Gods view in homosexuality

[Dakota_Roberts]

They are, however, words used by the world. And how are we to make the Church’s message understood (in all contexts, not just this one) if we do not speak the language of the world? The Holy Spirit descended upon the Apostles and they began to speak many languages after all, in order that they should be understood.

Language moves on. I don’t perceive the words ‘gay’ or ‘straight’ to mean anything other than the orientation of the persons to whom the words refer, and I don’t think it’s helpful to anyone to refuse to talk in the language that the majority of people will understand.

In fact, if we continue to load the term ‘gay’ with a political overtone and use it in such a way when we object to ‘gay’ agendas… it pushes away anyone who is sympathetic to gay people in a pastoral sense but uses the term ‘gay’ in the same neutral sense the world does, because all they hear is the Church objecting to all homosexuals regardless of ‘agenda’ or the lack thereof. It therefore continues to perpetuate an image of the Church being ultra-reactionary and intolerant of all homosexuals… and then we object when we say we’re not, but we’re told that we are, and the whole thing spirals into entrenchment and polarisation.

We need to use the language that ordinary people understand in an ordinary way.

Wait, are you actually asserting that we should focus on bringing the Gospel to people instead of driving them far far away from it in hopes of scoring ideological points that are worthless both in Heaven and on Earth?

I find it deeply unsettling that when people say gays should not be reviled they get shot down whereas they stay quiet when people say women who have had abortions should be treated with respect. Truly these people are the Pharisee who pray “O God, I give thee thanks that I am not as the rest of men, extortioners, unjust, [homosexuals,] adulterers, as also is this publican.”

 

[fix]

They are, however, words used by the world. And how are we to make the Church’s message understood (in all contexts, not just this one) if we do not speak the language of the world? The Holy Spirit descended upon the Apostles and they began to speak many languages after all, in order that they should be understood.

These terms are used to manipulate reality. They can be used in a limited way that explains why they are not authentic means to convey truth.

Language moves on. I don’t perceive the words ‘gay’ or ‘straight’ to mean anything other than the orientation of the persons to whom the words refer, and I don’t think it’s helpful to anyone to refuse to talk in the language that the majority of people will understand.

Language is used to manipulate as well. Explanations help. No reason to concede this ground to moral relativism and propaganda.

In fact, if we continue to load the term ‘gay’ with a political overtone and use it in such a way when we object to ‘gay’ agendas… it pushes away anyone who is sympathetic to gay people in a pastoral sense but uses the term ‘gay’ in the same neutral sense the world does, because all they hear is the Church objecting to all homosexuals regardless of ‘agenda’ or the lack thereof. It therefore continues to perpetuate an image of the Church being ultra-reactionary and intolerant of all homosexuals… and then we object when we say we’re not, but we’re told that we are, and the whole thing spirals into entrenchment and polarisation.

We need to use the language that ordinary people understand in an ordinary way.

We have an obligation to all people. Why must the propagandists demand how everyone must reinterpret reality?

 

[fix]

Wait, are you actually asserting that we should focus on bringing the Gospel to people instead of driving them far far away from it in hopes of scoring ideological points that are worthless both in Heaven and on Earth?

I find it deeply unsettling that when people say gays should not be reviled they get shot down whereas they stay quiet when people say women who have had abortions should be treated with respect. Truly these people are the Pharisee who pray “O God, I give thee thanks that I am not as the rest of men, extortioners, unjust, [homosexuals,] adulterers, as also is this publican.”

No reason for us to buy the “gay” propaganda. The charity card is played when one cannot win the argument. Terms like pro choice marriage equality homophobic gay and all the rest are political terms used to further an agenda. How about we focus on the children and stop the propaganda?

 

[Elizabeth502]

Straight people who are not in relationships do not call themselves “OSA” do they??

More to the point, I don’t call myself “Straight,” because I think that implies that people with same-sex attraction are “Crooked.” And by the way, “straight” is not opposite from “gay.” The opposite of “gay” would be serious or sad or heavy. The whole bizarre language thing just does not help communication and messaging, and you’re the one who is so interested in supposedly clear language.

When people use the terms “SSA” and the made-up terms I see here (Homosexualist and Homoheresy), it simply sounds horrible to me and like they either fear or hate gay people no matter how they choose to live.

While I do not believe I have ever used the terms Homosexualist or Homoheresy, I can understand that to you they might sound quite insensitive. I believe that such posters were discussing political agendas (for both terms), not people attracted to the same sex. Keep in mind, Seeker, that it’s the Left and the Press in particular that has been applying a particular dictionary to contemporary conversation, and that dictionary labels anyone who for any reason opposes ss “marriage” as “a hater.” Not my words, sir, theirs. And the words picked up by homosexual activists.

So I think some mirror-gazing, by the homosexual community, is in order. Terms like “haters,” “bigots,” and “breeders”: those are terms which indicate

they either fear or hate heterosexual people no matter how they choose to live.

As to the term SSA, the reason that is used by the Church is that the Church does not define people by their sexuality or orientation or attraction or sin, because God sees each of us with integrity, not as labels or attractions or orientations or sins. I have many disordered attractions, but to define me as my attractions really dishonors God. For purposes of being God’s child, I am not “a heterosexual,” or an other-sex-attracted person, or a “Straight” (non-crooked ) person, I am God’s daughter and you are God’s son. Period. Those are our identities. That is how the Roman Church defines identity. Not the identity of sexual politics. Not the identity of contemporary labels, however inaccurate. It’s essential to understand and accept this as part of being Catholic because the theology of a dignified personhood and a redeemed humanity is built on those identities.

You and I, like everybody else, are both crooked, because we are fallen. You are not more crooked than I in your essence and being.

 

[DexUK]

These terms are used to manipulate reality. They can be used in a limited way that explains why they are not authentic means to convey truth.

Language is used to manipulate as well. Explanations help. No reason to concede this ground to moral relativism and propaganda.

We have an obligation to all people. Why must the propagandists demand how everyone must reinterpret reality?

I’m not ceding ground to relativism or propagandising at all.

I simply recognise that the world uses words differently now than it did 30 or 60 years ago.

You’ll hear it in colloquialisms - the word “wicked” being used for something that is fantastic. And, if you think about it, I just used the word “fantastic” to denote something good and wonderful, rather than in the sense of an ‘unbelievable stupid notion’ or ‘remote from reality’. Almost all people understand what you mean, these days, when something is described as ‘fantastic’, and most people under the age of about 50, will recognise the vernacular meaning of ‘wicked’.

That is how vernacular language works. Words go into common usage for no other reason than they take on a meaning that is commonly understood. Language evolves. Why do we object to this?

Why do we deliberately use language in ways that we understand but we know is contrary to the way the secular world uses it? What’s the point of this? We have to take responsibility for the message we want to put across AND the way in which we do it. Objecting to contemporary usage of language, or ascribing it meanings it doesn’t have because we don’t like the subject is simply tilting at windmills.

 

[DexUK]

More to the point, I don’t call myself “Straight,” because I think that implies that people with same-sex attraction are “Crooked.” And by the way, “straight” is not opposite from “gay.” The opposite of “gay” would be serious or sad or heavy. The whole bizarre language thing just does not help communication and messaging, and you’re the one who is so interested in supposedly clear language.

It’s this sort of pedantry (sorry, I can’t think of a lesser synonym - it’s not meant personally) about language which I refer to above. The world simply doesn’t care that the meanings of the words have moved on. While we continue to object, we just seem reactionary and intransigent for no good reason whatsoever.

To me, homosexuals are gay people. Gay people are homosexual. Same Sex Attraction is equivalent to homosexual is equivalent to gay. There is no difference in definition, but the world has no problem with them being called ‘gay’ therefore why do we insist on doing otherwise? It’s a pointless fight over linguistics with no worthwhile end but lots of disadvantages in doing so.

 

[fix]

I’m not ceding ground to relativism or propagandising at all.

I simply recognise that the world uses words differently now than it did 30 or 60 years ago.

You’ll hear it in colloquialisms - the word “wicked” being used for something that is fantastic. And, if you think about it, I just used the word “fantastic” to denote something good and wonderful, rather than in the sense of an ‘unbelievable stupid notion’ or ‘remote from reality’. Almost all people understand what you mean, these days, when something is described as ‘fantastic’, and most people under the age of about 50, will recognise the vernacular meaning of ‘wicked’.

That is how vernacular language works. Words go into common usage for no other reason than they take on a meaning that is commonly understood. Language evolves. Why do we object to this?

Why do we deliberately use language in ways that we understand but we know is contrary to the way the secular world uses it? What’s the point of this? We have to take responsibility for the message we want to put across AND the way in which we do it. Objecting to contemporary usage of language, or ascribing it meanings it doesn’t have because we don’t like the subject is simply tilting at windmills.

It is about sexual politics as Elizabeth points out. Language changes but not all change is good or honest. You are doing no favors to anyone by accepting corruption,

 

[signit]

To me, homosexuals are gay people. Gay people are homosexual. Same Sex Attraction is equivalent to homosexual is equivalent to gay. There is no difference in definition, but the world has no problem with them being called ‘gay’ therefore why do we insist on doing otherwise? It’s a pointless fight over linguistics with no worthwhile end but lots of disadvantages in doing so.

That’s how I understand the terms, too.

I understand the terms “gay” and “homosexual” to refer to someone with SSA. SSA is not a sin.

I’m a “heterosexual” even though I’m a Catholic and I try to obey God’s laws.

When people interpret the terms differently it gets confusing.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

These terms are used to manipulate reality. They can be used in a limited way that explains why they are not authentic means to convey truth.

Language is used to manipulate as well. Explanations help. No reason to concede this ground to moral relativism and propaganda.

We have an obligation to all people. Why must the propagandists demand how everyone must reinterpret reality?

The terms are used to define reality in terms that can be use to communicate with others, just like other words.

You seem to assume this is entirely intentional.

No reason for us to buy the “gay” propaganda. The charity card is played when one cannot win the argument. Terms like pro choice marriage equality homophobic gay and all the rest are political terms used to further an agenda. How about we focus on the children and stop the propaganda?

You don’t have to be buying what they are pushing to be bothered by hypocrisy, you don’t have to buy what they are saying to be sick of people complaining of how the world is being manipulated when what has happened is that the cracks in their rosy coloured view of the world are growing.

What bothers me most are moral hypocrisy and hubris.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

By insisting “gay” is a term that has no different definition from “homosexual” or “same sex attraction,” people have unintentionally if not unwittingly given linguistic advantage to homosexual activists.

It was homosexual activists who first invented and popularized manipulative terms like

gay,
homophobes, and
homohatred

before words like

homosexualist,
same sex attraction,
homoheresy,

entered the lexicon in this debate.

That “gay” is now used denotatively and connotatively as such in this world is a measure of the success of the campaign started by Kirk and Madsen to normalize homosexuality, the objective spelled out in their manifesto, After the Ball, released in September 1990.

In their proposed campaign to sell homosexuality to America, Kirk and Madsen candidly admitted that “[T]he separability–and manipulability–of the verbal label is the basis for all the abstract principles underlying our proposed campaign.”

I came across an interesting paper written by Paul E. Rondreau, who is a professional writer and speaker with masters in persuasive communications and Director of Development in Regent University, among his other credentials.

SELLING HOMOSEXUALITY TO AMERICA

unav.es/departamento/preventiva/files/file/homosexualidad/propaganda_activismo.pdf.

As Mr. Rondreau analyzed,

The very use of the phrase “gay rights” illustrates both the rhetorical success of pro-gay activists and the rhetorical problem facing those opposing the homosexual movement’s campaign to legitimize homosexuality as a protected class status. While the origins of the term “gay” to substitute for homosexual are debated, the term itself is a preferred euphemistic construct because it de-emphasizes sex and make more palatable the basic idea of homo-sex-uality. Likewise, use of the term “rights” presumes, or at least frames any discussion with, a pro-gay bias; homosexuals either are entitled to or are being deprived of something. In either case, the opposition is already at a linguistic disadvantage and put on the defensive.

Not to be contrary for the sake of contrariness, there will remain, therefore, those of us who would prefer to use “homosexual” or “homosexuality” as correct, unloaded nomenclature.
,

 

[DexUK]

By insisting “gay” is a term that has no different definition from “homosexual” or “same sex attraction,” people have unintentionally if not unwittingly given linguistic advantage to homosexual activists.

It was homosexual activists who first invented and popularized manipulative terms like

gay,
homophobes, and
homohatred

before words like

homosexualist,
same sex attraction,
homoheresy,

entered the lexicon in this debate.

That “gay” is now used denotatively and connotatively as such in this world is a measure of the success of the campaign started by Kirk and Madsen to normalize homosexuality, the objective spelled out in their manifesto, After the Ball, released in September 1990.

In their proposed campaign to sell homosexuality to America, Kirk and Madsen candidly admitted that “[T]he separability–and manipulability–of the verbal label is the basis for all the abstract principles underlying our proposed campaign.”

I came across an interesting paper written by Paul E. Rondreau, who is a professional writer and speaker with masters in persuasive communications and Director of Development in Regent University, among his other credentials.

SELLING HOMOSEXUALITY TO AMERICA

unav.es/departamento/preventiva/files/file/homosexualidad/propaganda_activismo.pdf.

As Mr. Rondreau analyzed,

Not to be contrary for the sake of contrariness, there will remain, therefore, those of us who would prefer to use “homosexual” or “homosexuality” as correct, unloaded nomenclature.
,

Rondeau might be expected critique the use of the term ‘gay’ as a political manoeuvre by gay activists but then he would because he is a conservative Christian writer who naturally opposes the political manoeuvres of gay activists… Therefore it’s perfectly reasonable to take his conclusions as naturally biased by his own political outlook on life.

This is the problem with political debates about the usage of language: it gets tied up in itself, and it has absolutely no bearing on the rest of the world who just get on with their lives and use language in the way it has evolved on the basis of popular usage. Not recognising this makes the debate over the morality of all and varying aspects of homosexuality impossible to conduct in any way that will reach the “ordinary person on the streets” because we will end up using language ways that don’t mean the same thing to them and therefore the public hears a totally different message to the one we’re sending. They invariably hear condemnation of every homosexual person and of the orientation itself and of anything ‘gay’ (which they understand as simply the orientation). We shoot ourselves in the foot and we don’t (or refuse to) realise we’re doing so!

 

[Elizabeth502]

This is the problem with political debates about the usage of language: it gets tied up in itself, and it has absolutely no bearing on the rest of the world who just get on with their lives and use language in the way it has evolved on the basis of popular usage. Not recognising this makes the debate over the morality of all and varying aspects of homosexuality impossible to conduct in any way that will reach the “ordinary person on the streets” because we will end up using language ways that don’t mean the same thing to them and therefore the public hears a totally different message to the one we’re sending!/

There’s a solution for that.

The ordinary person on the streets, in the 21st century, more often than not is inaccurate in his or her use of language, understanding of classic definitions, and in the ability to apply logic and critical thinking in importing language, which is more often than not done sloppily and thoughtlessly.

 

[DexUK]

There’s a solution for that.

The ordinary person on the streets, in the 21st century, more often than not is inaccurate in his or her use of language, understanding of classic definitions, and in the ability to apply logic and critical thinking in importing language, which is more often than not done sloppily and thoughtlessly.

Well… since we don’t have the ability or facilities to re-educate the world, we need to adapt our language to theirs, rather than expect them to adapt to us.

It’s the charitable thing to do, surely?

 

[Elizabeth502]

Well… since we don’t have the ability or facilities to re-educate the world, we need to adapt our language to theirs, rather than expect them to adapt to us.

It’s the charitable thing to do, surely?

No, it is the cowardly, pandering, ingratiating, and possibly even dishonest thing to do, unless it advances understanding (which in the instances cited it does not). The charitable thing to do is to have a public conversation about the meanings of terms and the real effects of language on bullying, political manipulation, and other strong-arm tactics. Those work both ways, which is what InSearchOfGrace and others have been asserting.

I’m in the education business, so I’m sorry, but you’re definitely barking up the wrong tree here. Every day I re-educate my students about true etymology vs. popular misuse or misunderstanding. I’ll keep re-educating; you can keep surrendering if you prefer to interpret that as “charity.” Some of my students encounter the word “gay” in classic literature when we read that together, and I instruct them in the correct definition of the word, each time, for which they always thank me. (Just one of many examples.) And no, these students are not in any kind of religious context, but a secular one. It’s my job to educate, not to pander.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

No, it is the cowardly, pandering, ingratiating, and possibly even dishonest thing to do, unless it advances understanding (which in the instances cited it does not). The charitable thing to do is to have a public conversation about the meanings of terms and the real effects of language on bullying, political manipulation, and other strong-arm tactics. Those work both ways, which is what InSearchOfGrace and others have been asserting.

I’m in the education business, so I’m sorry, but you’re definitely barking up the wrong tree here. Every day I re-educate my students about true etymology vs. popular misuse or misunderstanding. I’ll keep re-educating; you can keep surrendering if you prefer to interpret that as “charity.” Some of my students encounter the word “gay” in classic literature when we read that together, and I instruct them in the correct definition of the word, each time, for which they always thank me. (Just one of many examples.) And no, these students are not in any kind of religious context, but a secular one. It’s my job to educate, not to pander.

It gets even funnier when you are reading a passage that is very old and uses the term betrothal and married to refer to a relationship between men and you have to correct them on what the word marriage and betrothal mean because the 19th and 20th century definition is wrong, but that’s my inner mediaevalist talking.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Rondeau might be expected critique the use of the term ‘gay’ as a political manoeuvre by gay activists but then he would because he is a conservative Christian writer who naturally opposes the political manoeuvres of gay activists… Therefore it’s perfectly reasonable to take his conclusions as naturally biased by his own political outlook on life.

This is the problem with political debates about the usage of language: it gets tied up in itself, and it has absolutely no bearing on the rest of the world who just get on with their lives and use language in the way it has evolved on the basis of popular usage. Not recognising this makes the debate over the morality of all and varying aspects of homosexuality impossible to conduct in any way that will reach the “ordinary person on the streets” because we will end up using language ways that don’t mean the same thing to them and therefore the public hears a totally different message to the one we’re sending. They invariably hear condemnation of every homosexual person and of the orientation itself and of anything ‘gay’ (which they understand as simply the orientation). We shoot ourselves in the foot and we don’t (or refuse to) realise we’re doing so!

Respectfully, Dex, I don’t agree. Which side is on the side of angels, in your view? Whose bias do you support, the Christian bias or the homosexual activist bias? The homosexual activists, whether there is a concerted conspiracy or not, have the apparent upper hand in use of language to get homosexual acts normalized.

It is precisely communication that needs to be honed to get the truth across, without forsaking charity. Charity is not sentimentalism. It is not capitulation.

As Christians, we have the duty to communicate the truth of what offends God as far as the thread is concerned. It is homosexual lust and actions, not inclination or orientation. If someone has not stolen, he is not a thief. If someone did not kill, he is not a killer. An adulterer, fornicator, or active homosexual is cleansed with repentance and plea for forgiveness. When continued wrongdoing is abandoned, the urge due to our fallen condition may not completely disappear, but the ideal is to put active sinning in the past.

Satan is a devious enemy in this spiritual warfare. We can not be oblivious to the stealth, the wolf’s non-verbal language, in its deception, its method, to capture its prey.
,

 

[Elizabeth502]

It is homosexual lust and actions, not inclination or orientation. If someone has not stolen, he is not a thief. If someone did not kill, he is not a killer.

If someone is tempted to steal, and does not (is attracted to stealing, but does not), he is not only not a thief, but he is engaging in some heroic virtue. If he “wants” to kill (as revenge for a killing of a family member), or if he is attracted to killing in general because he grew up in a violent household in which anger was reflexively violent, but he masters his base attraction, he is engaging in heroic virtue – which he is probably also doing with enormous spiritual assistance, I will add – in addition to his self-mastery.

 

[speakttruth]

ITA. If I am in a position where I need to define my sexual orientation, I define myself as gay. I’ve been living according to Church teaching for nearly 10 years now, but that doesn’t make me any less gay. I didn’t suddenly become attracted to the opposite sex when I chose to follow Church teaching.

Straight people who are not in relationships do not call themselves “OSA” do they??

The term “SSA” is always tied with “affliction” or “being affected by”…which is the same language people use when someone has cancer or a disability. Being gay is NOT a disease or disability, it is an orientation. The ONLY thing it means is that my attractions are to people of the same gender as myself. It doesn’t mean anything else.

When people use the terms “SSA” and the made-up terms I see here (Homosexualist and Homoheresy), it simply sounds horrible to me and like they either fear or hate gay people no matter how they choose to live. I don’t think that is true of everyone who uses those words, but that is my feeling and my kind of knee-jerk reaction when I read them.

We all know that people wander into this site from all over-and to paraphrase DexUK’s signature, this may be the only Catholic information they ever see. Would we not want a gay person who comes here to think that we would want them to stay and learn that God loves them and wants more for them? If those words hit me wrong after living in the Church all this time, how do you think a gay person who doesn’t have any knowledge or understanding of the Catholic Church would feel seeing them?

Language matters, and if the goal is to lead others to God, I think we need to be conscious of the words we use.

No, the word gay does mean you want to be accepted in the homosexual world because I wouldn’t say anything to define who you want to have sex with. Why do people need to know something that should be personal? Unless you want to be accepted in both worlds. I don’t tell people I am straight that is not who I am. I don’t say anything. You are defining yourself by your sexual preference. I am what God intended for me to be a human being, I don’t have to separate myself into a category other than knowing I am a male or female. My problems don’t define me, but my living a holy life does.

The reason why we Catholics should not use the word Gay is because it means the acceptance to the homosexual lifestyle. That is what the activists want you to say so your one of them. It sounds like it is a happy lifestyle and it is not. People who come here can figure out that it is not a put down to have said they are SSA if you explain why. That is what they have is it not an attraction to the same sex? But to define yourself GAY is the only word that is used for the world that thinks you are a practicing homosexual. Why would you want to tell them that? Is that a badge of honor for a Catholic to say this? If for some reason you lose your Same Sex Attraction and you have told everyone you know that you are Gay, then that is always how they are going to look at you. It is something to be proud of? That is why the word GAY is used to be proud of it. Why do you think they have GAY pride parades. Ever witness one? I wouldn’t want a young child to see the perversion that they display. Do you want to be part of this because you want to identify yourself as Gay? This push for being gay is pretty evident in this culture and we are not suppose to be in the world. We are supposed to follow Jesus. Try your best to live a holy life and set a good example. I don’t believe Jesus would want you to call yourself Gay to follow people that are obviously not looking out for your best interests. Just my thoughts
GB

 

[speakttruth]

Respectfully, Dex, I don’t agree. Which side is on the side of angels, in your view? Whose bias do you support, the Christian bias or the homosexual activist bias? The homosexual activists, whether there is a concerted conspiracy or not, have the apparent upper hand in use of language to get homosexual acts normalized.

It is precisely communication that needs to be honed to get the truth across, without forsaking charity. Charity is not sentimentalism. It is not capitulation.

As Christians, we have the duty to communicate the truth of what offends God as far as the thread is concerned. It is homosexual lust and actions, not inclination or orientation. If someone has not stolen, he is not a thief. If someone did not kill, he is not a killer. An adulterer, fornicator, or active homosexual is cleansed with repentance and plea for forgiveness. When continued wrongdoing is abandoned, the urge due to our fallen condition may not completely disappear, but the ideal is to put active sinning in the past.

Satan is a devious enemy in this spiritual warfare. We can not be oblivious to the stealth, the wolf’s non-verbal language, in its deception, its method, to capture its prey.
,

:thumbsup:Exactly, That’s why they call the devil the deceiver.

 

[DexUK]

Respectfully, Dex, I don’t agree. Which side is on the side of angels, in your view? Whose bias do you support, the Christian bias or the homosexual activist bias? The homosexual activists, whether there is a concerted conspiracy or not, have the apparent upper hand in use of language to get homosexual acts normalized.

I don’t think it’s particularly respectful to implicitly accuse me of being biased, whether or not you preface your statement with “respectfully”.

My points are not biased one way or the other - this isn’t about being on ‘sides’ that accept or reject homosexual activism. This is about using language in such a way as it gets through to the people on the street corner.

If we reject the word ‘gay’ because we consider it to have political overtones, then we do ourselves a disservice when the rest of the world, the very people we wish to get through to, don’t see the word as anything to write home about.

Every time they hear us moan about the destruction of language or the change in meanings and every time they see us condemning ‘gay’ people because we ascribe political motives or agendas to any person that calls themselves ‘gay’ , we not only turn off the people who don’t use the term that way (which is the vast majority of non-aligned people) but we also repel those non-activist homosexuals who describe themselves as gay in the same neutral way. You might think that such people are appropriating a loaded political term to describe themselves and you might have been right, historically, but today, now, in the world in which we live in at the present moment, the word ‘gay’ means nothing more than the ‘orientation’ of a person to non-activist and activist homosexuals alike and it’s in general parlance across the English speaking world.

What is the point of the Church and its believers trying to catechise and speak forth its message if the language we use or the meanings we ascribe to words are antiquated and out of date? What do we think will happen? Do we think that people will magically understand the deeper hidden contexts of what we mean, or will they go with the simplest explanation available to them, which is that “Catholics don’t like gays… any gays… no matter what they do - or don’t do”?

We can complain until we’re blue in the face about how unjust that conclusion might be, but that’s not going to change the perception of what we say until we start saying things that people will understand and take the right way! Being stubborn about it is silly!