Well, it seems there is now a "Catholic" understanding of "homosexual" which would be better described as "sodomitic".
What is the difference?
Homosexuality according to CCC, I found out this morning, is "relations between men or women" etc. Where is that quote on the internet ... ah, thanks to google I found 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,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 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.
My emphasis.
The words about "homosexual acts" are mainly correct, except that the clause "[t]hey do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity," is too much "theology of the body" à la Wojtyla, and can also be wrong, since the lifegiving complementarity can be replaced in such relationships by a very genuine, if not good, complementarity of domination and submission or of mentorship. This formulation can indeed invite such couples to reply "but our complementarity is very genuine and also affective." Which is not a good reason to make any exception in favour of their homosexual relationship. The formulation could induce a left winger to make an exception and a hardliner to psychologise about their complementarity not being "genuine" on the affective plane. The real answer should be that such a genuine complementarity, but a different one from the lifegiving one of two sexes, does not matter.
Well, if being "homosexual" means being in a homosexual relationship, in couple with someone one's own sex, a "homosexual" cannot marry, he must get out of such a relationship first. And when he does, there is no longer "homosexuality" since there is no longer a homosexual relationship. And so, if eventually having got out of that he does marry, he is no longer a "homosexual" when he marries.
In this sense, "homosexuality" simply means "sodomy and sodomitics relationships".
However, I fear a glide on the meaning to a more normal psychological usage of the word is implied a little further down:
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
While "sacramental grace" could normally imply all and any sacraments, from Oscar Wilde's actual marriage to Constance Floyd to his death bed extreme unction, there are hints we are talking about the fact of "experienc[ing] an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex" and not about being in a homosexual relation. For instance, while one is in a homosexual relationship, one is barred from receiving the sacraments, except in death bed cases. Therefore the use of the word "sacramental graces" implies one who has already repented of or so far avoided those horrible acts.
And would the paragraph imply that marriage is not part of the sacramental graces available?
The primary use of words like "self-mastery" and "support of disinterested friendship" seem to imply "chastity" in the first sentence means uniformly "celibate chastity". That is, an exclusion from marriage.
If a doctor were to receive a call from a man who said "I am homosexual, but this girl I'd like to marry, even if my sexual attraction is not strongest for her" perhaps that doctor would be inclined to say "it is a risky business, don't try it if you ask me". But some doctors would go further and refuse to hand out their preliminaries to a marriage licence in jurisdictions where it requires the advice from a medical doctor.
It seems to me, CCC 2359 is going in the same direction as such doctors. Happily, Chaput of Philadelphia is not taking it as that, since he mentioned Catholic cases corresponding to Mormons Josh and Lolly Weed (but without naming them), prior to their divorce.
But unfortunately, CCC 2359 is not explicitly condoning this solution of Chaput's, which is correct. And other pastors within the Vatican II Sect have other interpretations, close to what I consider it is suggesting.
Now, why is this unfortunate?
Forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving by the faithful, and by them that have known the truth. I Tim 4:3
Challoner exposes:
"Forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats": He speaks of the Gnostics, the Marcionites, the Eneratites, the Manicheans, and other ancient heretics, who absolutely condemned marriage, and the use of all kind of meat; because they pretended that all flesh was from an evil principle. Whereas the church of God, so far from condemning marriage, holds it a holy sacrament; and forbids it to none but such as by vow have chosen the better part: and prohibits not the use of any meats whatsoever in proper times and seasons; though she does not judge all kind of diet proper for days of fasting and penance.
In "and other ancient heretics" I would say Bishop Challoner is off. Why? Because the first verse of the chapter has :
in the last times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error, and doctrines of devils,
Now, note, Challoner says of Catholicism, rightly, "forbids it to none but such as by vow have chosen the better part" which must mean in "chosen" the fact of eternal vows (preliminary vows like "entering a monastery" do not automatically in all cases forbid marriage and the Church does not apply it like that either).
Now, if Bishop Challoner had been here, someone could have asked him - or can ask anyone believing as he now - "none but such - you mean not even homosexuals?" And the response must be "not even homosexuals, unless they are currently in a homosexual relationship, that is unless they are also currently in the habit of sodomy."
Why is this important to some who is not homosexual in either definition of the word (whatever calumny may have said about ... for instance me)? Well, because some shrink (psychologist / psychiatrist) could claim someone is homosexual and then the pastor of a parish or a diocese or whatever use this "information" to stop someone from marrying. Which would fulfil "forbidding to marry".
Obviously, there are also other ideologies than more or less "eugenic" ones that forbid marriage, like feminism of a certain type (more fashionable in the 70's than recent decades) calling marriage a "women's trap" or a certain statism making the state decide if it allows a couple to marry, based on many and supple criteria (including but not limited to an official sensing a "gay" whether there is one or not) would equally be fulfilling this prophecy.
Hans Georg Lundahl
St. Maur des Fossés
Sts Zachary and Elisabeth
5.XI.2019
PS, I had other reasons than an apprehension of being object of calumny for taking a stand on this issue. For instance, debating on "helgon" (which I have left) against a self described homosexual and also homosexualist I defended the Catholic faith against the charge of discrimination against persons for things other than their acts, and in connexion with "gay marriage" vote in US, I tried to keep the legislation as it was, because it already allowed homosexual persons to marry (obviously, there are heterosexual couples who would also not be allowed marriage, as in full siblings or father and daughter or if one was severely under age and it was known - by the way, I am also arguing for traditional age limits)./HGL
Sancti Zachariae, Sacerdotis et Prophetae, qui pater exstitit beati Joannis Baptistae, Praecursoris Domini.
Item sanctae Elisabeth, ejusdem sanctissimi Praecursoris matris.
