The Catechism and Homosexuality

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hope1960
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hope1960 said:
So if the Catechism says that homosexuality is due to psychological reasons (it’s not…it’s either genetic, biological in some way or possibly something that happened in utero) it’s still “infallible”?
Click to expand...
The link below is to a comprehensive report which I think you or anybody on this thread would find quite interesting if you haven’t seen it before. It was done in 2016 and appeared in the Fall issue of The New Atlantis - A Journal of Technology and Society. The report is titled ‘Sexuality and Gender -
Findings from the Biological, Psychological, and Social Sciences’. It deals with the science side of the issues but they do remark, and correctly so, that “Science is by no means the only avenue for understanding these astoundingly complex, multifaceted topics; there are other sources of wisdom and knowledge — including art, religion, philosophy, and lived human experience.”

https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/preface-sexuality-and-gender
 
Last edited:
I’ve experienced change in my sexual desires, its slow, not 100% and sometimes difficult, but it’s definately happened. I was apparentally gay through all my teenage years untill 18.I started looking into therapy and reaching out for help at that point.

I think it can be changed, Fetishes often have roots in trauma, I believe same sex attraction is similar to that, but just more complicated and significant. Its difficult, but you can cure things like fetishes, at least minify them, and stop them from intruding on your other desires. There is a little more to it than that, but I believe its in the brain, I believe that sexual desires tend to originate from emotional and rational connections(to an extent), and so they can be healed somewhat.

Just to be clear, this is not church teaching, I am just sharing my opinion and view as someone who’s experienced this.
 
Last edited:
I just want to repeat my question again, just to be clear:
  1. So, the Catechism neither supports or contradicts the view that there might be a genetic, biological, or problem during pregnancy involved causing homosexuality, despite saying “its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained?”
 
Hope1960 said:
I just want to repeat my question again, just to be clear:

So, the Catechism neither supports or contradicts the view that there might be a genetic, biological, or problem during pregnancy involved causing homosexuality, despite saying “its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained?”
Click to expand...
The cause of homosexuality is irrelevant to the teaching of the Church.
 
Hope1960 said:
What do the new ‘gay genes’ tell us about sexual orientation? | New Scientist

This article was written in December 2017. They suggest that homosexuality has a genetic component and is biological. That’s the newest information.
Click to expand...
That’s not what the article says nor implies. The article implies (which I have believed for years) that there is a set of genes that makes someone more prone to homosexuality. It doesn’t make them gay, but increases their likelihood.

Just like there are genes that increase chances for disease.

Homosexuality is most likely a combination of genetic, environmental, hormonal, and psychologlical factors.
 
Last edited:
Hope1960 said:
I just want to repeat my question again, just to be clear:
  1. So, the Catechism neither supports or contradicts the view that there might be a genetic, biological, or problem during pregnancy involved causing homosexuality, despite saying “its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained?”
Click to expand...
Correct. The Church does not take a stance on the cause of homosexuality. The Church leaves such things to science.

But regardless of the cause, homosexual ACTS (not attractions) are gravely sinful.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I know it’s irrelevant to the teaching of the Church, but again, is it correct to say that the Catechism neither supports or contradicts the view that there might be a genetic, biological or problem during pregnancy that causes homosexuality?
 
Hope1960 said:
Yes, I know it’s irrelevant to the teaching of the Church, but again, is it correct to say that the Catechism neither supports or contradicts the view that there might be a genetic, biological or problem during pregnancy that causes homosexuality?
Click to expand...
I am sure by now you have read the teaching in the CCC. The Church takes no scientific position. That has been stated over and over.
The cause is irrelevant. The teaching cannot change.
Please move on.
 
The Catechism is a reference book.

It gives us a summary of many teachings/doctrines/dogmas along with some commentary. It also provides the footnotes so we can read the infallible documents, appropriate Scripture, etc.

The Catechism we have today was published in the early 80’s. Since then there have been corrections and clarifications to the text. This is a complete list of the changes.

 
TheLittleLady said:
The Catechism we have today was published in the early 80’s. Since then there have been corrections and clarifications to the text. This is a complete list of the changes.
Click to expand...
However we should point out that there have been no changes to doctrine.
 
TheLittleLady said:
The Catechism we have today was published in the early 80’s. Since then there have been corrections and clarifications to the text. This is a complete list of the changes.
Click to expand...
The CCC is from the late 90s if I recall. It is sometimes called 2nd edition because the first was released prior to completion of the official Latin base. The document of “changes” you provided (assuming it is an official document) list changes between these 2 editions, and thus covers only a relatively short period. As far as I know, there have not been any changes made since the official version promulgated by JP II.
 
Early 90’s, yes, finger slipped from one key to another. Thanks!

These changes were promulgated by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, September 8, 1997.

The most famous (or infamous) change was:

2483. The second sentence of this paragraph presently reads:

"To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead into error someone who has the right to know the truth."

This sentence will be modified to read:

"To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error."

So many people still use the “right to know” argument as a loophole for lying. They are not happy when the change is pointed out!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top