Traditional Catholics/Please help
Thank you for your time. I have been trying to resolve an issue I have with my Church
the Catholic Church for some time now unsuccessfully. I have made the observation that the
Church has come to accept the existence of the “homosexual person”. This I believe to be an
error the Church must correct.
I have communicated with a number of people in the Church over the past nine years
and have been unsuccessful resolving this issue. I do not judge anyone we all have the gift of
freewill and will all be judged by the Lord for our lives. However the Church does not have
freewill but has an obligation to the Lord to be consistent with the faith of our fathers and the
traditions of the Church.
I believe that human sexuality is a very complicated issue that I am ill equipped to discuss
with any level of competence. My issue is much simpler “Church 101” if you will. Sexuality of any
kind is only involved due to the nature of the change in Church teaching. The heart of this issue is
the Church’s handling of temptation.
Here is what leads me to believe that the Church has accepted the existence of the
This section of the Catechism 2357 I believe 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” as that just makes the group size smaller and
clarifies the definition. This statement says that there is a group of people who “experience an
exclusive … sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex”. If this group has an “exclusive …
sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex” they are incapable of being attracted to people
of the opposite sex.
2359 says “Homosexual persons are called to chastity” I do not see how this is not an
acceptance of the “homosexual person” who is fundamentally different than the “heterosexual
person”. I reject this idea.
I noted that 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 says:
"Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither
fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals nor thieves
nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. "
I use a Catholic translation and checked the Vatican site this quote is from the Vatican
The implication being that there are “non-practicing homosexuals”. “fornicators nor idolaters
nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers”
are not qualified as “practicing”. I do not believe that Paul was familiar with the concept of the
“homosexual person”. I do not believe it right and just for the Church to change the Evangelists thoughts
to correspond with its current teaching.
2357 says “Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained” as far as I can tell this
is the only justification for the Churches acceptance of the “homosexual person”. To accept
something that is “unexplained” can only be done as an act of faith. As a Catholic I am
required to accept much on faith and I do. For me to accept “homosexuality” as an article
of faith it would need to be consistent with the faith of my fathers, Church history and tradition,
and in this case natural law. Since “homosexuality” is consistent with none of these I reject it as
a false premise.
Let me say I believe that psychology does wonderful things for many people. I also
believe that psychology is a soft science. Some in psychology say that God is a delusion. I
believe it is wrong to look at this with the rubric of psychology. I believe the correct lens is
morality. I believe God is not provable by design I believe God wants us to come to Him
through faith. A provable God and faith are not possible. If God is not provable then it is
reasonable to come to the conclusion that there is no God. My belief is rooted in faith and
the faith of my fathers as well as the Church. If one concludes there is no God then why is
one person’s morality better than an others and who is to say “same-sex behavior” wrong.
Since I believe in God I believe God determines morality. At my father’s funeral the Priest
said “If there is no God then life is a cruel joke”. I believe this to be true.
In communicating with a fair number of people in the Church over nine years.
Generally they fall in two camps. Those who believe as I do that the Church has changed its
teaching and accepts the existence of the “homosexual person” and those who don’t. Those who
believe that the Church has changed its teaching for the most part think that it should. A small
subset think that the Church should accept “same sex behavior” presumably in “marriage”. Most
say the Church has not changed its teaching.
I have been looking for the rational explanation for the Church’s action unsuccessfully.
All I have found are “self-identification”, “same-sex behavior”, “group think”, “political
correctness” and “false compassion” none of which is substantial enough to change Church
teaching in my view.
It is also clear to me that the normalization of this behavior in the secular world is well
underway. I believe that with Adam and Eve the Lord created the most basic unit of society the
family. I believe that same sex “marriage” is a direct assault on the institution. I believe that the
Churches acceptance of the “homosexual person” ties its hands while fighting this evil.
We all face innumerable immoral temptations in our lives and of course the Church has an
obligation to update its teaching as new things are learned. “Same sex behavior” is just sinful
behavior and the Church is cruel if it continues to tell people who engage in “same sex behavior”
that they are fundamentally different. It is my belief that this is the only immoral temptation the
Church tells practitioners that they are fundamentally different than others.
One of the Bishops who was kind enough to respond wrote “you may find it helpful to
review an earlier section of the Catechism, from #355 to #421 on creation, human dignity, the fall
and redemption. May the Holy Spirit continue to guide you in your quest for Truth. ”. When I
asked if 387 and 2357-2359 are contradictory he did not respond.
I believe that the Church is making it harder for the lost sheep to find its way home with
this error. 387 says “Without the knowledge Revelation gives of God we cannot recognize sin
clearly and are tempted to explain it as merely a developmental flaw, a psychological weakness”.
I believe that 2357-2359 feeds this temptation. Everyone tries to rationalize their behavior. I know
that I do. I know of no other sinful behavior that the Church hands out a tool to rationalize the
If we lived in a vacuum I would be silly pursuing this but we do not. I believe the Lord
has purpose for His Church in the real world. I believe that action or lack of action by the Church
has consequence. I believe if the Church had stood up 50 years ago and properly said that the
“homosexual person” does not exist the reality of same-sex “marriage” in the secular world would
not be accepted today. I believe it is never too late to correct an error the Lord is forgiving.
I do not believe this to be a complicated issue but an important issue. The Church has
come to accept the existence of the “homosexual person” to teach something new is a change
of teaching. I believe this a profound change of teaching. I believe the Church does not disavow
the existence of the “homosexual person”
As a member of the Church I feel an obligation to the Lord to point out an error by the
Church if I see one. I also feel the Church has an obligation to the Lord to either correct the
error or explain my error to me the Church has done neither to date.
I believe that acceptance of the existence of the “homosexual person” is an evil pervasive
in the world today. I believe that next to spreading the Gospel in the world standing against and
exposing evil in the world is the Church’s highest obligation to the Lord.
If you can give a rational explanation as to why my observation is an unreasonable one
that would be helpful to me.
Thank you again for your time.
I am glad that you did not request this to be a private response, as this deserves a more public response, and one which (together with your question) both of us should feel free to share or republish as opportunity permits. I perceive two major parts to your question. The first has to do with the problem of homosexuality itself, as to what causes it, what are the moral implications of it, and how does the existence of it fit in with the Providence and will of God. The second has to do with some very serious ecclesiastical implications of your observations, since the Church is indefectible and yet you are observing what is clearly and undeniably a most serious (and in fact doctrinally impossible) defection.
This claim that "Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained" is quite false, and in fact merely a dodge by which political homosexual activists can be partially pandered to. The genesis of homosexual behavior is actually quite simple and easily verified from the life story from virtually every homosexual person. It spreads through recruitment. When the hormones first start flowing in a young person, very much changes about them and they no longer feel like they are the same person anymore. Confused, frustrated, and often unguided by a culture that distracts the very parents who should be explaining these things to them, they are very easy prey for older homosexuals who seek to "propagate" their own kind by making more homosexuals.
B. F. Skinner is a psychologist whose work is of particular relevance here. He would put rats in various mazes and boxes and would train them to, for example, press a lever to get a food pellet, or jump from one side of a box to the other as needed to avoid an electric shock (look up the term "Skinner box"). To some extent one could even go back to Pavlov whose dogs are still sometimes spoken of today. He had trained them by ringing a bell when food is coming to associate the ringing of the bell with the coming of food. Before long, the ringing of the bell alone would be enough to make the dog salivate. Skinner built upon this knowledge much further, but the upshot of this whole line of psychological inquiry is that whatever a person experiences alongside pleasure a person will seek to repeat more and more in their lives.
A homosexual man will give young and impressionable boys a ride in his sports car and other fun things, building up a camaraderie within which a release of the young boy's new sexual tensions is encouraged, and gradually comes to be associated with the presence of the man, and perhaps even with other boys with whom the man is doing the same thing. So, rather obviously, the young boys to which this happens come to associate (unchaste) sexual pleasure with their own gender. Homosexuality is, therefore, totally a conditioned response, psychologically speaking. After that, what is a woman to them? Why bother dealing with a woman's moods and periods and "risk" of pregnancy and so forth? From then on, they look to persons of their own gender.
And then comes the "doctrinal" part, if you will (not Church doctrine mind you, but the "teachings" of the homosexual predator). As I mentioned, a young person coming of age can feel very much unlike themselves, as they have known themselves all their lives. It is quite easy for the homosexual recruiter to tell the young boy (and the same goes for young girls being similarly victimized by homosexual older women) that the reason he feels weird inside is that he is "different," "special," and "gay." After all, when he looks around at the other kids his own age, they all seem so normal, acting pretty much as they always have, so it must be he alone who has this strange internal weirdness.
The irony to all that is a simple bit of reflection would have set him straight here. If only he would look at his own behavior around his friends and classmates, teachers, parents, and everyone else with whom he must deal, he too acts just as normal as everyone else. Each of them also faces their own internal new weirdness, thinking themselves "different" and him to be just one more of all the normal people. But most young people never figure this out. They assume their problems are uniquely their own, and when the homosexual predator "explains" to them that this really means that they are "gay," that they have always been that way, that they were born that way (they most certainly were not! God doesn't make junk, as one rather profane slogan pithily puts it) and so forth, that seems as much a viable theory as anything else. And thus another homosexual comes into existence.
All of this is easily verifiable. Let any homosexual talk about their life story, and sooner or later it almost inevitably emerges that when they were young, there was some older person (or more rarely, a person nearly their own age but already so "persuaded") who "showed them the ropes," who "explained" to them that they were gay, and they then "knew" it was true. "Spontaneous homosexuality," which is to say, that for which there really is no recruiter in this sense as I have just explained here, is extremely rare, but obviously not impossible for the simple reason that whoever the first homosexual was in all of human history would obviously not have been recruited by anyone. But even here, other circumstances might explain it, for example two boys thrown together in a prison cell in a shared solitary confinement, and possibly to pass the time, accidently discovering this form of unchaste "comfort" to take from each other.
Am I claiming some sort of conscious "conspiracy" on the part of all homosexuals to spread their condition? No. Obviously, in a good many cases the recruitment is not so much a conscious plan as simply the outworkings of the perversion itself. Homosexuality, especially among men, craves youth, for oneself, one's partners, an absurd desire for eternal youth and beauty. To be young and "gay" is to be sought after, to be courted by other "gays," to have one's pick of partners. As one gets older, the ability to attract a youthful partner, so as to forget their own aging, makes one willing to seek out the young, and even the altogether uninitiated. But on the other hand, the big push in recent (and current) times to allow homosexuals to be boy scouts and scoutmasters, can only be recognized as a deliberate attempt to open up a truly vast and new recruiting ground for this perversion.
It's almost like a truly Satanic aping of the family. Men and women are normally attracted to each other and tend to come together, get married, have children, and finally raise them. For some it is a matter of consciously and specifically deciding that they want children, while for others, it is purely a matter of romance and natural attraction, and the arrival of children is for them rather incidental, though nevertheless a responsibility accepted. But either way the result is basically the same. Homosexuals also seek to propagate their own kind as well. Since their perverse union is intrinsically infertile, their only way to propagate is to seduce the children of others. For some this is a specific ("conspiratorial," if you will) choice to bring some "new blood" into the homosexual community (lesbianism, which has no comparable fascination with youth and beauty, is recruited almost exclusively on this basis), whereas for others it is simply a matter of naive and impressionable young children being the most compellingly attractive partners. Again, either way the result is basically the same.
Homosexuals are people with a problem, sort of like alcoholics or cancer victims. They are not people to bash or make fun of, but people who need our help. One should be able to see from all of this that homosexuality is a psychological disease which is caused by unchastity, and then itself leads to more unchastity. It also results from a lack of responsible supervision of our young people, who then end up having no one to turn to for answers and guidance except these predators. One can feel sorry for those who have fallen victim to this series of circumstances, wish to help them, or even justify the funding of "programs" to help them out of their condition, or at least to overcome the unchastity itself. And of course, all sins, once repented of, can and should be forgiven, ideally through the ministrations of the Church wherein absolution is given.
The only remaining question would have to be, with all the rather obvious and verifiable causes for this problem, how is it that the scientific literature is entirely silent about this? I have no doubt that this silence is politically motivated, a direct result of what some call a "Pink Mafia." People do, after all, always have to power to not see whatever they don't wish to see.
You are correct in saying that there is no such thing as a "homosexual person," as obviously no one is actually born that way. But there are of course those to whom these unfortunate series of events have occurred, and who are emotionally and psychologically scarred by them. They may or may not ever overcome these scars, and either way will have to live with these scars regardless. A person to whom this has happened, but who desires to be saved, has exactly one course laid out before him. They must abandon all unchaste acts and habits and inner consent, resolving that if they cannot be properly married to a person of the opposite gender (and whoever they might marry would doubtless have to have a great deal of patience with them in dealing with these scars), then the single and utterly chaste and celibate life is to be theirs. As it so happens, the actual practice of perfect chastity (no sexual release of any kind), through the naturally resulting buildup of tensions and pressures, may open a person up to the charms of someone of the opposite gender, and if marriage to that person could be reasonably sought, it could lead to a very substantial healing in this area.
But now we must move over to the second part of addressing this question. You are correct in that the Apostle Paul most certainly never heard or thought of such a thing as there being a "homosexual person." And what you have here is a particularly choice and concise turn of phrase: "I do not judge anyone we all have the gift of freewill and will all be judged by the Lord for our lives. However the Church does not have freewill but has an obligation to the Lord to be consistent with the faith of our fathers and the traditions of the Church."
Since you are mostly dealing here with statements in their official "catechism" and not merely with crazy things heard in homilies or other even less formal circumstances, what you are confronted with here is not merely a failure of individuals. What some priest might say in a homily or other less formal situation, or in response to your own inquiries, is subject to many things, including details of his own psychology and what not. But the things that go into an official catechism are not subject to human failure. Just like in the Bible, the Apostle Paul might confess to some human weakness, or ignorance about a matter, or express a personal preference of his own, or even allow himself to dip into using a most indecorous turn of phrase, or use flawed grammar or spelling, but he would not tell you that something was right if it were in fact wrong, or true if it were in fact false.
And neither would an approved catechism. The fact that these things you have observed are in that catechism are in fact symptomatic of a far larger problem with what you think of as "Church." You attempt to hold them to a standard (infallibly established) to which the Catholic Church must always adhere, and indeed have no power not to adhere to. And yet somehow they manage to disappoint you completely, and with almost clockwork regularity. You have found this to be so in your one area of expertise expressed here (and possibly others not mentioned here?), but in point of fact they fail in a great many areas, and in fact one would be most hard pressed to find even a single area in which they, as an institution, do not fail to pass utterly beyond the pale of what is possible for the Catholic Church, per all the dogmas regarding the Church itself which have been confirmed throughout the ages.
What all this really means is that the organization which you have mistaken for the Catholic Church is simply not in fact that Church at all. It is clear from your words that you have always assumed that they were. Why? Because "everyone" says so? The same "everyone" who believes that there could and does exist such a thing as a "homosexual person," perhaps even made so by God? The same "everyone" who thinks that unchastity ought not be such a big deal, because this (once again) "everyone" does it? Because it says "Catholic" on the placard at the door? Because they have, through theft and subtlety, managed to take over more than 95% of the properties and physical plant that formerly was actually held by the Catholic Church only a scant 50 years ago or so?
If they were really the Catholic Church, you really couldn't be having the problems you have been having with them for all these years. (That doesn't mean that a person couldn't have had other problems with them even if they were...) Again, I point out, this goes beyond mere individuals, who can fail, personally. This goes into the realm of the official, the promulgated teaching, wherein the Church cannot fail, but that organization, simply, does.
Even given all that, I know that what I say has to be quite surprising, even astonishing, and obviously probably quite difficult to accept despite the unassailable logic by which your own observations of themselves must force the very same conclusion. That is a BIG thing to take in, so I understand your difficulty. I've been there too. There is no denying that such a thing brings up two basic questions which one must consider and address before even saying that "it is not the Church" could make the least amount of sense. One is, How is it that it came to be no longer the Church? The second is, Where, therefore, IS the real Catholic Church, as described and defined by all the dogmatic teachings about the Church itself?
Needless to say, the answers to both of these questions are closely intertwined. Once one understands the nature of the "How," the nature of the "Where" becomes understandable, and the real Church itself easy, even quite trivial, to recognize. From there it is a simple matter to follow the ancient Church Fathers, the canonized Church Doctors, the Popes and Councils, the roman theologians, the many saintly and pious writings, or even any of the more detailed of the older catechisms, to find and identify that Church within which the heresies which you have so heroically but unsuccessfully fought against have no sway. In closing, I point you to an article of mine in which it so happens that all of exactly this is carefully laid out. There is a great deal more where this comes from, and you may ask about that in a follow-up question, but for now, here is a good start, and God bless!