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

[spiderweb]

jjr9:

Since you’re only response to my explanations in the previous thread forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=988182&page=3 specifically Post #13 and #35 was “I had no comment”. And your complete lack of acknowledgement in this thread to Post #66.

I have to conclude that you are not interested in Truth, even though you claim that you are. You are not interested in hearing any explanation other than your own. I’m open to the fact that I may be incorrect, but apparently you can’t find any fault in it, otherwise you would have said so.

In this instance, I’m going to do as Jesus commanded in Matthew 7:6

God Bless

 

[jjr9]

jjr9:

Since you’re only response to my explanations in the previous thread forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=988182&page=3 specifically Post #13 and #35 was “I had no comment”. And your complete lack of acknowledgement in this thread to Post #66.

I have to conclude that you are not interested in Truth, even though you claim that you are. You are not interested in hearing any explanation other than your own. I’m open to the fact that I may be incorrect, but apparently you can’t find any fault in it, otherwise you would have said so.

I am interested in Truth I did actually respond to “Post # 13” see: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13473061&postcount=17
Since several people thought that “Post # 13” in the other thread was significant I will respond to it here:

What causes you to believe that your own statement that all people are capable of sexual OSA is true beyond self-identification?

As far as know I the Church doesn’t comment on this my concern is what the Church is claiming to be Truth.

]I personally know several people who have said that they are exclusively attracted to people of the same sex and they believe that since God created them that way, then he would want them to have a loving sexual relationship with a person of the same sex.

Of course everyone has Freewill and can believe anything they would like. I am interested in
what the Church is claiming to be Truth if you can reference something in Church teaching about
what you are saying I would be happy to discuss it with you.

So when I read the Church’s definition with that in mind, I see that the Church is very clear that this section of the Catechism includes, and is directed towards, even those people who are most likely to claim that it is not for them.

If you can cite where the Church had this in mind I would be happy to discuss it with you.

Furthermore in their definition they do not say that there are men and women “who are exclusively SSA…” and therefore incapable of OSA. Rather the definition states that there are men and women “who experience an exclusive…”.

I don’t understand the difference between someone who is exclusively SSA and someone who
experiences an exclusive SSA.

Experience is always subjective to the person who is experiencing; therefore it necessitates self-identification of that experience by that person. But for any number of reasons, the conclusions of the experience may or may not be true and the conclusion could be true for one person and false for another person. Even for the same person, it could be true at some point in their life, and false at another point in their life. It’s completely subjective.

While a person may have only experienced an exclusive SSA throughout their life, it does not follow that for the rest of their entire life that same person will always continue to experience an exclusive SSA. The Church is not claiming that they are incapable of OSA, merely that the person’s subjective experience is exclusively or predominantly SSA . Experience is completely subjective and subject to change with each experience.

A person may exclusively experience SSA and then one day the right OS person enters their life and surprisingly they find that their experiential exclusivity, which up to that point was true, is no longer true. But on the other hand, that same person may only experience exclusively SSA for their entire life. That doesn’t mean they are incapable of OSA, it simply means they never experienced it.

Therefore I have no problem accepting that what the Church is claiming to be true by their definition, is indeed true; that some people experience an exclusive or predominant SSA. The Church is not claiming anything beyond that in their definition. This also is not a promotion by the Church of the “homosexual person”, rather it is acknowledging that this is a real experience for many people. In order to address any issue, the issue itself first has to be acknowledged and defined. And perhaps sometimes the definition itself needs to be defined and clarified.

As far as I know the Church doesn’t have a time component attached to the exclusive SSA the
predominate SSA could accommodate such a thing. My concern only has to do with the claim
of exclusive SSA by the Church.

Hopefully this properly addressed your concern.

Not really do you know something of substance beyond word of mouth that supports the idea
of exclusive SSA or something in the Sacred Deposit of Faith that references exclusive SSA?

Just wanted to clarify this. Both SSA and OSA can lead to Agape Love or temptation to sin. Christ said “Love (agape) one another as I have loved (agape) you” (John 13:34). Agape love does not necessarily lead to marriage, nor in most cases to a physical sexual expression of that love, otherwise what Christ commanded would not make sense. You seem to be under the impression that SSA is necessarily lustful and a temptation in and of itself, but if that were the case OSA would also always be lustful and a temptation in itself. No, Christ commanded us to agape love both same sex and opposite sex. He would not have commanded something which is sinful in and of itself. Agape love may sometimes include a sexual expression, but agape goes beyond sex.

I addressed this in Post 17 in the previous thread.

In this instance, I’m going to do as Jesus commanded in Matthew 7:6

God Bless

I hope the Lord didn’t have me in mind it has never been my intent to dismiss or offend you.

God bless and have a Blessed Christmas

 

[Rau]

As far as know I the Church doesn’t comment on this my concern is what the Church is claiming to be Truth.

While the Church does not claim that all people are capable of OSA, it also does not claim that a persons are capable of an exclusive OSA. It only observes that this is their experience.

*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 am interested in what the Church is claiming to be Truth if you can reference something

And what the Church claims, is that some men and women **experience **… etc.

I don’t understand the difference between someone who is exclusively SSA and someone who experiences an exclusive SSA.

Your claim was that the Church claimed persons were incapable of OSA. Nowhere does the Church say or imply this. The fact that one experiences (at some point in time) only SSA simply says nothing about what is actually possible for any person, at that time, or any other time.

As far as I know the Church doesn’t have a time component attached to the exclusive SSA the predominate SSA could accommodate such a thing. My concern only has to do with the claim of exclusive SSA by the Church.

Bear in mind that, despite your contrary views, the Church is not teaching about the nature of the affliction of SSA/homosexuality. The Church knows not the cause, nor whether it is permanent, nor whether there are, or can be, effective treatments. Science does not know these things - and as these are matters of science, the Church certainly does not know. What the Church DOES teach is independent of any of these things.
See also forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13470351&postcount=14

…do you know something…in the Sacred Deposit of Faith that references exclusive SSA?

SSA is not a matter of faith and morals. It is in the realm of the medical and/or psychological sciences. Why would you hope to find the subject in the Deposit of Faith?

 

[HelenRose]

The Church is no less and no more kind to those with same sex attraction as to those who are attracted to the opposite sex.

The challenge is the same. Sex is for procreation and bonding of the father and the mother for the welfare of their children within marriage.

How simple and yet how difficult is that?

It is just as much a sin for a heterosexual to ignore this challenge as it is for a homosexual to ignore this challenge.

 

[Rau]

There are typos in the first part of my Post #104. I rewrite it here:

There is no basis to assert that every person is capable of experiencing OSA (notwithstanding that is what one would expect, given the design of our bodies), and the Church does not address that question. Similarly, the Church does not claim that any person is incapable of OSA. It only observes that there are persons with a certain personal experience, viz:
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex

 

[spiderweb]

jjr9:

Thanks for the response, now there is something to work with. “Water under the bridge” as they say. I’ll just add to what Rau said with the following.

Originally Posted by jjr9
I don’t understand the difference between someone who is exclusively SSA and someone who experiences an exclusive SSA.

1. Saying that someone “IS” exclusively SSA would be saying exactly what you believe the Church is saying. This would be a statement of fact that a person is only capable of exclusive SSA and that because of that, they would be incapable of OSA. This would never change because this “IS” what someone is exclusively attracted to. This is set in stone.

Saying a person “IS” exclusively SSA is an objective truth claim about the “person” .

1. Saying that someone “experiences” an exclusive SSA would be saying that in that individual’s experience, it is an exclusive SSA. This is not making any statement of what a person is or is not capable of. Experiences can change. How we view experiences can change. How we react to experiences can change. This is not set in stone.

Saying a person “experiences” an exclusive SSA is a subjective truth claim about the “experience”.

#1 is a statement of “Who” the person is by their attraction.
#2 is a statement of “What” the experience is by the person.

Sorry if you don’t understand that distinction. I don’t know how to make that any clearer.

Originally Posted by jjr9
Do you know something of substance beyond word of mouth that supports the idea of exclusive SSA or something in the Sacred Deposit of Faith that references exclusive SSA?

This is part of the problem. Whenever you use the terms “exclusive SSA”, you always mean it in the manner described in #1 above, which you are completely correct in rejecting. However you also impose this view on what the Church says, even though by the Church’s own words, we know it is meant in the manner described in #2 above.

 

[on_the_hill]

If I understand this: jjr9 states that the Curch states that exclusive SSA exists. jjr9 does not believe that the Church speaks the Truth. Therefore, jjr9 is challenging the Church and everyone else to prove that the Church’s statement is true.

jjr9, is there any person or entity that you will accept as speaking the truth on this matter, even if you disagree with it? Is there any proof that you will accept? Or are all arguments that disagree with your position wrong?

So far we’ve seen your example of one person in the 1970s who felt that SSA was reverable and not necessarily exclusive.

 

[Rau]

1. Saying that someone “IS” exclusively SSA would be saying exactly what you believe the Church is saying. This would be a statement of fact that a person is only capable of exclusive SSA and that because of that, they would be incapable of OSA. This would never change because this “IS” what someone is exclusively attracted to. This is set in stone.

Saying a person “IS” exclusively SSA is an objective truth claim about the “person” .

1. Saying that someone “experiences” an exclusive SSA would be saying that in that individual’s experience, it is an exclusive SSA. This is not making any statement of what a person is or is not capable of. Experiences can change. How we view experiences can change. How we react to experiences can change. This is not set in stone.

Saying a person “experiences” an exclusive SSA is a subjective truth claim about the “experience”.

#1 is a statement of “Who” the person is by their attraction.
#2 is a statement of “What” the experience is by the person.

Sorry if you don’t understand that distinction. I don’t know how to make that any clearer.

Whenever you use the terms “exclusive SSA”, you always mean it in the manner described in #1 above, which you are completely correct in rejecting. However you also impose this view on what the Church says, even though by the Church’s own words, we know it is meant in the manner described in #2 above.

Correct. Not only does the Church mean #2, the very language used expresses that meaning. It is just as another poster described it - jjr9 claims the Church says something (#1), which it does not, then sets out to disagree!

On seeing the difference in these 2 statements, jjr9 ought to be relieved, and ought to retract his false claim against the Church.

 

[Rau]

If I understand this: jjr9 states that the Curch states that exclusive SSA exists. jjr9 does not believe that the Church speaks the Truth. Therefore, jjr9 is challenging the Church and everyone else to prove that the Church’s statement is true.

Trouble is, jjr9 has “verballed” the Church, as Spider and I have explained.

What exists is the experience, by individuals, of an exclusive (sexual) interest in the same sex. Whether an individual might discover they can experience something different (given the right circumstances or whatever) be that "now"or sometime later, is not addressed by the Church nor can it be.

 

[jjr9]

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?

I wonder if you might be so kind as to indulge my curiosity by answering a few of questions that would
satisfy that curiosity.

Do you believe anyone incapable of OSA?

Do you believe Satan real, abstract or something else?

If you saw an error by the Lord’s Church how persistent would you be in bringing that error to the attention
of the Lord’s Church?

God bless and happy new year

 

[jjr9]

If I understand this: jjr9 states that the Curch states that exclusive SSA exists. jjr9 does not believe that the Church speaks the Truth. Therefore, jjr9 is challenging the Church and everyone else to prove that the Church’s statement is true.

I believe the Church has made an error. When the Church makes an error I believe the Church should
correct the error as it has in the past. I believe the Church no longer presents as Truth that the world is
flat or the sun circles the earth.

jjr9, is there any person or entity that you will accept as speaking thetruth on this matter, even if you disagree with it?

I am willing to accept Truth from anyone and I have sought to seek clarification from the Lord’s
Church. Do you know how to have the Church provide clarification? I do not disagree with the
Truth this is about Truth and the Lord’s Church.

Is there any proof that you will accept? Or are all arguments that disagree with your position wrong?

If you have something you believe shows that the mythical “homosexual person” is a reality I
am happy to examine it. What do you have? I do not have a dogmatic view.

So far we’ve seen your example of one person in the 1970s who felt that SSA was reverable and not necessarily exclusive.

No one can produce tangible proof of exclusive SSA or reference to exclusive SSA in the Sacred
Deposit of Faith. As well no one can produce tangible proof that something does not exist. People
can put faith in whatever part of the LGBT orthodoxy they would like I believe all of the LGBT orthodoxy
is a lie of Satan. I believe that the Church is in error to accept any part of the LGBT orthodoxy delusion.

I will put my Faith in the Sacred Deposit of Faith I believe the author(s) of CCC 2357 are not in harmony
with the Sacred Deposit of Faith and the Church will correct this error.

St Paul warns against this in Col 2:8

See to it that no one captivate you with an empty, seductive philosophy according to human tradition,
according to the elemental powers of the world* and not according to Christ.f

and Col 3:5

Put to death, then, the parts of you that are earthly:c immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and the
greed that is idolatry.*

I believe that all scripture reference to SSA and SS behavior has a lack of Faith in the Lord involved
and no reference to exclusive SSA. This “new” Church teaching of exclusive SSA comes from whole
cloth that has no reference to a lack of Faith in the Lord. Do you have something to dispute this?

God bless and happy new year

 

[Andrea_Day]

It seem clear that consensus here is that the Church is correct to accept the “homosexual person”
based on self-identification. Should the Church be even handed and show the same respect to all
types of “self-identified persons”?

Why is only the “homosexual person” recognized by the Church?

God bless

The Church loves everyone, of all identities, because Jesus loved everyone so much He died for them. The Church has written more about homosexual persons in particular because other identities are relatively new, and the Church simply hasn’t caught up with modern terminology yet in their official documents.

 

[jjr9]

The Church loves everyone, of all identities, because Jesus loved everyone so much He died for them. The Church has written more about homosexual persons in particular because other identities are relatively new, and the Church simply hasn’t caught up with modern terminology yet in their official documents.

Thanks for taking time to reply. Your position is not clear for me do you believe Jesus wants his Church
to encourage people to believe that they are something that does not exist aka the “homosexual person”?

I do not believe this.

God bless

 

[Rau]

…No one can produce tangible proof of [the experience of?] exclusive SSA or reference to exclusive SSA in the Sacre Deposit of Faith. As well no one can produce tangible proof that something does not exist…

Stop the Presses!!! Does the absence of information in the Deposit of Faith about an aspect of human experience serve to demonstrate said experiences are fraudulent? Consider the consequences!!

 

[Andrea_Day]

Thanks for taking time to reply. Your position is not clear for me do you believe Jesus wants his Church
to encourage people to believe that they are something that does not exist aka the “homosexual person”?

I do not believe this.

God bless

Um, I don’t really understand…you don’t believe the homosexual person exists…you don’t believe in gay people???

Yeah I believe all persons are equally loved by God, and I believe some of those people are homosexual. I’m biromantic asexual myself.

 

[zamyrabyrd]

Thanks for taking time to reply. Your position is not clear for me do you believe Jesus wants his Church to encourage people to believe that they are something that does not exist aka the “homosexual person”?
God bless

Yikes, we have to be aware that the gender agenda is a social engineering ploy to explode the family. This goes much past individuals wanting to live their lives and not bothering anyone.
I could almost accept that but there are flaws:

1. It gives a bad example to children, who might model their lives on something dysfunctional and unhealthy.
2. It makes normal sexuality and relating as just one of the options on a menu, diminishing its importance for the individual and society.
3. It’s phony science pushed through by a social agenda. There is no “born that way” because there is no scientific evidence like gay genes.
4. It inflates the number and importance of marginal identifications like intersex and transgender that until recently was considered dysfunctional, in fact an identity disorder like anorexia.
5. Elevating dysfunction prevents those with identity problems from getting real help since society will not only accept, but applaud them (like a certain ex-athlete).

There are more reasons but I’ll stop here for now. Anyone can see that it is a social ploy because it takes more coverage in the media than war, disaster and starvation. Those with an agenda are the rich and powerful who push these issues on an unsuspecting public, even some religious, appealing to their good will, when in fact it is a Trojan Horse to destroy the society we are living in.

 

[zamyrabyrd]

The Church loves everyone, of all identities, because Jesus loved everyone so much He died for them. The Church has written more about homosexual persons in particular because other identities are relatively new, and the Church simply hasn’t caught up with modern terminology yet in their official documents.

There are no new identities, only self-deception.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

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

Random,

You can call everyone what you like and see - or close your eyes to - whether it does them justice or clarifies the subject or not.

‘Same sex attraction’ is a description the folks involved came up with. You don’t have to respect that. As to whether you find plain language confusing, that’s your affair.

The two words you cite change meaning every few seconds, preferably within the same sentence.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

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

John has occasionally (too often) changed the question. Also he won’t accept the answer when I have told him it. He perseveres in nagging everyone else because they don’t see the need to parrot me. Then he blames all of us just because the bishops he has been nagging for 9 years don’t respond to him.

Due to a *** up some duff terminology got put in a couple of documents. What’s new?

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

… I believe no one is incapable of OSA. …

This specifically, has never been a question of any objective consequence in any context.