- Status
B
bjryman
Guest
Forgot to address the first part of quote. The general consensus of the medical profession is that the gay tendency or attribute, or however one wishes to label it, is not a learned one. We can debate that point, and ignore the shear numbers as statistically insignificant.
The medical answers will continue to unfold.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
I do not reject the word of good and faithful Catholics who identify as homosexual. The few homosexual Catholics I have dealt with admitted that their condition was more of a choice than anything else. Peer pressure, curious experimentation, and a fear of rejection by the opposite sex were reasons given by these good and faithful Catholics. These people did, in fact, find their same sex attraction “a trial”. But last I heard they had all self-identified as heterosexuals and were very comfortable with their lives.
I will say that maybe, just maybe, there are other individuals who have acquired their homosexuality in a more deeper sense. These people do not tend to be good and faithful Catholics. They would rather justify and promote homosexuality rather than deal with it. They openly reject the Church’s teaching on the subject and consider me to be a hateful, bigoted, sexist homophobe because I do not support gay marriage. It is these people whose word I reject.
R
Rau
Guest
You praise the “few” you know and condemn the rest. You mock the Catechism Zoltan.
R
Rau
Guest
Do you mean sexual intimacy?
A
at9009
Guest
Hey Zoltan, you seem to emphasize a lack of scientific evidence of a genetic component as proof that it must be acquired (implied in all cases?). Can we forget about science and focus on Catholicism for a little.
We all have inclinations to sin due to the Fall. Is it so hard to believe that for some, same sex attraction is their concupiscence? It’s just another manifestation of original sin and cross to carry. It doesn’t change the morality of the acts (they’re still sinful), it doesn’t mean that they will always persist (although for some they do), nor does it exclude the possibly that for for others, their same sex attraction is acquired. By implying that it’s only acquired, it kind of feels like blaming the SSA Catholic for their cross which leads to self-loathing and deep shame (especially when one doesn’t fit into any of the believed environmental/social causes). By acknowledging that it could be part of concupiscence (inclination to evil), the SSA gets demystified and becomes just another cross to carry and with Christ it’s not insurmountable.
I think this is what Rau means, it kind of feels like you’re ignoring this possibility.
We all have inclinations to sin due to the Fall. Is it so hard to believe that for some, same sex attraction is their concupiscence? It’s just another manifestation of original sin and cross to carry. It doesn’t change the morality of the acts (they’re still sinful), it doesn’t mean that they will always persist (although for some they do), nor does it exclude the possibly that for for others, their same sex attraction is acquired. By implying that it’s only acquired, it kind of feels like blaming the SSA Catholic for their cross which leads to self-loathing and deep shame (especially when one doesn’t fit into any of the believed environmental/social causes). By acknowledging that it could be part of concupiscence (inclination to evil), the SSA gets demystified and becomes just another cross to carry and with Christ it’s not insurmountable.
I think this is what Rau means, it kind of feels like you’re ignoring this possibility.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
I would be more than happy to.
One needs only to go to the “Sticky” at the top of the Social Justice thread heading and read the “Church Teaching on Same Sex Issues”. It is pretty cut and dry. All Catholics should understand this teaching and comply with it. I see no need to discuss it with other Catholics and I cannot understand why any Catholic would reject these teachings.
However with all the non-Catholics and pseudo-Catholics lurking within this forum I find it to be of no value to discuss Church doctrine and teaching with them. That is why I stick to scientific and medical facts.
You are making excuses for a life style that is dangerous both spiritually and health wise.
I am aware of the possibility that homosexuality could be innate. It is a concept gay activists have been shouting from the roof tops since the early 1990’s. The problem is that they can’t prove it. There is not a shred of scientific evidence proving that homosexuals are born that way. It remains a slim “possibility”. It seems to be a stronger possibility that it is acquired. That being the case, both you and Rau should stop ignoring the obvious.
A possible lifestyle choice that is “objectively disordered” and leads to behavior that commits “acts of grave depravity”…should not be excused, accepted or promoted to children.
R
Rau
Guest
Zoltan - it is the inclination that is objectively disordered, and there is no evidence (and it is even difficult to comprehend) that one “chooses” an inclination (SSA), and somehow simultaneously “chooses” not to experience the more usual attraction to the opposite sex.
The choice comes at the point of embracing or rejecting the acts to which one (may) experience the inclination. Choosing those acts, or encouraging others to do likewise, is plainly wrong.
And of course, promoting wrong acts to children, or persuading them in a particular direction (toward SSA), is wrong.
B
bjryman
Guest
Yes, as the natural outcome of the relationship…both women and men.
I too, have several Catholic & Evangelical Christian Gay associates. I disagree with the comments that they they think this is a learned or acquired condition. They DID NOT seek out the situation, were NOT exposed to it in any way different from rest of population.
In fact, recently shared the “pain” expressed from my next door neighbor who with his wife when in their mid 30’s and learning they could not conceive a child, adopted through Christan Services. Their son was adopted as a baby, raised Evangelical, solid family of working class. He began to articulate his different feelings early, but it wasn’t until he became more capable of communicating such a difficult subject, that he confronted his parents and church. In the end, he left his home the day after HS graduation to start his life as HE felt God was calling him to do. And yes, that means within the complete Gay lifestyle.
His father quietly ponders this, and like so many other parents who truly KNOW their kids and the upbringing, seriously question the absolute teachings of the church on this subject.
My position, having raised three heterosexual kids, is that we need to be very careful regarding subjects like this and our unmoving conclusion that it is totaly against Christs teachings if it was not chosen as a lifestyle, but instead came as part of that persons creation.
It is for this type of family noted above, that I believe the final medical and spiritual chapter has not been written.
B
bjryman
Guest
…and once it is established that the inclination is truly a genetic condition passed on through their creation by God, the “people of God” need to reevaluate Scripture and Tradition…updating it to modern knowledge, and seriously consider the situation once again. (and the medical profession is getting ever closer to admiting that the inclination is genetic)
R
Rau
Guest
The inclination encourages the body to be used in a manner with is in the starkest contradiction with the very structure and purpose of the body. The exchange of sperm cells between two men makes no sense at all. Plainly, such acts make clear something is amiss. There is no prospect of such acts being found moral regardless of whether the inclination finds its origin in genetic defect, pre-natal hormonal conditions, post-natal events or some combination. The Catholic teaching is not predicated on any assumption about the cause.
R
Rau
Guest
Certainly the final medical chapter is not written - we’ve barely finished the introduction! But don’t look to a future discovery of a genetic connection as providing a basis to declare the acts morally legitimate. They fundamentally contradict our nature. If genetics account for SSA then genetics can account for the inclination to other unacceptable sexual proclivities, which also cannot be legitimized.
R
Rau
Guest
A temptation to show no interest in the opposite sex and toward the same sex, and tending to be persistent, etc, etc - it seems that something must precede the temptation to the wrong acts.
C
Cake_or_Death
Guest
A core difference is a temptation is something that is instilled at a point by an action, a person might be tempted by chocolate after knowing what it tastes like. It’s very unlikely a child would have the same craving for the stuff if he had never tasted it.
An inclination however is something that can occur with no prompt, same sex attraction is an example of this because a boy can be born in the middle of amish country, not even know what homosexuality is and still develop physical desires for members of his own sex.
There isn’t some van going around handing out “my first sex toys” to teenagers to give them a taste of sodomy. That’s the difference and why temptation can be easily identified against inclination
R
Rau
Guest
Maybe. But where it is persistent (beyond curious experimentation) and excludes opposite sex attraction and is accompanied by emotional attractions and attachment, etc. there appears to be more at work.
T
Thorolfr
Guest
Most gay people I know were sexually and romantically attracted to members of their own sex long before they actually had a same-sex experience, knew another gay person, or perhaps before they even knew hardly anything about sexuality. Some gay people even report feeling different than their peers as young children.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
Good answer!
Thank you.
Since SSA is not a natural inclination of human beings, could this inclination be more of a mental disorder?
- Status