How Entrenched Is Homosexuality In The Seminaries?

[Fidei Defensor]

What is love? Christ died at human hands for the sake of Love, to let us have something more than this earthly life. That's love. It transcends everything.  And by loving someone else, we are sharing Christ's love with one another, sharing our lives and souls. Sexual love is one possible manifestation, but its not the only one nor the most important. Love isn't only about biology. Its about kindness, patience, sharing the best and worst times. That is something that doesn't rely on gender, but only the fact that two human beings share love with each other.

[arfink]

Picking apart the word Love is not where our problem is. I highly doubt that Cathoics are referring to a specific Greek interpretation of love when they sneer at homosexuals. Maybe you have a specific idea, but I dont believe all Catholics do.

 

I also dont think we NEED to pick apart the word and categorize all walks of life into which "love" we are referring to. How about we just love? Another consequence of all of this is that I see people trying to overcompensate the issue. Im not saying that anything you suggested is wrong, Im just saying that I dont think its necessary. If we just adopt a little more Christ like love and view others in the light of their human dignity, their undeniable worth, and the image of God for which they are made...then the world would be a better place.

 

But instead, we are viewing them through a window of disorder and deviance...and that is what is coloring our actions. Not love or its translations.

 

I think that a great number of people decide they must be homosexual as opposed to simply loving another person of the same sex because they naturally love another person of the same sex and then make the societally-prompted leap that this love must mean that their sexuality needs to be involved as well. This is why I think we need the distinction. I think it would allow for your "closed minded" folks to begin to see the difference too, and enable them to do something other than assume that people are nasty perverts when they say they care deeply about another person of the same sex.

[CrossCuT]

I think that a great number of people decide they must be homosexual as opposed to simply loving another person of the same sex because they naturally love another person of the same sex and then make the societally-prompted leap that this love must mean that their sexuality needs to be involved as well. 

 

Well, I think thats the whole point. Thats the definition of homosexuality: It is a sexual attraction to the same sex. If someone didnt have a sexual attraction to the same sex then they wouldnt be considered a homosexual. There are plenty of heterosexual people out there who love the same sex but are not sexually attracted to them. 

 

I think what you described would be another pitfall we need to avoid. We shouldnt go around telling people "Oh youre not actually a homosexual, you just love everyone and society has tricked you into thinking you are sexually attracted to them". I feel like that would make people quite irate. 

[arfink]

Well, I think thats the whole point. Thats the definition of homosexuality: It is a sexual attraction to the same sex. If someone didnt have a sexual attraction to the same sex then they wouldnt be considered a homosexual. There are plenty of heterosexual people out there who love the same sex but are not sexually attracted to them. 

 

I think what you described would be another pitfall we need to avoid. We shouldnt go around telling people "Oh youre not actually a homosexual, you just love everyone and society has tricked you into thinking you are sexually attracted to them". I feel like that would make people quite irate. 

 

So this is probably where we have to part ways. If you identify as homosexual under that assumption and you tell someone you're a homosexual, then they have no choice BUT to conclude that you have a disordered desire for this. That's just by definition. So I don't understand what you're getting at here.

[PhuturePriest]

Im not a huge fan of posting text walls, but this is from an article that I found very informative.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.201300033/full

 

When the Church says it's "unnatural" it's not talking about animals. "Nature" doesn't always mean natural. It has more than one meaning. When the Church says it's unnatural, it's speaking about the Nature of Man, not giraffes.

[Vitamin]

I think that a great number of people decide they must be homosexual as opposed to simply loving another person of the same sex because they naturally love another person of the same sex and then make the societally-prompted leap that this love must mean that their sexuality needs to be involved as well. This is why I think we need the distinction. I think it would allow for your "closed minded" folks to begin to see the difference too, and enable them to do something other than assume that people are nasty perverts when they say they care deeply about another person of the same sex.

What this does is undermine the genuineness of homosexuality and tells parents to pretend that its just "a phase" that the kids should grow out of if it wasn't for the whole gay rights movement that made being gay "cool". Its a prelude to the to the ex-gay movement which we know does not work.

Let's address some of the specific points in your post First there's the idea that homosexuality is being "prompted" by our culture. In what way is it? For every mainstream gay icon I can name you ten straight icons in the same role that fulfill it just as well or better as their gay counterparts. How are gay icons shown as superior to straight ones? The gay rights movement promotes equality, not superiority which is the direction our society is heading, and rightly so.

Secondly, homosexuality exists in all cultures and all time periods. If one needs to be socially "prompted" to be gay, wouldn't some time periods not have any homosexuals at all?

[arfink]

What this does is undermine the genuineness of homosexuality and tells parents to pretend that its just "a phase" that the kids should grow out of if it wasn't for the whole gay rights movement that made being gay "cool". Its a prelude to the to the ex-gay movement which we know does not work.

Let's address some of the specific points in your post First there's the idea that homosexuality is being "prompted" by our culture. In what way is it? For every mainstream gay icon I can name you ten straight icons in the same role that fulfill it just as well or better as their gay counterparts. How are gay icons shown as superior to straight ones? The gay rights movement promotes equality, not superiority which is the direction our society is heading, and rightly so.

Secondly, homosexuality exists in all cultures and all time periods. If one needs to be socially "prompted" to be gay, wouldn't some time periods not have any homosexuals at all?

 

I take issue with this, because I've never been shown any proof. The reason I assert this is that even in Greek and Roman culture, it was widely understood that homosexuality was a choice, not just how a person was. In an age before reliable contraception it was a "safer" choice, especially if you were from a rich background and didn't want to take the legal and societal risks of sleeping with women. And there are plenty of ancient cultures in which we have no data about incidence of homosexuality.

[arfink]

What this does is undermine the genuineness of homosexuality and tells parents to pretend that its just "a phase" that the kids should grow out of if it wasn't for the whole gay rights movement that made being gay "cool". Its a prelude to the to the ex-gay movement which we know does not work.

Let's address some of the specific points in your post First there's the idea that homosexuality is being "prompted" by our culture. In what way is it? For every mainstream gay icon I can name you ten straight icons in the same role that fulfill it just as well or better as their gay counterparts. How are gay icons shown as superior to straight ones? The gay rights movement promotes equality, not superiority which is the direction our society is heading, and rightly so.

Secondly, homosexuality exists in all cultures and all time periods. If one needs to be socially "prompted" to be gay, wouldn't some time periods not have any homosexuals at all?

 

I didn't deny that some people just have strong sexual inclinations for others of the same sex. But for anyone, whether they have that innately or have learned to want it, acting on it is something I consider to be at least partly prompted. Young men who don't fit the "alpha" crowd are often encouraged now to consider if they may be gay or, if they are uncomfortable with that, maybe they're just bi. It happens. It happened to me. And society now openly encourages people to experiment and "see if they like it." I'm human enough to know I could enjoy just about any weird sexual experience, but that doesn't mean it should be normative. And yet if you read racy magazines you see stories about how to learn to like anal sex, as if it's something to be taught.

Edited April 2, 2014 by arfink

[CrossCuT]

So this is probably where we have to part ways. If you identify as homosexual under that assumption and you tell someone you're a homosexual, then they have no choice BUT to conclude that you have a disordered desire for this. That's just by definition. So I don't understand what you're getting at here.

No, this is my big problem. We are so little accustomed to homosexuals that we cant help but pass judgment on them. If someone tells you they are homosexual, it is not right to cut out that word, and replace it with "disordered desire" or "deviant". As if you no longer view them as a person, but a condition. That mindset dictates our actions and how we treat them...which is wrong.

 

Regardless of what they tell you, you conclude that they are a loved individual made in the image of God and that they deserve respect, love, and dignity. That is what you should conclude. 

 

 

When the Church says it's "unnatural" it's not talking about animals. "Nature" doesn't always mean natural. It has more than one meaning. When the Church says it's unnatural, it's speaking about the Nature of Man, not giraffes.

Can you find the multiple meansing for me? I think the church decided they have a different definition because the way they were using the word is now no longer correct...so instead of using science to fully understand the topic, they are using the excuse that they just have a "different meaning".

 

 

nat·u·ral

ˈnaCHərəl/

adjective

 

1. 1.

   existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.

   "carrots contain a natural antiseptic that fights bacteria"

   •  
2. 2.

   of or in agreement with the character or makeup of, or circumstances surrounding, someone or something.

   "sharks have no natural enemies"

noun

 

1. 1.

   a person regarded as having an innate gift or talent for a particular task or activity.

   "she was a natural for the sort of television work required of her"

   •  

      
2. 2.

   MUSIC

   a sign (â™®) denoting a natural note when a previous sign or the key signature would otherwise demand a sharp or a flat.

    

adverb

informaldialect

 

1. 1.

   naturally.

   "keep walking—just act natural"

    

 

 

Are any of these definitions what the church uses?

 

I take issue with this, because I've never been shown any proof. The reason I assert this is that even in Greek and Roman culture, it was widely understood that homosexuality was a choice, not just how a person was. In an age before reliable contraception it was a "safer" choice, especially if you were from a rich background and didn't want to take the legal and societal risks of sleeping with women. And there are plenty of ancient cultures in which we have no data about incidence of homosexuality.

You havent seen much proof in the past because, as I posted earlier, it was a taboo subject and was thrown out due to bias. 

 

 

Also, I wouldnt cite ancient people as having the most informed decision where science is concerned. I am sure it was a choice because they had no way of explaining it. Recent advancements are more and more supporting the idea that it is NOT a choice.

Ancient people also thought that draining all the blood out of your body would rid you of a disease you were suffering from....

 

 

I didn't deny that some people just have strong sexual inclinations for others of the same sex. But for anyone, whether they have that innately or have learned to want it, acting on it is something I consider to be at least partly prompted. Young men who don't fit the "alpha" crowd are often encouraged now to consider if they may be gay or, if they are uncomfortable with that, maybe they're just bi. It happens. It happened to me. And society now openly encourages people to experiment and "see if they like it." I'm human enough to know I could enjoy just about any weird sexual experience, but that doesn't mean it should be normative. And yet if you read racy magazines you see stories about how to learn to like anal sex, as if it's something to be taught.

I dont deny that this situation of peer pressure  happens, but that has more to do with gender roles. People should not be pushing gender roles the way they do. You can be an effeminate male without being gay. Its too bad people are so narrow minded.

Edited April 2, 2014 by CrossCuT

[Fidei Defensor]

I can tell you that my inclination towards attraction to the same sex wasn't something I was forced into or pressured into. Its something that is part of me. I am not attracted to women the same way I am attracted to other men—it's that simple. And while I may not be able to express love in a sexual way, there is nothing wrong with expressing love to someone of the same sex in other ways.

[arfink]

Are any of these definitions what the church uses?

 

 

No. The Church uses the word natural in theological texts in reference to the state in which something becomes ordered to the Good, in other words, the way in which things must be ordered as they have been made by God. This is where we get our concepts of natural law, for example. If you wish, you may read this lengthy paper on the subject of how modern philosophy and common speech has lost touch with the definition of this term and others which come from the Thomistic tradition:

 

http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/23168-thomas-aquinas-on-human-nature-a-philosophical-study-of-summa-theologiae-1a-75-89/

[CrossCuT]

No. The Church uses the word natural in theological texts in reference to the state in which something becomes ordered to the Good, in other words, the way in which things must be ordered as they have been made by God. This is where we get our concepts of natural law, for example. If you wish, you may read this lengthy paper on the subject of how modern philosophy and common speech has lost touch with the definition of this term and others which come from the Thomistic tradition:

 

http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/23168-thomas-aquinas-on-human-nature-a-philosophical-study-of-summa-theologiae-1a-75-89/

 

They should find a different word.

 

So then you agree that the definition of Natural used by the rest of the world is correct? 

Or do you only believe in the Catholic, theological definition?

[arfink]

Heh, you're asking a philosophy nerd and Thomist if he thinks Thomas' definition is outdated? :P

 

I think it's beautiful and the Church would be crazy to throw it away in favor of something more nebulous. I also think that when you begin to use Thomas' definition of natural you begin to see it in the same places the world sees the word natural. When I think of nature I am immediately bringing to mind a creation that is held in being by God and exists in His love. I think if I was a biologist I would have no problem reconciling this concept with the natural world. But then again, I also like that the Church continues to use fun words like consubstantial and such. ;)

[Fidei Defensor]

Heh, you're asking a philosophy nerd and Thomist if he thinks Thomas' definition is outdated? :P

 

I think it's beautiful and the Church would be crazy to throw it away in favor of something more nebulous. I also think that when you begin to use Thomas' definition of natural you begin to see it in the same places the world sees the word natural. When I think of nature I am immediately bringing to mind a creation that is held in being by God and exists in His love. I think if I was a biologist I would have no problem reconciling this concept with the natural world. But then again, I also like that the Church continues to use fun words like consubstantial and such. ;)

One of my struggles is reconciling my biology background and nature with my new found faith. It's not that I don't think God could have created the beauty in nature, but the fact that nature seems so unorganized. If I could ask God anything, I'd ask "why?"

[arfink]

One of my struggles is reconciling my biology background and nature with my new found faith. It's not that I don't think God could have created the beauty in nature, but the fact that nature seems so unorganized. If I could ask God anything, I'd ask "why?"

 

I imagine he'd probably laugh and say "Why not?" He's probably just better at organizing it that we are, having made it. :hehe: