Why this Catholic takes issue with 'gay' and 'straight' labels

[_Abyssinia]

Denver, Colo., Jul 13, 2017 / 03:01 am (CNA).- Chastity actually means fulfillment, not suffering – and labeling people in terms of their sexual inclinations or attractions first is ultimately a reduction of their human dignity.

These ideas form the basis of a provocative new book by Daniel Mattson, a Catholic who finds identifying as “gay” unhelpful in the dialogue on the issue, and who also believes that living the Church’s teaching on sexuality leads to the most profound experience of peace and freedom.

“The Church must truly have a missionary zeal in proclaiming chastity as an invitation to a more fulfilling life for all men and women,” Mattson told CNA.

catholicnewsagency.com/news/why-this-catholic-takes-issue-with-gay-and-straight-labels-24690/

 

[JimG]

From the article:

“The dividing line of human sexuality is not between gay and straight, but rather between male and female, as we see in the Creation account of Genesis,” said Mattson.
. . .
Mattson said a major reason why he wrote the book was to take on the notion of people identifying themselves first in terms of straight or gay. When Mother Teresa was asked about “homosexuals” in an interview, he said she refused to refer to anyone with same-sex attraction as anything else but “a child of God.”

 

[edwest2]

Thanks to the OP for posting this. The author is taking the right approach but the profound underlying problem which has been gradually and, over the years, now deeply ingrained thinking in Western societies is that you CANNOT control your sexual behavior. Don’t even bother to think differently. Accept it.

To say otherwise goes against every media depiction of non-marital sexual behavior as good, average or Hey. What’s the big deal? A lot of people are doing it and it’s fun or just typical, so just ignore the immoral part.

Until we reject that profound injury to human dignity, the messages and images will continue, constantly until we reject them.

God gave us the way for the proper development of human dignity and the proper role of sexual relations. He gave us Marriage and the purpose of it. However, others are, at this moment, rejecting this plan in various ways.

YOU, and only you, can control yourself. Believe that, and if you’re in a situation where you need help to get on the right track, pray to God for help. I know it’s not easy but whenever we fall, we should pick ourselves up, admit we did wrong, and trust that God WILL help us. It may take time but the end result will be worth it.

Ed

 

[Deus_tecum]

I have not seen the book or the article but do agree with what it seems to say according to some here. What is the point of a chaste Christian identifying themselves as gay if they have no gay physical relationships?

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

I’m a male person who is inclined towards sexual attraction towards females. I do not identify as “straight”. Conversely, I’m not so sure it’s generally the case with those who are male sexually attracted to males. Those that I know make it fairly clear to me that they are indeed “gay”. Probably has something to do with wanting to be accepted (and therefore not being shunned because of) despite their rare condition of being attracted to the same sex.

 

[randomuser]

I have not seen the book or the article but do agree with what it seems to say according to some here. What is the point of a chaste Christian identifying themselves as gay if they have no gay physical relationships?

For the same reason a chaste straight person would identify himself or herself as straight: that’s what the word means. What’s the point of having a vocabulary with clearly defined words if there is so much objection to using words that clearly define what you’re trying to say?

 

[EIF5A]

Seems like just overanalyzing and overthinking a simple adjective.

“I’m gay” vs “I struggle with same-sex attraction”

There’s really no difference. People just apply their own bias and prejudice.

“I’m American” vs “I am a legal citizen of the United States”

How much time and effort do we have to spend on this minutiae?

 

[John_Paul_Jones]

I have not seen the book or the article but do agree with what it seems to say according to some here. What is the point of a chaste Christian identifying themselves as gay if they have no gay physical relationships?

What’s the point of someone admitting they are an “alcoholic” if they are recovering and will never take a drink again?

 

[Peter_J]

How much time and effort do we have to spend on this minutiae?

Just enough so that the rest of the world will think that Catholics are obsessed with homosexuality.

That’s my guess anyhow.

 

[Rau]

Seems like just overanalyzing and overthinking a simple adjective.

“I’m gay” vs “I struggle with same-sex attraction”

There’s really no difference.

As you’ve written it, there clearly is. In the latter expression, you’ve declared a struggle exists. Neither gayness nor SSA implies a struggle.

 

[fin]

I agree with Daniel Mattson. Another trustworthy former gay is Joseph Sciambra. The questionable ones are those who call themselves gay, like Melinda Selmys and Eva Tushnet.

 

[polki]

I think many–including doctors of psychology and biology–believe you cannot change your *sexual orientation. *

.

People say they are “born this way” (i.e. with a certain gender) and people also say that “gender is fluid.”

 

[at9009]

Seems like just overanalyzing and overthinking a simple adjective.

“I’m gay” vs “I struggle with same-sex attraction”

There’s really no difference. People just apply their own bias and prejudice.

“I’m American” vs “I am a legal citizen of the United States”

How much time and effort do we have to spend on this minutiae?

Apparently it’s the only thing we care aboutand if on w dare use gay then some seem to think it’s okay to automatically assume the worst and lack any semblance of charity. I will say people like Eve Tushnet, Wesley Hill, and Ron Belgau have done a lot and their writings have been helpful to me.

 

[at9009]

The questionable ones are those who call themselves gay, like Melinda Selmys and Eva Tushnet.

Nothing these people have done is against church teaching. You may not like their approach and it may make you uncomfortable because of their openness but yo suggest they are problematic is pretty darn uncharitable.

 

[Peter_J]

Are you saying…that you think people are gay because it’s “fun” and “a lot of people are doing it”?
Or are you just talking about having sex w/o being married?

Question wasn’t directed at me, but the post you quoted says “non-marital sexual behavior” (not “gay sex”) so I think that’s pretty clear.

I think many–including doctors of psychology and biology–believe you cannot change your *sexual orientation. *
**But I don’t meet many who don’t think you can’t “control” it.
**

I agree that few people actually think that, but a lot come close to it: they regard celibacy as unnatural, etc.

 

[Rau]

…I agree that few people actually think that, but a lot come close to it: they regard celibacy as unnatural, etc.

I believe a commonly held view is that the presence of the inclination to the same sex (particularly when coupled with the absence of attraction to the opposite sex) provides all the justification required to accept same sex sexual relations as normal. That participation in sexual relationships is a societal norm provides foundation. The existence of SSM completes the picture.

 

[Peter_J]

I believe a commonly held view is that the presence of the inclination to the same sex (particularly when coupled with the absence of attraction to the opposite sex) provides all the justification required to accept same sex sexual relations as normal. That participation in sexual relationships is a societal norm provides foundation. The existence of SSM completes the picture.

I quite agree that that’s a common view. But if one considers why it’s a common view, I think a big part of the reason is that many people don’t give the option of celibacy much consideration (or at least not in a very positive way).

 

[Rau]

I quite agree that that’s a common view. But if one considers why it’s a common view, I think a big part of the reason is that many people don’t give the option of celibacy much consideration (or at least not in a very positive way).

Yes, which is why I said that “participation in a sexual relationship is regarded as the societal norm”. **

 

[Peter_J]

Yes, which is why I said that “participation in a sexual relationship is regarded as the societal norm”. **

+1

 

[mkoopman]

Just enough so that the rest of the world will think that Catholics are obsessed with homosexuality.

That’s my guess anyhow.

The enemy knows what makes chastity distasteful. Same slithery imagery that makes fruit appetizing. Ask our mother Eve.

Pray to our mother, Mary, her Son is the only answer.