LGBT: it's a choice or isn't it? Pope's message

[livingwordunity]

He is not talking about homosexuality writ large, he is talking about gender identity/transsexualism, as made abundantly clear by the quote from Simone de Beauvoir: “One is not born a woman, but becomes so…” He is referring to the decidedly modern (and illogical) idea that our gender is not determined by our bodies, and thus everyone has the right to decided whether they are a man or a woman.

 

[Giants]

He is not talking about homosexuality writ large, he is talking about gender identity/transsexualism, as made abundantly clear by the quote from Simone de Beauvoir: “One is not born a woman, but becomes so…” He is referring to the decidedly modern (and illogical) idea that our gender is not determined by our bodies, and thus everyone has the right to decided whether they are a man or a woman.

Actually, he’s talking about an “attack on the true structure of family” and its roots in gender identity. The problem is, you can’t make that connection while simultaneously avoiding the issue of sexual attraction. Quite apart from that, Catholic dogma as well as the Pope both assert that sexual attraction is inextricably linked to man’s true nature.

It’s as plain as day what he was talking about. Man has a nature, dictated by one’s gender. A man cannot be attracted to another man. He can only feign that attraction as part of “choosing” a separate, false nature and identity for himself.

 

[prodigalson2011]

The part I bolded illustrates that his comments aren’t merely limited to questions of gender, but everything that a person’s gender implies. Man has a nature, determined by gender. And that nature is to show attraction to the opposite sex. Those who don’t do this are making a conscious choice, in every respect, to deny their nature as dictated by their gender.

Not so. I think what he’s saying is that, as is said in Scripture, they have “traded the truth of God for a lie,” i.e. they place their own disordered feelings over the revelation of God through both word and nature. Our bodies, particularly the sex organs in this case, exist for obvious and self evident ends. That is our nature. The various disordered drives and appetites we all, not just homosexuals, develop should be conformed, to the best of our ability, to our true nature.

 

[livingwordunity]

Actually, he’s talking about an “attack on the true structure of family” and its roots in gender identity. The problem is, you can’t make that connection while simultaneously avoiding the issue of sexual attraction. Quite apart from that, Catholic dogma as well as the Pope both assert that sexual attraction

The talk is about how we are made male and female and how some try to deny this fact. It’s not about attraction, so stop making things up.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Actually, he’s talking about an “attack on the true structure of family” and its roots in gender identity. The problem is, you can’t make that connection while simultaneously avoiding the issue of sexual attraction. Quite apart from that, Catholic dogma as well as the Pope both assert that sexual attraction is inextricably linked to man’s true nature.

It’s as plain as day what he was talking about. Man has a nature, dictated by one’s gender. A man cannot be attracted to another man. He can only feign that attraction as part of “choosing” a separate, false nature and identity for himself.

This is a complete non sequitur. We all exhibit desires that do not conform to our nature. SEXUALITY is inextricably linked to man’s nature, but the orientation of that drive is open to distortion, in the same way that intellect is intrinsic to man’s nature but is open to mental disorders like schizophrenia.

 

[Giants]

This is a complete non sequitur. We all exhibit desires that do not conform to our nature. SEXUALITY is inextricably linked to man’s nature, but the orientation of that drive is open to distortion, in the same way that intellect is intrinsic to man’s nature but is open to mental disorders like schizophrenia.

I agree that it’s a non sequitur. You should tell the Pope. There’s a better chance he’ll listen to you.

 

[livingwordunity]

This is a complete non sequitur. We all exhibit desires that do not conform to our nature. SEXUALITY is inextricably linked to man’s nature, but the orientation of that drive is open to distortion, in the same way that intellect is intrinsic to man’s nature but is open to mental disorders like schizophrenia.

Yep. Sexual attraction can become perverted such as with pedophilia. Exposure to pornography can change one’s sexual attractions and make them perverted.

 

[prodigalson2011]

I agree that it’s a non sequitur. You should tell the Pope. There’s a better chance he’ll listen to you.

I wasn’t talking about the Pope, I was taking about your deduction: that you can’t separate gender identity/nature from sexual attraction. The fact is, you can. Reason determines the one, subjective feelings the other. Just ask any of the faithful Catholics who are dealing with same sex attractions. Your interpretation of the Pope’s message is based on both a failure to distinguish between inherent nature and an accompanying disorder as wel as an erroneous understanding of Church teaching (to reiterate, the Church teaches that SEXUALITY itself is inherent to man’s nature, she does NOT teach that the sex drive cannot be corrupted or misdirected.)

 

[Giants]

I wasn’t talking about the Pope, I was taking about your deduction, i.e. you can’t separate gender identity/nature from sexual attraction. The fact is, you can. Reason determines the one, subjective feelings the other. Just ask any of the faithful Catholics who are dealing with same sex attractions. Your interpretation of the Pope’s message is based on both a failure to distinguish between inherent nature and an accompanying disorder as wel as an erroneous understanding of Church teaching.

That is the Pope’s deduction (or rather, assertion). I certainly don’t agree with it. I’m simply relaying to you what the vicar of Christ on Earth thinks on the subject. That it flies in the faith of Catholic dogma, not to mention insulting who-knows-how-many gay Catholics, is not my problem.

I interpreted Benedict’s words correctly. Your argument is with him, not me.

 

[prodigalson2011]

That is the Pope’s deduction (or rather, assertion). I certainly don’t agree with it. I’m simply relaying to you what the vicar of Christ on Earth thinks on the subject. That it flies in the faith of Catholic dogma, not to mention insulting who-knows-how-many gay Catholics, is not my problem.

I interpreted Benedict’s words correctly. Your argument is with him, not me.

No, you didn’t. And no, it’s not. That is YOUR deduction. YOU said that a persons nature and identity cannot be separated from their sexual feelings. HE did not. And therein lies the problem. You are inserting your definition of human identity into the Pope’s mouth. You think sexual feelings are integral to a person’s nature and identity; Catholics do not.

 

[Giants]

No, you didn’t. And no, it’s not. That is YOUR deduction. YOU said that a persons nature and identity cannot be separated from their sexual feelings. HE did not. And therein lies the problem. You are inserting your definition of human identity into the Pope’s mouth. You think sexual feelings are integral to a person’s nature and identity; Catholics do not.

At least one Catholic does, though. And he’s presumed to have a lot of authority on the subject.

That you can somehow square Benedict’s actual statements with the party line Catholic dogma is silly. That you think I’m the one who needs to be told that sexual identity is not contingent on their gender is even more silly. I’m a secularist. My people had this figured out way before anyone in the Catholic Church did.

 

[edwest2]

There are those who believe the following:

Gender is conditioned into people by society. Girls get dolls and dresses. Boys get trains and pants.

The radical feminists want women to give up any role that is true to their nature and their own biology and become contracepting men. There is also a connected line of thinking that says we are all bisexual, which is just a lie. All of us are not, but you will see ads in certain magazines inviting you to explore if you’re “bi-curious? Contact…”

Gender is a definite part of who we are. It is natural and inborn. It is not this flexible - society made me this way - thing. The radicals want a genderless society. Orgasms are orgasms wherever they come from. This is the dictionary definition of perversion.

catholic.com/tracts/homosexuality

Peace,
Ed

 

[prodigalson2011]

At least one Catholic does, though. And he’s presumed to have a lot of authority on the subject.

That you can somehow square Benedict’s actual statements with the party line Catholic dogma is silly. That you think I’m the one who needs to be told that sexual identity is not contingent on their gender is even more silly. I’m a secularist. My people had this figured out way before anyone in the Catholic Church did.

“Sexual identity” and “sexual orientation” are two separate things. “Sexual identity” and “gender” ARE the same thing. Again as is plainly evident in the text of the speech, he is discussing the modern ideology which states that biology does not determine our gender.

 

[Giants]

“Sexual identity” and “sexual orientation” are two separate things. “Sexual identity” and “gender” ARE the same thing. Again as is plainly evident in the text of the speech, he is discussing the modern ideology which states that biology does not determine our gender.

And you can’t go from talking about “gender issues” to any perceived “attack on the true structure of the family” without bringing sexual orientation into it.

 

[prodigalson2011]

And you can’t go from talking about “gender issues” to any perceived “attack on the true structure of the family” without bringing sexual orientation into it.

That is not the issue. The issue is whether, regardless of sexual orientation, people have inherent gender, and thus an inherent position in the family structure. The point is that just because a man is attracted to another man, or on this particular point, “feels like or would prefer to be a woman,” does not make him a woman, and thus not a valid substitute for a mother.

 

[90Domer]

Or…

• they weren’t born with it, but it was the result of something such as child molestation or social conditioning beginning too far back for them to remember
• the inclination isn’t a choice
• whether or not they act on the inclination is a choice

Totally agree.

 

[Christianus_Dei]

I think what he was trying to get across was that whether these attractions are chosen or not, they are unnatural, and to go along with them is to side against one’s nature.

 

[Lancer]

Here are some very insightful programs…experts who answer some tough questions…with professional and all available scientific and social knowledge…and also with Catholic Faith and Moral Orthodoxy…clear, firm and pastoral …with humility and encouragement.

Seriously…who knows the human person…as God created Man–male and female–and cares more about Man’s temporal well being and happiness…to include the real objective on Man… ultimate union with the God who created Man for eternal happiness with Him in heaven…only the Catholic Church with 2000+ yrs of guidance by God,The Holy Spirit…The Catholic Church knows Man in a Divinely cosmic way…no one else comes close…I mean no one.

Pax Christi

The Church’s Teaching and Pastoral Apostolate…Courage.…Two 1 hour Q&A Catholic Answers radio programs…Fr. Check is

Homosexuality and Catholic Teaching
ca121212a.mp3
Listen
Wednesday, Dec 12, 2012 - 6pm ET
Fr. Paul Check reviews what the Catholic Church teaches about homosexuality.

Fr. Paul N. Check is a priest with the Diocese of Bridgeport, Connecticut and was ordained in 1997. He holds an S.T.B. from the Gregorian University, Rome and an S.T.L. (Moral Theology) from the University of the Holy Cross, Rome. Fr. Check has served as a parish priest and high school chaplain. Bishop William E. Lori appointed him to be the Chaplain for Courage

in Bridgeport in December 2002.

catholic.com/radio/shows/homosexuality-and-catholic-teaching-7763

catholic.com/radio/shows/homosexuality-and-catholic-teaching-7764
​

​

**Medical and Psychology **perspective…

Understanding Same Sex Attraction (Part I)
ca120411a.mp3
Listen
Wednesday, Apr 11, 2012 - 6pm ET
Dr. Joseph Nicolosi

Dr. Nicolosi graduated from the New School for Social Research (M.A.) and received his Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology from the California School of Professional Psychology, Los Angeles. He is licensed as a psychologist in California, and is a member in good standing of the American Psychological Association.

In 1980, he founded the Thomas Aquinas Psychological Clinic in Encino, California, and has served since then as Clinical Director. Although he works with a wide variety of clients, his specialty is the treatment of men who wish to diminish their same-sex attractions and develop their heterosexual potential.

catholic.com/radio/shows/understanding-same-sex-attraction-part-i-6977

catholic.com/radio/shows/understanding-same-sex-attraction-part-ii-6978

​

​

Facing Sexual Addiction
ca120907a.mp3
Listen
Friday, Sep 7, 2012 - 6pm ET
Monica Breaux
​

Monica Breaux, PhD, has spent more than 15 years collecting research that validates the wisdom of the Catholic vision of sexuality. She is endorsed by her bishop Thomas Olmsted. Her expertise in sexual addiction, pornography, and homosexuality has been shared with Bishop Olmsted’s Presbyteral Council, the AZ State Abstinence Education Coordinators, the National Conference of Diocesan Vocation Directors, and other conferences in Catholic high schools and parishes.

catholic.com/radio/shows/facing-sexual-addiction-7515

​

 

[vames]

And you can’t go from talking about “gender issues” to any perceived “attack on the true structure of the family” without bringing sexual orientation into it.

Actually you can, as long as sexual orientation doesn’t translate into “a social role that we choose for ourselves”, as the Pope says, specifically in order to modify the classic concept of family (man-woman-child). His speech is obviously meant to condemn same-sex marriage and subsequent adoption of children, so basically he implies this: a man, regardless of his sexual orientation, cannot choose to play the role of mother/wife in a family (man-man-child), while a woman, regardless of her sexual orientation, cannot choose to play the role of father/husband in a family (woman-woman-child), because the result would be that, “from being a subject of rights, the child [becomes] an object to which people have a right and which they have a right to obtain”. In fact, sexual orientation doesn’t necessarily translate into a radically different social role from the one corresponding to the assigned sex at birth (for ex. Harvey Milk didn’t seek to be perceived as a female or a transgender politician).
I said “basically he implies this” because same-sex marriage is the topic of the day, but I suppose his speech wanted to deal with transgenderism too.

 

[Regina_Love]

Or…

• they weren’t born with it, but it was the result of something such as child molestation or social conditioning beginning too far back for them to remember
• the inclination isn’t a choice
• whether or not they act on the inclination is a choice

Well said!