Since We've Been Talking About Lgbtq Stuff A Lot Lately...

[cappie]

OK back, here goes, maybe in a few parts:

 

The brokenness of the fallen world afflicts us all in various ways. We will be conscious of different battles to varying degrees at different moments of a day and in different seasons of our lives. No one battle, of the many we face, however strongly, defines us, but our identity as Christians flows rather from our relationship with Christ.

 

All of us are sinners, and sexual sinners. But, in Christ, we are new creations,as St Paul puts it, redeemed from slavery to sin through our union with Christ in his death and raised with him by the Spirit to a new life of holiness, while we wait for a glorious future in his presence when he returns. These awesome realities define me and direct me to the kind of life I should live.

 

The world stresses freedom and authenticity and says: ‘Everyone is born straight, gay or bi. You need to be true to yourself and accept who you are’. Same-sex attraction is seen as being entirely natural for some, who are therefore encouraged to embrace their identity as gay people and live it out in whatever way they choose. This message is supported by the individual stories of many whose openly gay lives offer a model of a particular way of living.

 

By contrast, however, we in the church are too often heard to be presenting only a negative message which can leave them feeling deep shame and discourage them from emerging from the isolation of a lonely and private battle, which creates a fertile soil where temptation increases and compromise becomes more likely.

 

The problem is largely caused by the fact that most of our comments on homosexuality are prompted, not primarily by a pastoral concern for struggling Christians, but by political debates in the world and the church. We do need to engage in these debates, but it’s vital that we’re alert to the messages that some of our brothers and sisters may be hearing.

 

Media reporting often doesn’t help and can give the impression that we think this particular sin is especially heinous. Also, in countering the simplistic binary model of the world that people are either born gay or straight (or, occasionally, bi), we are prone to make overly dogmatic comments ourselves about causation and cure. These can be heard to imply that homosexual attraction is just a matter of personal choice. This only increases the sense of shame already felt by those who experience unwanted same-sex attraction and can leave them with the impression that this is a battle that is not safe to share with others in the church. I have become convinced, therefore, that we need not only a greater openness in discussing issues of sexuality, but also a more positive vision and presentation of the nature of faithful discipleship for those who struggle in this area.

 

 

[franciscanheart]

OK back, here goes, maybe in a few parts:

The brokenness of the fallen world afflicts us all in various ways. We will be conscious of different battles to varying degrees at different moments of a day and in different seasons of our lives. No one battle, of the many we face, however strongly, defines us, but our identity as Christians flows rather from our relationship with Christ.

All of us are sinners, and sexual sinners. But, in Christ, we are new creations,as St Paul puts it, redeemed from slavery to sin through our union with Christ in his death and raised with him by the Spirit to a new life of holiness, while we wait for a glorious future in his presence when he returns. These amesome realities define me and direct me to the kind of life I should live.

The world stresses freedom and authenticity and says: ‘Everyone is born straight, gay or bi. You need to be true to yourself and accept who you are’. Same-sex attraction is seen as being entirely natural for some, who are therefore encouraged to embrace their identity as gay people and live it out in whatever way they choose. This message is supported by the individual stories of many whose openly gay lives offer a model of a particular way of living.

By contrast, however, we in the church are too often heard to be presenting only a negative message which can leave them feeling deep shame and discourage them from emerging from the isolation of a lonely and private battle, which creates a fertile soil where temptation increases and compromise becomes more likely.

The problem is largely caused by the fact that most of our comments on homosexuality are prompted, not primarily by a pastoral concern for struggling Christians, but by political debates in the world and the church. We do need to engage in these debates, but it’s vital that we’re alert to the messages that some of our brothers and sisters may be hearing.

Media reporting often doesn’t help and can give the impression that we think this particular sin is especially heinous. Also, in countering the simplistic binary model of the world that people are either born gay or straight (or, occasionally, bi), we are prone to make overly dogmatic comments ourselves about causation and cure. These can be heard to imply that homosexual attraction is just a matter of personal choice. This only increases the sense of shame already felt by those who experience unwanted same-sex attraction and can leave them with the impression that this is a battle that is not safe to share with others in the church. I have become convinced, therefore, that we need not only a greater openness in discussing issues of sexuality, but also a more positive vision and presentation of the nature of faithful discipleship for those who struggle in this area.

You, of course, say eloquently what I have intended to say the whole time. I don't understand the pervasive and unrelenting ignorance; it angers me.

Thank you, Father, for such a beautiful witness of true Catholic faith.

[MarysLittleFlower]

I assume we still call homosexual people homosexual because "homosexual" does not refer to an action (like adultery and blasphemy) but to an inclination or attraction. The words you've listed don't all follow the same paths. People are homosexual because they have the attraction to members of the same sex, not because they act upon it. They don't have to identify with the word, they can call themselves SSA, but ultimately (as Franny has said repeatedly) the terms gay, homosexual, and SSA boil down to the same thing. An attraction, NOT an action. Homosexuality is NOT a sin. Sodomy is a sin. Homosexuality and sodomy are NOT the same thing. 

 

I think that's what we're all debating :) if it refers to the actions, or to the inclinations.

 I've read Fr. John Harvey before, and his little booklet can address some of the confusion some may have on this topic.  He truly was a priest devoted to the care and love of persons who struggled with same sex attraction...May God rest his soul.

 

In case you missed it the first time:

 

http://www.kofc.org/un/en/resources/cis/cis385.pdf

I was trying to say something similar but he said it much better obviously! :)

 

I just think - if someone has SSA but doesn't want to, why label them based on that one characteristic, which they don't even consent to?

(that's why I brought up adultery etc).

 

Still thinking about it. Maybe I'll ask a priest.

I do want to respond but I've found myself in a :wall: (more like: :cry: :ohno: WHY) situation at work which will require the rest of my work day. For now, let me say this:


How many Little Flower screen names can one Catholic phorum handle? :ohno:

 

what can I say we all like the Little Flower :P

[MarysLittleFlower]

I'm going to reiterate once again what I've said fifty bagillion times already, but in a longer form.

 

1) The church was founded by God, but humans are what make up and run the Church. These humans I speak of are people like you, me, everyone else on this phorum, the clergy, and all the Catholics in the world. In human nature, we were not made to be perfect. We, however, are made to strive for greatness even if we screw up from time to time. Greatness doesn't occur overnight, it takes a lot of time and patience.

 

2) Since we are not perfect, how are we suddenly capable to say who will inherit the Kingdom of God or not? God is the only one who knows our hearts better than we know ourselves. It doesn't matter what sin anyone commits whether it's adultery, impurity, or whatever. It is NOT our right to judge others and say things like this about homosexuals. GOD IS THE ONLY ONE WHO CAN JUDGE US, and God is the only one who can give us the grace, forgiveness, love, and perfection that only He can give through prayer and the Sacraments.

 

Please stop making comments like this one that's so absolute that homosexuals who sin just like any other heterosexual person who sins cannot inherit the Kingdom of God. It's just another insult and setback to lead those who ACTUALLY want to reconcile and be a follower of Christ even further away.

 

 

I'm confused, honestly. I'm not saying my own words. If you're unsure about what I'm referring to:

 

"Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God."

 

(1 Cor. 6:9-10, Douay-Rheims).

 

Sooo... if you disagree with this.... this is what the Bible says.

 

OF COURSE it's only if they DON'T repent. We know this from the Church. If someone did.. I dont know... fornication, and then repented, they're forgiven. But the Bible says these things are sinful so if we do them, we would be lost, unless we repent.

 

I honestly don't understand what's so controversial about this on a Catholic forum, since we all believe it's basic Catholic doctrine :) maybe you misunderstood what I meant?

 

I'm NOT talking about specific individuals because:

- I can't judge their hearts

- I don't know if they repented or not

 

I'm basically just saying.....what the Church says...... that is all :) whatever the Bible and the Church says on this that is what I believe. And the Church DOES teach that homosexual actions are gravely sinful, and unrepented mortal sin leads to hell, etc. Nothing new here :)

[MarysLittleFlower]

I'm asking you to use some common sense, that's all.

If I call you straight, does it mean you're having sex?


(FYI: This is my two second break between finishing (THANK YOU LORD FOR HELPING ME WITH PATIENCE AND CLARITY) a monstrous headache of a job at work and racing off to a pre-wedding dinner / drinks celebration. I'll be back later to add more.)

 

If you call someone straight, no it doesn't mean they're having sex, but it does mean that they accept their heterosexuality.

 

My whole point is why call someone gay if they are trying to fight the same sex attraction? if they don't want it and don't consent?

 

I tend to say there are people with same sex attraction, and some practice homosexuality, and some practice chastity. I don't know..

[Lil Red]

However, I have been taught that in gay sex, the pleasure comes from hurting the other person, unlike in straight sex. (Not being gay myself I don't know that first hand, so someone please correct me if I'm wrong) At any rate, since anything that is wrong and against the moral law does end up hurting everyone, gay people are hurting the others when they have immoral relationships.

 

ummm, what? like seriously, what?

[MarysLittleFlower]

I don't think that being called gay, straight, etc. necessitates physical intimacy in a relationship, just the inclination towards one gender (or both) over another. Its about attraction first and foremost , although most relationships can (and often do) lead to physical intimacy. The Church's teaching believes this intimacy should be reserved only for marriage for purpose of unity with your spouse and openness to procreation. Attraction to a person does not mean you want to have a physically intimate relationship with someone, its an attraction to one person over another. When I was 11 I had a crush on my one teacher, he was attractive and funny, but it was innocent crush of a child.  I never thought of him sexually, so I didn't want a physical relationship with him. In high school I found male classmates attractive, but I never thought of them sexually.

 

This is why this thread has confused me in some places as some users seem to be claiming that attraction always relates to wanting a physical relationship. This clearly isn't the case as I gave two examples of attraction without any sexual context to them. So someone who identifies as 'gay' or 'straight' can be chaste or sexually active. 

Earlier in this thread the notion of 'placing oneself in the occasion of sin' came up. I'd like to add to that. I don't think this term/action can be used as general blanket term for everyone. What may be a temptation to sin for one person may not be to another. Someone who has really good self-control can resist sins of flesh more than someone accustomed to instant gratification, etc. Also it may be easier for two individuals who have never had a sexual relationship to resist acting in lust than individuals who have had a sexual relationship (as they know what physical intimacy is like). In a prior thread, I confessed my struggles with lust and purity, so certain things may be tempting to me that wouldn't be tempting to others. Someone who is prone to violent acts may find situations that relate to violence tempting to commit a violent action over someone who is not prone to act violently. When it comes to placing oneself in an occasion of sin, only the individual and perhaps a priest of spiritual director (and others who may be involved) can really say if its an occasion of sin or not.  In this specific circumstance, we should not apply hypothetical situations or generalize, as each person is different, each situation is different and it is not for us to decide for others about their unique situation. If they asked our opinions, we can give them, but ultimately they are free to accept or reject what we say, but I don't think it is right to force them on people, especially when we do not fully understand every contributing factor to a person(s) situation.

 

Back to the topic now, if someone identifies as gay, straight, etc. it is a general term for who they are attracted to. No different really than someone saying they find blonde hair attractive over brown hair (although this is more specific than gender attraction). Its merely a statement about who one is attracted to, and it has sub-categories, celibate, sexually active, etc. And it is only one of many identifiers a person may have. For instance, I have Irish and British heritage and I am Canadian. I am a straight female, and I am a practicing Catholic. I have some Protestant beliefs from my Protestant upbringing, but not many anymore. I am university student, more specifically, I study Communication and Conflict Studies. I am a daughter, sister, cousin, niece, granddaughter, girlfriend, etc. The list of terms I can use to identify myself are amble, but none of the above terms state the nature of my relationship with my boyfriend. So unless someone identifies them-self as a virgin, celibate, sexually active, etc. we should never assume they are one over another. 

 

Also it makes little sense to say someone who identifies as 'gay' is sexually active, we don't make this assumption if someone says they are straight, why should we assume this for someone who is gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender? Treat people equally, respectfully and never make assumptions, makes a lot more sense to me. Words can mean different things, so often assumptions based on them are rarely correct. 

 

Just to clarify something, - when I talked about attraction, I meant sexual attraction in particular... not other types :)

 

with occasion of sin, - yea since I dont know the couple mentioned in the discussion, - I don't want to just say that for THEM it's an occasion of sin (sorry if I made that impression) - I am wondering only if it COULD be, in a hypothetical scenario.

 

I wouldn't assume that someone is sexually active if they say they are gay because I don't know what they mean by this. (if they mean inclination, or action, etc). What I was trying to say is that - some people with SSA might not want to be called "gay" because they don't consent to the inclination. (though they understand the fact that they have it, but they don't consent to the feelings or thoughts that come from it). SOme of them might not want the "gay" label.

[Lil Red]

Just to clarify something, - when I talked about attraction, I meant sexual attraction in particular... not other types :)

 

with occasion of sin, - yea since I dont know the couple mentioned in the discussion, - I don't want to just say that for THEM it's an occasion of sin (sorry if I made that impression) - I am wondering only if it COULD be, in a hypothetical scenario.

 

I wouldn't assume that someone is sexually active if they say they are gay because I don't know what they mean by this. (if they mean inclination, or action, etc). What I was trying to say is that - some people with SSA might not want to be called "gay" because they don't consent to the inclination. (though they understand the fact that they have it, but they don't consent to the feelings or thoughts that come from it). SOme of them might not want the "gay" label.

 

i don't know why you keep talking about those two women. i know for my part, i've moved on past that, and I'm pretty sure that's not what franny is talking about anymore either. 

[MarysLittleFlower]

hmm... okay maybe it's best for me to just leave the thread... sorry if I offended anyone or hurt someone with what I said. I think there has been much misunderstanding and I'm still not entirely sure what some posters meant. In my last few posts, I tried to explain sort of what I am trying to say now.

 

Thanks to Father for the post :)

 

God bless.

[4588686]

ummm, what? like seriously, what?

 

 

No, wait, actually I heard that too.  It was on the internet.  Also, it happened to me once.  Hearing that, I mean.  

[CatholicsAreKewl]

I'm confused, honestly. I'm not saying my own words. If you're unsure about what I'm referring to:

 

"Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God."

 

(1 Cor. 6:9-10, Douay-Rheims).

 

Sooo... if you disagree with this.... this is what the Bible says.

 

OF COURSE it's only if they DON'T repent. We know this from the Church. If someone did.. I dont know... fornication, and then repented, they're forgiven. But the Bible says these things are sinful so if we do them, we would be lost, unless we repent.

 

I honestly don't understand what's so controversial about this on a Catholic forum, since we all believe it's basic Catholic doctrine :) maybe you misunderstood what I meant?

 

I'm NOT talking about specific individuals because:

- I can't judge their hearts

- I don't know if they repented or not

 

I'm basically just saying.....what the Church says...... that is all :) whatever the Bible and the Church says on this that is what I believe. And the Church DOES teach that homosexual actions are gravely sinful, and unrepented mortal sin leads to hell, etc. Nothing new here :)

 

Wow, I actually really enjoyed looking this up. This Bible verse is translated in many different ways. One thing seems to be conclusive: It is not referring to homosexuality in the way we understand it currently. 

 

http://www.classicalarminian.com/2012/11/malakoi-arsenokoitai-and-homosexual.html

[Chestertonian]

 

[Lil Red]

For example... Our Lord says that homosexuals will not inherit the Kingdom of God. (the Church says homosexuals here refers to those who consent to it, since sin is in in the will, not those who don't consent and are chaste, same with adulterers: not those who are tempted to adultery, but those who commit it). If someone has SSA and is trying to live a good Catholic life, and doesn't at all want these inclinations, doesn't consent to them, - it could be confusing for them to think of themselves as homosexual. It might make it easier for them to think of themselves as a Catholic with SSA that they're trying to avoid and live chastely. If someone acts on it, of course that is different... that's why some people prefer to call "homosexual" those who act on that lifestyle or consent to it internally, not those who see it as a temptation to avoid. This is what I was told as I was investigating the Church so it stuck with me.

I'm confused, honestly. I'm not saying my own words. If you're unsure about what I'm referring to:

 

"Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God."

 

(1 Cor. 6:9-10, Douay-Rheims).

 

Sooo... if you disagree with this.... this is what the Bible says.

 

OF COURSE it's only if they DON'T repent. We know this from the Church. If someone did.. I dont know... fornication, and then repented, they're forgiven. But the Bible says these things are sinful so if we do them, we would be lost, unless we repent.

 

I honestly don't understand what's so controversial about this on a Catholic forum, since we all believe it's basic Catholic doctrine :) maybe you misunderstood what I meant?

 

I'm NOT talking about specific individuals because:

- I can't judge their hearts

- I don't know if they repented or not

 

I'm basically just saying.....what the Church says...... that is all :) whatever the Bible and the Church says on this that is what I believe. And the Church DOES teach that homosexual actions are gravely sinful, and unrepented mortal sin leads to hell, etc. Nothing new here :)

 

you need to be clear in your words as the Church is clear in Her words.  Please be more clear in your words, because that's when people get upset and offended - most secular people would have read your first sentence and not bothered with the rest of your post. What you said in your second post is what you should have said, clearly, in the first. 

[CatholicsAreKewl]

However, I have been taught that in gay sex, the pleasure comes from hurting the other person, unlike in straight sex. (Not being gay myself I don't know that first hand, so someone please correct me if I'm wrong) At any rate, since anything that is wrong and against the moral law does end up hurting everyone, gay people are hurting the others when they have immoral relationships.

Edited May 24, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[Lil Red]

No, wait, actually I heard that too.  It was on the internet.  Also, it happened to me once.  Hearing that, I mean.  

 

if it's on teh interwebz it must be true! :o