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

[Thorolfr]

rampant violence, STD’s, cancers from the misuse of certain organs, incredible promiscuity, exhibitionism, narcissism, substance abuse, higher suicide rate, ageism (meaning when the bloom of youth is faded you are thrown away) and what is worse, pederastic recruitment of young people into a bad lifestyle.

There are heterosexual people who do and experience all those things, too. Do you think it has something to do with being heterosexual?

 

[Rau]

So what do studies and statistics depend on, if not anecdotal evidence? The results cited in studies and statistics are pretty grim. I’m tired of repeating them: rampant violence, STD’s, cancers from the misuse of certain organs, incredible promiscuity, exhibitionism, narcissism, substance abuse, higher suicide rate, ageism (meaning when the bloom of youth is faded you are thrown away) and what is worse, pederastic recruitment of young people into a bad lifestyle.

The issue was the “cause of SSA”, not the consequences of “certain sexual practices”.

 

[Rau]

• erm I have heard of events in institutions, including on board ship
• attraction is attraction, including non-sexualised
• do you know where prurience as a characteristic of authority comes from?

This is not constructive. You’re not addressing issues I put to you, so I won’t engage further with you until that changes.

 

[Rau]

1975 Persona Humana:

OK except:

• weird ref. in opening section to “scientific research”.

I see nothing weird.

• in section VIII identifying two categories of people who have been going in for homosexuality. I don’t think they are distinct categories and that various individuals will be anywhere in that continuum. The rest of the section applies to all of them anyway. This is one of John’s points and not his only true one either.

The “categories” you refer to are relevant, given that it is noted that one of these is being connected with or used to justify relationships akin to marriage. A distinction is also made in the level of culpability that may attach to persons according to their circumstances. This is NOT anything the OP addressed - his objection (to “categories”) was to the idea of “exclusive” SSA vs. non-exclusive - classes constructed on an entirely different basis.

1986 Letter to the Bishops … on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons:

• Right away title prominently establishes ambiguous criterion. It should read say “In cases of homosexuality”

What ambiguity - pastoral care is needed by many persons who experience SSA, whether or not they engage in wrong behaviour.

• weird ref. to natural sciences para 2

It’s not weird.

• in para 3, establishing a “homosexual condition”. Whilst acknowledging that a debate had been bringing this concept in, this para does not do what it should be doing to critique it. It should say “ingrained homosexual habit” or something.

This would be to pretend there is no SSA [which seems to be your thesis].

• in para 3, “intrinsic moral evil” and “objective disorder” are made to depend on “inclination” and “tendency”, neither of which are defined.

Intrinsic moral evil is a well-defined theological concept. It is a description for human acts that are “always wrong to choose”. There is no dependence on “inclination”, only the acts themselves, regardless of Circumstances or Intention. The inclination is an “objective disorder” - you can understand that in the ordinary sense of the language, or you can understand it as an inclination “disordered by virtue of its object”. [Sexual attractions are not wrong; sexual attractions *to the same sex are disordered.] If you are unclear of the definition of “inclination” or “tendency”, consider your own sexuality and see if it becomes clear.

Scripture has explained for 1,900 years the way temptation, sin and perdition interlock. Those who become part of the church are called to eschew sin, not anything else.

Correct. SSA creates a field in which the devil can deliver temptation. Most of us never face this temptation because our natural sexual interest lie elsewhere. All need to eschew temptations, and for some, while SSA may persist, they can eschew sin.

• in para 6 I think a more precise phrase could have been found than “behave in a homosexual fashion”

• para 8, “condition”, same as para 3, not enough critique.

Only because you hold the view SSA is not real. The Church accepts it exists, and judges it “disordered”.

• paras 10 and 12 and parts of 13 and also 15, “homosexual persons” and “Christians who are homosexual” - better paraphrases should have been found in the light of the statement in para 16 that the church refuses to call someone “a homosexual”.

The document reads:

*Today, the Church provides a badly needed context for the care of the human person when she refuses to consider the person as a “heterosexual” or a “homosexual” and insists that every person has a fundamental Identity: the creature of God, and by grace, his child and heir to eternal life.*The document uses the expression “homosexual person(s)” 15 times. It could have been replaced with “persons who experience SSA and may or may not engage in homosexual behaviours…”. The point being made is all persons have a common identity and a common reference under a common law and, potentially, a common inheritance.

 

[zamyrabyrd]

The issue was the “cause of SSA”, not the consequences of “certain sexual practices”.

An overwhelming cause admitted by them is recruitment by older persons. This is called imprinting. So much of gender identity and sexuality is a process of socialization, how to be men or women by caregivers and the larger society. If the modelling is not there as in two women who bring up male children or two men who bring up females, it is a gross deprivation.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

This is not constructive. You’re not addressing issues I put to you, so I won’t engage further with you until that changes.

I am addressing them. My 900 + posts on various subjects are there to be read and discussion by members on them followed by you and all readers.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

I see nothing weird.

There is no point to the “appeal to science”.

The “categories” you refer to are relevant, given that it is noted that one of these is being connected with or used to justify relationships akin to marriage.

Yes which is why a wider context would have helped weaken the categories being read into this subject by the world and better affirm deeper insights.

A distinction is also made in the level of culpability that may attach to persons according to their circumstances.

Yes, but it’s a continuum.

This is NOT anything the OP addressed - his objection (to “categories”) was to the idea of “exclusive” SSA vs. non-exclusive - classes constructed on an entirely different basis.

Yes, but I sense he is also concerned about the way the categorisation is being done and not being done, overall.

What ambiguity - pastoral care is needed by many persons who experience SSA, whether or not they engage in wrong behaviour.

I now go back to my previous idea of drawing a wider context some fashion> It’s about
how categories need to be or are establsihed.

(more in next)

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

…

It’s not weird.

As before. In fact if it was meant to be a response to outsiders’ reference to science they should have explained what science does and what other sources of insight do.

This would be to pretend there is no SSA [which seems to be your thesis].

**The fact that both you and I read different things into the term “condition” with me not sure at all what they are on about at this point, as millions of others weren’t either, shows it isn’t a very helpful wording.

And no it isn’t my thesis and nowhere have I stated that it was as you can verify by checking my 900 + mostly well worded posts.**

Intrinsic moral evil is a well-defined theological concept. It is a description for human acts that are “always wrong to choose”. There is no dependence on “inclination”, only the acts themselves, regardless of Circumstances or Intention. The inclination is an “objective disorder” - you can understand that in the ordinary sense of the language, or you can understand it as an inclination “disordered by virtue of its object”. [Sexual attractions are not wrong; sexual attractions *to the same sex

are disordered.]

Yes. The wording just doesn’t lead us thoroughly enough through this. Also you don’t often enough get bishops writing or being written to about how superstition is disordered and an instrinsic evil, or mob rule, or power grabbing. These have also damaged me as a church member. The church misses too many tricks.

If you are unclear of the definition of “inclination” or “tendency”, consider your own sexuality and see if it becomes clear.

If they want to say lust they should say lust. Or something. What the **** is an inclination or tendency. Don’t forget these are Italians and this is badly translated.

Correct. SSA creates a field in which the devil can deliver temptation. Most of us never face this temptation because our natural sexual interest lie elsewhere. All need to eschew temptations, and for some, while SSA may persist, they can eschew sin.

Exactly. You have put (part of) it rather better than they put (the whole of) it.

…

Only because you hold the view SSA is not real. The Church accepts it exists, and judges it “disordered”.

**Not only have I not held the view, I have not stated I held the view either. Please take ALL the trouble to totally verify !!!

And the Church doesn’t judge it disordered when it’s not sexualised. Please check the very very many threads started by others. Please understand where those others are coming from, what they are taking the trouble to check out, what is valuable to them, and respect it.**

…

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

Thorolf,

Because one doesn’t think there has been a “trauma” doesn’t mean one should suddenly look for reasons to put people’s parents in the slammer. Look at my family story and none of it was my great grandparents’, grandparents’ or parents’ fault.

Zamyra has brought up some vital points. There is imprinting of two kinds:

• directly into the sensory memory
• the learned pattern of interaction (all sorts of patterns, with “all sorts” of results having in common slowed growth)

There are cases of an older person grooming a younger one, maybe in an immature half-conscious way, and cases of youngsters importuning each other in this matter. In the latter case, it is sometimes possibly easier to leave it behind as they grow but I’ll not stick my neck out as I haven’t been there. (There is also a risk of others pressuring them to continue.)

I am fortunate I was passed over by those (older and who undoubtedly knew better) picking on other boys.

The sensory memory factor is what deterred me on (one or two) other occasions from taking the path of those activities.

The reason Jesus teaches us to eschew sin is it can snag us when we need to trust Him on a bad day.

 

[zamyrabyrd]

Thorolf,

…There is imprinting of two kinds:

• directly into the sensory memory
• the learned pattern of interaction (all sorts of patterns, with “all sorts” of results having in common slowed growth)

There are cases of an older person grooming a younger one, maybe in an immature half-conscious way, and cases of youngsters importuning each other in this matter. In the latter case, it is sometimes possibly easier to leave it behind as they grow but I’ll not stick my neck out as I haven’t been there. (There is also a risk of others pressuring them to continue.)

This is exactly the reason why normalization of homosexuality has no business in the schools, given the many strands of influences that make for self-image. Socialization is a more credible theory than “born that way” in the absence of any genetic proof. The schools’ hijacking what used to be the domain of the home and church is a pernicious development, socialist in nature, giving the state the option to decide morals and in this case, not even based on any kind of science, only prejudice and catering to special interest groups.

 

[spiderweb]

Originally posted by zamyrabyrd
Just to chime in with “sick persons” – this is still not behavior. One can identify as American, Chinese, or vegetarian but these are not on the level of behavior. (Post #67)

As the OP has stated, his problem is with the Catechism of the Catholic Church. There is only one sentence where the Church uses the words “homosexual persons” in the Catechism.

Homosexual persons are called to chastity. (CCC 2359)

That’s it. In this sentence, it is used in exactly the same manner in the CCC as “sick persons” and “handicapped persons” as previously quoted. Homosexual sex is a behavior.
“Homosexual persons” is not a behavior.

My questions from Post #66 are valid questions.

Originally posted by Joe 5859
You are speaking of the philosophical notion of “personhood.” You are saying that to use the phrase “homosexual person” is to ascribe “homosexualness” as being an intrinsic and inseparable component of an individual’s personhood. You believe that is not possible and so you reject the phrase “homosexual person”.

I don’t see a response from the OP on this, nor has he articulated it in this manner, but I do believe that you are correct and this is the main issue. Look for another thread soon on this topic, as this one has gone in a different direction.

 

[on_the_hill]

Can someone encapsulate, with an economy of words, what this thread is about?

 

[spiderweb]

Can someone encapsulate, with an economy of words, what this thread is about?

It’s supposed to be about Post #1 and Post #15, but there have been some rather long rabbit trails along the way.

 

[jjr9]

Can someone encapsulate, with an economy of words, what this thread is about?

This is not now and never has been complicated.

The Church makes a simple declarative statement in the 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. For me the predominate “homosexual person” is irrational how could one have SSA
and OSA and be homosexual. I believe the exclusive “homosexual person” is a myth that the Church
has accepted in error. I believe no one is incapable of OSA.

If people obfuscate the issue I have no control of that, but if it is helpful to them I have no objection. I will
just not participate.

I cannot tell you why anyone else is here. For nine years I had sought to resolve my concern within the
Church magisterium and in various ways being told, go away kid don’t bother me, without my concern
being addressing. I am left to the public square. I am a son of the Church, I am not a parrot, and believe
the Church is wrong to ignore me. If I believe my brother is correct I will agree if I believe my brother is
wrong I let him know, for his sake even if it upsets him. I am also willing to listen to my brother because
I don’t know everything.

If you know something of substance beyond word of mouth to support the mythical “homosexual
person” or something in the Sacred Deposit of Faith that suggests an exclusive SSA that would be
very helpful.

My Bishop and my brothers in the CDF have yet to address my concern, I would be happy if you would
join me in having the Church address this concern. Maybe your Bishop could be more helpful.

I tried to use as few words as I could.

God bless

 

[Oneofthewomen]

I believe no one is incapable of OSA.

You can believe whatever you want. That does not make it true and/or correct.

Whether or not you believe in people being incapable of being attracted to the opposite sex, quite frankly, is irrelevant.

Same sex attraction is as real, and it is experienced as a predominate trait in more than a few people. Wishing it away, and disbelieving it will not make it unreal.

 

[Brygida]

This is not now and never has been complicated.

The Church makes a simple declarative statement in the 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. For me the predominate “homosexual person” is irrational how could one have SSA
and OSA and be homosexual. I believe the exclusive “homosexual person” is a myth that the Church
has accepted in error. I believe no one is incapable of OSA.

If people obfuscate the issue I have no control of that, but if it is helpful to them I have no objection. I will
just not participate.

I cannot tell you why anyone else is here. For nine years I had sought to resolve my concern within the
Church magisterium and in various ways being told, go away kid don’t bother me, without my concern
being addressing. I am left to the public square. I am a son of the Church, I am not a parrot, and believe
the Church is wrong to ignore me. If I believe my brother is correct I will agree if I believe my brother is
wrong I let him know, for his sake even if it upsets him. I am also willing to listen to my brother because
I don’t know everything.

If you know something of substance beyond word of mouth to support the mythical “homosexual
person” or something in the Sacred Deposit of Faith that suggests an exclusive SSA that would be
very helpful.

My Bishop and my brothers in the CDF have yet to address my concern, I would be happy if you would
join me in having the Church address this concern. Maybe your Bishop could be more helpful.

I tried to use as few words as I could.

God bless

Firstly, please excuse my English, as I am quite out of practice.

In reading your comments, it seems to me that the dissidence you express with this specific issue in the Catechism is not only precise in its point of contention, but also rather consuming in nature. Obviously this is of great concern to you, which leads me to ponder what motivation underscores the desire for this particular change. I wonder if you might be so kind as to indulge my curiosity by answering a couple of questions that would satisfy that curiosity.

Very often, dedication of the magnitude you demonstrate is grounded in personal experience. Please feel free to decline, but would you mind sharing if you or someone close to you has experienced same sex attraction?

I would assume, based upon your contention, that you feel same sex attraction can be resolved or corrected if all persons are capable of experiencing attraction to the opposite sex. (Please correct me if I am wrong.) Would you see the endorsement of reparative therapies as a desirable outcome of a revised Catechism?

 

[jjr9]

Firstly, please excuse my English, as I am quite out of practice.

Thank you for taking time to reply. Your English is fine I am certain that I could not communicate in your
native language at all. I do recommend Google translate it works quite well.

In reading your comments, it seems to me that the dissidence you express with this specific issue in the Catechism is not only precise in its point of contention, but also rather consuming in nature. Obviously this is of great concern to you, which leads me to ponder what motivation underscores the desire for this particular change. I wonder if you might be so kind as to indulge my curiosity by answering a couple of questions that would satisfy that curiosity.

I do not believe the Church has the authority to present what is false asTruth. In this case I believe the
Church has made an error. I believe that this error is at attempt to appease the LGBT orthodoxy in this
age of political correctness.

Someone once recommended the virtue of docility to me. Jesus always exemplified the proper place of
docility. I can only think of a couple of reasons that caused Our Lord to set docility aside and that was
corruption of His “church” Judaism; examples being the money changers in the temple and his correction
of the hypocritical Sadducees and Pharisees, and the corruption of children. I believe that if a lie of Satan is
being presented as Truth in the Lord’s, Church teaching, docility is not a virtue but a disgrace.

Very often, dedication of the magnitude you demonstrate is grounded in personal experience. Please feel free to decline, but would you mind sharing if you or someone close to you has experienced same sex attraction?

I cannot tell you what brings any particular person to any specific sinful behavior. I am certain that some
people I know have a problem with SSA. No one recently has asked to discuss their sexuality with me and
I don’t pry. Back in the seventies I had a slight acquaintance with a fellow who did want to discuss what for
him was a problem with SSA. I encouraged him not to pursue it I did ask if he thought people were destined
for SSA and he thought not. This person had a problem with drugs as well perhaps I could have done more
to help. I have no idea what happened to this person but I have kept him in my prayers.

I would assume, based upon your contention, that you feel same sex attraction can be resolved or corrected if all persons are capable of experiencing attraction to the opposite sex. (Please correct me if I am wrong.) Would you see the endorsement of reparative therapies as a desirable outcome of a revised Catechism?

I believe all things are possible with the Grace the Lord is willing to give but will not force us to take. I
don’t think the Church’s mission is therapy. I believe the Church’s mission is to present the Truth. All
people have Freewill, the only gift from the Lord that cannot be refused. If people chose to use therapy
to help themselves I have no objections. Ultimately we will all face the Lord I pray that the Lord knows
me when I do.

God bless

 

[randomuser]

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

Amen, brother. Enough already with the confusing term “SSA.” Why not just say homosexual or gay?

 

[Rau]

Amen, brother. Enough already with the confusing term “SSA.” Why not just say homosexual or gay?

Because "homosexual or “gay” is often assumed to imply the embracing of same sex sexual relationships, whereas to experience SSA carries no such implication. This is simply the way the words are often understood.

 

[Joe_5859]

This is not now and never has been complicated.

The Church makes a simple declarative statement in the 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. For me the predominate “homosexual person” is irrational how could one have SSA
and OSA and be homosexual. I believe the exclusive “homosexual person” is a myth that the Church
has accepted in error. I believe no one is incapable of OSA.

If people obfuscate the issue I have no control of that, but if it is helpful to them I have no objection. I will
just not participate.

I cannot tell you why anyone else is here. For nine years I had sought to resolve my concern within the
Church magisterium and in various ways being told, go away kid don’t bother me, without my concern
being addressing. I am left to the public square. I am a son of the Church, I am not a parrot, and believe
the Church is wrong to ignore me. If I believe my brother is correct I will agree if I believe my brother is
wrong I let him know, for his sake even if it upsets him. I am also willing to listen to my brother because
I don’t know everything.

If you know something of substance beyond word of mouth to support the mythical “homosexual
person” or something in the Sacred Deposit of Faith that suggests an exclusive SSA that would be
very helpful.

My Bishop and my brothers in the CDF have yet to address my concern, I would be happy if you would
join me in having the Church address this concern. Maybe your Bishop could be more helpful.

I tried to use as few words as I could.

God bless

I am trying very hard to understand exactly what your problem is and I am evidently just not getting it. The Church isn’t asserting some formal official dogmatic definition of “homosexual persons” (as it is rendered in English, which isn’t the original language of the Catechism anyway).

It is simply describing something people experience (i.e. predominant or exclusive attraction to someone of the same sex) and saying that such people need to practice chastity. Do you disagree that people experience such attractions? Do you disagree that they are called to chastity? If not, then there is no issue to be resolved for you.

I feel like you’re saying the Church is teaching something it never set out to teach and then disagreeing with it. There’s no need to do that. And coming to this forum and saying that the Church is teaching something it isn’t actually teaching has the potential to confuse any onlookers. If you haven’t received any answers through official channels in the years you have been pursuing this, my hunch would be that it is because they likewise do not see any issue to be resolved at all. I would encourage you to take that as your answer and move on from this issue.