Why we need to stand up against Anti-Gay sentiment

[Rau]

…In this section of the Catechism 2357 I believe the Magisterium defines “homosexuality”:

“Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive (or predominant) sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex.”

I leave out the words “or predominant”, for me they are not quantifiable, this just makes the
group size smaller and clarifies the definition. For me an “exclusive … sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex” precludes an attraction toward persons of the opposite sex. I understand that one can put a time constraint on an exclusivity the Church does not in this case. To the contrary the Church accepts a new type of person the “homosexual person”. My understanding is that until this “new” teaching the only type of persons that the Church has recognized are male and female created by the Lord for the gift of procreation.

The Church neither states nor suggests that there is a permanence to the experience of SSA. The Church makes no remark or observation on that point. The Church’s teachings as they pertain to same sex sexual relations are no different according to the permanence or otherwise of the experience of SSA.

The fact that the Church does not address permanence/impermance does not imply a position in favour of permanence! Your reference to a “new type of person” (to be compared with male and female) does however assume a permanence is being implied or asserted. You have no basis for that. But even if permanence (in the sense that I understand my opposite sex attraction is permanent) is the reality for some individuals (despite perhaps their ardent desire to the contrary) - so what? The behaviour - chastity - that one is called to each day remains the same.

The Church recognises “male and female” sexes, fertile and infertile, impotent and potent; those of ambiguous sex, and possibly other variants of the human condition. And it also recognises men and women who experience sexual attractions to the same sex. And it may well recognise those who seem to experience no sexual attraction at all (asexual). Again - so what?

 

[PRmerger]

The Church neither states nor suggests that there is a permanence to the experience of SSA. The Church makes no remark or observation on that point. The Church’s teachings as they pertain to same sex sexual relations are no different according to the permanence or otherwise of the experience of SSA.

The fact that the Church does not address permanence/impermance does not imply a position in favour of permanence! Your reference to a “new type of person” (to be compared with male and female) does however assume a permanence is being implied or asserted. You have no basis for that. But even if permanence (in the sense that I understand my opposite sex attraction is permanent) is the reality for some individuals (despite perhaps their ardent desire to the contrary) - so what? The behaviour - chastity - that one is called to each day remains the same.

The Church recognises “male and female” sexes, fertile and infertile, impotent and potent; those of ambiguous sex, and possibly other variants of the human condition. And it also recognises men and women who experience sexual attractions to the same sex. And it may well recognise those who seem to experience no sexual attraction at all (asexual). Again - so what?

 

[jjr9]

Would you mind answer the question, jjr?

NB: this is indeed on topic in that the assertion has been made that the Church’s stand against Anti-Gay sentiment is false due to the fact that there is no such thing as a homosexual person, due to the fact that this term was “only considered” around 1960…and the refutation is being offered by offering, as analogy, the dogma on the Assumption, which was proclaimed in 1950.

I do not know if the Church considered the Assumption of Mary before 1950. I believe this is tradition
in the Church but I am no expert on this, I read online:

St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria,
who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb,
when opened, upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken
up to heaven. Ref newadvent.org/cathen/02006b.htm

From this it appears that since at least 451 the Assumption of Mary has been part of Church tradition.
I accept this through faith and believe this to be consistent with the Sacred Deposit of Faith.

God bless

Will you answer the question in my last post?

 

[PRmerger]

I do not know if the Church considered the Assumption of Mary before 1950. I believe this is tradition

So you see the double standard you’re espousing, jjr?

If you are consistent, you should say: yes, the Church never considered the Assumption of Mary before 1950.

For that is your conclusion regarding SSA.

 

[PRmerger]

Your view is not clear to me.

In this section of the Catechism 2357 I believe the Magisterium defines “homosexuality”:

“Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive
… sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex.”

   I leave out the words “or predominant”, for me they are not quantifiable, this just makes the

group size smaller and clarifies the definition. For me an “exclusive … sexual attraction toward
persons of the same sex” precludes an attraction toward persons of the opposite sex. I understand
that one can put a time constraint on an exclusivity the Church does not in this case. To the contrary
the Church accepts a new type of person the “homosexual person”. My understanding is that until
this “new” teaching the only type of persons that the Church has recognized are male and female
created by the Lord for the gift of procreation.

What do you believe the Magisterium is saying here?

The Magisterium is saying that there are indeed men and women who are exclusively SSA, and they are called “homosexual persons”, as opposed to men and women who may be “bisexual persons” or “heterosexual persons”.

What is contrary to reality with that?

My pursuit of Truth, a very Catholic idea, is not a “contempt for Catholicism”.

God bless

Fair enough.

Just be judicious about the presentation of your arguments.

For it is good for you to be here and in dialogue with faithful, knowledgeable Catholics.

 

[catholic1seeks]

I’m not talking about those who say that Homosexual sex is bad, I’m talking about Westboro Baptist, Conversion Therapy/Reparative Therapy, Protestant Fundamentalism, etc.

I’ll even say that the Church is somewhat complicit at times. Now, I don’t mean that because we support traditional marriage, I’m talking about outright discrimination.

I believe we need to live and let live. Fine, don’t call it marriage, but I’m fully in support of Civil Unions, as is my Parish Priest.

I agree. It is a much more reasonable, charitable, and I believe Christian approach. The world we live in is messy: Things aren’t always black and white. If the church wants to maintain God’s plan for marriage is one-woman/one-man in marriage, fine. But his design also includes gay people, apparently, for plenty of people with dominant or exclusive same-sex attraction exist. Whether such an attractions exists as a cross to be carried, a result of the Fall, or whatever other suggestion, we must reach people where they are.

Therefore, and naturally, I appreciate Pope Francis’ approach in his apostolic exhortation where he says we must listen to people in their less-than-ideal or non-traditional living situations. He does not directly mention homosexual relationships in this way, but the principle remains.

It is unhelpful – and I believe the pope recognizes this – to simply say homosexual acts and relationships are “evil” or inherently “disordered” and so must be opposed with no ifs, ands, or buts. Rather, we can recognize an ideal while also accepting that this world is not a utopia. There are men, women, and others in between. Some people happen to desire relationships, love, and affection from members of the same sex, and they cannot help this. A pastoral approach, therefore, is listening and aiding along the journey. People are imperfect, and God has given everyone the desires for love and relationship.

 

[edwest2]

I agree. It is a much more reasonable, charitable, and I believe Christian approach. The world we live in is messy: Things aren’t always black and white. If the church wants to maintain God’s plan for marriage is one-woman/one-man in marriage, fine. But his design also includes gay people, apparently, for plenty of people with dominant or exclusive same-sex attraction exist. Whether such an attractions exists as a cross to be carried, a result of the Fall, or whatever other suggestion, we must reach people where they are.

Therefore, and naturally, I appreciate Pope Francis’ approach in his apostolic exhortation where he says we must listen to people in their less-than-ideal or non-traditional living situations. He does not directly mention homosexual relationships in this way, but the principle remains.

It is unhelpful – and I believe the pope recognizes this – to simply say homosexual acts and relationships are “evil” or inherently “disordered” and so must be opposed with no ifs, ands, or buts. Rather, we can recognize an ideal while also accepting that this world is not a utopia. There are men, women, and others in between. Some people happen to desire relationships, love, and affection from members of the same sex, and they cannot help this. A pastoral approach, therefore, is listening and aiding along the journey. People are imperfect, and God has given everyone the desires for love and relationship.

Chastity is the greatest lack in heterosexuals and others. This false notion that our minds and bodies are not controlled by ourselves needs to end. Any act that anyone does that is not ordered to the truth is not good. Gay or straight, we should all be doing good as much as we are able and we must nail down the truth. Not force it on people, but say, “Look, if we all live hundreds of different truths, how then shall we all live today?”

Yes, we all have desires but we also have a will, and a conscience. We are all imperfect, but we should always know what the good is and do it. I have certain desires that others share, but I must ask myself: “If I choose whatever it is, will it help me physically, emotionally and spiritually?” If not, I need to discipline my passions. Pope Francis understands what gay people are going through, and previous Church teaching has addressed the various questions, but Are we headed in the right direction?

God bless,
Ed

 

[Rau]

… There are men, women, and others in between. Some people happen to desire relationships, love, and affection from members of the same sex…

You forgot to mention that they also believe this means that they are free (morally) to engage in sexual acts with their same sex partner. It is really only this last part that the Church “opposes”.

I sense you call on the Church to minister to gay people (which she does) but not mention the elephant in the room?

 

[jjr9]

So you see the double standard you’re espousing, jjr?

No. Church tradition is part of the Sacred Deposit of Faith.

Can you show a tradition of exclusive SSA in the Sacred Deposit of Faith?

If you are consistent, you should say: yes, the Church never considered the Assumption of Mary before 1950.

As I said I do not know if the Church considered the Assumption of Mary before 1950 it very well may have.

Are you certain that it did not?

The Assumption of Mary is not a concern for me. I have nothing but love and gratitude for Our Lady.

For that is your conclusion regarding SSA.

I believe SSA is real, a temptation. It is exclusive SSA that I believe to be a myth.

God bless

 

[PRmerger]

No. Church tradition is part of the Sacred Deposit of Faith.

That’s partially right.

You actually mean Sacred Tradition, not “Church tradition.”

Can you show a tradition of exclusive SSA in the Sacred Deposit of Faith?

It’s right after the example of the Assumption of Mary in the Sacred Deposit of Faith.

You need to document something from the Sacred Deposit of the Faith regarding the Assumption of Mary prior to 1950.

As I said I do not know if the Church considered the Assumption of Mary before 1950 it very well may have.

Then your position, to be consistent, should either be:

I do not know if the Church considered SSA prior to 1960. It very may well have, just like I don’t know if the Church considered the Assumption prior to 1950.

OR

The Church never considered the Assumption prior to 1950, just like it never considered SSA prior to 1960.

You cannot, however, express one paradigm “The Church doesn’t mention [A] prior to Date B, therefore this is not part of the Sacred Deposit of the Faith”

While also stating, “The Church doesn’t mention [A] prior to Date B, but I do not know if this was always part of the Sacred Deposit of the Faith.”

That’s a…

double standard.

 

[jjr9]

That’s partially right.

You actually mean Sacred Tradition, not “Church tradition.”

It’s right after the example of the Assumption of Mary in the Sacred Deposit of Faith.

You need to document something from the Sacred Deposit of the Faith regarding the Assumption of Mary prior to 1950.

Then your position, to be consistent, should either be:

I do not know if the Church considered SSA prior to 1960. It very may well have, just like I don’t know if the Church considered the Assumption prior to 1950.

OR

The Church never considered the Assumption prior to 1950, just like it never considered SSA prior to 1960.

You cannot, however, express one paradigm “The Church doesn’t mention [A] prior to Date B, therefore this is not part of the Sacred Deposit of the Faith”

While also stating, “The Church doesn’t mention [A] prior to Date B, but I do not know if this was always part of the Sacred Deposit of the Faith.”

That’s a…

double standard.

I have never had reason to doubt the Assumption of Mary and do not now I looked at the document you referenced:

w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus.html

What happened in 1950 is that Pope Pius XII made an infallible statement on the Assumption of Mary. The Assumption
of Mary is nothing new for the Church.

Pope Pius XII says:

“These studies and investigations have brought out into even clearer light the fact that the dogma of the Virgin Mary’s Assumption into heaven is contained in the deposit of Christian faith entrusted to the Church.”

This tells me that the Assumption of Mary has always been part of the Sacred Deposit of Faith.
Thank you for helping to deepen my faith.

Do you believe that the Assumption of Mary has not always been part of the Sacred Deposit of Faith?

God bless

 

[jjr9]

The Magisterium is saying that there are indeed men and women who are exclusively SSA, and they are called “homosexual persons”, as opposed to men and women who may be “bisexual persons” or “heterosexual persons”.

What is contrary to reality with that?

In reference to “homosexuality” the CCC 2357 says:

“Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained.”

As far as I know this is the only justification the Magisterium uses to accept exclusive SSA.

I do not view this as a truly right and just reason. Do you?

Do you believe the Church should claim a group of people are “bisexual persons”? I do not.

I do not believe in the “heterosexual person” I believe persons are only male and female.

God bless

 

[catholic1seeks]

You forgot to mention that they also believe this means that they are free (morally) to engage in sexual acts with their same sex partner. It is really only this last part that the Church “opposes”.

I sense you call on the Church to minister to gay people (which she does) but not mention the elephant in the room?

What I’m saying is that the church cannot offer a response similar to many on this thread, which is simply to say gay relationships are bad – and leave it at that. One time, maybe a year or more ago, I opened a thread asking if we can affirm any “good” or “redeeming” qualities in same-sex relationships. Many people firmly said “NO!” – that since gay acts are objectively sinful, we cannot support any apparent good in such a relationship – even including goods such as mutual support, self-sacrifice, and affection.

Now, with appreciation of Francis’ approach (as evidenced in his apostolic exhortation), it seems that we must affirm the goods in non-ideal living situations, and build from there. This is a much more attractive means to a fuller life in truth and sanctity. Simply rejecting an act and saying evil over and over again becomes numb to those gay persons who feel as though they have found authentic love in their relationships.

 

[at9009]

You forgot to mention that they also believe this means that they are free (morally) to engage in sexual acts with their same sex partner. It is really only this last part that the Church “opposes”.

I sense you call on the Church to minister to gay people (which she does) but not mention the elephant in the room?

True the church only actually opposes same sex relationships that have a sexual component but in general the Church does a pretty awful job at actually teaching its message of the acts are sinful not the inclination and that same sex love is not a sin but rather same sex love that is expressed in a sexual way is sinful (since sex is reserved within a marriage between a man and a woman that is open to life).

I really like Eve Tushnet’s saying of you can’t build a vocation of No. When I first really became aware of my attractions and finally learned that the Church didn’t hate me because of it, it felt like the only message to me was don’t act on it (no support on how to deal with loneliness, lack of physical intimacy, or navigating friendships while there is a plethora of ministry outreach to married couples, families, engaged couples, and premarital outreach groups). It took me a long time to stop viewing love as a danger. For me, I had this toxic view where if I got to close with another guy, it could only be disastrous and result in temptation that would ultimately end the friendship. So, I kept my distance and tried disinterested friendships, but ultimately I was struggling more and feeling alone (probably doesn’t help that I can’t even be open about my desires with my family). Anyway, when I realized that I can have genuine love and affection for other people of the same sex (including other SSA guys), it became easier to deal with. People completely underestimate the importance of hugs between non-romantically involved people. It always has a profound effect on me and helping me in my journey. Yes, there are things I need to avoid and be aware of, but I now have several other close SSA friends that I consider as close brothers in Christ. The love in our friendship is focused always with God in the mix and I truly believe it helps all of us with our vocation.

However, in the U.S. especially, there culture war mentality. There is this almost idolatry of the nuclear family and of romance and ultimately marriage (It’s to the point where almost all of Christianity treats marriage as a check box in life rather than a vocation that needs to be discerned with very little talk about celibate vocations). With this focus it often feels like the SSA person is at best ignored or at worse becomes a political hot potato. Additionally, it’s hard to accept a celibate life when the support for a long term single life is practically non-existent (divorced people have the same struggle too). Just my two cents and perspective.* I hope this isn’t too off topic of this thread and if it is I apologize. *

 

[pnewton]

. Many people firmly said “NO!” – that since gay acts are objectively sinful, we cannot support any apparent good in such a relationship – even including goods such as mutual support, self-sacrifice, and affection.

While I think you are correct, it is only because you are relying on a universal truism, that there is a little good in the worst of us. I fear this proves too much, at least for most conversation. Surely philosophical reflection can benefit, but most of us do not go around talking about the good in the 911 terrorists, for example, who were willing to sacrifice their lives for loyalty to their cause, or even their understanding of God. We do not praise the child molestor because they truly do have a deep affection for children. We do not reflect the loyalty and friendship of violent street gangs.

The problem is not that there is some good in homosexual relationships. The problem is, since they should not exist at all, that what good there is remains obscured. In real life, speaking could be taken by those in such relationships as justification of the greater sin. This is why I do not like to focus on the good. I prefer to focus on the journey. A person in one of these relationships can still undergo conversion and begin the same pilgrimage we all have away from sin.

 

[PRmerger]

I have never had reason to doubt the Assumption of Mary and do not now I looked at the document you referenced:

w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus.html

What happened in 1950 is that Pope Pius XII made an infallible statement on the Assumption of Mary. The Assumption
of Mary is nothing new for the Church.

Pope Pius XII says:

“These studies and investigations have brought out into even clearer light the fact that the dogma of the Virgin Mary’s Assumption into heaven is contained in the deposit of Christian faith entrusted to the Church.”

This tells me that the Assumption of Mary has always been part of the Sacred Deposit of Faith.
Thank you for helping to deepen my faith.

Do you believe that the Assumption of Mary has not always been part of the Sacred Deposit of Faith?

God bless

It is heartening to see you submit your authority to the Magisterium on the issue of the Assumption.

But you still need to identify which is your paradigm, because right now you’re embracing both, and you cannot do this without being accused of having a double standard.

So choose one of these paradigms, please, and let us know which one you espouse:

“The Church doesn’t mention [A] prior to Date B, therefore this is not part of the Sacred Deposit of the Faith”

OR

“The Church doesn’t mention [A] prior to Date B, but I do not know if this was always part of the Sacred Deposit of the Faith.”

Which one is your paradigm?

 

[PRmerger]

In reference to “homosexuality” the CCC 2357 says:

“Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained.”

Correct.

As far as I know this is the only justification the Magisterium uses to accept exclusive SSA.

This makes no sense. Are you saying that the Catholic Church should deny that homosexuals exist?

Do you believe the Church should claim a group of people are “bisexual persons”? I do not.

Sure. I don’t see a problem with identifying people who claim to be sexually attracted to both males and females as “bisexual”.

I do not believe in the “heterosexual person” I believe persons are only male and female.

God bless

Well, that’s a little like saying, “I don’t believe in the athletic person”. I believe persons are only male and female.

And “I don’t believe in the artistic person”. I believe persons are only male and female.

And “I don’t believe in the sick person”. I believe persons are only male and female.

And "“I don’t believe in the baptized person”. I believe persons are only male and female.

Are you going to come on this forum and espouse this view? For that is the logical conclusion of your argument, yes?

 

[Rau]

What I’m saying is that the church cannot offer a response similar to many on this thread, which is simply to say gay relationships are bad – and leave it at that. One time, maybe a year or more ago, I opened a thread asking if we can affirm any “good” or “redeeming” qualities in same-sex relationships. Many people firmly said “NO!” – that since gay acts are objectively sinful, we cannot support any apparent good in such a relationship – even including goods such as mutual support, self-sacrifice, and affection.

Now, with appreciation of Francis’ approach (as evidenced in his apostolic exhortation), it seems that we must affirm the goods in non-ideal living situations, and build from there. This is a much more attractive means to a fuller life in truth and sanctity. Simply rejecting an act and saying evil over and over again becomes numb to those gay persons who feel as though they have found authentic love in their relationships.

I believe you received far more careful responses than blanket “No”. Many acknowledged that there was no doubt good on the individuals. Many acknowledged the kindnesses and care one may extend to the other, and so forth. All this may be evident despite the sexual acts.

In what direction should we “build” from the non-ideal living arrangement of a gay couple? Would it be one that leads away from?

 

[jjr9]

This makes no sense. Are you saying that the Catholic Church should deny that homosexuals exist?

I believe the Magisterium is in error to claim a group of people experience exclusive SSA.

Do you believe SSA is more than a temptation?

Do you believe Satan is a real presence in the world or just some abstract idea?

Sure. I don’t see a problem with identifying people who claim to be sexually attracted to both males and females as “bisexual”.

The Church does not recognize “bisexual persons” or “transgender persons” do you believe the Church
is unfair to these groups? I do not believe in either of these types of people and encouraging people to
embrace these false identities harmful to their souls.

Well, that’s a little like saying, “I don’t believe in the athletic person”. I believe persons are only male and female.

And “I don’t believe in the artistic person”. I believe persons are only male and female.

And “I don’t believe in the sick person”. I believe persons are only male and female.

And "“I don’t believe in the baptized person”. I believe persons are only male and female.

Are you going to come on this forum and espouse this view? For that is the logical conclusion of your argument, yes?

The only groups of people the Church recognizes are male, female and the “homosexual person”. I believe
the Magisterium in error to embrace this mythical “homosexual person”.

Do you believe anyone is incapable of OSA?

God bless

 

[PRmerger]

I believe the Magisterium is in error to claim a group of people experience exclusive SSA.

That’s just another way to say homosexual.

Do you believe SSA is more than a temptation?

I don’t know what you mean by “more than a temptation”.

Could you please explain this?

Do you believe Satan is a real presence in the world or just some abstract idea?

This is irrelevant.

The Church does not recognize “bisexual persons” or “transgender persons”

The Church does not recognize them?

What do you mean? The Church says, “There is no such thing as a bisexual person”?

If so, could you please cite the document for this?

do you believe the Church
is unfair to these groups?

I believe the Church is doing a wonderful job with these groups.

I do not believe in either of these types of people

You don’t believe they exist?

and encouraging people to
embrace these false identities harmful to their souls.

Now, this! FINALLY you are getting to the core of this.

THIS is the meat of your very peculiar objection, which I have been trying to figure out.

At first I thought you were objecting to the idea that homosexuals exist.

But you seem like a rational person, and no rational person could doubt that they exist.

So I have been studiously trying to find out what your objection is, and the above, FINALLY, has shed some light on this.

You seem to think that the Church is “encouraging people to embrace these false identities harmful to their souls”.

[SIGN]Let me disabuse you of this notion, friend![/SIGN]

The Church has been steadfast in her affirmation that homosexuality is disordered.

So you can rest assured that the Church is not, nor will she ever encourage “people to embrace these false identities harmful to their souls”.

Sheesh!

No wonder you were all bothered–you’ve been thinking all along that the Church is encouraging homosexuality, when, in reality, she has been proclaiming that it is disordered.