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

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

…

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.

This should stop after “or between women”. It is nothing to do with attraction.

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.

This is a separate question and is confirmed by testimony which is good enough evidence - not science please note Rau.

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.

The very crafty false drafting was done deliberately in 1975 and 1993.

I understand that Pope Francis has also said “if someone is gay who am I to judge” and supports this section of the CCC. …

To be fair he did use the phrase “and is chaste and is trying to do what Scriptures say” in the middle of this sentence.

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”.

Since when was it so sensational that most people in a particular place or time were wrong about something?

As far as I know self-identification is what brings a “homosexual person” into existence.

It isn’t. It was Freud and some colleagues.

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.

People have got to identify themselves if they wish. You should acknowledge the distinction between that and claiming to invent a category.

…

 

[Rau]

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

Homosexual persons are persons who experience predominate or exclusive same sex attractions. By all accounts, these exist.

And Vic, science can verify the reality of sexual attraction and determine that the subject is not lying. Science currently hgas very little understanding of why anyone would have such an experience, given it is contrary to their body. However, science also does not know why most of us are sexually attracted to the opposite sex, however that appears to be quite real too.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

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.

The theologically irrrelevant introduction of the “attraction” concept into morality. Arguably it could have been acknowledged as far as it is sometimes an element in the context, in the 1975 document, but no more than that.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

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

I think on balance John is mostly reasoning, discussing and debating. His initial “question” was far too oblique and came over as very sarcastic.

Most of you weren’t building on the findings of the previous threads until the last few posts…

 

[Rau]

The theologically irrrelevant introduction of the “attraction” concept into morality. Arguably it could have been acknowledged as far as it is sometimes an element in the context, in the 1975 document, but no more than that.

Please name the “1975 document”.

The reality of “attraction” may influence culpability and so is not theologically irrelevant. Acknowledging the reality of the experience of SSA (something which precedes temptation) is compassionate, but I agree it is not necessary to merely state the dividing line between moral and immoral acts.

In my experience, most people who balk at accepting SSA as something real, preceding temptation, do so out of concern that its existence could imply some support for the idea that the associated behaviour is “right” for that person. Of course that is theologically false. Is this what concerns you about acknowledging SSA?

 

[Joe_5859]

Thank you for taking time to reply.

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.

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

Again, I think you are way overthinking this. I use the term “homosexual person” and “person experiencing same sex attraction” interchangeably. Using the phrase “gay person” is no different from using phrases like “short person” or “beautiful person” or “silly person.” It’s an adjective.

Are you trying to get at the idea that being homosexual is not intrinsic to a person’s identity? If that is your point, I would tend to agree and I don’t see where anything in Church documents would contradict that notion. But if it did, I think you’d be better off getting on the side of the Church documents rather than formulating your own contrarian theories.

I would encourage you to be careful. Your seem to be creating a problem where none exists by saying the Church is teaching something it is not teaching and then disagreeing with it. That could scandalize others into questioning the Church’s authority for no good reason.

 

[Rau]

I think on balance John is mostly reasoning, discussing and debating. His initial “question” was far too oblique and came over as very sarcastic.

Most of you weren’t building on the findings of the previous threads until the last few posts…

The previous threads largely exposed the flaws in the OP’s interpretation of the CCC and the false implications the OP drew from his interpretation. Thd OP sets the agenda for the thread. So who is it that is not building on what came before?

Review his threads. He does not respond to cogent argument, other than to restate, often word for word, prior positions.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

Rau, John does tend to do that somewhat but not all the time. His interpretations of the relevant paras. in the CCC and the other doc. are largely not wrong.

Thank you everybody for getting this thread on track and thank you Thorolf for that link - seems to be a 1986 doc., for some reason I had the date 1975 in my head.

It strikes me they would have been better advised to issue a doc. about “Pastoral Care In Situations of Unchastity” or something like that - it would even have been more “equal” !!!

 

[3DOCTORS]

Not to derail the thread, but the whole “self-identified” concept is quite likely to be the result of our self-focused society. There are many ways we “identify” our selves, from the sublime to the ridiculous. In the end, only one matters:

Child of God, made in His image and likeness.

Everything else is something you have as the result of general human nature, health or lack thereof, situation, personal preference, etc. Examples: You have predominantly heterosexual or homosexual or some other type of sexual attractions. You have an unhealthy desire to consume more alcohol than you should. You have diabetes. You have blue eyes or brown eyes. You are a “cat person” not a “dog person.”

We are unique, we live in a fallen world, we have crosses to carry or we’re blessed with relatively few - but none of that is who we ARE. But the world tells us we have to have all these labels or we’re nobody, undefined, we don’t fit in . . .

You see, the problem is when we mistake the “accidents” of life for the “substance” of who we really are. :twocents:

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

Again, I think you are way overthinking this. I use the term “homosexual person” and “person experiencing same sex attraction” interchangeably.

**- The H word other than as an action is a Freudian category (caste). You can use it as much as you want but know what it is doing.

• SSA is just that. It isn’t necessarily sexualised let alone acted out. Again be as sloppy as you like but know it’s sloppy and disrespectful to those who carefully and sincerely chose an accurate account of their experience.**

Using the phrase “gay person” is no different from using phrases like “short person” or “beautiful person” or “silly person.” It’s an adjective.

It’s an adjective but it changes meaning every few seconds, frequently in the same sentence. It is also about creating a caste system. Again be free but knowing.

Are you trying to get at the idea that being homosexual is not intrinsic to a person’s identity? If that is your point, I would tend to agree and I don’t see where anything in Church documents would contradict that notion.

They are craftily worded to largely be “technically correct”.

But if it did, I think you’d be better off getting on the side of the Church documents rather than formulating your own contrarian theories.

I would encourage you to be careful. Your seem to be creating a problem where none exists by saying the Church is teaching something it is not teaching and then disagreeing with it. That could scandalize others into questioning the Church’s authority for no good reason.

The most important of John’s theories are not as “contrarian” as you think. By juxtaposition of inappropriate categories the incorrect message is strongly given. Vulnerable people have been messed up by all this, as was intended, so we owe it to them to be sharp and not naive. I don’t think there will be more than a holding reply from the Dicasteries about this till further notice. Joe and John both, the best we can be is to be salt and light to the chaste and unchaste around us (whether it’s any of our business to know the difference), of any caste and no caste, and love the folks in our various local church groups just like Jesus asks. People “shack up” because they’re lonely - Jesus asks us to visit the lonely in pairs.

 

[Rau]

…It strikes me they would have been better advised to issue a doc. about “Pastoral Care In Situations of Unchastity” or something like that - it would even have been more “equal” !!!

You are referring to the CDF document. A document as broad as you suggest would have been received as “avoiding reality”, “avoiding the elephant in the room”, or denying it. The Church was dealing with a more complex situation than presented by other instances of a lack of chastity:

• a movement arguing that homosexual acts are “proper” and should be accepted;
• “love” being used as a rationalization for wrong acts;
• an environment of unjust discrimination directed at persons experiencing SSA;
• persons experiencing SSA in the above climate and struggling with the question of “maybe it’s ok”;

It should be clear that this instance of a “challenge to chastity” is quite unique and could not be directly addressed in the completely “general” way you suggest. The Church was right to acknowledge the reality. The overwhelming criticism of the Church is not for this, but for its unbending upholding of moral truth, and for the use of obscure and seemingly harsh language in describing the inclination and the acts.

 

[on_the_hill]

Your seem to be creating a problem where none exists by saying the Church is teaching something it is not teaching and then disagreeing with it.

Like something from “Catch-22.”

 

[Rau]

Vic, you wrote:

“By juxtaposition of inappropriate categories the incorrect message is strongly given. Vulnerable people have been messed up by all this, as was intended…”

What is the inappropriate message?

What was intended (by the Bishops responsible for the CCC)?

 

[jjr9]

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???

It is not clear to me what you are saying. Do you believe the “homosexual person” defined by the Church
is real? I do not. I believe that this is an error by the Church.

God bless

 

[Rau]

It is not clear to me what you are saying. Do you believe the “homosexual person” defined by the Church
is real? I do not. I believe that this is an error by the Church.

God bless

Vic - please note the above.

Avoidance of discussion; repetition of own view.

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

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

If I am understanding your question correctly, you do not believe the Church should recognize people that self-identify as homosexual persons, correct? As far as I know, saying someone is a “homosexual person” simply means that they have homosexual tendencies. Similar to saying “schizophrenic person” or “retarded person”. However, I do not believe that homosexuality defines who a person is, as the homosexuals often claim, anymore than other mental disorders do.

 

[on_the_hill]

This is a senseless discussion. i should probably stop reading it but it’s almost entertaining

 

[zamyrabyrd]

Not to derail the thread, but the whole “self-identified” concept is quite likely to be the result of our self-focused society. There are many ways we “identify” our selves, from the sublime to the ridiculous. In the end, only one matters:

Child of God, made in His image and likeness.

Everything else is something you have as the result of general human nature, health or lack thereof, situation, personal preference, etc. Examples: You have predominantly heterosexual or homosexual or some other type of sexual attractions. You have an unhealthy desire to consume more alcohol than you should. You have diabetes. You have blue eyes or brown eyes. You are a “cat person” not a “dog person.”

We are unique, we live in a fallen world, we have crosses to carry or we’re blessed with relatively few - but none of that is who we ARE. But the world tells us we have to have all these labels or we’re nobody, undefined, we don’t fit in . . .

You see, the problem is when we mistake the “accidents” of life for the “substance” of who we really are. :twocents:

THANK YOU SO MUCH!!! To define oneself as what sex we happen to be attracted to is CRASS. I am just ME, that’s ALL!!! God defines who I am. I have to live up to THAT!

 

[Rau]

THANK YOU SO MUCH!!! To define oneself as what sex we happen to be attracted to is CRASS.

I don’t know whether “crass” is the word for it, but definitions are normally somewhat comprehensive, or capturing key information about a thing. I should think it is nigh-on impossible to “define a person” in one word. At best, such a word tells us about some characteristic. Some of these characteristics might be “important to know” in a wide range of contexts, others important in a limited range of contexts, others entirely unimportant.

I am just ME, that’s ALL!!! God defines who I am. I have to live up to THAT!

While I am not entirely clear on your meaning…if you see your highest duty as being to God, as represented by his law and the guidance of his Church, it is hard to go far wrong.

 

[zamyrabyrd]

I don’t know whether “crass” is the word for it, but definitions are normally somewhat comprehensive, or capturing key information about a thing. I should think it is nigh-on impossible to “define a person” in one word. At best, such a word tells us about some characteristic. Some of these characteristics might be “important to know” in a wide range of contexts, others important in a limited range of contexts, others entirely unimportant.
While I am not entirely clear on your meaning…if you see your highest duty as being to God, as represented by his law and the guidance of his Church, it is hard to go far wrong.

I don’t think anyone apart from close relations perhaps needs to know who or what a person is sexually attracted to. This is private information that doesn’t need to be broadcast. This is too much spoken about publicly, frequently degenerating into what would be rude or embarrassing years past.

In the 1950’s for some reason it was considered more beautiful for a woman to have yellow hair, so women were pegged as either a “blonde” or a 'brunette". Thank goodness that is over with. Packages of values also make conservatives into one compact identity and liberals as a conflicting bloc with nothing in between. The error is over simplification.

Maybe we could have a moratorium on speaking about homosexuality in the media 24/7, although transgender has somewhat overtaken it. One day a week blank out of that subject would be nice, Time was when we didn’t hear about it every flaming day. We could smell the flowers instead, enjoy the birds and maybe even discuss Bible verses.