Gods view in homosexuality

[InSearchofGrace]

Hi ISOG. That’s correct. While I know your personal goal is more than gaining linguistic advantage, the arguments made here only seem sensible to me if that were a person’s only goal. That, of course, is my personal opinion.
…
If you saw that sentence as just “indelicate,” then we are obviously approaching this subject from vastly different perspectives. I saw that sentence as crude, disgusting, and offensive.

I was pleased that Linux in a later post explained on his/her own behalf and addressed the sentence that you found offensive. I agree that we must come from different perspectives, as it did not affect me the same way as it affected you. Your and my biodata likely indicate different sexes, age range and marital status, as with our respective life and work experiences. But I bet there is a ton of common reactions between us, from having the same faith and in large from our shared humanity and beliefs in what is true, good and beautiful. Case in point, and something that I did not fail to notice even before when we exchanged posts in older threads, is that we are both fans of Mother Teresa as indicated on our CAF signatures!
…

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

No, I do not think you were being dishonest based on what you related about the PMs (some?) you received from young members conflicted with homosexuality issues and have approached CAF for guidance. Your impression is that the discussions on the board have not been helpful to them. Indeed, that is a problem that CAF management may not be realizing and should. My view is that when young members, Catholic or non-Catholic, participate in the apologetic threads, in the morality subforum, for instance, with an acute situation involving homosexuality conflict or issues, looking for moral guidance or clarification of Scriptural basis and Church teaching, there is a referral as soon as detected to an in house apologist or staff. If CAF resources preclude that, perhaps CAF management can request for a volunteer senior forum member whose posting history reflect orthodox Catholic values.

I would hope, as a poster (fix, I believe) said, that the young do not turn to individuals who propagate the gay ideology, those who wish to further the gay agenda. Your mentioning about PMs brought back a concern I have. I think it would be terrible if, running contrary to the stated mission of CAF, it is being mined or utilized by resident non-Catholic and heterodox Catholic members to carry out their pro-gay aims especially with questioning and vulnerable same sex attracted youth who join the site for moral guidance, not doing it in open forum, but in or by way of the PM feature. The thought is cynical (perhaps stemming from my being a trained Virtus facilitator in my parish and former risk management type of work background), I know, but it is not inconceivable. This is after all a site where members remain anonymous and motives may be unsaid, not apparent, and far from altruistic.

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

You’re right, who does not get combative sometimes in debating at CAF? I know I do, too, and it is hard at times to walk away from the screen because I get incensed with a perceived slight or insult. The first inclination is to fire off a reply just as biting. On review later, before hitting the “Submit Reply,” I frequently re-phrase if only to improve the tone.

But I’m glad at least we are still talking, even if we seem polarized in our respective positions on the efficacy and honesty in the use of “gay” in the situations we are discussing, Dex convinced that it is not only charitable but the only effective way of reaching out in his dealing with the population that feels rejected, you, firm in that is a more honest self category (not SSA) of your sexual orientation, something that you do not wish to hide, but not meaning it includes homosexual activity for you regardless that others associate “gay” with homosexual activity (because it also means that), and for Seeker, a measure of connection to or identification with the community the lifestyle of which he lived and has since abandoned, with members in that community with whom he still has friendships, friends that he would like to help, as he was helped by people who used loving words and action instrumental in his conversion. If I am misstating anything in that sentence, I am sure I will be hearing shortly!

 

[speakttruth]

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

Sorry this my experience, and from many of the people that I have talked with and Doctors that have worked with people who have SSA issues. If someone hasn’t figure it why they have SSA, then you may be holding back the healing and understandings that could help someone else other wise you may be compromising your Faith. People are not born this way, so it can be done.

I am always aware of someone that has problems and try always to be compassionate. I also believe sometimes tough love is called for. I don’t have to go running around in the so called Gay community to help people. We are all sinners. I see plenty that some have anger issues and can’t or won’t hear the truth right now. It’s in God’s hand anyway. Jesus wasn’t worried if someone didn’t like hearing the truth and how he said it and he never compromised to win over people. That is what charity really is.

The problem I see on this Catholic site, some are pushing homosexuality in an obscure way. Some are not sincere in helping live a Catholic life in its entirety because they have an SSA issue themselves. I am very sensitive to it because of my own son and it makes me upset to see the very reason why he thinks it OK to be Gay. From where I sit it seems many of you don’t want to really give it up either, from what people refused to see why they shouldn’t identify with their sexual preference. Elizabeth explained it beautifully. She gets it, she’s been there.

Michelle Arnold one of the apologetics and moderators on here did an article of why we should not have SSM and it includes some of what we have been discussing. She is one of the people we should be learning from and not just opinions. I don’t know where she has it, but it must be on here somewhere.

If we are going against the teaching because we don’t like it or make up our own interpretations, then we are not helping anyone. I want to help save souls, but I won’t compromise my own soul to give false empathy to anyone by telling people what they want to hear. This is my observation.
GB

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Sorry this my experience, and from many of the people that I have talked with and Doctors that have worked with people who have SSA issues. If someone hasn’t figure it why they have SSA, then you may be holding back the healing and understandings that could help someone else other wise you may be compromising your Faith. People are not born this way, so it can be done.

I am always aware of someone that has problems and try always to be compassionate. I also believe sometimes tough love is called for. I don’t have to go running around in the so called Gay community to help people. We are all sinners. I see plenty that some have anger issues and can’t or won’t hear the truth right now. It’s in God’s hand anyway. Jesus wasn’t worried if someone didn’t like hearing the truth and how he said it and he never compromised to win over people. That is what charity really is.

The problem I see on this Catholic site, some are pushing homosexuality in an obscure way. Some are not sincere in helping live a Catholic life in its entirety because they have an SSA issue themselves. I am very sensitive to it because of my own son and it makes me upset to see the very reason why he thinks it OK to be Gay. From where I sit it seems many of you don’t want to really give it up either, from what people refused to see why they shouldn’t identify with their sexual preference. Elizabeth explained it beautifully. She gets it, she’s been there.

Michelle Arnold one of the apologetics and moderators on here did an article of why we should not have SSM and it includes some of what we have been discussing. She is one of the people we should be learning from and not just opinions. I don’t know where she has it, but it must be on here somewhere.

If we are going against the teaching because we don’t like it or make up our own interpretations, then we are not helping anyone. I want to help save souls, but I won’t compromise my own soul to give false empathy to anyone by telling people what they want to hear. This is my observation.
GB

There is insufficient evidence either way.

What is tough love? Some people on this forum thinks it means telling them they are sick, disgusting, mentally ill and slaves of Satan.

The concept of lots of work for no gain even if it works may seem pointless to some.

Uh, okay, sure.

I don’t see anyone here advocating going against the teachings of the Church, what I do see is people saying we should focus more on the teachings of the Church and evangelism than being ideologues to ideology that isn’t part of the Church.

 

[DexUK]

There is insufficient evidence either way.

What is tough love? Some people on this forum thinks it means telling them they are sick, disgusting, mentally ill and slaves of Satan.

The concept of lots of work for no gain even if it works may seem pointless to some.

Uh, okay, sure.

I don’t see anyone here advocating going against the teachings of the Church, what I do see is people saying we should focus more on the teachings of the Church and evangelism than being ideologues to ideology that isn’t part of the Church.

Let’s put it this way: if the Church was able to prove (or even believed) that homosexuality was always and everywhere a conscious chosen orientation for a person, it would have said so in a straightforward way. As it is, it hasn’t. Therefore it isn’t up to us to second guess things, it’s simply up to us to smooth the path to God for as many people as we can, and in this case we have to be very careful about how we approach people who may not currently want to have anything to do with the Church because of what they think we believe about them.

Nobody can be frightened into believing in God or into accepting the Church. That isn’t free assent. They need to come willingly and they’ll only do that if they’re treated kindly.

 

[Kolbe300]

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.

Hi Elizabeth. I had to just look around the room to see if I’m on a hidden camera show. If you believe what you posted above, then I have no idea why we’ve been going in circles. That is the exact context in which I use the word homosexual when I say, “I am a homosexual person.” When I call myself or anyone else a “homosexual person,” the word “homosexual” is a description of their sexual orientation. Period. Nothing more. That’s why I would never use the term unless speaking about sexuality. When I put on the “New Man” as St. Paul says, my sexual orientation has not changed. Hence, I am still a homosexual person. That could be translated as, “I am man, a child of God (my identity). And I happen to have a homosexual orientation.” I use the word in the same context the Catechism does.

That is exactly why, when people say “you’re reducing your identity” or “you’re identifying your person only by your sexuality.” I always think - no I’m NOT. Like you said, when it comes between me and my Creator, my identity is His child. Period. I view the word “gay” exactly as I do the word homosexual: it describes a person’s sexual orientation. When I hear either word, I conclude that the person is same sex attracted, nothing more. It’s then up to them to display how they live their life with that sexual orientation. I make no assumptions and believe none of us should.

I have never been nor will I ever be defined by my sexuality. But let me be clear. I do believe that our sexuality is a part of what makes us, us. It is a part of our human experience and plays a role in our lives. I don’t think that can be argued. Our sexuality is not, however, our identity.

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.

I absolutely agree. Can you believe that? In fact, I would actually argue that most gay men and women couldn’t care less about having their sexual orientation viewed as “special” or “different.” I believe many of them are trying for the exact opposite - for others to view their sexuality as the same and not different from others.

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

I’m sorry, I did misunderstand you. You had said when using the satanic music example that identifying with them would be two-faced and dishonest. I think the confusion may have come from just how much you were identifying with them. As for your quote, I thought it’s a great way to speak about the issue honestly.

I think we’re closer to agreement than we may realize after all. Have a good day!

 

[Elizabeth502]

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.

I think I know that. More importantly, I think I feel that. And anyone who is vulnerable is particularly attuned to other people’s non-verbal signals. I tend to communicate by my in-person manner in a way that says “I accept you.” That may be very hard to believe if you just read my posts, but I basically am an intellectual for purposes of CAF. This is the language of argumentation here. (Apologetics involves the process of argumentation & logic) When I argue, I am a logical person and argue from premises. When I’m relating to people one on one, I would lose the person entirely if I used that approach, unless the person explicitly requested a logical argument.

Most recently this happened with one of my students. When she first met me she was very difficult in conference. Her manner was distrustful, bordering on hostile, and definitely suspicious. She withheld a lot – about normal academic stuff! At the time, I didn’t know what her game was. As things progressed (and I merely “took” a lot from her, without reacting), a pattern began to emerge as someone who was very protective of her independence and did not at all want to be or even appear dependent on me. So again, I respected that. I let her have the appearance of control. However, the tricky part was that my guidance was necessary. I was being paid to guide her and I was concerned at some of the wrong academic choices she might be making. One of those concerned a topic for a paper. I was concerned that the topic, particularly the fierceness and abandon with which she wrote it, would raise alarm bells. It still hadn’t occurred to me that there might be a sexual issue. All I knew was that she was simultaenousy angry (which she was projecting onto me, because someone had to receive her anger), protectively independent, and yet there was an undercurrent of being scared as hell, and hoping that I would not put her down (which I had given no indication of!).

Given her personality and manner, and how touchy she was, I didn’t push my suggestions about her paper. It was as if she was testing me over a period of time to see what my Calmness Factor was. (She would bring up the subject , both stating her position as if was unbendable, yet inch by inch being open to my recommendations, solciting those but observant about how “authoritarian” --my word— I was going to be about that.) Finally I just let it sit. Didn’t say anything for a really long time. One day she emailed me, “You’re right. I shouldn’t use that topic. I’ve decided not to. And please don’t show anyone else the paper I showed you.” Naturally I didn’t. I had to keep it in the file, but I covered it with a sheet requesting confidentiality and not accessing it without reason.

Somewhere, between that email of hers and my trying to identify her unique pattern of behavior (vs. my other students), it “clicked” that she was gay, and that that was the source of the original distrust, protectiveness, and vulnerability. Nevertheless, up to that time there had been no overt mention of it. There was a lot of talk “around” it (on her part), but no discussion of sexuality directly. The moment of her email to me was the moment of trust; the next time she saw me she told me in person that she might major in “gay and lesbian studies.” (She was also waiting for my reaction to that, as well, but I didn’t blink an eyelash, so unsurprised I was at that point.)

You could say, ‘Gee, that took you a long time. She came out to you after 3 months. If I were there I’d be able to talk right upfront about her sexuality.’ But the point, it seems to me, was that from the beginning she wanted to be accepted for being different, most of all. There was an awful lot that was different about her, and I question whether all of that had to do with her sexual orientation. Some might even say that her orientation was a result, not a cause, or that it was part of a syndrome. In any case, she had Issues, to put it mildly. Other issues included physical aggression in the past, depression, and a suicide attempt.

We are whole persons, just as she is. She wanted acceptance as a whole person, and I would rather speak to the core of the person (as we are asked to do in Catholicism) than to speak to one aspect of a person. Now, clearly, for her, she did feel as if she needed to come out to me, but believe me, had I not accepted her on the non-sexual issues, she never would have done that. The “announcement” of her sexuality was so casual as to be an anti-climax; the real trial was the other stuff. It was made like, 'Since I already know you accept me unconditionally, and I’ve put you through hell, I can now tell you my orientation." (Big duh. )

 

[DexUK]

We are whole persons, just as she is. She wanted acceptance as a whole person, and I would rather speak to the core of the person (as we are asked to do in Catholicism) than to speak to one aspect of a person.

In that case, we’re coming at it from the same angle - which is good!

So long, that is, as the people we counsel don’t perceive themselves to be ‘anathematised’ by an aspect of their personality/personhood over which they don’t feel they have any control. That’s the key to all of this. And, of course, that perception is very dangerous for the person concerned, because it can mean they go totally off the rails in other areas too (“in for a penny, in for a pound sort” of thing)…

I’m glad we understand each other better now. See… sometimes these debates DO work!

 

[Elizabeth502]

When I put on the “New Man” as St. Paul says, my sexual orientation has not changed. Hence, I am still a homosexual person. That could be translated as, “I am man, a child of God (my identity). And I happen to have a homosexual orientation.” I use the word in the same context the Catechism does.

Right, but the Catechism still does not describe sexual orientation as essential to our identity. You probably “happen” to be lots of things. I could say, “I am a woman, a daughter of God, and a classical music lover.” But in terms of categories, the classical music lover part doesn’t belong. Nor does “heterosexual.”

In terms of psychology, it might be very important. Thus, some of my students are artists. Being an artist can be rather defining in certain ways: it affects their approach to the world, and has many tributaries. But we’re talking about spirituality, not psychology.

From the point of view of spirituality, what’s important about any attraction is whether it is healthy or not – spiritually. Whether it is healthy for the soul to indulge whatever that seemingly irresistible, permeating attraction might be, an attraction which we might experience, psychologically, as “essential,” but which does not put us in a different spiritual “category” as anyone else. My attraction to classical music is not intrinsically disordered, so the only way it could hurt me spiritually is if I chose it over my primary responsibilities, which could be a sin against The Fourth Commandment. But I normally don’t have to avoid classical music at peril to my soul. In the fictional example I gave earlier, I would have to avoid satanic music, though, at peril to my soul – if that was the attraction instead. And if I was attracted to it my whole life, it would be a Cross for my whole life, and part of the fire of my earthly purgation, preparing me for sanctity.

Still, it would be factually incorrect for me to define my spiritual identity as woman, daughter of God, and satanic music lover.

 

[speakttruth]

Long but worth the read

Out of the Closet and Into Chastity by David C. Morrison

GB

 

[Kolbe300]

Your impression is that the discussions on the board have not been helpful to them. Indeed, that is a problem that CAF management may not be realizing and should. My view is that when young members, Catholic or non-Catholic, participate in the apologetic threads, in the morality subforum, for instance, with an acute situation involving homosexuality conflict or issues, looking for moral guidance or clarification of Scriptural basis and Church teaching, there is a referral as soon as detected to an in house apologist or staff.

I agree with you. When I have been faced with private messages from someone who is really struggling, my advice is to seek a trusted priest or Catholic friend. An internet forum is really never a trustworthy source of consistently correct information. A forum is a great place to get tips on how to fix a leaky faucet, but not for spiritual direction and guidance. There are too many opinions out there for that.

I would hope, as a poster (fix, I believe) said, that the young do not turn to individuals who propagate the gay ideology, those who wish to further the gay agenda.

Exactly. One doesn’t know what they may be told here or on any other forum. My best advice is to go to a human being you can look in the eyes. This is a great place for spirited debate, but not always the best for consistent advice or spiritual direction.

The thought is cynical (perhaps stemming from my being a trained Virtus facilitator in my parish and former risk management type of work background), I know, but it is not inconceivable. This is after all a site where members remain anonymous and motives may be unsaid, not apparent, and far from altruistic.

I share these very same concerns.

But I’m glad at least we are still talking…

As am I! Peace!

 

[Kolbe300]

Right, but the Catechism still does not describe sexual orientation as essential to our identity…

In terms of psychology, it might be very important…

I agree with you.

From the point of view of spirituality, what’s important about any attraction is whether it is healthy or not – spiritually.

Again, I agree. I think that is where some of my frustration comes from. I get the impression that some believe a homosexual orientation as a complete block to a healthy spirituality, as if the New Man can never be discovered unless the sexuality is buried, rejected, and ignored. My experience has been the exact opposite. My sexuality has actually played an important role in whatever depth of faith I have. More often than not, it has driven me straight into the arms of God.

Still, it would be factually incorrect for me to define my spiritual identity as woman, daughter of God, and satanic music lover.

Agreed. I think maybe “identity” is another word we just have to be careful with. What is it we mean in this or that conversation when we speak of identity? It is a question to always consider.

Peace!

 

[Kolbe300]

I’m glad we understand each other better now. See… sometimes these debates DO work!

Praise the Lord!

 

[speakttruth]

Long but worth the read

Out of the Closet and Into Chastity by David C. Morrison

GB

For some reason this could not come up above.

So here is in on another site.
catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0001.html…

 

[speakttruth]

There is insufficient evidence either way.

What is tough love? Some people on this forum thinks it means telling them they are sick, disgusting, mentally ill and slaves of Satan.

The concept of lots of work for no gain even if it works may seem pointless to some.

Uh, okay, sure.

I don’t see anyone here advocating going against the teachings of the Church, what I do see is people saying we should focus more on the teachings of the Church and evangelism than being ideologues to ideology that isn’t part of the Church.

Calling yourselves gay isn’t a Catholic teaching is it? I was reading a book from Christopher West on Good News about Sex and Marriage. Answers to your Honest Questions about Catholic Teachings. Maybe you should check it out. Also the theology of the Body. He explains in his section of SS relationships a very thoughtful way to understand what God is calling people to do about their sexual feelings. He says many men with SSA have a masculinity problem , because he had one too in his early teens and twenties, until he finally identified his masculinity with Christ. Also the site I gave about Morrison’s story is very compelling explaining how he was a gay activist and his conversion to Catholicism. He says the same thing about calling yourself gay and why it’s wrong.

What I mean by tough love is telling someone the truth and not enabling them by going to things like functions or SSM or hang around with people that promote and encourage that lifestyle. Sometimes we have to remove ourselves to get the message that we won’t go against the Catholics teachings. By not saying we will go along just to get along. We don’t have to be nasty and call people names and we should always respect there dignity, but it goes both ways. I know I might come off a bit harsh in my writing, but I am not perfect either and try to get my point across as best I can just like everyone else. I am not as eloquent as a speaker, so forgive me if I sound that way.
GB
.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

I agree with you.

…

Again, I agree. I think that is where some of my frustration comes from. I get the impression that some believe a homosexual orientation as a complete block to a healthy spirituality, as if the New Man can never be discovered unless the sexuality is buried, rejected, and ignored. My experience has been the exact opposite. **My sexuality has actually played an important role in whatever depth of faith I have. More often than not, it has driven me straight into the arms of God. **

Kolbe, you expressed something there (which I bolded) that is very beautiful and interesting. Could it be that the most exquisite offering to God is the pain of suffering and sacrifice that comes with a decision of one’s sexuality never to be expressed outside the marital embrace of a man and a woman that validates the telelogical end of sex? To have no human partner to embrace in the night until the end of one’s life is enough to drive one to the most loneliest place. It is without doubt a very big cross to carry, that is hard to intellectualize and that I or anyone can not minimize.

This is perhaps why the parallel is made in something I read of this kind of suffering to our Lord’s Passion before He met His physical death. He was alone in Gethsemane during the Passion, with no one, not even one disciple with him in friendship, except for an angel that God His Father sent to give Him comfort.

When offered up, the sacrifice would not be that different from that by a priest and the religious who give up sex for a higher purpose, but if, as Paul said

7 For I would that all men were even as myself: but every one hath his proper gift from God; one after this manner, and another after that.

8 But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: it is good for them if they so continue, even as I.

9 But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

This is not to say that marriage is less holy than the vocation of priesthood. In fact, it is just as holy, sanctified thru the sacrament, with a noble end, the gift of self by a man to a woman and by a woman to a man, as in the OT and made clear in the NT, with our Lord speaking for exclusive fidelity to a spouse (thereby speaking against polygamy) and against divorce.

Same sex pairing and ‘marriage’ as pushed in our current times by the gay agenda was never, ever blessed, even as homosexual behavior is known to have existed during biblical times, alongside fornicating and adulterous behavior, all considered displeasing to God.
,

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Calling yourselves gay isn’t a Catholic teaching is it? I was reading a book from Christopher West on Good News about Sex and Marriage. Answers to your Honest Questions about Catholic Teachings. Maybe you should check it out. Also the theology of the Body. He explains in his section of SS relationships a very thoughtful way to understand what God is calling people to do about their sexual feelings. He says many men with SSA have a masculinity problem , because he had one too in his early teens and twenties, until he finally identified his masculinity with Christ. Also the site I gave about Morrison’s story is very compelling explaining how he was a gay activist and his conversion to Catholicism. He says the same thing about calling yourself gay and why it’s wrong.

What I mean by tough love is telling someone the truth and not enabling them by going to things like functions or SSM or hang around with people that promote and encourage that lifestyle. Sometimes we have to remove ourselves to get the message that we won’t go against the Catholics teachings. By not saying we will go along just to get along. We don’t have to be nasty and call people names and we should always respect there dignity, but it goes both ways. I know I might come off a bit harsh in my writing, but I am not perfect either and try to get my point across as best I can just like everyone else. I am not as eloquent as a speaker, so forgive me if I sound that way.
GB
.

First, I hope all Catholics will learn what the Church teaches about homosexuality. Homosexuality, in the Catholic view, is a tendency toward disordered sexual acts, but it is not a sin in and of itself. In this it can be said to be no more sinful than an inclination to heterosexual fornication or adultery. The vast majority of homosexuals cannot be said to choose to have the desires they have, and many, including myself, find living with them, in the words of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, a “trial” (CCC 2358).

Second, I hope traditional Catholics will get over being shocked and disapproving that homosexual people exist in our world and culture. This is an attitude that goes beyond simply and properly disapproving of homosexual acts; it comes perilously close to condemning homosexual people as human beings.

I think we must all agree that this is something Jesus Christ does not and would not do and, in fact, warns us away from doing (Matt. 7:1-5, Luke 6:36-37). This disposition, I believe, has done much to swell the ranks of homosexual Catholics whose behavior seems bent on hell – not simply out of the blindness of sin, but also because no one has ever offered them the truth in love. Love without truth can degenerate into selfish violence, but truth without love is brutal.

Third, as hard as it might be, faithful Catholics must learn to recognize that not all homosexuals are child molesters. The current scandals of priests abusing altar boys has lent a level of popularity to this prejudice, but making the term “pederast” interchangeable with “homosexual” is not only uncharitable, but borders on slander.

Fourth, I hope Catholic clergy will be more encouraging to homosexual people about their dignity as human beings, created in the image of God, and their vocation to chastity, which they share by virtue of that dignity. More homilies ought to take this admonition from the Catechism to heart: “Being in the image of God the human individual possesses the dignity of a person, who is not just something, but someone. He is capable of self-knowledge, of self-possession, and of freely giving himself and entering into communion with other persons. And he is called by grace to a covenant with his Creator, to offer him a response of faith and love that no other creature can give in his stead” (CCC 357).

This essential dignity is insulted when traditional Catholics condemn homosexual people out of hand and when heterodox Catholics patronize us by trying to make believe that homosexual activity – like other genital activity outside of marriage is not sinful and damaging to our ultimate relationship with God. Ironically enough, both groups are guilty of much the same attitude: defining homosexual people not by the virtue to which they are capable with God’s grace, but by activity which that grace can empower them to resist.

I think a number of people on this forum need to take note of points one and two.

 

[speakttruth]

I think a number of people on this forum need to take note of points one and two.

duly noted.
gb

 

[Kolbe300]

Kolbe, you expressed something there (which I bolded) that is very beautiful and interesting. Could it be that the most exquisite offering to God is the pain of suffering and sacrifice that comes with a decision of one’s sexuality never to be expressed outside the marital embrace of a man and a woman that validates the telelogical end of sex? To have no human partner to embrace in the night until the end of one’s life is enough to drive one to the most loneliest place. It is without doubt a very big cross to carry, that is hard to intellectualize and that I or anyone can not minimize.

Hi ISOG. What you said there is pretty much exactly how I view my sexuality and its relationship to my faith. I have been given an opportunity to offer not only my heart and soul to God, but my body as well. I find immense beauty in that, as difficult as it may be at times. Because it’s difficult, it becomes a daily prayer - Lord, I give you my entire life, my heart, my soul, and my body. Instead of offering the gift of my body to a spouse, I offer it to my Creator. It is a sacrifice that demands grace, and that is why it always leads me directly into the arms of God.

If I were to define sexuality in one sentence as seen through my Catholic eyes, it would be this: Our sexuality is, at its very core, a God-given desire to give deeply of ourselves through love. For many, that desire to give is expressed in the unimaginably holy act of married love (often expressed physically). For others, that desire to give can be expressed in the unimaginably holy act of loving Jesus Christ in the least of those among us. In both instances, the love given is a love returned. My sexuality can, indeed, be a source of great loneliness. But I am not alone and my life will never be, nor must it be, loveless.

All of this is why I cannot understand why people have said to me, “Why would you admit to being a homosexual if you’re celibate? Why would you identify by your sin?” I see those questions as nothing short of ignorance. (Sometimes willfully so.) A homosexual orientation can certainly be a cross to bear. I choose to embrace that cross because I see what is at the heart of it: a desire to love deeply. That cross has brought me closer to God than I ever imagined I could be. Why on earth would I not embrace that? In a thread a long time ago, I was eaten alive when I said this is something I embrace. I was treated very poorly. That is the only reason I am here. I would love to see that judgment stop. People are so quick to reduce a homosexual person’s orientation to nothing more than a disordered “tendency” or some annoying collection of evil temptations. No one’s sexuality can be reduced to* that*. John Paul II’s decription of the gift of celibacy is absolutely brilliant. Celibacy isn’t a rejection of sexuality, it is a fulfillment of it. It is an act of giving to God now that which we will all give Him in heaven: our* entire *selves.

Like all of us, gay men and women have an opportunity to do something extraordinary for God. Catholic teaching can lead to an abundant life, one filled with love. The love they have the opportunity to offer and receive is as passionate, as deep, and as intimate as that of the love between a husband and wife. It’s truly something they really can embrace, if we would just give them that chance.

Peace!

 

[speakttruth]

What some are saying is that one must accept the “gay” view to be charitable. That is not truth.

People are capable of hearing messages and asking questions without immediately claiming offense or lacking charity.

Your right fix, that is where the sensitivity lies. Anyone that uses the word gay to identify themselves is going against the Catholic teachings. The church put out a book about Homosexuality and Hope and discourages using that word. So people take it upon themselves to do what they want, not what is encourage to do. Because they know best. They say as an excuse to say they are trying to be helpful so that others won’t feel bad. They couldn’t possibly know what your talking about unless you use the word? No it’s so the person that keeps claiming to be charitable in using the word that doesn’t want feel bad about themselves. Charity is trying to help people get to heaven and be truthful, not accommodating people’s feelings , but most of all getting yourself first to heaven. Everything we do is suppose to be about loving God first. You won’t be good to anyone if your not working on that. Isn’t that hard enough?

Jesus would not use the word gay. What’s the saying? birds of a feather flock together? If you don’t want to be seen as a practicing homosexual, why would you keep hanging around with them? Yes, sometimes in certain circumstances, but not to make them feel you accept that life. We want to be helpful to see them to Christ, but what about other people with different sins? We are all sinners aren’t we?. Why do we have to use Face book to proclaim I am gay and I have repented? Kind of like an oxymoron to me… What’s the saying? Using a bad thing to do a good thing doesn’t justify the ends. Darn have to find that saying. You know what I mean I hope. So if I was a thief should I proclaim to all the thief’s out of there that I have reformed and keep hanging around with them? Is it about me or them?

How about just taking care of your own soul and not saying anything but that you show you love Christ about going to church and keeping his commandment s and your own life will be their witness, not trying to identify with there sin specifically, but that you are a sinner period and then welcome them to the church. Some could just say, I used to live an unhealthy and sinful life and I found Christ. It just seems we keep going around in circles because they like to identify with Gay word to be accepted in both worlds and that is not Christlike. If you give anyone a hint that your living a sinful life then what is the point? Just my take.

Now don’t shoot me !
GB

 

[fix]

Your right fix, that is where the sensitivity lies. Anyone that uses the word gay to identify themselves is going against the Catholic teachings. The church put out a book about Homosexuality and Hope and discourages using that word. So people take it upon themselves to do what they want, not what is encourage to do. Because they know best. They say as an excuse to say they are trying to be helpful so that others won’t feel bad. They couldn’t possibly know what your talking about unless you use the word? No it’s so the person that keeps claiming to be charitable in using the word that doesn’t want feel bad about themselves. Charity is trying to help people get to heaven and be truthful, not accommodating people’s feelings , but most of all getting yourself first to heaven. Everything we do is suppose to be about loving God first. You won’t be good to anyone if your not working on that. Isn’t that hard enough?

Jesus would not use the word gay. What’s the saying? birds of a feather flock together? If you don’t want to be seen as a practicing homosexual, why would you keep hanging around with them? Yes, sometimes in certain circumstances, but not to make them feel you accept that life. We want to be helpful to see them to Christ, but what about other people with different sins? We are all sinners aren’t we?. Why do we have to use Face book to proclaim I am gay and I have repented? Kind of like an oxymoron to me… What’s the saying? Using a bad thing to do a good thing doesn’t justify the ends. Darn have to find that saying. You know what I mean I hope. So if I was a thief should I proclaim to all the thief’s out of there that I have reformed and keep hanging around with them? Is it about me or them?

How about just taking care of your own soul and not saying anything but that you show you love Christ about going to church and keeping his commandment s and your own life will be their witness, not trying to identify with there sin specifically, but that you are a sinner period and then welcome them to the church. Some could just say, I used to live an unhealthy and sinful life and I found Christ. It just seems we keep going around in circles because they like to identify with Gay word to be accepted in both worlds and that is not Christlike. If you give anyone a hint that your living a sinful life then what is the point? Just my take.

Now don’t shoot me !
GB

It is about wanting affirmation desperately. It is also about an emotional attachment to that ideology. It is about how we define ourselves as a person.