Is the Church unkind to “self-identified persons” other than “homosexual persons”?

[zamyrabyrd]

The Church says 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 Church is defining two categories of “homosexual person” that the Church 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 Church has in mind by accepting the myth of the “homosexual person” if you find out please let me know. I believe it comes from the “steam 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 hope at some point the Holy Father will have time to sort this all out.

I have already had this discussion in previous threads. I believe I am in the minority and along with the Church most here accept the existence of “homosexual persons”. As far as I know self-identification is what brings a “homosexual person” into existence. I believe that the “homosexual person” is the only type of “self-identified person” recognized by the Church. I believe that the whole idea is absurd but if the Church starts down this path then how can the Church not recognize all types of “self-identified persons” if that is the criteria. God bless

I believe the Bible supports your view, so you would not be in the minority historically speaking, like a couple thousand years. The Bible refers to behavior not attraction.

 

[Rau]

I believe the Bible supports your view, so you would not be in the minority historically speaking, like a couple thousand years. The Bible refers to behavior not attraction.

How is that instructive of anything? It is acting out, i.e. Behaviour, that is immoral. Nothing is proposed contrary to that.

 

[zamyrabyrd]

How is that instructive of anything? It is acting out, i.e. Behaviour, that is immoral. Nothing is proposed contrary to that.

The Bible is the encyclopedia of humanity. If there were “homosexual persons”, they would have been identified as such.

 

[Rau]

The Bible is the encyclopedia of humanity. If there were “homosexual persons”, they would have been identified as such.

How many psychological disorders do you find identified as such in the bible? And for those not mentioned - is this to be taken to mean that they do not exist?

 

[zamyrabyrd]

How many psychological disorders do you find identified as such in the bible? And for those not mentioned - is this to be taken to mean that they do not exist?

Psychology as a science existed from barely 150 years ago and diagnoses are ever changing depending on the social environment. Freud acknowledged “hysteria” but this womanly affliction waned when restrictions on females were gradually dissipated.
Narcissism was considered a personality disorder until recently, not to mention homosexuality about 40 years ago, the views of which were tainted by Kinsey whose own work was corrupt. Therefore, I would rather depend on existential explanations of human behavior based on experience. A person can take a bad rap like Joseph and turn it around for good.

 

[jjr9]

Instead of using a PC term like self identification, why not just say an openly homosexual person…or admittedly gay…its much less ambiguous!

Thank you for taking time to reply. I do not subscribe to what I believe to be the false premiss
of the “homosexual person”.

If you accept this premiss as does the Church should not the Church accept all types of
“self-identified persons”?

God bless

 

[jjr9]

I believe the Bible supports your view, so you would not be in the minority historically speaking, like a couple thousand years. The Bible refers to behavior not attraction.

Thank you for taking time to reply. I agree that the Bible supports my view unfortunately for reason that I
do not know and the Church will not share the Church does not agree.

I believe that there exists an LGBT orthodoxy that the Church has succumb to in this age of political
correctness. I have every confidence that the Lord will not allow this to remain in His Church this will
happen in the Lord’s time not mine. However I have an obligation to the Lord to attempt to bring this
error to the attention of the Lord’s Church.

God bless

 

[jjr9]

Thank you for taking time to reply.

I still don’t think I’m very clear on exactly what you’re trying to say, but I think you are overthinking things a bit. Gay people still exist even before they self-identify as such.

Here we disagree I don’t believe “Gay people” exist, people have experienced SSA and engaged in SS behavior
for time immemorial it does not follow that a group of people are incapable of OSA.

How does identifying as homosexual bring them into existence?

As far as I know Self-identification is the genesis of the of the “homosexual person”.

I do not subscribe to what I believe to be the false premiss of the “homosexual person”.

If you accept this premiss as does the Church should not the Church accept all types of
“self-identified persons”?

God bless

 

[jjr9]

God loves you literally. Literal love.

Thank you for taking time to reply. God loves you as well.

God bless

 

[zamyrabyrd]

Thank you for taking time to reply. I agree that the Bible supports my view unfortunately for reason that I do not know and the Church will not share the Church does not agree. I believe that there exists an LGBT orthodoxy that the Church has succumb to in this age of political correctness. I have every confidence that the Lord will not allow this to remain in His Church this will happen in the Lord’s time not mine. However I have an obligation to the Lord to attempt to bring this error to the attention of the Lord’s Church.
God bless

I think the problem is one of semantics like the different definitions of love that we don’t have in the English language to distinguish properly. Also, modern thinking has been heavily influenced by psychology.
To keep rooted in the Word, to my mind, is a good idea. And I don’t think that the attitude in the Church is monolithic, certainly not among African and non-Western countries.
Finally, if God is for you, WHO can be against you???

 

[jjr9]

Thank you for taking time to reply.

Perhaps you really don’t think the Church should be accepting of self-identified murderers, burglars, and members of ISIS? There is a very wide array of self-identified people to whom it would not actually be unkind to look at without approval.

I don’t believe the Church should recognize any type of “self-identified person” .

Nor do I think it unkind to think those who commit gay acts are wrong.

I’m not sure what you are saying here.

I agree though that Catholics should be kind to those who carry out homosexual acts, by, for example, praying for them and hoping for their repentance.

I don’t believe it kind to tell people that they are something that doesn’t exist IE: the “homosexual person”.

God bless

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

The OP has posted several threads on this in the past as well, and each time, there seems to be no satisfactory explanation.

-ACEGC

There was a satisfactory explanation. Most of you couldn’t be bothered to follow.

This time John is complicating the affair by claiming to allude to a “consensus” which was either:

• non-existent
• false
• or both

That’s why he has lost TK421 and others.

John do us a favour. CAF members do not have “a line”. We are just a completely random bunch of bods and probably different ones from last time. Full stop. If you sincerely want information ask straight and anyone who is inclined, will give you what they feel like giving you.

 

[jjr9]

I don’t see the Church as being unkind to anyone. Priests are always willing to hear the confession of any penitent and will offer helpful advice to avoid the sin, regardless of what they have done.

Thank you for taking time to reply. If the Church does not accept all types of “self-identified people” is the
Church showing proper respect as the Church does to the “homosexual person”?

God bless

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

… As far as I know Self-identification is the genesis of the of the “homosexual person”.

I do not subscribe to what I believe to be the false premiss of the “homosexual person”.

If you accept this premiss as does the Church should not the Church accept all types of
“self-identified persons”?

1. But it isn’t. The phrase comes from Freud and similar prurient types of around 120 years ago and a little less.
2. But the Church doesn’t genuinely do so. Confusing wording was inserted in the 1975 and 1993 documents, which was our finishing point in the last two threads. Most forum members couldn’t cope with that fact. What the Church really accepts is in the words of Jesus and the Apostles.
3. There’s nothing wrong with the Church accepting the self-including by individuals in real categories, if there’s a theological point to it. If not, it’s irrelevant either way.

There is a diference between inventing or allegedly inventing a category, and including oneself in it.

It seems to me what I’m saying cuts across all the lines of your question.

In any case you could help us by giving us your own ideas.

Why haven’t you started from the finishing point of our last two threads?

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

How is that instructive of anything? It is acting out, i.e. Behaviour, that is immoral. Nothing is proposed contrary to that.

The 1975 and 1973 documents while “technically correct” by including unfounded concepts and confusing layout have strongly sent the incorrect message. I believe that was the intention of the drafters.

 

[Rau]

I think the problem is one of semantics…

Exactly. Jjr9 accepts SSA exists and elsewhere he conceded it is separate from temptation, yet denies “homosexual persons” - those experiencing a predominant or exclusive attraction to the same sex, exist!

In recent times he has limited his objections somewhat to the notion that some persons may experience no sexual attraction to persons of the opposite sex. He asks us to conclude that those telling us that this is their experience - are lying.

 

[Rau]

The 1975 and 1973 documents while “technically correct” by including unfounded concepts and confusing layout have strongly sent the incorrect message. I believe that was the intention of the drafters.

To what documents do you refer?

 

[Rau]

…Why haven’t you started from the finishing point of our last two threads?

Because he is not reasoning, discussing or debating. He is blogging.

 

[jjr9]

Why don’t you send all your questions about gay people to the Majesterium and ask them?

Thank you for taking time to reply. Please see forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13268083&postcount=213

Since then I did receive a response from the Apostolic Signatura unfortunately the Apostolic Signatura claims it
cannot act because there “must be some individual administrative act of a Roman Dicastery”.

Is not the CDF a “Roman Dicastery” and failure to respond an “administrative act”? I have sent an appeal to
Pope Francis and have not heard back. So I am only left to turn to the public square.

Do you have another suggestion?

God bless

 

[Rau]

The 1975 and 1973 documents while “technically correct” by including unfounded concepts and confusing layout have strongly sent the incorrect message. I believe that was the intention of the drafters.

What incorrect message? That some persons experience a predominate or exclusive attraction to the same sex? Please note that the word “experience” is critical - it goes to state of mind, to the “experience” of the individual. It says nothing of etiology.