The insoluble problem of the Church's impossible position on homosexuality

[Fallstar]

Identity can be easily separated into the parts which are intrinsic to the self and extrinsic to the self. The parts which are intrinsic cannot be rejected without destroying the self; these include among other things, the psyche and the body, and sexuality(as it is rooted in both). Extrinsic things include things which can be rejected without destroying the self and things which cannot be rejected without destroying the self. Among the first category include one’s religion and society(rejection destroys then transforms into something different). Among the second category include various devotions or aspects of society such as a scapular or a Ferrari(these can be left aside without a complete rejection of the whole system).

As sexuality is intrinsic to the human soul(as JPII said) and as it is intrinsic to the body as anyone can see or feel, rejecting it is several sins. For example: it is prima facie prudery; it is a rejection of God’s image in His creation; it is a rejection of the ability to express love. Thus, the free choice of chastity notwithstanding, sexuality must be expressed.

It is a fact that homosexuality is seen throughout the animal kingdom, thus it cannot be said that it is against nature, unless by nature it is meant “Human Nature.”

If homosexuality is specifically against Human Nature, this means that God failed in creating homosexuals, since God created man in His Image and Likeness, His Image and Likeness being Human Nature. But God is perfect and so cannot fail. Thus, God made homosexuals. Calling Homosexuality objectively disordered is calling God’s Image and Likeness disordered.

Here is the problem.

God made homosexuals. Catholic homosexuals are forced to do two things against the self: deny the self* and not love. Were these freely chosen, it would be one thing, but they are compulsions.

On the other hand, there is the much more pleasant world offered by other churches, Gay Pride, etc. There, there is no compulsion to deny the self* or to deny love. Thus, they are more morally attractive.

Note: when I speak of denying the self, I am speaking of denying the intrinsic self made by God, not the extrinsic self which one constructs out of society and gives up for Lent.

 

[jfoges]

Identity can be easily separated into the parts which are intrinsic to the self and extrinsic to the self. The parts which are intrinsic cannot be rejected without destroying the self; these include among other things, the psyche and the body, and sexuality(as it is rooted in both). Extrinsic things include things which can be rejected without destroying the self and things which cannot be rejected without destroying the self. Among the first category include one’s religion and society(rejection destroys then transforms into something different). Among the second category include various devotions or aspects of society such as a scapular or a Ferrari(these can be left aside without a complete rejection of the whole system).

As sexuality is intrinsic to the human soul(as JPII said) and as it is intrinsic to the body as anyone can see or feel, rejecting it is several sins. For example: it is prima facie prudery; it is a rejection of God’s image in His creation; it is a rejection of the ability to express love. Thus, the free choice of chastity notwithstanding, sexuality must be expressed.

It is a fact that homosexuality is seen throughout the animal kingdom, thus it cannot be said that it is against nature, unless by nature it is meant “Human Nature.”

If homosexuality is specifically against Human Nature, this means that God failed in creating homosexuals, since God created man in His Image and Likeness, His Image and Likeness being Human Nature. But God is perfect and so cannot fail. Thus, God made homosexuals. Calling Homosexuality objectively disordered is calling God’s Image and Likeness disordered.

Here is the problem.

God made homosexuals. Catholic homosexuals are forced to do two things against the self: deny the self* and not love. Were these freely chosen, it would be one thing, but they are compulsions.

On the other hand, there is the much more pleasant world offered by other churches, Gay Pride, etc. There, there is no compulsion to deny the self* or to deny love. Thus, they are more morally attractive.

Note: when I speak of denying the self, I am speaking of denying the intrinsic self made by God, not the extrinsic self which one constructs out of society and gives up for Lent.

The problem I see with this chain of reasoning is that you assume homosexuality is something one is born with and is intrinsic to the personality. I don’t think the verdict is in on that, I know I am not convinced that is the case. Why are you so sure that homosexuality is intrinsic, and that it exists throughout the animal kingdom. Have you actually read the studies that supposedly verify these claims? Can you give us the names of the studies, and describe their methodologies?

 

[Trishie]

You may find it a problem to your argument that the Church is backed up by scripture

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Romans 1:24-27

“You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female ; it is an abomination.”

Leviticus 18:22

 

[LilyM]

Yes, sexuality may well be intrinsic to the person. But that doesn’t give us licence to ACT on every and any sexual urge we might have.

I can argue that heterosexuality is intrinsic to me, that still doesn’t mean that I can breach the moral code in regards to sex. I cannot have premarital sex, I cannot commit adultery, I cannot sleep with a relative, I cannot commit pedophelia.

Further, having an intrinsic component of sexuality in no way requires me to indulge in ANY sexual behaviour whatsoever. On the contrary, being unmarried I am REQUIRED to be celibate, whether I will it or not.

I am in no way denying myself or not loving by being required to obey God’s command to be celibate. On the contrary, it’s a supreme act of love for God. And an affirmation of my truest, best self - the self God planned for me to be and wants me to be. And it also shows that I love others too much to want to put their souls in jeopardy by dragging them into sexual sin with me.

Put it another way - God gives us all sorts of natural instincts, such as the instinct to eat and the instinct to sleep. The instincts are fine, but due to the Fall - and to the fact of our having free will - we sometimes act on those instincts in ways that are a perversion of God’s will, ie by overeating to the point of gluttony, or sleeping all day to the point of sloth. These perverted actings-out are NOT natural, and NOT part of God’s plan, but rather sinful and a deviation from it.

 

[St_Francis]

If homosexuality is specifically against Human Nature, this means that God failed in creating homosexuals, since God created man in His Image and Likeness, His Image and Likeness being Human Nature. But God is perfect and so cannot fail. Thus, God made homosexuals. Calling Homosexuality objectively disordered is calling God’s Image and Likeness disordered.

God made *man *in His Image and Likeness.

Unfortunately, man ate the apple… causing a huge number of problems which would not otherwise have existed. Each of us has crosses to bear, and one of the crosses some have to bear is sexual attraction going in an incorrect direction.

Here is the problem.

God made homosexuals.

God made men. Some are by virtue of the Fall homosexually inclined. God did not make them that way.

Catholic homosexuals are forced to do two things against the self: deny the self* and not love. Were these freely chosen, it would be one thing, but they are compulsions.

No one is compelled to sin. Compulsions toward sin are unhealthy, a sickness of the soul. Briefly, “We can keep from committing sin by praying and by receiving the sacraments; by remembering that God is always with us; by recalling that our bodies are temples of the Holy Ghost; by keeping occupied with work or play; by promptly resisting the sources of sin within us; by avoiding the near occasions of sin.” (Q 73, Baltimore Catechism)

There are many other much more thorough treatments of fighting sin and temptation. One that was carried by St Francis de Sales is Spiritual Combat (online), but any Catholic bookstore will have a copy of this or another book which may suit you better.

… There, there is no compulsion to deny the self* or to deny love. …

As other have said, those with homosexual inclinations can still love. All too often, society leads us to believe that a love which is not physically shown is not a real sort of love, but that is mere romantic love, and all too often involves selfishness more than a true love for another.

Moreover, to admit that one has a temptation and deal with it on that level does not involve any denial of self, in the form of saying that part of oneself does not exist. However, like everyone else in the world, those with SSA must deny themselves some things in favor of better things. Just as single people striving for holiness do not have sex before marriage, and maybe never marry, even tho they may want to, so those who are not interested in sacramental marriage who are striving for holiness remain celibate.

We turn away from sin for love of Jesus Christ Who died on the Cross for each of us. This type of denial is more loving than the alternative you propose.

On the other hand, there is the much more pleasant world offered by other churches, Gay Pride, etc.

Yes, the world offers many temptations, doesn’t it?

Thus, they are more morally attractive.

Wouldn’t what is morally more attractive have to be *more *moral, not less? these places are more attractive because they are *tempting, *not because they are somehow more moral.

Morality is separate from us; it is God’s Law. God has said that any activity outside of marriage is a wrongful use of the gifts He has given us in that area. Just because some other people have figured out how to package this to be attractive to people who want to love God (which I assume about you because you are here asking this question) but are at the same time tempted.

Note: when I speak of denying the self, I am speaking of denying the intrinsic self made by God, not the extrinsic self which one constructs out of society and gives up for Lent.

 

[AndyF]

Fallstar:

Your study is not complete. Where do you address here the cures by individuals who have pursued through a willingness to change and were successful.?

How would you explain some who have since hetero married, had children and no longer have the slightest compulsion to express their sexuality in this way, even to the point of revulsion of the thought of it. This is not even forced behavior, the inclination has disappeared entirely. What they had in common was a devotion to the rosary, while attending to duty to aspire to Divine things through faith,hope and charity.

Andy

 

[manualman]

The mark of a good argument is that it applies in general and not just in the specific circumstances being addressed. In other words, a principle is always better than a rule.

So let’s examine the argument presented here in a wider context. Men generally have an inclination towards being sexually aroused by women. Married men don’t cease experiencing this inclination towards other women. Thus, one can argue that this inclination is intrinsic to the personality of these men.

By the principle you are attempting to establish, one cannot argue that monogamy is the only healthy physical expression of human sexuality.

Methinks your argument has a flaw somewhere. My prime suspect would be the argument that homosexuality is intrinsic to those human persons that experience it. Alcoholism surely isn’t and IT has been shown to have a genetic predisposition. I propose instead that homosexuality is NOT something intrinsic to the human persons that experience it, but rather a problem that ultimately is sourced in the Fall of Man (Original Sin). As such, it is something that will be healed in heaven. Like alcoholism, it is a burden that must be carried until then.

 

[Ender]

On the other hand, there is the much more pleasant world offered by other churches, Gay Pride, etc. There, there is no compulsion to deny the self* or to deny love. Thus, they are more morally attractive.

If the Catholic Church is nothing more than one church among many, each with its own set of rules, then it would be silly not to pick the church whose rules you preferred. On the other hand, if that were the case it would be equally silly to pick any church at all rather than to make up your own rules and live by them.

The Catholic Church, however, does not simply invent rules: *

“The knowledge which the Church offers to man has its origin not in any speculation of her own, however sublime, but in the word of God which she has received in faith.”* (Fides et Ratio)
*
“As Teacher, she never tires of proclaiming the moral norm … The Church is in no way the author or the arbiter of this norm.”* (Veritatis Splendor)

If one accepts what the Church claims then one has to accept that the “rules” she proclaims are not hers but God’s. As soon as you accept that each church invents its own rules, however, you have eliminated every reason for joining any church at all. If a church is not telling you what God wants then it is silly to consider joining them. If the Catholic Church is in fact explaining God’s word then that is the church to join; if they, like other churches, are making it up as they go along, then none of them is worth a second thought. Whether you like or dislike particular “rules” has nothing to do with it.

Ender

 

[Luke_K]

Identity can be easily separated into the parts which are intrinsic to the self and extrinsic to the self. The parts which are intrinsic cannot be rejected without destroying the self; these include among other things, the psyche and the body, and sexuality(as it is rooted in both). Extrinsic things include things which can be rejected without destroying the self and things which cannot be rejected without destroying the self. Among the first category include one’s religion and society(rejection destroys then transforms into something different). Among the second category include various devotions or aspects of society such as a scapular or a Ferrari(these can be left aside without a complete rejection of the whole system).

As sexuality is intrinsic to the human soul(as JPII said) and as it is intrinsic to the body as anyone can see or feel, rejecting it is several sins. For example: it is prima facie prudery; it is a rejection of God’s image in His creation; it is a rejection of the ability to express love. Thus, the free choice of chastity notwithstanding, sexuality must be expressed.

No one is intrinsically gay. The fact that someone has inclinations towards the same sex does not change the fact that their body is male or female. The meaning of our sexual identity is inseparable from our complementary call to life-giving communion in the image of the Trinity. There can be no union of male and male or female and female, and both relations are intrinsically closed to life.

It is a fact that homosexuality is seen throughout the animal kingdom, thus it cannot be said that it is against nature, unless by nature it is meant “Human Nature.”

Birth deformities are present in the animal kingdom as well. Is it natural for a snake to have two heads? No. Is it natural for a male snake to mount another male snake? No. Homosexuality is diametrically opposed to evolution. By its very nature it prevents any gene causing it to not be passed on to the next generation.

On the other hand, if you’re using nature to justify sexual morality, then you must be forced to admit that we have the sexual drive so that we reproduce. The huge libido we have is all geared towards the male climaxing in the woman’s vagina so that every orgasm has the potential to procreate. Funny thing is, this is exactly the Church’s moral teaching.

This is the WORST and most annoying justification for homosexuality around. Animals do SO many things that we humans should not be doing. We are humans. We are not monkeys, goats, ducks, lizards, or bacteria. No one looks at monkey flinging its poop at another monkey and thinks, “Boy, I guess I should do that too since a monkey is doing it!”

If homosexuality is specifically against Human Nature, this means that God failed in creating homosexuals, since God created man in His Image and Likeness, His Image and Likeness being Human Nature. But God is perfect and so cannot fail. Thus, God made homosexuals. Calling Homosexuality objectively disordered is calling God’s Image and Likeness disordered.

Here is the problem.

God made homosexuals. Catholic homosexuals are forced to do two things against the self: deny the self* and not love. Were these freely chosen, it would be one thing, but they are compulsions.

God created mankind male and female, so that the man would leave his mother and father and be joined to his wife and become one flesh with her.

Your logic means that God created me prideful, selfish, ungrateful, jealous, and judgmental since I have had these feelings since I was born. These things feel innate within me, but it’s not like I’m complaining that the Church is telling me to deny what I feel is “natural.” I cannot rid myself of these temptations. But just like homosexuals, I have the choice to act on them or not, and the more that I reject them, the easier it gets.

God did not create any of the sinful tendencies within me. Original sin distorted what was created good.

By the way, you say that homosexuals cannot love. What!? You’re saying that two men cannot have a deep, loving, affectionate relationship without wanting to have sex with each other? This is one of the worst consequences of the homosexuality movement. Long gone is the powerful, world-changing, male camaraderie. It has been replaced by idolatry of sex and the effemination of men. Please read this essay: touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=18-07-021-f

 

[Holly3278]

The Church’s position is not “impossible”. It is a totally coherent and justifiable position.

 

[JimG]

If homosexuality is specifically against Human Nature, this means that God failed in creating homosexuals, since God created man in His Image and Likeness, His Image and Likeness being Human Nature. But God is perfect and so cannot fail. Thus, God made homosexuals. Calling Homosexuality objectively disordered is calling God’s Image and Likeness disordered.

If adultery and fornication are against human nature, this means that God failed in creating adulterers and fornicators, as well as many others with a variety of sexual compulsions. And yet St. Paul warns that such will not inherit the kingdom. Sounds totally unfair.

 

[edwest2]

Who decides when you have sex? The State? The Church? What’s wrong with self control? No one is going to die from not having sex either.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Newbie2]

Identity can be easily separated into the parts which are intrinsic to the self and extrinsic to the self.I disagree about the “easy” part. The parts which are intrinsic cannot be rejected without destroying the self; these include among other things, the psyche and the body, and sexuality(as it is rooted in both). Extrinsic things include things which can be rejected without destroying the self and things which cannot be rejected without destroying the self. Among the first category include one’s religion and society(rejection destroys then transforms into something different). Among the second category include various devotions or aspects of society such as a scapular or a Ferrari(these can be left aside without a complete rejection of the whole system).

As sexuality is intrinsic to the human soul(as JPII said) and as it is intrinsic to the body as anyone can see or feel, rejecting it is several sins. For example: it is prima facie prudery; it is a rejection of God’s image in His creation; it is a rejection of the ability to express love. Thus, the free choice of chastity notwithstanding, sexuality must be expressed. In a way that God intends, yes.

It is a fact that homosexuality is seen throughout the animal kingdom, Bzzzt. No. Animals seeking out and pairing with other animals of the same sex is certainly not “seen throughout the animal kingdom”. thus it cannot be said that it is against nature, unless by nature it is meant “Human Nature.” Faulty facts=faulty conclusion.

If homosexuality is specifically against Human Nature, this means that God failed in creating homosexuals, since God created man in His Image and Likeness, His Image and Likeness being Human Nature. But God is perfect and so cannot fail. Thus, God made homosexuals. Calling Homosexuality objectively disordered is calling God’s Image and Likeness disordered. You ignore entirely man’s fall from Grace; man’s fault, not God’s.

Here is the problem.

God made homosexuals. Catholic homosexuals are forced to do two things against the self: deny the self* and not love. Were these freely chosen, it would be one thing, but they are compulsions. No, Catholic homosexuals are denied sin, just like heterosexual Catholics.

On the other hand, there is the much more pleasant world offered by other churches, Gay Pride, etc. There, there is no compulsion to deny the self* or to deny love. Thus, they are more morally attractive. Agreed; more “morally” attractive as discerned from a un-Godlike morality.

Note: when I speak of denying the self, I am speaking of denying the intrinsic self made by God, not the extrinsic self which one constructs out of society and gives up for Lent.

 

[raaucoin]

because of the "fall of Adam(ok- and Eve) we must now constantly fight our inclination to sin.God didn’t choose that for us. I don’t know if it is “nurture or nature”. I don’t even care if I was born this way. I just know that I have always -as far back as I can remember- been this way. And just as some one who has an extremely difficult time controlling his/ her temper but still doesn’t have a license to act out freely on that, so must I control my actions.

The world had me believe that there was no other option than to act on my desires, impulses, or whatever. I bought into that. As a result, (most of ) the world patted me on the back for accepting “who God created me to be”.

It is the grace from God that allows me to embrace the fact not that I am a sinner- and oh if past homosexual activity would have been my only sin returning to God’s grace would have been easy!-but that His grace is more powerful than my inclination to sin.

I have been so unworthily given the gift to be able to offer this condition with our Lord in His agonizing passion. And the truth be known, it isn’t that difficult to live my life out in chastity.
We will probably be arguing about this until the end of time. But I don’t have to argue any more. I know God created me out of love, like all humanity. I know that we chose to turn away from the life He intended in paradise free from all struggle and strife. But He so loved the world(me) that He sent His only Son that whoever would believe might have eternal life. We have all we need in our Lord who suffered died, and Rose again that there would no longer be ANY sin that could keep us from Him if we repent and are reconciled.

No situation, condition, or “disorder”(That still sounds funny to me-chill out! I understand what the church means and I agree!)is ever to difficult to handle- if we allow the Holy Spirit to move us where we never dreamed we could go.
And finally, being chaste has in no way been a denial of self for me. I fully accept that for whatever reason, I am not called to marriage. Whether straight or gay, that means I stay chaste. And where I also once argued for my “gift of (homo)sexuality”, I have now accepted the tremendous gift of chastity and BOY !!Have I received many more blessings because of it.

 

[St_Francis]

because of the "fall of Adam(ok- and Eve) we must now constantly fight our inclination to sin.God didn’t choose that for us. I don’t know if it is “nurture or nature”. I don’t even care if I was born this way. I just know that I have always -as far back as I can remember- been this way. And just as some one who has an extremely difficult time controlling his/ her temper but still doesn’t have a license to act out freely on that, so must I control my actions.

The world had me believe that there was no other option than to act on my desires, impulses, or whatever. I bought into that. As a result, (most of ) the world patted me on the back for accepting “who God created me to be”.

It is the grace from God that allows me to embrace the fact not that I am a sinner- and oh if past homosexual activity would have been my only sin returning to God’s grace would have been easy!-but that His grace is more powerful than my inclination to sin.

I have been so unworthily given the gift to be able to offer this condition with our Lord in His agonizing passion. And the truth be known, it isn’t that difficult to live my life out in chastity.
We will probably be arguing about this until the end of time. But I don’t have to argue any more. I know God created me out of love, like all humanity. I know that we chose to turn away from the life He intended in paradise free from all struggle and strife. But He so loved the world(me) that He sent His only Son that whoever would believe might have eternal life. We have all we need in our Lord who suffered died, and Rose again that there would no longer be ANY sin that could keep us from Him if we repent and are reconciled.

No situation, condition, or “disorder”(That still sounds funny to me-chill out! I understand what the church means and I agree!)is ever to difficult to handle- if we allow the Holy Spirit to move us where we never dreamed we could go.
And finally, being chaste has in no way been a denial of self for me. I fully accept that for whatever reason, I am not called to marriage. Whether straight or gay, that means I stay chaste. And where I also once argued for my “gift of (homo)sexuality”, I have now accepted the tremendous gift of chastity and BOY !!Have I received many more blessings because of it.

Wonderful post

 

[AndyF]

The mark of a good argument is that it applies in general and not just in the specific circumstances being addressed. In other words, a principle is always better than a rule.

In this case it’s observational selection.

The arguments themselves center on an object which itself is a general rule by Authority.

Since we are talking about God the lawmaker, we can presume he knows when and where to include a not withstanding clause on mention.

My point is that by God’s rule, along with the fact he wants us all to join him, implies, 1/…That the acts are an offense to him. 2/…That this behavior is a learned behavior, not something we can never have a hope of fending off, otherwise the plan for the future of some is a ruse. Intrinsically, the law is good, therefore the act can only be negative.

Remarkably, this one is not even a candidate that requires the use of Divine reasoning, it makes sense even in human reasoning.

Andy