"homosexual person" myth or Truth

[jjr9]

I understand that a number of people would like me to go away and not bother them. To them I say if
you are offended by what you know you will hear please read no further. I understand that if one or
more complain this thread will be removed or locked I ask that someone with no fault to cast the first
complaint.

For reason I do not understand I have been shunned by my Bishop, the Congregation for the Doctrine of
the Faith(CDF) and the Apostolic Signatura. I consulted a canon lawyer who informed me that if I feel the
Apostolic Signatura has not properly responded to my concern I only have recourse to the Holy Father. I
asked my Bishop if he would send my appeal to Pope Francis, my Bishop declined but was kind and
supplied a mailing address. I have sent my appeal several times to Pope Francis and conclude he has not
received it. I asked my Bishop again if he would send my appeal through our Diocese; my Bishop said
“The Roman Catholic Diocese of … is not able to forward your(my) communication”. I let my Bishop
know I believe his claim untrue; I believe he is not willing to but is able to forward my communication
and have heard nothing further.

This is not complicated I understand Same Sex Attraction (SSA) is real a temptation, sinful if dwelled on,
and SS behavior real a sin. What I don’t understand is why the Magisterium has accepted the concept of
a “homosexual person”. I believe the “homosexual person” a myth presented by an LGBT orthodoxy that
demands acceptance of their view with no tolerance of dissent. As far as I know before 1993 the Church
had no definition for a “homosexual person”. I believe for good reason.

Unfortunately the Magisterium claims that the “homosexual person” is real; the Magisterium defines
“Homosexuality” in CCC 2357:

“Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or
predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex.”

I believe here the Magisterium is defining two categories of “homosexual person” that the Magisterium
references later in CCC 2359. I believe the Church is saying some “homosexual persons” have an
exclusive SSA and some “homosexual persons” have a predominant SSA. For me the predominant
“homosexual person” is a bit irrational as this person would have SSA and OSA.

I have no idea what the Magisterium has in mind by accepting the myth of the “homosexual person” as
real. I believe it comes from the “stream of corruption” and “gay lobby” that Pope Francis referenced at
one point. I understand that Pope Francis has also said “if someone is gay who am I to judge” and
supports this section of the CCC. I don’t understand why. I hope at some point the Holy Father will have
time to sort this all out.

If someone has a truly right and just reason to believe the “homosexual person” real I would like to hear
it. I do not believe it exists. My intent is to make this an issue that the Magisterium cannot continue to
ignore. Perhaps your Bishop could be more helpful in resolving this issue than mine has. If not perhaps
you could be more successful, in bring this issue to the public square, so the Magisterium is compelled
to correct it’s error than I have been.

God bless

 

[ahs]

Can you provide the citation where you have found the quote “homosexual person”? I would like to see it in the context it was used. If I understand correctly, there is no irrationality, rather the Church is simply saying that some people are indeed attracted to persons of the same sex (evidenced by the existence of people who are attracted to persons of the same sex). But, I want to be sure I understand how the phrase “homosexual person” was used in the source you are quoting.

 

[Bookcat]

The emphasis is on “person”.

Persons can have all sorts of “qualifiers” applied to them - but the emphasis is on “person”.

 

[ahs]

I re-read your post and it appears you are citing CCC 2359. If this is not correct, please clarify. Otherwise, here’s my response:

This is not complicated I understand Same Sex Attraction (SSA) is real a temptation, sinful if dwelled on,
and SS behavior real a sin. What I don’t understand is why the Magisterium has accepted the concept of
a “homosexual person”.

I think you are misunderstanding what the Magesterium is describing with the phrase “homosexual persons” in CCC 2359. Since that paragraph is written in the direct context of the immediately preceding paragraphs, which you also cited, the only sensible conclusion is that the Church is describing exactly what you, yourself, have stated to be “a real temptation”. “Homosexual persons” are persons who experience real same-sex attractions and/or engage in that behavior.

I believe here the Magisterium is defining two categories of “homosexual person” that the Magisterium
references later in CCC 2359. I believe the Church is saying some “homosexual persons” have an
exclusive SSA and some “homosexual persons” have a predominant SSA. For me the predominant
“homosexual person” is a bit irrational as this person would have SSA and OSA.

It isn’t irrational because there ARE people who believe they are exclusively homosexual, and others who practice homosexuality as well as ‘opposite sexuality’. There are married people who cheat on their spouses with same-sex “partners”. There are people who have bi-sexual tendencies, yet “practice” more on the homosexual side. That’s just a reality. Again, this is in the context of the “homosexual person” being a person who experiences, or engages in, what you have already said to be a very real temptation.

The only thing irrational in any of this is in the fact that you are claiming something the Church has said is “irrational” while simultaneously saying that you already recognize the reality of exactly what the Church has said.

 

[jjr9]

Can you provide the citation where you have found the quote “homosexual person”? I would like to see it in the context it was used. If I understand correctly, there is no irrationality, rather the Church is simply saying that some people are indeed attracted to persons of the same sex (evidenced by the existence of people who are attracted to persons of the same sex). But, I want to be sure I understand how the phrase “homosexual person” was used in the source you are quoting.

CCC 2357-2359 Ref: vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

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

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

What I believe irrational is the predominant “homosexual person” I believe to call a person who has SSA and OSA
a “homosexual person” illogical. The exclusive “homosexual person” while makes logical sense I believe this is a
false premise. If you believe the “homosexual person” real can you cite what causes this belief for you?

I believe SSA is real a temptation,sinful if dwelled on,SS behavior real a sin and the “homosexual person” a myth.

God bless

 

[jjr9]

The emphasis is on “person”.

Persons can have all sorts of “qualifiers” applied to them - but the emphasis is on “person”.

Can you cite any other “qualifiers” used by the Magisterium in describing other persons that the Magisterium
has defined?

God bless

 

[Bookcat]

Can you cite any other “qualifiers” used by the Magisterium in describing other persons that the Magisterium
has defined?

God bless

I would not put it that way. It is not about “defining” a person. Everything must be read in its context. Full context. Full context of all the Church has written on the subject.

 

[ahs]

Can you cite any other “qualifiers” used by the Magisterium in describing other persons that the Magisterium
has defined?

God bless

“Handicapped persons” CCC 2276
“Baptized persons” CCC 1640
“Holy persons” CCC 961
“Dying persons” CCC 2277
“Lay persons” CCC 903
“Certain persons” CCC 162
“Moral persons” CCC 2410
“Ill-intentioned persons” CCC 574…

(That’s just what I could come up with real quick-like.)

 

[ahs]

CCC 2357-2359 Ref: vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

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

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

What I believe irrational is the predominant “homosexual person” I believe to call a person who has SSA and OSA
a “homosexual person” illogical. The exclusive “homosexual person” while makes logical sense I believe this is a
false premise. If you believe the “homosexual person” real can you cite what causes this belief for you?

I believe SSA is real a temptation,sinful if dwelled on,SS behavior real a sin and the “homosexual person” a myth.

God bless

Thanks. After re-reading your OP, I presumed this and responded in Post #4. (See above.)

 

[Bookcat]

“Handicapped persons” CCC 2276

The best of those there is “handicapped persons” in this context.

Because the person is what is to highlight. The handicap does not go to the person. The person is not their “handicap” just as the person is not their homosexual attraction…in the phrase in question.

Both are simply and importantly “persons”.

But yes when discussing each of those difficulties that they face - in that context that qualifier gets used.

That though does not mean that such defines the person per se.

The person is not their difficulty.

 

[jjr9]

“Handicapped persons” CCC 2276
“Baptized persons” CCC 1640
“Holy persons” CCC 961
“Dying persons” CCC 2277
“Lay persons” CCC 903
“Certain persons” CCC 162
“Moral persons” CCC 2410
“Ill-intentioned persons” CCC 574…

(That’s just what I could come up with real quick-like.)

Thank you for this I have no objection to these types of “qualifiers”. I don’t believe you can cite any
type of person the Magisterium links to a specific temptation other that the “homosexual person”.

The fundamental issue here is whether the Magisterium has authority to present what is false as true
in the name of the Lord’s Church as it has by presenting the mythical “homosexual person” as real.
Do you have a truly right and just reason to believe the “homosexual person” real?

God bless

 

[Wesrock]

Whether or not a person can be predisposed towards SSA is not something for the Church to decide. That’s a scientific question. What the Church can rule on is the morality of homosexual actions.

I think the Church recognizes that recent science does indicate it can be an inherited predisposition and has no issue with that. I don’t believe the Magisterium has formally declared the science right or wrong, it’s just speaking on the morality and culpability of persons given the best consensus we have on the subject right now.

 

[ahs]

Thank you for this I have no objection to these types of “qualifiers”. I don’t believe you can cite any
type of person the Magisterium links to a specific temptation other that the “homosexual person”.

Well, when it talks about persons who sin, that would be another example still…even if it doesn’t exactly quote “sinner persons”.

The fundamental issue here is whether the Magisterium has authority to present what is false as true
in the name of the Lord’s Church as it has by presenting the mythical “homosexual person” as real.
Do you have a truly right and just reason to believe the “homosexual person” real?

God bless

You are mistaken in what the Church is presenting.
See Post #4
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14370681&postcount=4

 

[Bookcat]

Thank you for this I have no objection to these types of “qualifiers”. I don’t believe you can cite any
type of person the Magisterium links to a specific temptation other that the “homosexual person”.

The fundamental issue here is whether the Magisterium has authority to present what is false as true
in the name of the Lord’s Church as it has by presenting the mythical “homosexual person” as real.
Do you have a truly right and just reason to believe the “homosexual person” real?

God bless

The Magisterium is not presenting as true what is false.

Your difficulty here is your* over estimating* the meaning of the phrase.

And reducing the reality of homosexual attractions to “temptations”.

(see also my post above).

 

[TheAmazingGrace]

A homosexual person is a person who is attracted to members of the same sex, and that’s all that the Catechism means by that term. I don’t see why that’s so hard to understand.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

A homosexual person is a person who is attracted to members of the same sex, and that’s all that the Catechism means by that term. I don’t see why that’s so hard to understand.

I think jjr9 is saying that there is no reference to ‘thief persons’ or ‘gossip persons’, so why should there be “homosexual persons” referenced in the CCC.

I think the answer is that jjr9’s assertion that homosexuality is purely a temptation is wrong. I believe, and I think the Church suspects, that sexuality exists on a spectrum.

 

[TheAmazingGrace]

I think jjr9 is saying that there is no reference to ‘thief persons’ or ‘gossip persons’, so why should there be “homosexual persons” referenced in the CCC.

I think the answer is that jjr9’s assertion that homosexuality is purely a temptation is wrong. I believe, and I think the Church suspects, that sexuality exists on a spectrum.

Stealing and gossiping are sins, while having a homosexual orientation is not. It’s simply an adjective that indicates what sex an individual is attracted to. It’s usage is more akin to the Catechism’s use of the terms “mentally ill persons” and “terminally ill persons” than what you mentioned.

I agree, it is not merely a temptation. If it were, I think most people would “choose” to be heterosexual to avoid stigmatization and being shunned by their families.

 

[Bookcat]

Stealing and gossiping are sins, while having a homosexual orientation is not. It’s simply an adjective that indicates what sex an individual is attracted to. It’s usage is more akin to the Catechism’s use of the terms “mentally ill persons” and “terminally ill persons” than what you mentioned.

I agree, it is not merely a temptation.

And

The OP’s difficulty here is an* over estimating *the meaning of the phrase.

And yes I agree part of theirs difficulty too is a * reducing* of the reality of homosexual attractions to “temptations”.

 

[edwest2]

I think jjr9 is saying that there is no reference to ‘thief persons’ or ‘gossip persons’, so why should there be “homosexual persons” referenced in the CCC.

I think the answer is that jjr9’s assertion that homosexuality is purely a temptation is wrong. I believe, and I think the Church suspects, that sexuality exists on a spectrum.

What spectrum? Can you explain that? Male and female he created them. The Biology of our bodies is designed for procreation.

Ed

 

[USMC_Convert]

Friend, I think you are putting to much importance on this matter which in reality changes nothing. Homosexuality is a sin, and how you, someone else or the Church defines or uses a specific word makes no difference.

Perhaps the legalistic and purely academic way you are approaching this is why you are not getting the response you are hoping for. Remember Jesus talks specifically about how the people of the time, were looking at everything in a legalistic way and just going through the motions, making sure every tiny little detail is observed but forgetting the reason why the law was made.

Ask yourself, is this what God really wants me to be doing, or is there something better I can be doing to serve the Lord.