Why I identify as homosexual even while living chastely

[silentstar]

And you can point to numerous cases where you have applauded 'happily married faithful men" for making “thoughtful statements…”?

If not, why not? What in us wants to “applaud”? Feelings? Truth? True love?

Please see the below post, the post above mine, below yours which I just quoted. I think the OP wants to celebrate that she has come back to the Church and is trying to figure out how to be a source of reassurance for other reluctant people who may come back. As for me praising other people, to be honest, I was upset and emotional on those threads b/c they often made me think about issues of family tragedy I experienced growing up so now I try to lurk but not post. However yes, faithful married men should be applauded as well. Marriage isn’t always easy…

 

[silentstar]

Assuming heterosexuality underneath such forums is not the same thing as orienting whole threads, repeating threads, overlapping threads around homosexual identity.

Consider “work” threads. All morally licit human work properly conceived of, from a supernatural point of view, is designed to support the family (presupposing heterosexuality).

But it accomplishes nothing to center or consider these discussions around “heterosexual identity”.

I can see your point b/c I posted before I’d read all of this discussion, but only about half of it, and the identity issues were very thoroughly discussed. I didn’t realize how involved that discussion got until I read all of the pages - which usually I try to do.

 

[Edward_H]

I can see your point b/c I posted before I’d read all of this discussion, but only about half of it, and the identity issues were very thoroughly discussed. I didn’t realize how involved that discussion got until I read all of the pages - which usually I try to do.

Well said.

 

[Debora123]

I made an observation by seeing your posts that you are indeed representing the liberal Catholic point of view . You are playing the soldier for homosexuality here . **Now While the church does not condemn the homosexual , it does condemn the homosexual act **.Just a reminder for you in case you forgot that factoid .

That’s what I’ve been saying Defender. This is why I think you’re a troll… bc I’ve stated numerous times in this thread that I DO think homosexual acts are wrong. In fact I stated this in the very post that you made the above response to. Do you not understand what I am saying? Are you not reading my posts? I highly doubt either of those are the case, so yeah, sorry, but that leads me to believe you are a troll. (amongst other reasons as well and I have stated them in my previous response to you.)

(Haha, in case I “forgot that factoid??”… like it isn’t what I’ve been saying this whole time or anything )

This is a conservative point of view of mine(your reasoning for calling me a troll ) how would you like it if I called you a troll for being a soldier for homosexuals here? (no offense to the poster of course ) First off how many Chaste homosexuals do you think their really are ? Not many fall under the churches approval . Just a little point I would like to make . Now the poster claims to be and I hope she is .Like I stated before in so many words that the poster is a kind hearted person . This went from me disagreeing with her and stating my view to you being a soldier for her stance and name calling . I would not think that I would have to remind a female to be an adult here .Lets get off of the high horse .

Sigh

 

[Debora123]

Dignity Canada is affiliated with Dignity USA. Do you know that it is one in the list of dissenting organizations that passes itself as Catholic but is not? The same with Concerned Catholics.

Dissenting Organizations

Dignity USA

Dignity USA link will take you to Dignity Canada

Debora, dissenting organizations use Catholic language and changes it wherever to suit their beliefs that depart from real instructions of Catholic Church. This is how they insinuate their erroneous beliefs. It is subtle. It is sly. What more effective strategy than to sow confusion with language and terminologies? This is how they attract Catholics who have SSA or those who are sympathetic to people with SSA. I am not surprised that the OP has been using it as a source. Thankfully, it looks like the Holy Spirit was at work with her regardless of the source she was using. It would appear that you are also looking at an inauthentic source.

Elizabeth and Edward are correct. As provided to you and here again, links to authentic Catholic Catechism:

Catechism of the Catholic Church
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P85.HTM

CCC 2358
scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#2358
,

Good grief, guys.

I didn’t post that link because I like that website. Honestly, I have no idea what this divinity thing is. I posted that link because it contained the Catechism passage 2358, and included the same wording as the Catechism I have here at home. Is my catechism not authentic? There were many other websites out there that quoted 2358 with that wording, including this one:

concernedcatholics.org/homosexuality.htm

And this one:

beliefnet.com/Faiths/Catholic/2002/01/The-Roman-Catholic-Churchs-Official-Teaching-On-Homosexuality.aspx

It’s not like they all got together and decided to change 2358 to saying the exact same thing.

 

[Debora123]

From the Catholic Bishops Website:

Generally, homosexual orientation is experienced as a given, not as something freely chosen. By itself, therefore, a homosexual orientation cannot be considered sinful, for morality presumes the freedom to choose.

usccb.org/comm/archives/1997/97-208.shtml

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Good grief, guys.

I didn’t post that link because I like that website. Honestly, I have no idea what this divinity thing is. I posted that link because it contained the Catechism passage 2358, and included the same wording as the Catechism I have here at home. Is my catechism not authentic? There were many other websites out there that quoted 2358 with that wording, including this one:

concernedcatholics.org/homosexuality.htm

And this one:

beliefnet.com/Faiths/Catholic/2002/01/The-Roman-Catholic-Churchs-Official-Teaching-On-Homosexuality.aspx

It’s not like they all got together and decided to change 2358 to saying the exact same thing.

You are missing what is being communicated to you. The Internet is unregulated, as you can appreciate. Anyone and any organization can post something without a word by word, substance and veracity check. That is why some people make it a habit to go on fact check or Snopes. Just consider wiki. Wiki information is offered by all sorts of people, whose interest is not necessarily objectivity or the entire truth. Falsehood can be repeated over and over.

The source is indeed important. For instructions in our faith, it is best to use the Vatican site and/or scborromeo, as suggested to you. Is this not sound advice?
,

 

[InSearchofGrace]

From the Catholic Bishops Website:

usccb.org/comm/archives/1997/97-208.shtml

You referenced the counsel of bishops to parents of homosexuals to accept their children and themselves and Church teaching on human dignity.

If you notice in the paragraph before and after what you lifted, the bishops worded the letter very carefully. They prefaced the statement with “Generally …”

*The statement did not enter into the debate about the origin of homosexuality but simply stated that “multiple factors” seem to account for a homosexual orientation.

"Generally, homosexual orientation is experienced as a given, not as something freely chosen. By itself, therefore, a homosexual orientation cannot be considered sinful, for morality presumes the freedom to choose," they said.

In a section summarizing Church teaching, the Bishops emphasize the dignity of every person created in God’s image and said that the virtue of chastity is a way of respecting personal dignity. The Bishops urged heterosexual and homosexual persons to cooperate with God’s grace in order to live a chaste life.
*
If you take the context of the letter from the bishops, it lends credence to what Elizabeth and Edward were maintaining. By the way, this is not to insult or offend you, but these two are highly educated and very well read on the topic of moral theology and the Catholic faith.
,

 

[Elizabeth502]

beliefnet.com/Faiths/Catholic/2002/01/The-Roman-Catholic-Churchs-Official-Teaching-On-Homosexuality.aspx

Regardless of what random websites say or don’t say, unless there is a context, and unless the teaching or citation is explained in Catholic terms, it’s not much help to direct anyone seeking Catholic guidance to a generic site like beliefnet, which states its mission as:

About Beliefnet
Our mission is to help people like you find, and walk, a spiritual path that will bring comfort, hope, clarity, strength, and happiness.

Whether you’re exploring your own faith or other spiritual traditions, we provide you inspiring devotional tools, access to the best spiritual teachers and clergy in the world, thought-provoking commentary, and a supportive community.

Beliefnet is the largest spiritual web site. We are independent and not affiliated with any spiritual organization or movement. Our only agenda is to help you meet your spiritual needs.

It should have tipped you off, maybe, to read and understand what Beliefnet is all about, which is popular spirituality? When you go to Relationships, you learn all about New Age Sex, Eastern Religion Sex, and something called “Christ-like Sex” which is not a phrase which originates from the Roman Church.

Why do you persist in most of your postings in referencing everything but official Catholic sites with authentic & current documents? Why would you be searching beliefnet for a Catholic understanding in the first place?

And further, why did you deliberately seek out (once again), an outdated 1994 (not 1997) version of paragraph 2358, in the above non-Catholic website (not the Vatican website, which you were offered as the authentic current source). Is it so that you could claim once again wording that does not exist in the Catechism, to further some agenda of your own?

You have already been shown the correct Catechism paragraph 2358, yet you continue to represent that the 1994 version is the accurate one, when the Vatican does not agree with you.

 

[Eugenius]

Homosexuality is not a burden , it is a choice just as abortion is a choice God gave us free will as a test some of us live right some of us fail his test . if you choose homosexuality you fail his test as well as those who choose abortion .

Homosexuals choose to act on their sexual impulses, but do not necessarily choose to have those impulses. Is this what you mean?

 

[Eugenius]

From the Vatican’s website, the Catechism.

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P85.HTM

Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."141 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

The topic of identity has been interesting. Lately I have come to appreciate the term “persons with same sex attraction (SSA)” because it helps clarify homosexuality as something that happens to people, but does not define who they are.

However, then I read the excerpt from the catechism (which I have read many times before) and suddenly noticed that the catechism moves from talking about homosexual acts to homosexual persons. From this it appears that the church does consider people with SSA to still be homosexual even when they are chaste.

 

[speakttruth]

So, is it reasonable to assume you don’t believe God made homosexuals period? That they are somehow evilly mutated versions of sinful men and women possessed by devils?

Shall we lock bells around their necks to allow the faithful ample warning of their evil presence amongst us?

Maroon them on an island to keep their contagion from spreading among the faithful flawed majority?

jomoco

You obviously aren’t learning your Catholic faith and are not being very respectful. You either have the problem yourself, which many if not all, have anger problems or your not Catholic and want to start trouble. No, God did not create homosexuality, he created the person, the human being, The devil created sin,by disobedience. Original sin, which we all had because of Adam and Eve,because of Satan, remember we fell? But through baptism it is taken away, but our sinful natures still remain. What part of homosexuality in action don’t you understand that it is a sin. SEX with anyone outside of marriage, only between a man and women is a sin. The difference with homosexual sex is that it is perverted. One of the scriptures says that God gave them over to depraved minds because of what they did, men lay with men and women lay with women against their nature.
I am sure you can look it up. Romans. I believe. Anyway, another definite characteristic of a homosexual life style is immaturity and they never grow up they act like perpetual teenagers in rebellion. Gay pride parades, ever see one and how they bring children and like to have them on the Catholic holy days and Sundays? They pervert the meaning of the Rainbow in Genesis. If you read my previous post you would have read I have a son with SSA, who I happen to love very much, so don’t think you are being funny with me. This is a very painful thing for families. Have some respect. If you have this problem, then go get some help. I can see by many posts you are a wise guy. Do you believe in hell? The road is wide to hell.
We should be charitable on this site and if you believe in your Catholic faith, then stop pushing the garbage that is pushed out there by gay activists. But if your one of the Cafeteria Catholics and if your approving of it, you will be called to answer to God as well. Stop spewing garbage. Love is about telling the truth, not perpetuating the lie. One more thing, we wouldn’t know they were homosexuals if they didn’t have parades and shout it from the roof tops. They could keep their sex life to themselves. But we have perverted heterosexuals and homosexuals, that push sex everywhere you go. Now that’s the love God wants?
Learn your faith.

 

[jomoco]

Love is about telling the truth, not perpetuating the lie. One more thing, we wouldn’t know they were homosexuals if they didn’t have parades and shout it from the roof tops.

By editing 95 percent of your opinions, and boiling the leavings under a brisk fire, I’ve managed to distill the essence of your message, the first half of which I totally agree with you on. The second part is rather silly, this assumption of yours that God did not create homosexuals with a specific intent/purpose known only to Him.

Who’s been telling you these tales my friend, some old frail fallible men?

According to my KJ Bible, God created everthang!

jomoco

 

[Debora123]

Regardless of what random websites say or don’t say, unless there is a context, and unless the teaching or citation is explained in Catholic terms, it’s not much help to direct anyone seeking Catholic guidance to a generic site like beliefnet, which states its mission as:

It should have tipped you off, maybe, to read and understand what Beliefnet is all about, which is popular spirituality? When you go to Relationships, you learn all about New Age Sex, Eastern Religion Sex, and something called “Christ-like Sex” which is not a phrase which originates from the Roman Church.

Why do you persist in most of your postings in referencing everything but official Catholic sites with authentic & current documents? Why would you be searching beliefnet for a Catholic understanding in the first place?

You are missing what is being communicated to you. The Internet is unregulated, as you can appreciate. Anyone and any organization can post something without a word by word, substance and veracity check. That is why some people make it a habit to go on fact check or Snopes. Just consider wiki. Wiki information is offered by all sorts of people, whose interest is not necessarily objectivity or the entire truth. Falsehood can be repeated over and over.

The source is indeed important. For instructions in our faith, it is best to use the Vatican site and/or scborromeo, as suggested to you. Is this not sound advice?
,

Let me say it again. I posted those links because those websites had the same version of 2358 as the catechism I have at home.

 

[Debora123]

You referenced the counsel of bishops to parents of homosexuals to accept their children and themselves and Church teaching on human dignity.

If you notice in the paragraph before and after what you lifted, the bishops worded the letter very carefully. They prefaced the statement with “Generally …”

The statement did not enter into the debate about the origin of homosexuality but simply stated that “multiple factors” seem to account for a homosexual orientation.

"Generally, homosexual orientation is experienced as a given, not as something freely chosen. By itself, therefore, a homosexual orientation cannot be considered sinful, for morality presumes the freedom to choose," they said.

In a section summarizing Church teaching, the Bishops emphasize the dignity of every person created in God’s image and said that the virtue of chastity is a way of respecting personal dignity. The Bishops urged heterosexual and homosexual persons to cooperate with God’s grace in order to live a chaste life.

If you take the context of the letter from the bishops, it lends credence to what Elizabeth and Edward were maintaining. By the way, this is not to insult or offend you, but these two are highly educated and very well read on the topic of moral theology and the Catholic faith.
,

Ok?

I really don’t see how putting it into context changes the meaning of what I quoted. It still says clear as day that homosexual orientation isn’t something freely chosen, and nothing that is said anywhere in that website contradicts that fact.

So I don’t understand what you’re saying here or what you’re trying to get at… that homosexual orientation actually IS a choice? (contrary to usccb)

I certainly didn’t see THAT on the bishops website. I posted the section where choice was brought into the equation, in which case they specifically said it was NOT a choice.

That’s ALL I’m trying to get at. Do you not agree that people with SSA don’t CHOOSE to have those attractions???

 

[Debora123]

And further, why did you deliberately seek out (once again), an outdated 1994 (not 1997) version of paragraph 2358, in the above non-Catholic website (not the Vatican website, which you were offered as the authentic current source). Is it so that you could claim once again wording that does not exist in the Catechism, to further some agenda of your own?

You have already been shown the correct Catechism paragraph 2358, yet you continue to represent that the 1994 version is the accurate one, when the Vatican does not agree with you.

I sought those out because I cannot scan that paragraph out of my catechism and post it for you guys to see - as I don’t have a scanner.

But if you wanna say my catechism contains wrong information because it is out dated, that’s fine.

I disagree, however, that changing the wording on an updated edition changes the Church teaching itself. I still believe the same message is getting across, and that is that SSA is not chosen, and is not a sin in and of itself. You disagree? So you believe the Church was wrong at one point? And you believe ALL the people who have SSA are lying when they inform us that they did not choose to be that way? Including the OP of this thread? Hmmm.

The new catechism does not use the word choice, but it uses the word inclination. An inclination is not something that is freely chosen. People don’t choose to have inclinations. Again, I think the same message is getting across here.

 

[Defender1]

That’s what I’ve been saying Defender. This is why I think you’re a troll… bc I’ve stated numerous times in this thread that I DO think homosexual acts are wrong. In fact I stated this in the very post that you made the above response to. Do you not understand what I am saying? Are you not reading my posts? I highly doubt either of those are the case, so yeah, sorry, but that leads me to believe you are a troll. (amongst other reasons as well and I have stated them in my previous response to you.)

(Haha, in case I “forgot that factoid??”… like it isn’t what I’ve been saying this whole time or anything )

Sigh

And YOU playing the soldier for the homosexual makes you a liberal Catholic . You act as if you forget that factoid . There is not reason for you to call me a troll ?(what does that mean anyway to you? are all conservative Catholics trolls?) Do I call you a troll for being a liberal Catholic? No! Lets act our age here and I agree to disagree !

 

[Elizabeth502]

The topic of identity has been interesting. Lately I have come to appreciate the term “persons with same sex attraction (SSA)” because it helps clarify homosexuality as something that happens to people, but does not define who they are.

However, then I read the excerpt from the catechism (which I have read many times before) and suddenly noticed that the catechism moves from talking about homosexual acts to homosexual persons. From this it appears that the church does consider people with SSA to still be homosexual even when they are chaste.

They consider them still to have the attraction, or likelihood of (permanent) attraction, but they do not consider that the core of their personhood is homosexuality, any more than the core personhood of the rest of us is heterosexuality. The Church does not define personhood as one centered in sexuality, period. I’m not going to continue to see this erroneously addressed here. We identify our personhood as dignified (equally, all of us) daughters and sons of The Living God, and brothers and sisters of Christ, regardless of any level of disordered attraction, and any category of that disordered attraction (sexual or non-sexual). Lots of us heterosexuals have disordered, non-sexual atractions. We do not define ourselves by a disorder.

 

[Defender1]

Homosexuals choose to act on their sexual impulses, but do not necessarily choose to have those impulses. Is this what you mean?

My position here is that Homosexuals make a choice to be homosexual ? God did not make them that way . Now As far as birth defects go , I hear they are looking into methods of birth control leading them to make the choice to be homosexual . But as far as I am concerned ,using common sense , God did not put us on this planet to be homosexuals . He clearly tells us to be fertile and multiply . I suggest all of you read Paul’s teachings In 1Corinthians 7:32-35 Paul gives advice for men and woman of God. He says that men that are married are concerned about the stresses of world and how to please their wives while married woman are concerned on how to please their husbands . Homosexuality was very well known back then . We see the condeming of homosexual actions in the NT as well as the OT . Yet we see no where it being promoted . Notice how Paul did not say anything about homosexuals in marriage simply because it was not an issue of thought . Man and woman were made to be together not man and man or woman and woman . Simple as that . Now once again may I apologize to the poster for having to state my view once again . But as long as I get responses I will respond .

 

[Defender1]

By editing 95 percent of your opinions, and boiling the leavings under a brisk fire, I’ve managed to distill the essence of your message, the first half of which I totally agree with you on. The second part is rather silly, this assumption of yours that God did not create homosexuals with a specific intent/purpose known only to Him.

Who’s been telling you these tales my friend, some old frail fallible men?

According to my KJ Bible, God created everthang!

jomoco

God did not create homosexuals to be homosexuals he created men and woman who made the choice to be homosexual big difference .What denomination? Just curious