice they have been given about that in the Catechism and other documents. (compassion, respect, concern for dignity, etc.)

Regarding this part, however:

I perceive in gay people a great need for God

I at least perceive a great vulnerability in them. I discussed this on another thread (now vanished). I respond to the vulnerability, and overwhelmingly they respond to my sensitivity to that. That’s why I said earlier, I have never had a problem earning their trust, but without mentioning a single word about their or my sexuality. I have had the experience of their opening up to me about their sexuality, without prompting on my part, after they found me trustworthy regarding other emotional stuff (such as depression in one case). That was after about 3 months.

Maybe some here feel that it’s “necessary” to introduce the subject of sexuality in order to reach others on a psychologically intimate level. I’m just sharing that I dispute whether that is always required, that’s all.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Then why does the Church use the term **homosexual person **in the Catechism? If the Church believes I shouldn’t call myself a homosexual person because of the list of reasons you explain, why does the Church call others that?

I introduced this earlier.

In the context you cite, “homosexual” is merely an attribute, like “heterosexual.” It is no more essential to personhood than it is for heterosexuals. Merely an attribute. (An orientation, an attraction.) Doesn’t go to the ontological core of a person, “defining” him, any more than “tall” person does.

The secular culture, particular in the gay community, describes homosexuality as identity, with a dimension that implies something far more comprehensive.

Another differentiation I also mentioned: a subjective experience of identity vs. an objective reality of it. The Church’s realm is objective reality, which is one reason the whole “transgendered” thing and modern fad for a “subectively perceived gender” is highly problematic in Catholic philosopihy & theology. Gender is objective in the Roman Church.

In any case, a person may go on and on about how they experience themselves as someone with a “gay” or “homosexual” identity, but that is something outside Catholic theology and spirtuality. There is no “different” (objectively speaking) or “special” identity for a homosexual person. The identity of such a person is as it is for a heterosexual: a “he” or a “she” who is son or daughter of God, fully loved, fully capable of partaking in God’s grace, and not destined for lesser intimacy with God by reason of any attraction (per se), regardless of what the attraction is.

 

[Elizabeth502]

But saying, “I used to believe that being gay meant that I had to act on those attractions or forever be unhappy,” would be deceitful to others and dishonest to my true self?

No, I’m sorry if I confused you; I thought I had been clear.
Here’s the full quote:

I haven 't suggested deceit. I have suggested honesty: i.e., I used to believe that being attracted to the same sex meant that I had to act on those attractions or forever be unhappy. Now I have a much deeper understanding of happiness.

If you click on my name in the box, you will see that the original italics were sample dialogue. I don’t think the sample dialogue is deceptive.

 

[Tony2255]

That doesn’t come off as an attack at all. I don’t ever feel a need to discuss my sexuality. I do, however, love to discuss faith. And when I have had those discussions with gay folks (and straight), sexuality sometimes comes up. They’re often curious about my beliefs and why I choose to be chaste. They’re curious about the Church as well. I’m 36, single, and never dating. People get curious about that, so it does come up.

Hope that helps. Peace!

Yes it does Kolbe thank you. Those situations I understand.

 

[DexUK]

The Church does not reject homosexuals – including those who act out, any more than it rejects any other sinners. The Church teaches that God rejects no one who does not want to be rejected by God.

I know that. You know that. They don’t.

Of course they’re wrong, but they’re wrong because of their perceptions and it’s up to us to break that barrier.

I’m not particularly accusing you of being responsible for the barrier: your responses in this thread have been thoughtful and not unreasonably condemnatory, just that you need to recognise that the barrier is there and that it might be, at least partly, coming from the differing definitions of language that we, as Church people, may be using as compared to the people who we try to reach.

Some here accuse anyone calling themselves “gay” to be a willing deliberate participant in an agenda. They see “gay” as a subscription to a mindset, and the argument about it becomes a war over linguistics and a person is either right or wrong. My point is that the battle over the word isn’t necessary - we just have to recognise that people have varying definitions and understandings of it, and simply take account of them in our dealings with the rest of the world. That isn’t unreasonable.

As a purely trivial example: when I (an Englishman) speak of ‘chips’ to an American, I have to alter my language because “chips” to an American mean something different. So I use the word ‘fries’ instead, because I understand how - to me - the word ‘chips’ is used ‘wrongly’ by Americans. But I’m not condemning any American for their understanding of the word being different to mine. I just get past it and ‘translate in my head’ as I go. And that’s that.

It is up to us to try to break down the barriers between others and God. They aren’t going to try of their own accord because they don’t see the need to. Since we can see the need, it’s our job. It’s what we are called to do. So let’s just recognise that the world doesn’t understand and deal with the world in ways the world does understand. We can’t be prideful about our own language or dismissive of the world because it uses language differently because to reverse the maxim, those means do not justify the ends - because the ends in question are the loss of people’s souls…

 

[Tony2255]

I’m not speaking for Kolbe, but if you were to ask me why I am exercised about this subject, it’s because I perceive in gay people a great need for God and also, in them, the perception that they are greatly rejected by the Church.

The idea that any human being should feel so condemned and rejected and despair of ever being able to be reconciled to God is horrific to me. It means that I will move mountains to try to illustrate why some people’s approaches are, even if their aims are laudable, self-defeating at best and potentially gravely sinful at worst. I am moved by charity and love and nothing more than that.

Great points. I’ve always found the Catechism teaching on homosexuality very enlightening.

CCC 2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

I agree with you on their perception of being greatly rejected by the Church. I think at times it’s the elephant in the room no one wants to mention and I don’t think their perception is necessarily unfounded at times. It is not a popular subject in the Church but it would be a great idea to be more proactive in reaching out and bridging the divide. Making them more feel more welcomed and letting them know they have a support base in dealing with the difficulties. We all have our crosses to bear and one is no worse than the other.