Gods view in homosexuality

[DexUK]

I think St. Paul was talking to people in ways they can understand. When you say WE are wrong to talk in the way he talked, I think you are saying St. Paul was also wrong. People don’t change … not even in two thousand years. What changes is what people would like to hear rather than what they should hear. We are in an age that despises the truth, and Orwellian age that wants to turn the language upside down to conform to its poverty of truth.

I honestly can’t see where you can possibly come to the conclusion that I’m saying St Paul is wrong when you accept that St Paul spoke in ways that people could understand and when I say we should do the same!

It’s not ‘despising the truth’ to use the up-to-date interpretations of words. It’s being responsible WITH the Truth to ensure that nobody misunderstands us!

I honestly and sincerely CANNOT understand what’s so hard about this to grasp.

The people who are condemning me we want the same thing as I do!

 

[DexUK]

:banghead:

 

[Monkey1976]

I honestly can’t see where you can possibly come to the conclusion that I’m saying St Paul is wrong when you accept that St Paul spoke in ways that people could understand and when I say we should do the same!

It’s not ‘despising the truth’ to use the up-to-date interpretations of words. It’s being responsible WITH the Truth to ensure that nobody misunderstands us!

I honestly and sincerely CANNOT understand what’s so hard about this to grasp.

The people who are condemning me we want the same thing as I do!

Welcome to English, where we’re divided by a common language. Maybe we should try Latin.

Seriously, though - you’re right. When I use the word “gay”, I mean a person with same-sex attraction who has chosen to identify themselves based on their acting on those attractions. Thing is, what is “Gay Pride” taking pride in? As far as I can see from the “outside”, it’s not living chastely in accordance with the will of God. For myself, that’s why I draw a distinction between those who are “same-sex attracted” and those who are “gay”, and I try to be as precise as possible in my posts.

 

[DexUK]

Maybe we should try Latin.

I did earlier… nobody seemed to notice!

 

[InSearchofGrace]

My point, again (because nobody seems to have recognised it yet), is that we need to consider the pastoral application of our words in the real world. …

…

Communication doesn’t need to be honed to get the truth across. All one needs to do is understand and accept the fact that many people use the word gay and homosexual who are not a part of any gay activism, nor sexually active. That is a FACT. …

Brothers Dex and Kolbe,

I doubt that you can claim that all celibate homosexuals wish to self-refer and self- identify as “gay.” If so, homosexual activists from whom you distance yourselves would claim victory that one of their objectives, i.e., to manipulate a verbal label, is a complete success in that all celibate homosexuals put themselves under the “gay” umbrella.

Words have power. You know it and might even have a grudging appreciation for it.

The late Courage founder Father Harvey spoke with, counseled and helped a large number of males who struggled with homosexual issues, with active/expressed and latent/never expressed homosexuality for at least three decades. He wrote of the trend among some ministries to homosexual Catholics that contradict authentic Catholic teachings on homosexuality, founded upon erroneous assumptions, which he enumerated as follows

1. 
   *]False statements are being made about homosexuality being biologically determined.
   *]Catholic homosexuals are being told wrongly that sexual orientation change is never possible.
   *]The term “gay” is being used wrongly to describe people of a homosexual orientation who do not identify with the gay socio-political position.
   *]A separate “gay spirituality” regrettably is being encouraged, and gay ministries tell us that a person who suffers from the homosexual disorder has special “gay gifts” for the Church.
   *]Catholics are being informed wrongly that the homosexual condition is not disordered.
   
   The Church endorsed Father Harvey and continues to endorse the work of Courage. Was Fr. Harvey wrong in any of the assumptions, No. 3 in particular, the issue on point that we are discussing? Was/is the Church in error with its endorsement of him and Courage?
   
   The catechism with applicable teachings on homosexuality, the Letter to Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons and other later and related documents do not refer to “gay” when speaking of homosexuality and homosexuals. These documents are carefully worded, based on respect and wish that homosexuals be regarded as children of God, with dignity and worthy of love.
   
   Does this FACT not tell you something about the wisdom of example in the use of words by our Church when referring to homosexuality and homosexuals?
   
   It has been explained enough in this forum why you (general you) do not deserve to identify as “gay” if you do not actively engage in homosexual acts. Of course, the exchange gets tiring and you are free to self identify the way you wish to the world against counsel of Church authority and no longer practicing homosexuals like David Morrison, who wrote Out of the Closet And Into Chastity and Beyond Gay:
   

   Being gay means giving oneself over to one’s sexual orientation to the point where it becomes a foundation and center of one’s identity.

   One can be a person with a homosexual orientation, but one cannot be “gay” in the modern context and be a person with just a homosexual orientation. In the act of self-identification, “coming out,” which is so important to the gay community, one sacrifices individual personhood for identity in the group. Homosexual orientation moves from being a peripheral aspect of one’s personality to being a defining aspect.

   If you are a Christian who has made this choice, I believe there is reason to examine your heart for evidence of idolatry. I have observed that once a person has made a decision that he is not merely homosexually oriented, but is gay, then orientation tends to be a dominant aspect of his identity and everything else – society, faith, institutions, and even God – will be viewed and judged through that particular lens. Homosexual orientation is not a choice for most people, but being gay is, and it is this choice which motivates homosexual groups ranging from Dignity to Act UP.

   [Con’t]

 

[InSearchofGrace]

[Con’t of post directed to Dex and Kolbe]

If this is just about semantics, which should not matter, as you maintain, I do not understand why it is a “must disclose” or part of self-identity or identification. Are you not being stubborn and prideful yourself? Sexuality should not even be a point of reference when meeting new people. There is no shame, no harm, or attempt at dishonesty if/when someone were to think as a default that you are heterosexual. I’m not saying that should an introduction lead to friendship, that no reference or admission is ever to be made of attraction to the same sex.

A close family member of mine lived the gay lifestyle for more than a decade. He actually entered a domestic partnership, was in the formalized relationship for many years which eventually failed. No longer partnered, therefore, not looking to be, as he declared and as far as I can tell (I spent the last five weeks in the same house with him). The homosexual inclination is still with him, I would think, but he does not self describe as gay in his current status when meeting people. What would be the need for it? Perhaps, if any clarification is necessary later, or the conversation leads to disclosure, I believe the more respectful and kind term that minimizes guessing is that he is attracted to the same sex, not the opposite sex.

Fyi, wiki, which I check on occasion but generally regard as not the best reference, being that the information is subscriber supplied, meaning the information is not bias free or necessarily error free and may not be exhaustive, has this section under Etiology of the word ‘Gay’

If a person engages in same-sex sexual encounters but does not self-identify as gay, terms such as ‘closeted’, ‘discreet’, or ‘bi-curious’ may be applied. Conversely, a person may identify as gay without engaging in homosexual sex. Possible choices include identifying as gay socially while choosing to be celibate or while anticipating a first homosexual experience. Further, a bisexual person can also identify as “gay” but others might consider gay and bisexual to be mutually exclusive. There are some who are drawn to the same-sex, and may not have sex, and also not identify as gay; these could have the term ‘asexual’ applied, even though an ‘asexual’ generally can mean no attraction, and includes heterosexual attraction that is not sufficient to engage in sex, or where the sex act is not desirable, even though titillation may occur.

Do you see how open, varied, and needless self identification that includes sexuality gets? The question is why even go there?

In case you think I skipped what you posted – I read closely and considered the points you made. However, I maintain that the label “gay” is fraught with political undertones, pigeonholing a person rather than helping that person just be a person struggling with the distinctive cross of homosexuality, unshakeable it may feel.

Yes, we have a serious linguistic battle. The sad fact is there are other choice words the traditional meanings of which are being challenged under the so called gay rights banner, with profound impact on family and society as we know it. As you know, gay “marriage” is an even hotter debate, with homosexual activists and their supporters claiming a widened definition to justify legal civil same sex “marriage.” Behind that is another hot button issue, gay “parenting.” Do you see why our Church is deeply concerned with what you might dismiss as just words or matter of semantics? A question for you that need not be answered in this thread but on which you might have positions already. Will you take the relativistic side (not for me, but others who want gay “marriage” and same sex “parenting” have the right to have them) which essentially throws the core teaching from Scripture and Church under the bus?

Would you still be asserting that the world is right and the Church is wrong?
,

 

[Seeker1961]

:banghead:

Ditto…

 

[fix]

When the world outside the Church - the very people we need to reach - has come to a consensus on language, then obfuscation or not, we don’t help ourselves by refusing to adopt the language of the people we wish to reach.

The Apostles were given the gift of Tongues. Why do we refuse to use the same gifts?

Different languages are fine. Words used as political tools are not. I find it troubling when we erroneously slap the word pastoral on some ideology as if that justifies things. It does not.

 

[fix]

InSearchOfGrace,

Great work. Words matter.

 

[DexUK]

I can’t quote “Insearchofgrace”'s reply, because it’s too long to fit into the posting size limit, so please excuse me if I miss points out.

I am asked “Would you still be asserting that the world is right and the Church is wrong?” - to which my response is that I am doing nothing of the sort - I’m certainly not telling the Church that it is wrong.

Yet again, I’m only saying that the world simply doesn’t understand the words we use. Therefore we need to change the words. Not the message. Just the words.

It seems to me that some people just wilfully refuse to see something that is so blindingly simple.

Stop for a moment and think about it, folks… If, while visiting France, you are bilingual in French and English, and you need to tell a mono-lingual Frenchman who’s carrying a big box that he can’t see round that he’s about to fall into a deep hole, do you tell him to “Stop! There’s a big hole in front of you!” or do you tell him to “Arrêtez-le! Il ya un grand trou en face de vous!”?

Of course, you use the man’s own language so that he can be saved.

So, we use the world’s language for the same purpose.

How hard is that to understand? How is that anything other than charitable and good? Even if you don’t like Frenchmen!

 

[sw85]

I am pleased to see in this thread an increasing suspicion of the categories we term “gay,” “homosexual,” etc., which is a suspicion I’ve advocated for and defended previously. These terms were basically invented by English and American medical professionals in the 19th century. To my knowledge there is no other society or any other time period that has recognized such distinctions. If they are useful distinctions, then, we have to wonder why no one else noticed them before us.

Rather, previous societies recognized a masculine/feminine distinction. The masculine ideal was male and penetrative. The feminine ideal was female and receptive. But feminine was also applied to males who desired to be penetrated, even as their penetrators were still recognized as masculine. In other words, for one man to willingly be penetrated by another was seen as shameful and degrading, but for one man to be the one doing the penetrating was seen, at worst, as sort of frivolous and stupid. There might be something there.

The brain uses a set of heuristics to identify potential sex partners. And there is a natural degree of plasticity in these heuristics. The “coefficient of plasticity” is higher in some people than others, and it can be socially conditioned, just like any other sort of sexual desire (sexual release being its own reinforcement). If you don’t believe me, ask any pornography addict who is unable to function sexually for his wife. This is why you sometimes see non-neutered dogs hump other male dogs, when there are no females around. This is why you sometimes see men with large harems of women go to prison and suddenly turn into raging anal rapists.

A while ago I saw an article about a Mormon man with a wife and kids who called himself “homosexual,” even as he said he had a fruitful and enjoyable sex life with his wife. If that makes sense, it’s only because our current hetero/homosexual distinction is so protean it can accommodate anything. If it can accommodate anything then it doesn’t do a very good job at describing nature, does it? And if it doesn’t do a very good job of describing nature then we should perhaps not be talking about these invented categories as if they were ironclad and obviously true.

The truth is, these sorts of categories frustrate rational thought about these issues. They are in fact intended to do so, because liberalism is an essential negative and destructive ideology and it thrives on ambiguity, confusion, and uncertainty. In order to attack traditional sexual mores, they had to (consistent with their usual pattern of attack) identify an “oppressed” victim group, or in this case, invent one entirely. Once they invented it, they had to endow it with the status of oppression and further qualify that said oppression is unjust: namely, because their behavior isn’t chosen, it’s pre-programmed! This is a sure sign, by the way, of their cynicism, opportunism, and lack of conviction: they happily adopt essentialism here when they think it suits their cause, but revert to the rankest nominalism everywhere else where its implications are more convenient.

In other words, we do ourselves no favors by buying into these irrational and arbitrary categories of speech. There are not nominal categories of “sexual orientation.” There is a sliding scale of continuity of masculinity and femininity, which is both partly inborn and partly conditioned. If it’s partly conditioned than maybe earlier societies, which leveled very serious social stigmas against sexual perversion (yes, even to the point of being “judgmental”), were on to something.

In even fewer words, it’s hubris to think we can or should outdo God in terms of “compassion.” Yes, He loves all of us for our own sake. But He also hates homosexuality and punishes its indulgence very severely.

 

[DexUK]

Another way of saying it:

We should meet the world on its terms and then bring it back with us, rather than condemn it in advance because it doesn’t use the language we do. How is it supposed to learn otherwise?

 

[fix]

Another way of saying it:

We should meet the world on its terms and then bring it back with us, rather than condemn it in advance because it doesn’t use the language we do. How is it supposed to learn otherwise?

This is a false dichotomy. One does not have to give in to propaganda as if one is using a foreign language. One can speak the truth and still convey the right message. Unless you are saying some people are so immature they will not listen to reason?

 

[fix]

Stop for a moment and think about it, folks… If, while visiting France, you are bilingual in French and English, and you need to tell a mono-lingual Frenchman who’s carrying a big box that he can’t see round that he’s about to fall into a deep hole, do you tell him to “Stop! There’s a big hole in front of you!” or do you tell him to “Arrêtez-le! Il ya un grand trou en face de vous!”?

Of course, you use the man’s own language so that he can be saved.

So, we use the world’s language for the same purpose.

How hard is that to understand? How is that anything other than charitable and good? Even if you don’t like Frenchmen!

This is not true. Using political speak is not equivalent to a foreign language.

 

[Seeker1961]

Our goal is that of the Church - the salvation of souls. When Our Lord spoke to those who were living in sin - prostitutes, tax collectors, etc. - He didn’t say, “Your life is just fine. No need to change what you’re doing.”, He said, “Your sins are forgiven. Go, and sin no more”.

You identify as Catholic. Have you ever heard of the Spiritual Works of Mercy? We’re not out to condemn people, or drive them away from Our Lord and His Church. What we’re trying to do through these posts are two of the Spiritual Works of Mercy:

• Instruct the ignorant
• Admonish the sinner

Truth without love is wrong, but equally wrong is love without truth. Without love, truth is oppressive and legalistic. Without truth, love is sentimentality that can never actually help a person.
The consistent teaching of the Church regarding homosexual activity is clear: It is a sin. This is obvious in Scripture, the writings of the Early Fathers, and the Catechism. To claim otherwise is twisting the Gospel to fit one’s preconceived notions. God isn’t calling us to make the Gospel conform to our life, He wants us to conform our lives to the Gospel. That isn’t an easy thing to do, and is impossible to do on our own. I know. Ask Jesus for the strength to live according to His Word, and He will give it. He never said that our life in this world would be easy. In fact, quite the opposite. He asks us to take up our cross and follow Him, not claim that our cross doesn’t exist. We are to embrace it and see it for what it is in the light of His Teaching, as proclaimed by His Church. Once we see it clearly, we take it up and join the suffering from carrying it to His, because He will give us the strength to keep going.

All we have to do is follow the same directions he gave to every sinner: “Go, and sin no more”.

I’m sorry, but what I often get from these discussions is that the real goal is to “admonish” as many people as possible.

I didn’t change my life because I was “admonished”, I changed my life because people taught me that I was loved. They spoke to me in language I understood, they came to where I was and reached out to me. That’s what I’m trying to continue to do for others. I can’t do that if we’re not speaking the same language.

 

[Kolbe300]

I’m going to add my own little :banghead: right here. This has to be the most maddening thread I’ve ever followed. Oh well.

What it boils down to, I believe, is something ISOG said:
"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."

I think one term there is really the problem in a nutshell: “linguistic advantage.” If one’s goal is to regain “linguistic advantage” by teaching the world to use the Catholic Church’s words when describing something that isn’t just a Catholic issue, more power to you. Good luck with that, and be sure to let us know how that works out for you. Personally, I’d rather show gay men and women, sexually active or not and regardless of what they call themselves, that there is a place here in the faith we all love. I’d like them to know that the faith can be lived and done so abundantly.

I doubt that you can claim that all celibate homosexuals wish to self-refer and self- identify as “gay.”

I don’t think anyone here has claimed that. I’ve claimed, and others have as well, the FACT that many homosexual persons do identify as gay even when they’re not sexually active or part of some agenda. That’s why we shouldn’t make assumptions based on what we think words mean. Is that hard to grasp? Apparently it is.

If so, homosexual activists from whom you distance yourselves would claim victory that one of their objectives, i.e., to manipulate a verbal label, is a complete success in that all celibate homosexuals put themselves under the “gay” umbrella.

And I doubt you can claim that all homosexual activists would claim that as a victory.

Words have power. You know it and might even have a grudging appreciation for it.

They do have power, especially when we give them power for no reason at all.

Does this FACT not tell you something about the wisdom of example in the use of words by our Church when referring to homosexuality and homosexuals?

Of course it does. The Church is smart. But a lot of gay men and women, sexually active or not, are not Catholic and probably don’t have their noses buried in a Catechism. You may choose to address they’re vocabulary. I would choose to address their faith while not making any assumptions based on the vocabulary they use.

If this is just about semantics, which should not matter, as you maintain, I do not understand why it is a “must disclose” or part of self-identity or identification. Are you not being stubborn and prideful yourself?

Who here said it was a must disclose? WHO? A few of us have made it very clear when and why it may be necessary to disclose a sexual orientation. It has nothing to do with pride.

I’m not saying that should an introduction lead to friendship, that no reference or admission is ever to be made of attraction to the same sex.

Exactly. And I’m guessing you admit here that it doesn’t have to be “stubborn and prideful.”

Do you see how open, varied, and needless self identification that includes sexuality gets? The question is why even go there?

First you say, “I’m not saying…that no reference or admission is ever to be made of attraction to the same sex.” Then you say, “…why even go there.” I’m not following. Are there or are there not times when identifying ones sexuality may be necessary?

However, I maintain that the label “gay” is fraught with political undertones, pigeonholing a person rather than helping that person just be a person struggling with the distinctive cross of homosexuality, unshakeable it may feel.

And it seems to me that you desire to help that person by first engaging in the battle over linguistic advantage. That’s pointless, in my opinion, but you are free to do as you wish.

Would you still be asserting that the world is right and the Church is wrong?

Um…no. I would assert that the world and the Church don’t always use the same language. It would be great if everyone did, but they don’t. I would assert that it helps to understand that words don’t always mean what the Church wants them to mean. I’d also assert that the words don’t have to fit the Church’s definition for us to make a difference in the lives of those on the outside looking in.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

seeker

**I didn’t change my life because I was “admonished”, I changed my life because people taught me that I was loved. They spoke to me in language I understood, they came to where I was and reached out to me. That’s what I’m trying to continue to do for others. I can’t do that if we’re not speaking the same language. **

One can both love and admonish. My parents did that to me often when I was growing up. They admonished me because they loved me. While I may not have enjoyed the admonishing, I know now that they admonished me because they loved me. It is the unwillingness of sodomites to be admonished that convinces me they need to grow up and perceive the fact that they are being admonished out of love, not hate.

It’s what St. Paul did, and I believe in imitating the example of Paul.

 

[Seeker1961]

seeker

**I didn’t change my life because I was “admonished”, I changed my life because people taught me that I was loved. They spoke to me in language I understood, they came to where I was and reached out to me. That’s what I’m trying to continue to do for others. I can’t do that if we’re not speaking the same language. **

One can both love and admonish. My parents did that to me often when I was growing up. They admonished me because they loved me. While I may not have enjoyed the admonishing, I know now that they admonished me because they loved me. It is the unwillingness of sodomites to be admonished that convinces me they need to grow up and perceive the fact that they are being admonished out of love, not hate.

It’s what St. Paul did, and I believe in imitating the example of Paul.

But didn’t they love you FIRST? I know mine did. By the time I was old enough to be “admonished” I already had a foundation of love with my parents. We had that bond where admonishment comes from love. When I meet a stranger, I don’t have that bond, so I have to show them love first to gain their trust and acceptance. As for admonishment, I don’t do that-I leave that to their Confessor or Priest. My job as I see it is to lead them to the right authority and support them once they have learned and accepted.

By using our own definitions, by calling people “sodomites” and other terms that the rest of the world views as offensive-we don’t ever get the chance to reach these people at all.

I was taught that Paul’s letters were written to Christian churches-in other words-people who had already made a commitment to Christ. Would he have used that same language with people who were not yet converted?

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

seeker

**I didn’t change my life because I was “admonished”, I changed my life because people taught me that I was loved. They spoke to me in language I understood, they came to where I was and reached out to me. That’s what I’m trying to continue to do for others. I can’t do that if we’re not speaking the same language. **

One can both love and admonish. My parents did that to me often when I was growing up. They admonished me because they loved me. While I may not have enjoyed the admonishing, I know now that they admonished me because they loved me. It is the unwillingness of sodomites to be admonished that convinces me they need to grow up and perceive the fact that they are being admonished out of love, not hate.

It’s what St. Paul did, and I believe in imitating the example of Paul.

It makes them human. People need some reason to accept what people are telling them, for example listening to parents or other authority figure.

 

[sw85]

Admonishing sinners is a spiritual work of mercy. It’s an act of love, not an act contrary to it.