I find the Catechism contradictory on 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, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” 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.

1935 The equality of men rests essentially on their dignity as persons and the rights that flow from it: Every form of social or cultural discrimination in fundamental personal rights on the grounds of sex, race, color, social conditions, language, or religion must be curbed and eradicated as incompatible with God’s design.

Webster’s collegiate definitions"
Respect:
1a: to consider worthy of High regard:
2a: to refrain from interfering with.

Discriminate:
1a: to make a distinction
2b: to use good judgment.

Here it goes: First I want to highlight the relevant statements, from the above para’s.
Para 2357: "Under no circumstances can they be approved."
Para 2358: “They must be accepted with respect…”.“Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.”
Para 1935: “Every form of social or cultural discrimination…on the grounds of …Social Conditions…must be curbed.”

Okay now substitute the meaning of the key words “Respect” and “Discriminate” and see what falls out.
Para 2358 becomes: “They must be accepted, considered worthy of high regard, and you must refrain from interfering with them.” Every sign of using good judgement should be avoided, and don’t make any distinctions, between them and you.

Summing it up:
Para 2357 “Under no circumstances can they be approved”, and then para 2358 says to consider them worthy of high regard, and don’t interfere with them, and don’t make any distinctions.

Well how in the world can we “not approve” of them if we don’t make any distinctions? Contradictory plain and simple.

There is a distinction made between the sin and the sinner.

Chuck

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, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” 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.

Not quite accurate:
Try again, it says Under no circumstances can **“THEY” **I repeat “THEY” be approved. If it where just the act it would have said “IT”.

Dear Chipper,

It is evident that clmowry is spot on. The “they” refers to homosexual acts (notice the plural- acts.)

“It” would have to be something singular like “homosexuality” or “homosexual act.” There is no contradiction as the CCC is seperating the “homosexual acts” from the person who has the same sex attractions. (It should go without saying that lusting whether homosexually or heterosexually is a sin too (I think grave), even though an internal one.)

Re-read it.

“They” = acts in the first paragraph. “They” = People in the second.

Chuck

So let me get this straight. We are to give these ACTS a High Respect, and not to distinguish between these ACTS and other ACTS???

we are to hate the homosexual acts but love the people who commit the acts.

Perhaps this will help clear it up:

LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
ON THE PASTORAL CARE OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS

Nope.

Unjust discrimination and violation of fundamental personal rights is to be curbed and eradicated.

That does not mean, as some of our more liberal friends would have us believe that we have to profess that everyone’s beliefs and actions are equally good.

We do however have to respect their right to hold those beliefs as long as their beliefs do not violate the fundamental personal rights of others.

Chuck

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, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” [Homosexual acts] are contrary to the natural law. [Homosexual acts] close the sexual act to the gift of life. [Homosexual acts] do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can [Homosexual acts] 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. [Men and women] 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.

1935 The equality of men rests essentially on their dignity as persons and the rights that flow from it: Every form of social or cultural discrimination in fundamental personal rights on the grounds of sex, race, color, social conditions, language, or religion must be curbed and eradicated as incompatible with God’s design.

I understand what you guys are trying to say. I claim it is poorly worded and it would have been better if the catechism had used “Those” instead of they, under acts.

These they or those, still does not remove the contradiction.

Perhaps you should research what the Latin version says. Sometimes the English rendering could be better. In any case the Catechism was not written in a vacuum. There is plenty of other documents to support it.

Okay right there. “Every form of Social discrimination…”

I repeat from my OP.

Okay now substitute the meaning of the key words “Respect” and “Discriminate” and see what falls out.
Para 2358 becomes: “They must be accepted, considered worthy of high regard, and you must refrain from interfering with them.” Every sign of using good judgement should be avoided, and don’t make any distinctions, between them and you.

We have to make a discrimination in order to see a sin. You just can’t do it any other way, there must be some form of discrimination (to discriminate) in order to see a sin.

But para 1935 says “Any form of discrimination”.

Buffalo,

Thanks for your input, but to be frank, I just don’t have the time to learn LATIN. I already speak English, French, Spanish and little Korean.
Other languages I am fluent in - Fotran, Pascal, “c” “c++”, Basic, Assembly languages known - Four.

Sheesssh How many languages do I have to learn just to understand???

Hmm…is there a plural pronoun in the English language that refers to acts that cannot also refer to people?

Chuck

Now, Now, don’t switch the subject, go back to my post #12.

I think you are picking definitions and inserting them in place of words that are already clear and creating a conflict that does not otherwise exist.


[Men and women] must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.

Is not equivalent to:

“They must be accepted, considered worthy of high regard, and you must refrain from interfering with them.” Every sign of using good judgement should be avoided, and don’t make any distinctions, between them and you.

Chuck

Okay, I get that way, because I see the Homosexual Agenda taking over our country. This is what must have happened in Sodom and Gomorrah.

This is why I am creating conflict with the catechism. Because it isn’t clear enough, to the agenda driven Catholics out there.They take that “Unjust Discrimination” to mean anything they want it to. The only way to combat that, is to substitute real meanings and definitions which turns out, aren’t so lovey dovey after all.

Gay parades with dudes in speedo’s, attacking politicians who say that Gay acts are clearly wrong. It is just to much. We are becoming Sodom and Gomorrah once again.

[Lev 18:22] You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination.

[Deu 22:5] "A woman shall not wear an article proper to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s dress; for anyone who does such things is an abomination to the LORD, your God.

Yep I agree.

Church teaching is clear: “[Homosexual acts] are contrary to the natural law. [Homosexual acts] close the sexual act to the gift of life. [Homosexual acts] do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can [Homosexual acts] be approved.”

Many would call this teaching “unjust discrimination” unto itself, thus creating the contradiction you’ve observed.

It is pretty clear that the Church does not share that assessment.

Chuck

The contradictory passages do not refer to the same thing. Homosexual persons must be accepted with respect - and yes, therefore, accepted as “worthy of high regard” by virtue of their status as human persons. That is what 2358 refers to.

That which 2357 refers to as something that can “under no circumstances be approved” are homosexual acts.

See?

Nope. Basic grammar, my friend. Look at 2357. The antecedent of “they” is plural, and it is “homosexual acts.” 2357 can’t use the pronoun “it” with a plural antecedent.

It’s not poorly worded. It simply requires attentive reading. Paying attention to a sentence’s basic structure and a pronoun’s proper antecedents should not be too much to ask.

There is no contradiction. A person and his or her acts are not the same entity. Christianity’s “love the sinner, hate the sin” principles may be paradoxical, but what else should one expect from the religion that professes such crazy ideas as the death of a divine being, the resurrection of the body, the forgiveness of all sins, and a personal God who is Love Itself?

How is that the Catechism’s fault? It is abundantly clear to all but a rampantly ideological mind. Sure, some people twist a defense of real marriage into “unjust discrimination,” which it decidedly is not.

But the Catechism is about as clear as it gets. It calls homosexual acts “acts of grave depravity” and refers to them as “intrinsically disordered.”

The Catholic Church must always walk with precision and grace the fine line between each side of the Gospel’s paradoxical message.

What in the world is a “rampantly ideological mind”? I don’t get it.

Then you say they “Twist” the meaning. The catechism allows them to “Twist” it as you say.

Reread para 1935:
*“The equality of men rests essentially on their dignity as persons and the rights that flow from it:Every form of social or cultural discrimination in fundamental personal rights on the grounds of sex, race, color, social conditions, language, or religion must be curbed and eradicated as incompatible with God’s design.” *

Homosexual tendencies are a social condition.

Denying the Gay’s the privilege to civil marriage is a “FORM” of social discrimination.

Denying them the privilege to adoption is a “FORM” of social discrimination.

If they want to parade around town in their teensy speedos and shove their “signs” in your face, then there ain’t nothing you can do about it, because that would be a form of “social” discrimination.

If they want to come in to your schools and teach your children about their wonderful lifestyle, then you have to allow it otherwise it is a “form” of social discrimination. Which they are already doing by the way.

When you look at these catechism passages you could walk away with the understanding that they can do just about anything they want to and you can’t interfere.

That seems contradictory to me.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.