Pope Francis: Who am I to judge gay people?

[Prodigal_Son]

I want to draw a distinction here. Someone might say that homosexual actions and the homosexual agenda are spurred on by the action of the devil, and I would probably agree with him. The problem comes when someone says that (a) homosexual people are possessed, which seems pretty clearly false, or (b) we ought to avoid and ostracize people who are afflicted by demonic actions, which goes against Jesus’s own way of life.

So the mere mention of “demonic activity” in relation to discussions on homosexuality doesn’t bother me.

But I don’t think it would be a good route to take in converting a homosexual, to say, “Hey you, come over here so I can free you from those demons you’re listening to!”

 

[The_Bucket]

Yeah people are generally going to tune you out when you start talking demonic possession.

I mean, would I say that as a recovering porn addict that I was “possessed by the devil”? No. I would say instead that I made terrible decisions that led to my own enslavement by sin. God’s grace was certainly required to loosen the chains of my bondage, but I didn’t need an exorcism.

It’s tough enough to talk “sin” with people; starting off with “demons” is a pretty good way to get ignored. And to get labeled as a crazy person.

 

[clem456]

*Patricia Zorzan:
Speaking on behalf of the Brazilians. Society has changed, young people have changed, and we see many young people in Brazil. You have not talked about abortion, marriage between same sex. In Brazil have passed a law extending abortion rights and allowed marriage between same sex. Why has not talked about this?

Papa Francesco:
The Church has already expressed this perfectly. It was not necessary to go back, as I have not even talked about the fraud, deceit or other things which the Church has a clear doctrine!

Patricia Zorzan:
But it is a matter of interest to young people …

Papa Francesco:
Yes, but there was no need to talk about this, but the positive things that open the way to the boys. Is not it? In addition, young people know exactly what is the position of the Church!*

Patricia Zorzan:
What is the position of his Holiness, can you tell?

Papa Francesco:
That of the Church. I am the son of the Church!

Quite frankly I think that there are also some people who cling too much to the “I am a son of the Church” statement and disregard the “who am I to judge” statement.

Follow the example and take the statements by the Holy Father in totality. We must cling both to the truth and to compassion. We must remain steadfast in our doctrine and in our desire to be peaceable to all. We must be the first to “dine with sinners” while at the same time not committing those sins ourselves. We must never condone sin while at the same time never failing to meet others where they are and show them love.

Clinging to one part of the statement or the other is a sign that one is not willing to live out Christ’s example in total, just in the parts that make one feel comfortable. Some are quite comfortable with showing compassionate sentiment but uncomfortable in standing for truth. Others are comfortable in standing for truth but find showing genuine compassion and sentiment to be “icky” or a sign of wishy-washiness. We must do both. All of us must follow Christ’s example in total.

And his comments quoted by Julian above reinforce the comment which this thread discusses. They are not somehow at odds with one another.
Basically he is asked why he is not discussing these prominent sins.
It is not his (our?) pastoral focus. Why is that? The Church is clear, he is clear. And with that clarity in mind, he has something additional, something “positive… to open the way”, to say, as opposed to dwelling on evil, or repeatedly calling out the sin of groups of people.

His “Who am I” comment discussed in this thread goes beyond the finger pointing and pulls us together as human beings, to find our common need for forgiveness in Jesus.
He is a tremendous pastor.

 

[fili_dei]

“Homosexual people = demonic” not being Catholic teaching, this theory is nowadays professed only by crazy sedevacantist sects like MHFM.

But, indeed, there were some… memorable threads and comments on CAF. Happily, most posters see only humans where others see demon-possessed creatures.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=579844
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=689939
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=612834
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=49926&page=3

I think folks need to try and define the points of difference and why. I’ve tried to summarise with my own annotation on each point.

Controversy1: People allegedly equating homosexuality with demonism.

I haven’t gone through all the above threads, but the one comment I could find with demonic connotation:

Promiscuity, as well as homosexuality and pornography, says 73 year-old Fr. Jeremy Davies, is a form of sexual perversion and can lead to demonic possession. Offering what may be an explanation for the explosion of homosexuality in recent years, Fr. Davies said, “Among the causes of homosexuality is a contagious demonic factor.”

There is no context for the quote or source given. Nor is there any explanation if this opinion is based on anecdotal experience as an exorcist, an off the cuff remark or actual research.

The quote seems benign to me. To suggest that *one of *the causes of homosexuality is demonic influence is no more controversial than suggesting any sin may have a demonic influence. Although it is important to distinguish between the sinner and the sin.

It is important to note that:
i/ The catechism defines homosexual tendencies and acts as ordered to an intrinsic moral evil, as it does other sins of the flesh.
ii/ There is a correlation in the incidence of promiscuity, pornography and homosexuality, all being a part of the sexual revolution.
iii/ There are many cases in the bible of demons being driven out of people by our lord (i.e. possession and demonic influence is a reality).

However I also note that for every second we focus on the absence of virtue, we are not focused on living virtue.

Controversy2: Confusion between judging and showing charity in correcting someone.

This is probably the most confusing part of catholic lay ministry because it involves a tough judgement call. People often confuse judging external actions (which we can do) vs judging the interior life (only god can do).

Consider the following scenarios:
i/ Friend tempted by an affair.
ii/ Liturgical abuse by the parish priest.
iii/ Niece taking drugs.
iv/ Child running towards the road.

All these situations would require some tough love - love does not mean being nice all the time. The judgement call may involve whether an intervention will be counter productive e.g. severing family ties because sister is on her fourth marriage.

Controversy3: Self-identifying as a gay catholic.

I must confess, I am puzzled by the label. Peter Kreeft notes that of all the sins, homosexuals are the only ones that define themselves by their sin.

I can’t help but think that by incorporating the sin in one’s identity, it defines one and thereby may be a barrier to overcome the cross because it forms part of an identity.

ASIDE: It is interesting that during the 1970s and 80s when the Rosary fell into disuse, who picked it up and gave it airplay - Madonna (yes the pop icon). Likewise with marriage, after so many couples have avoided getting marriage or cohabiting, who should pick up marriage but the gay community.

Our lady and our lord will make their presence known one way or another.

 

[fili_dei]

On further reading of the thread, the priest quoted is associated with the vatican’s number 1 exorcist.

I think folks need to try and define the points of difference and why. I’ve tried to summarise with my own annotation on each point.

Controversy1: People allegedly equating homosexuality with demonism.

I haven’t gone through all the above threads, but the one comment I could find with demonic connotation:

There is no context for the quote or source given. Nor is there any explanation if this opinion is based on anecdotal experience as an exorcist, an off the cuff remark or actual research.

The quote seems benign to me. To suggest that *one of *the causes of homosexuality is demonic influence is no more controversial than suggesting any sin may have a demonic influence. Although it is important to distinguish between the sinner and the sin.

It is important to note that:
i/ The catechism defines homosexual tendencies and acts as ordered to an intrinsic moral evil, as it does other sins of the flesh.
ii/ There is a correlation in the incidence of promiscuity, pornography and homosexuality, all being a part of the sexual revolution.
iii/ There are many cases in the bible of demons being driven out of people by our lord (i.e. possession and demonic influence is a reality).

However I also note that for every second we focus on the absence of virtue, we are not focused on living virtue.

Controversy2: Confusion between judging and showing charity in correcting someone.

This is probably the most confusing part of catholic lay ministry because it involves a tough judgement call. People often confuse judging external actions (which we can do) vs judging the interior life (only god can do).

Consider the following scenarios:
i/ Friend tempted by an affair.
ii/ Liturgical abuse by the parish priest.
iii/ Niece taking drugs.
iv/ Child running towards the road.

All these situations would require some tough love - love does not mean being nice all the time. The judgement call may involve whether an intervention will be counter productive e.g. severing family ties because sister is on her fourth marriage.

Controversy3: Self-identifying as a gay catholic.

I must confess, I am puzzled by the label. Peter Kreeft notes that of all the sins, homosexuals are the only ones that define themselves by their sin.

I can’t help but think that by incorporating the sin in one’s identity, it defines one and thereby may be a barrier to overcome the cross because it forms part of an identity.

ASIDE: It is interesting that during the 1970s and 80s when the Rosary fell into disuse, who picked it up and gave it airplay - Madonna (yes the pop icon). Likewise with marriage, after so many couples have avoided getting marriage or cohabiting, who should pick up marriage but the gay community.

Our lady and our lord will make their presence known one way or another.

 

[Tigg]

Quite frankly I think that there are also some people who cling too much to the “I am a son of the Church” statement and disregard the “who am I to judge” statement.

Follow the example and take the statements by the Holy Father in totality. We must cling both to the truth and to compassion. We must remain steadfast in our doctrine and in our desire to be peaceable to all. We must be the first to “dine with sinners” while at the same time not committing those sins ourselves. We must never condone sin while at the same time never failing to meet others where they are and show them love.

Clinging to one part of the statement or the other is a sign that one is not willing to live out Christ’s example in total, just in the parts that make one feel comfortable. Some are quite comfortable with showing compassionate sentiment but uncomfortable in standing for truth. Others are comfortable in standing for truth but find showing genuine compassion and sentiment to be “icky” or a sign of wishy-washiness. We must do both. All of us must follow Christ’s example in total.

So Bucket, without resorting to sarcasm such as we find in Posts #656 and #689, and in which I also used in my post which was a generalization based upon the many threads on this board, what would you suggest we do to show compassion? I ask this with all sincerity because your words above need to be heeded. You see, there are those of us who are really weary of being accused of homophobia even when only implied and in addition, are now being told that we must also embrace the new openness by listening to those who need to talk about their disordered condition. I am not a trained therapist and being sensitive goes both ways. There are those who have no clue as to how to respond to some of the rather embarrassing and glaringly graphic posts contained in this very thread. It is not a conversational topic to most Christians and their need to tell it like it is whether we want to hear it or not, is rather disconcerting. It also serves to aid the gay lobby agenda because by talking about it we’ll become so used to it we’ll think it quite commonplace and therefore, normal. It is being used to undermine the traditional family. This is fact. Another factual point made by others is that it is totally inappropriate to expose innocence to this.

How are Christians in general not honoring the human dignity of gays? What would you have us do? You will not hear me saying, “I’m okay - you’re okay” while discussing this specific topic - that would be a lie according to the Church’s own definition, but at the same time I will tell you this. We had a gay couple right next door to us for a short while. After we got to know them, every time I saw one of them, I would give them a hearty handshake and actually found their company quite charming because they, in turn, never pushed their orientation in our faces. It was mutual respect because they knew quite well we were Christians.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

I think folks need to try and define the points of difference and why. I’ve tried to summarise with my own annotation on each point.

Controversy1: People allegedly equating homosexuality with demonism.

I haven’t gone through all the above threads, but the one comment I could find with demonic connotation:

There is no context for the quote or source given. Nor is there any explanation if this opinion is based on anecdotal experience as an exorcist, an off the cuff remark or actual research.

The quote seems benign to me. To suggest that *one of *the causes of homosexuality is demonic influence is no more controversial than suggesting any sin may have a demonic influence. Although it is important to distinguish between the sinner and the sin.

It is important to note that:
i/ The catechism defines homosexual tendencies and acts as ordered to an intrinsic moral evil, as it does other sins of the flesh.
ii/ There is a correlation in the incidence of promiscuity, pornography and homosexuality, all being a part of the sexual revolution.
iii/ There are many cases in the bible of demons being driven out of people by our lord (i.e. possession and demonic influence is a reality).

However I also note that for every second we focus on the absence of virtue, we are not focused on living virtue.

Controversy2: Confusion between judging and showing charity in correcting someone.

This is probably the most confusing part of catholic lay ministry because it involves a tough judgement call. People often confuse judging external actions (which we can do) vs judging the interior life (only god can do).

Consider the following scenarios:
i/ Friend tempted by an affair.
ii/ Liturgical abuse by the parish priest.
iii/ Niece taking drugs.
iv/ Child running towards the road.

All these situations would require some tough love - love does not mean being nice all the time. The judgement call may involve whether an intervention will be counter productive e.g. severing family ties because sister is on her fourth marriage.

Controversy3: Self-identifying as a gay catholic.

I must confess, I am puzzled by the label. Peter Kreeft notes that of all the sins, homosexuals are the only ones that define themselves by their sin.

I can’t help but think that by incorporating the sin in one’s identity, it defines one and thereby may be a barrier to overcome the cross because it forms part of an identity.

ASIDE: It is interesting that during the 1970s and 80s when the Rosary fell into disuse, who picked it up and gave it airplay - Madonna (yes the pop icon). Likewise with marriage, after so many couples have avoided getting marriage or cohabiting, who should pick up marriage but the gay community.

Our lady and our lord will make their presence known one way or another.

Thanks for your helpful annotations.

The aside is interesting indeed. It may come across as vice attempting to cloak itself in virtue or sheer mockery of what is true, good and beautiful.
,

 

[Prodigal_Son]

There are those who have no clue as to how to respond to some of the rather embarrassing and glaringly graphic posts contained in this very thread.

Which ones do you mean?

After we got to know them, every time I saw one of them, I would give them a hearty handshake and actually found their company quite charming because they, in turn, never pushed their orientation in our faces.

And who here is pushing their orientation in your face? This is a conversation about that orientation. If you don’t want to talk about it, you’re free to go.

 

[The_Bucket]

You see, there are those of us who are really weary of being accused of homophobia even when only implied and in addition, are now being told that we must also embrace the new openness by listening to those who need to talk about their disordered condition. I am not a trained therapist and being sensitive goes both ways.

What would you do if a friend or fellow parishioner confessed that he was an alcoholic? Or really into pornography? Or gossiped way too much? Treat it the same way.

There are those who have no clue as to how to respond to some of the rather embarrassing and glaringly graphic posts contained in this very thread.

Like Prodigal Son said… such as? Such as people saying “I am attracted to people of the same sex”? That’s not graphic at all. If it is to you, well I don’t know where to begin.

It is not a conversational topic to most Christians and their need to tell it like it is whether we want to hear it or not, is rather disconcerting.

This has already been addressed. I don’t think people need to say “I have homosexual tendencies” anymore than people need to announce other sinful tendencies, but also I don’t have those tendencies so I don’t know what they deal with. What I do know is that I have my own sinful tendencies and I find great help in discussing them in a group setting. A private group setting to be sure, but with other people.

It also serves to aid the gay lobby agenda because by talking about it we’ll become so used to it we’ll think it quite commonplace and therefore, normal. It is being used to undermine the traditional family. This is fact. Another factual point made by others is that it is totally inappropriate to expose innocence to this.

It’s already commonplace and “normal” according to secular society so we all have to deal with it. Just like divorce. Or heterosexuals shacking up. Or kids being born out of wedlock. We have to deal with reality and the reality is that it’s out there. Either we introduce it to our kids or the world will. I choose me. As I said what seems like eons ago, trying to “protect innocence” from the matter is like parents shielding their kids from sex-ed for fear that the lessons will induce them into having sex. It’s utter nonsense and dangerous nonsense at that.

You will not hear me saying, “I’m okay - you’re okay” while discussing this specific topic - that would be a lie according to the Church’s own definition, but at the same time I will tell you this.

That’s not what anyone is advocating for. What I and other have said is not “I’m OK and you’re OK” but “We’re all children of God but we’re all broken due to our sinful inclinations. I’m no better than you.” That’s pretty much it.

We had a gay couple right next door to us for a short while. After we got to know them, every time I saw one of them, I would give them a hearty handshake and actually found their company quite charming because they, in turn, never pushed their orientation in our faces. It was mutual respect because they knew quite well we were Christians.

That’s good. Though how could they “push it in your face” besides living? I mean, that’s about as public as it gets. You mean they weren’t lobbying for gay marriage in your presence? I for one am shocked that even homosexuals might not want to get into politically sensitive debates with their neighbors!

 

[The_Bucket]

And I’ll restate it again for the new crowd, I said before and Prodigal Son said the same… no one is advocating for everyone to walk around and talk about how sinful they are and broadcast their flaws to the rest of the world ad nauseam. St. Faustina is quite right to say that such an environment would be disruptive to the interior lives of others.

But look, we can’t live in our own little bubbles. And that’s Francis’ biggest point. Not just on this issue or in that one statement, but in everything. Francis has been a huge advocate for getting the Church and its members (particularly the clergy) outside of itself. His message is a pastoral one that I’m sure it’s mostly aimed at the clergy but is important for us all.

I can say “I’m a recovering pornography addict” on this forum as much as I like because it’s anonymous and it doesn’t really disrupt anyone’s lives. I would never do that in real life. That’s relegated for my in-person S-group and that’s it. However, there’s still a pretty strong stigma attached to habitual pornography use, especially when there’s a spouse involved, so there’s no real reason for me to feel pressured to get this out in the world.

There’s an opposite phenomenon when it comes to homosexuality. There are people that basically demand that anyone and everyone with same-sex attraction come out and proclaim it to the world so that the stigma is erased, everyone can “evolve” and those who continue to stand at the bulwarks of our faith are the ones that are pressured. I’m serious. You would not believe the amount of people who are incensed that people like Ed Koch did not come out as gay when he was alive. Anderson Cooper was also targeted for awhile for refusing to disclose his personal sexual proclivities in a public fashion. It’s ridiculous. There’s widespread sentiment out there that anyone who delays or refuses to “come out of the closet” is directly hurting other homosexuals. Again, I am not kidding.

So that’s what people with same-sex attraction are dealing with. They not only have these temptations but they are pressured to “come out” by others with similar proclivities and pressured to stay silent by what I hope are actually just well-meaning fellow Christians. It’s got to be enough to make someone scream.

It might behoove us all to recognize that it is harder than it has been in centuries, possibly millenia, for even good Catholic men and women to not act on same-sex attraction. There’s pornography everywhere, there’s a culture that celebrates homosexuality (being gay sort of makes you a celebrity), there’s gay marriage and there’s huge amounts of hostility thrown at the Church for “standing in the way of progress” on this issue.

All I’d suggest is to just let them talk and to ease up on the throttle of being so “burdened” by the sins or occasions of sin of others.

 

[opus101]

She might be right about the demonic reference but as you said, we have all sorts of people on CAF. The view of one, two or three does not reflect the view of all. The fact is, most people here simply rightly condemn the practice of homosexuality. However, we all do it differently and the reception is also different.

For me, whenever I feel like we are being attacked because of our Catholic position, whenever Catholics are being persecuted for exercising their freedom of conscience, I tend to be very defensive and take a very tough position. We get attacked a lot from some Catholics and others on this forum. I personally do not hesitate to fight back and in so doing, I use the language I believe is appropriate for the encounter. So the language people use also depends on the situation. I will not debate with a gay activitist in the same way as I would debate with let’s just go with the term a “celibate gay”.
I have listened to some of the critics and I personally will endeavour to always make it clear when directing my posts towards militants and lobbies so that those who do not disagree with Church teaching and persecute or support the persecution of Christians shouldn’t feel targeted.

A gay person on this forum once told me this:

I told him that I didn’t know that, because it is a term other gay people use. Just like in “gays and lesbians”. So I never would have imagined that the word “gays” could be offensive.

Based on that, it seems like, no matter what we say and how we say it, it is still likely that someone would still be offended. That is why I like to quote Santi2

The mere fact that we disagree with the so called “same-sex marriage” is offensive to some people (and we have all sorts of people on this forum). So it is not always about the language. As long as we do not accept homosexuality, some people will always be offended! We need to get used to that.

gracepoole believes or used to believe that, we, Catholics, do not acknowledge that homosexuals get assaulted. She started a thread about a gay man who was assaulted to prove her point. She thinks or thought that we do not condemn such attacks. BTW, it turned out that the person in question wasn’t attacked because he was gay, but rather, it was a drug related crime and the person just happened to be a drug dealer (who was gay) and some were trying to spin the story.

What I mean is, if she believes that we deny the fact that people get attacked because of their sexual orientation and do not condemn such attacks, then…what can we say?

A truly excellent and informative post!

 

[opus101]

I have read extremely unhelpful comments from self-professed Catholics who ignore Church teaching on this and a myriad of other issues, and it was unhelpful as well. Catholics who clearly don’t know what they are talking about, or simply think they know better than the Church when it comes to abortion, the legitimacy of changing marriage, and more. All unhelpful, and confusing to see Catholics not united.

Using anecdotal examples that pop up once every few years from Catholic Answers doesn’t really establish much of a precedent for it being a prevailing Catholic problem, IMO.

Exactly. People are people, and there are some (very few) who might participate in some form of rudeness or uncharitableness in this regard. But it is very rare. Others may not be aware of that due to the fact that, whenever there is even the slightest hint of an inappropriate response, it is broadcast universally.

I stand by my former statement that, as far as my memory serves me,I have never seen/heard a single Catholic treat a homosexual unkindly . In fact, people might even go overboard a bit trying to be accomodating , to the point where adherence to Our Lord Jesus Christ is compromised.

It’s also important to try to understand what people actually mean when they are speaking with unprepared statements. Sometimes our wording isn’t perfect. Case in point: The Holy Father’s comments! Even the Pope can use less-than-precise language when speaking off-the-cuff. He is not impeccable. Perhaps the person who used the term “demonic” was simply trying to emphasize the fact that it is not just against flesh and blood that we struggle…there are demonic forces sometimes at play with
this issue, as with many other issues. It is actually charitable to point out this truth now and then.

 

[opus101]

It also needs to be pointed out the the Pope himself has mentioned the devil and demonic forces in regard to certain forces at play in today’s world.

On gay “marriage”, he wrote that it is a “machination of the Father of Lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God.”

Report this man!!!

 

[Prodigal_Son]

It also needs to be pointed out the the Pope himself has mentioned the devil and demonic forces in regard to certain forces at play in today’s world.

On gay “marriage”, he wrote that it is a “machination of the Father of Lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God.”

I agree 100% with you and the pope on this issue, opus. But the origin of homosexual activism or even the origin of homosexual orientation has very little to do with the question of how we treat homosexual individuals pastorally.

I imagine there is demonic activity, of some sort, involved in most cases of sin.

 

[opus101]

Many thanks to you and Fix then.
I thank God you’ve had the fuller catechesis. Is that Rome’s catechesis? Or who’s, which, catechesis?
Rome has called it’s own catechesis “sloppy”? The Catholic Church does “sloppy” catechesis? Who has the “fuller catechesis” then Elizabeth? We’d all like the fuller catechesis you and Fix have received.

You’re correct, I don’t need to correct you. You’re correct Elizabeth.

Whoa! Talk about personal attacks…

 

[gracepoole]

I stand by my former statement that, as far as my memory serves me,I have never seen/heard a single Catholic treat a homosexual unkindly

Although now you’ve been given links to threads in which uncharitable posts were shared, so this statement isn’t entirely true any longer…right?

 

[opus101]

Indeed. Scary stuff, that. You’re right – I have read some remarkably charitable, loving Catholic responses to homosexuals and homosexuality here. Most heartening in the face of this ugliness.

I read all of the links and found non of them to be “scary stuff”. Not one of them referred to homosexuals as being “demonic” themselves, although some mentioned the fact that demonic influence was involved (not in the orientation, but in the sinful actions). The first link, which showed the comments of a priest, was really not uncharitable, but certainly it was politically/religiously “incorrect”, and easy to misinterpret. He may have had no uncharitable motive at all.

The second link, with comments by Saint Catherine of Siena, was not uncharitable at all. It simply displayed her comments and the insights of the poster that, ultimately, he felt that it was not the fault of the demons, but of fallen man.

Although the news commentator (connected with the USCCB) may have been overzealous (translation: politically incorrect) in his article, there is nothing to show that his words were not true, and quite possibly, ultimately charitable.

Something that is deemed "uncharitable, “unloving”, or worse yet “hate speech” by lobbyists is often not so, not by a long shot.

Not one of the “scary” posts listed referred to individual persons as being “demonic”.

The motives of these posters has been misjudged.
Who are we to judge their motives ? A spin is being put on the words of others, and their words are being framed to mean something other than they actually do.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

And I’ll restate it again for the new crowd, I said before and Prodigal Son said the same… no one is advocating for everyone to walk around and talk about how sinful they are and broadcast their flaws to the rest of the world ad nauseam. St. Faustina is quite right to say that such an environment would be disruptive to the interior lives of others.

But look, we can’t live in our own little bubbles. And that’s Francis’ biggest point. Not just on this issue or in that one statement, but in everything. Francis has been a huge advocate for getting the Church and its members (particularly the clergy) outside of itself. His message is a pastoral one that I’m sure it’s mostly aimed at the clergy but is important for us all.

I can say “I’m a recovering pornography addict” on this forum as much as I like because it’s anonymous and it doesn’t really disrupt anyone’s lives. I would never do that in real life. That’s relegated for my in-person S-group and that’s it. However, there’s still a pretty strong stigma attached to habitual pornography use, especially when there’s a spouse involved, so there’s no real reason for me to feel pressured to get this out in the world.

There’s an opposite phenomenon when it comes to homosexuality. There are people that basically demand that anyone and everyone with same-sex attraction come out and proclaim it to the world so that the stigma is erased, everyone can “evolve” and those who continue to stand at the bulwarks of our faith are the ones that are pressured. I’m serious. You would not believe the amount of people who are incensed that people like Ed Koch did not come out as gay when he was alive. Anderson Cooper was also targeted for awhile for refusing to disclose his personal sexual proclivities in a public fashion. It’s ridiculous. There’s widespread sentiment out there that anyone who delays or refuses to “come out of the closet” is directly hurting other homosexuals. Again, I am not kidding.

So that’s what people with same-sex attraction are dealing with. They not only have these temptations but they are pressured to “come out” by others with similar proclivities and pressured to stay silent by what I hope are actually just well-meaning fellow Christians. It’s got to be enough to make someone scream.

It might behoove us all to recognize that it is harder than it has been in centuries, possibly millenia, for even good Catholic men and women to not act on same-sex attraction. There’s pornography everywhere, there’s a culture that celebrates homosexuality (being gay sort of makes you a celebrity), there’s gay marriage and there’s huge amounts of hostility thrown at the Church for “standing in the way of progress” on this issue.

All I’d suggest is to just let them talk and to ease up on the throttle of being so “burdened” by the sins or occasions of sin of others.

So, with individuals and groups with the homosexual inclination, there is the noisy out and proud kind, and there is an emerging thought or sentiment of those with the need to be out, but not proud. If this is correct, why don’t those in the latter group make their position more known to the out and proud group, that they are aligned with the teachings of the Catholic Church? Why are they seemingly focused on battles with Catholics?

As for the bisexuals who happen to be in what they claim as good marriages, with children, who accept their station in life, without intention to live dual lives or cross over to the other side, what is the point of being out, especially to those who do not have need to know and be burdened with their personal struggle? Such individuals clearly have and are already exercising their choice. This seems to feed into the current Oprah and FaceBook mentality that any and all private and intimate thoughts need to be broadcasted. As if there is need to come clean to the public watching television and on the Internet. They are already clean! They do have the option of telling others with whom they are acquainted or friends on need to know basis. What is the motivation beyond this option that is not based on self interest or selfishness?
,

 

[opus101]

Using anecdotal examples that pop up once every few years from Catholic Answers doesn’t really establish much of a precedent for it being a prevailing Catholic problem, IMO.

The interesting thing is that any of these posts still exist (left untouched, unreported), but some posts that support Catholic teaching and the heart and mind of Christ in a positive manner are no longer available to read because they have been reported and deleted! Very odd, no?

It seems that some want the posts that they see as “objectionable” to be left for everyone to see, and the posts that might unmask some of the trolls are reported/deleted with trumped up charges, causing good, charitable Catholics to receive infractions, or worse yet, to be suspended!

Interesting.

 

[opus101]

Francis has been a huge advocate for getting the Church and its members (particularly the clergy) outside of itself. His message is a pastoral one that I’m sure it’s mostly aimed at the clergy but is important for us all.

Exactly. That is why, except for the many avenues provided by or encouraged by the Church for those who suffer this condition, it is good to go outside of ourselves! Let’s think of others and stop focussing on ourselves so much!

All I’d suggest is to just let them talk and to ease up on the throttle of being so “burdened” by the sins or occasions of sin of others.

I have heard similar comments, and am wondering how groups such as Courage, confessors, spiritual directors, Catholic psychologists, prayer group members and close friends do not let people with SSA talk. If they are guilty of this, it should be pointed out to them.