Why does the Church need two categories of “homosexual person”?

There are two categories of “homosexual person” that the Church recognizes. One is the very elastic
“predominate” the other is the limited I would say mythical “exclusive” which fits easily into the
“predominate”. So why not stop at “predominate” I believe it is because without the mythical
“exclusive” to lean on the “predominate” falls apart. How can someone have OSA and SSA and
be a “homosexual person”. If you create the “homosexual person” with the mythical “exclusive”
category the “predominate” category can be rationalized.

God bless

Your prior thread on this topic, a mere 2 months ago, has been locked. I see no purpose in starting the same thread again.

I suggest you seek help from a spiritual director.

Your profile shows you have 105 posts, ALL of them on exactly the same topic. Your obsession with this topic, and your insistence on disagreeing with the teaching of the Church on it, might be construed by some of my SSA friends as a bit suspect.

Get over it. Give yourself over to the wisdom of the OHCA Church and quit trying to remake God’s Church in your image.

How can you say that the “exclusive” category is “mythical”? Do you have any facts or data to back that claim up with? I’m fairly certain that the answer to that is “NO”, since the only real evidence we have (at least at this time) is what the individuals with SSA themselves say and describe.

Unless you have some other credible source that says otherwise, this is a really pointless argument that will continue to get you nowhere.

I hope people see in the world today that the LGBT orthodoxy rules with an iron fist and
rejects any dissent from the view that SSA and SS behavior are normal, healthy and not to
be presented in any negative light. Children are being indoctrinated in the orthodoxy from
birth to reject any opposing view. The LGBT orthodoxy demands tolerance of perverted
sexuality while at the same time shouting down any opposing view.

Today the Church properly stands against SS behavior the Church has unfortunately come
to promoting the “homosexual person”. SSA is real but it is just one of many temptations in
Satan’s arsenal no one is incapable of attraction to persons of the opposite sex as the Church
is now suggesting.

Does anyone have an alternate explanation for the Church’s two categories of “homosexual person”?

God bless

Thank you for taking time to reply.

Isn’t a myth something that is passed down by word of mouth with no real proof so when the
Church makes the claim that a group of people are capable of “an exclusive … sexual attraction
toward persons of the same sex” is the Church not claiming the mythical “homosexual person”
to be real with no proof?

The Church itself does not use self-identification as reason to accept the existence of the
“homosexual person”, instead blaming some amorphous “psychological genesis” that “remains
largely unexplained”.

Why do you believe the Truth to be pointless?

God bless

Just for the record, I actually agree with you that they should not have used that terminology because we are “human persons” made in the image and likeness of God. However, what is within the Church’s realm is matters of faith and morals. As such, the Church clearly teaches that SS behavior is serious matter and intrinsically disordered. The cause of SSA is proper to science and not faith or morals. As such the Church uses the science to say that the cause remains largely unexplained.

Does the Church always explain things in the best way? No. Could they sometimes make certain things less ambiguous? Yes. Are you free to believe that it could have been worded better? Yes.

Does any of that Change the Church’s teaching or it’s moral stance? No

Even if the science could eventually 100% prove that SSA is genetic and therefore beyond any doubt that there are indeed “homosexual persons” born that way, the Church’s moral stance and teaching would still not change. And that ultimately is the bottom line and the only thing that matters as far as the Church goes. So whether the Church uses the terminology of “homosexual persons” or not, is really completely irrelevant.

Why do you believe the Truth to be pointless?

I did not say the Truth was pointless, I said the basis for your arguement is pointless.

While the terminology is not helpful I believe that the Church’s definition is the problem.

I would say without Truth the Church would become a sham.

I can agree with this.

I disagree. Do you not believe that SSA is a temptation?

I do not believe the Church should present as true something that is “largely unexplained”.

I don’t get your point here the Truth of the Lord is the basis of morality. If the Church presents what is false to be true morality
can not be properly understood.

Not quite sure of your point here. I have heard it said that if pigs had wings they could fly. Pigs don’t have wings.

The basis of my argument is Truth.

God bless

Originally Posted by jjr9
(Post #6)The Church itself does not use self-identification as reason to accept the existence of the “homosexual person”, instead blaming some amorphous “psychological genesis” that “remains largely unexplained”…… (Post #8) I do not believe the Church should present as true something that is “largely unexplained”.

Some women are attracted to men with big muscles, a beard, and a hairy chest while others are not. Why is that? Some men are attracted to the same men with big muscles, a beard, and a hairy chest while others are not. Why is that? The truth is that at this time neither science nor the Church knows, thus “its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained”, but it would be foolish to deny that those attractions exist for both SS and OS because those attractions are manifest every day. You also stated that SSA is real, but that it is only a temptation (post #5). You cannot fault the Church for presenting Same Sex Attraction as a true reality when you yourself have admitted as much by saying that it is a true temptation. In order for any temptation to be real, the attraction must also be real as well, otherwise there would be no true temptation.

Originally posted by jjr9
Do you not believe that SSA is a temptation?

It can lead to a temptation, but being attracted to a person of the same sex (or the opposite sex) in and of itself is not a temptation. Attraction is first. Temptation may or may not follow from that attraction. Physical attraction is a part of love… but it can also be a part of lust. The attraction itself is not a temptation. Try reading the first several chapters of the Song of Solomon to see how the Bible describes physical attraction. There is a difference between acknowledging and being attracted to the God given physical beauty of a person (SS or OS) without it becoming a temptation to fantasize or wanting to jump in bed with that person.

Originally Posted by jjr9
SSA is real but it is just one of many temptations in Satan’s arsenal no one is incapable of attraction to persons of the opposite sex as the Church is now suggesting.

Satan cannot control who or what we are attracted to. We are always attracted to beauty, but the catch is that beauty is in the eye of the beholder and that beholder has a fallen human nature which affects our attractions. Logically it does not make any sense (at least to me) why a person who self-identifies as being exclusively attracted to people of the same sex would lie about their attractions, especially those who are living a chaste life in union with Christ and his Church. If they had even a little attraction to a person of the opposite sex, it would make sense to pursue that relationship instead of living a single chaste life. One of the major difficulties of the single chaste life is loneliness, so why do they choose chastity if they are capable of a fulfilling relationship with a person of the opposite sex? Perhaps the exclusive SSA is not as mythical as you claim it to be.

Catechism of the Catholic Church
2357. Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex.

This is the definition that you have a disagreement with because you say that a person with an exclusive SSA is mythical and that “no one is incapable of attraction to persons of the opposite sex”. Let’s take that same argument and apply it to your side of the equation so that it reads…

Heterosexuality refers to relations between men and women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the opposite sex.”

Would you agree that in regards to heterosexuality and your previous assertion that this would be a true statement? Would you argue that an exclusive sexual attraction to a person of the opposite sex is mythical as well? Can you prove that any person is indeed exclusively attracted to a person of the opposite sex and that that “heterosexual person” is not mythical? How would you be able to prove that any person is exclusively attracted to persons of the opposite sex and never at any time were they attracted to any person of the same sex? And if there is even one person who experienced even one time of SSA, then that would necessitate a “predominate” category along with the “exclusive”.

You said “no one is incapable of attraction to persons of the opposite sex”, but you didn’t say “exclusively to persons of the opposite sex”. Thereby implying that there could be exclusive, predominant, or another category of just a little opposite sex attraction. You have just created multiple categories of heterosexual persons. How can someone have OSA and SSA and be a heterosexual person (post #1)?

I’m not trying to put words in your mouth. This just seems to be the logical conclusion of your argument as you have presented it. As such, the argument is flawed as it stands.

This is not my concern my concern is that the Church claims some have an exclusive SSA that is
they are incapable of OSA.

I agree that SSA and OSA are both attractions OSA can lead to Agape Love and marriage or
temptation to sin. SSA can only lead to temptation to sin. This has nothing to do with my concern.

I cannot tell you what brings any particular person to any specific sinful attraction or behavior. All
I can tell you is Satin is a convincing liar.

The scope of my concern is limited to what the Church is claiming I do not wish to discuss
hypotheticals.

This is still not complicated the Church makes the claim that a group of people have the capacity to
“experience an exclusive … sexual attraction toward person of the same sex”. Is this claim true or
false? I believe that the claim is false and the Church has made an error in claiming it to be true.
What causes you to believe this statement is true beyond self-identification.

God bless

You are obsessed with this, you need help. Spiritual and otherwise.

Are your contentions less hypothetical, less mythical? A few of your claims:

  • SSA is planted in an individual by the devil;
  • Science is irrelevant to understanding the cause of SSA
  • Everyone can be sexually attracted to the opposite sex;
  • Persons who say they experience only SSA (no OSA) perpetuate a myth.

You have presented these “hypotheticals” repeatedly and posters have addressed them. Why do refuse to engage with those of others?

Originally Posted by jjr9
What causes you to believe [the Church’s] statement is true beyond self-identification.

My concern is that the Church claims some have an exclusive SSA that is they are incapable of OSA.

What causes you to believe that your own statement that all people are capable of sexual OSA is true beyond self-identification?

I personally know several people who have said that they are exclusively attracted to people of the same sex and they believe that since God created them that way, then he would want them to have a loving sexual relationship with a person of the same sex.

So when I read the Church’s definition with that in mind, I see that the Church is very clear that this section of the Catechism includes, and is directed towards, even those people who are most likely to claim that it is not for them.

Furthermore in their definition they do not say that there are men and women “who are exclusively SSA…” and therefore incapable of OSA. Rather the definition states that there are men and women “who experience an exclusive…”.

Experience is always subjective to the person who is experiencing; therefore it necessitates self-identification of that experience by that person. But for any number of reasons, the conclusions of the experience may or may not be true and the conclusion could be true for one person and false for another person. Even for the same person, it could be true at some point in their life, and false at another point in their life. It’s completely subjective.

While a person may have only experienced an exclusive SSA throughout their life, it does not follow that for the rest of their entire life that same person will always continue to experience an exclusive SSA. The Church is not claiming that they are incapable of OSA, merely that the person’s subjective experience is exclusively or predominantly SSA . Experience is completely subjective and subject to change with each experience.

A person may exclusively experience SSA and then one day the right OS person enters their life and surprisingly they find that their experiential exclusivity, which up to that point was true, is no longer true. But on the other hand, that same person may only experience exclusively SSA for their entire life. That doesn’t mean they are incapable of OSA, it simply means they never experienced it.

Therefore I have no problem accepting that what the Church is claiming to be true by their definition, is indeed true; that some people experience an exclusive or predominant SSA. The Church is not claiming anything beyond that in their definition. This also is not a promotion by the Church of the “homosexual person”, rather it is acknowledging that this is a real experience for many people. In order to address any issue, the issue itself first has to be acknowledged and defined. And perhaps sometimes the definition itself needs to be defined and clarified.

Hopefully this properly addressed your concern.

Originally Posted by jjr9
I agree that SSA and OSA are both attraction OSA can lead to Agape Love and marriage or temptation to sin. SSA can only lead to temptation to sin. This has nothing to do with my concern.

Just wanted to clarify this. Both SSA and OSA can lead to Agape Love or temptation to sin. Christ said “Love (agape) one another as I have loved (agape) you” (John 13:34). Agape love does not necessarily lead to marriage, nor in most cases to a physical sexual expression of that love, otherwise what Christ commanded would not make sense. You seem to be under the impression that SSA is necessarily lustful and a temptation in and of itself, but if that were the case OSA would also always be lustful and a temptation in itself. No, Christ commanded us to agape love both same sex and opposite sex. He would not have commanded something which is sinful in and of itself. Agape love may sometimes include a sexual expression, but agape goes beyond sex.

Yes, spider, the point that SSA is referenced as an “experience” is highly relevant. To reject people’s admission of their own experience is to label a great many people liars with no basis. And of course, the experience may change. The Chuch did not pigeon- hole anyone, but rather accepts the realities of individual experiences.

I note jjr9 does acknowledge in an earlier post that SSA is not itself a temptation but may lead to (pre-dispose a person to) particular temptations.

So if jjr9 now accepts that SSA is real (ie. precedes temptations and is of some discoverable cause) and its exclusivity or otherwise is (as the Church says) the experience of individuals (not necessarily a fixed for all time aspect of the condition for any individual) one wonders what basis he has to be in dispute with the Church?

I look forward to hearing why he rejects this explanation ;).

Thank you for this spider - I have had this discussion with jjr9 both in his previous thread and via PM, and he still is not able to see this - stating the possibility and the reality of “exclusive SSA” is not the same as saying that such people are “incapable of being attracted to the opposite sex” as he claims it does mean. It does not mean that if someone experiences exclusive SSA at one point in their life, they are guaranteed to experience it the rest of their life. The CCC does NOT say this. So, thank you for this post!

And frankly, as another person posted, this distinction really doesn’t matter, insofar as the Church’s teaching about the sinfulness of homosexual acts and the disorder of homosexual inclinations remains the same, which it always will as these teachings can’t change.

The Church isn’t suggesting a biological genesis to same sex attraction by some people are experiencing this exclusively. She says the ‘psychological’ genesis is as yet unknown.

I would say it was similar to when back in the day when vocations to religious life were nurtured, there was a distinction between people making a choice between marriage and religious vocation and those who felt strongly called to eschew the path of marriage in favour of religious celibacy. In fact I wonder if the legitimising of same sex relationships in the culture since the ‘delegitimisation’ of celibate religious vocations… is not a related phenomenon.

I believe the Lord did not have perverse sexuality in mind.

Why do you believe the Church has two categories of “homosexual person”?

God bless

Based on what?

Why do you believe the Church has two categories of “homosexual person”?

God bless

I believe this question is base on a straw man of the Church’s position.

Could you cite a the actual words from a teaching so that it can be clearly understood what you mean?

He didn’t have perverse sexuality of any type in mind. In that regard there is no difference between perverse SSA or perverse OSA.

Why do you believe the Church has two categories of “homosexual person”?

See Post #13. Unless you see a problem with that answer, this question has already been answered and I see this issue as being closed.

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.