The word "genesis" (not capitalized) means "the origin or coming into being of something." In everyday use, it's generally used to refer to when something began to develop, or the root of it, not it's "creation by God." In other words, it's simply saying that we currently don't know the medical or psychological cause(s) of same sex attraction. Just as we don't always know the "psychological genesis" of other disorders, like kleptomania or ADHD. It's not referring to the Genesis of the Bible here. And it certainly doesn't say that this has suddenly been "created" in some people, as you imply.

We all have our own way of reading meaning and "tone" into words, along with our own biases and perspectives. Language (especially text) is limited, as well, so I'm not sure there would ever be the "perfect way" to say something about faith and morals that every person would understand equally well. It may confuse one person or a few, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it was a poor choice of words for most readers. Another synonym that would be clearer for you could just as easily confuse others.

You suggest that living a chaste life is not a good enough solution; what would you suggest? Remembering, of course, that this is not a medical text, but instruction for living a good Christian life. It sounds as though you do not believe that anyone could struggle with attraction to the opposite sex at all.

In Romans 1, as I understand it, St. Paul tells us really nothing about where this comes from; he's speaking to the Christians about what the pagans do. And remember that he wrote this letter without the divisions into chapter and verse--so Romans 2 continues the thought: "Therefore, you are without excuse, every one of you who passes judgment. For by the standard by which you judge another you condemn yourself, since you, the judge, do the very same things." (NABRE)

May I explain something? Before assuming an office in the Church (including that of the diaconate), a person must make the Oath of Fidelity. I have made that oath several times for various offices. The very first line of that oath is:

I, N., in assuming the office of ………, promise that in my words and in my actions I shall always preserve communion with the Catholic Church.

I believe that this promise does not leave me free to criticize the policies of the Holy See without very good reason. Satisfying you as to my bona fides does not qualify as such a reason. So if I think that something should have been done about what Cardinal Marx said, I do not think that I am free to say so. And you, therefore, are not entitled to draw any conclusion from my silence on the topic except that I wish to preserve communion with the Catholic Church in my words and actions.

I realize that others construe their obligations under this promise differently. That is their choice and their responsibility; I must observe the promise as I understand it.

St. Paul says:
“They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped
the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.”

I believe St. Paul could not be clearer in telling us where SSA comes from and while not explicitly
stated, this temptation as all temptation comes from the eternal liar Satan. St. Paul did not consider
exclusive SSA; it has taken Satan a long time to embed this thought into secular acceptability. Satan
is a cleaver convincing liar who plays the long game. I do not judge anyone this is about an error by
the Magisterium.

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” (as
defined by the Magisterium) does not exist the reality of same-sex “marriage” in the secular world would
not be accepted today. I do not have the privilege to know God’s full plan for man but what I do know
tells me that this claim by the Magisterium is not in harmony with God’s plan. I believe the Lord established
His Church to give direction to the world not to look to the world for direction. I believe the Lord gave us
His Church to be a pillar of Truth in a world full of temptation not to be a barometer of the current secular
consensus as the Magisterium has in this instance. It saddens me that the Magisterium had not made the
moral stand a long time ago and reject this false premise of the "homosexual person" rather than embrace
it. I believe it is never too late to correct an error the Lord is forgiving.

The sexual aspect of this error is not of most importance it has more to do with the Sacred Deposit of Faith.
If the Magisterium starts to declare things to be true that are false where does it end. It doesn't. How does
this claim that some of God's children have an exclusive SSA have any harmony with the Sacred Deposit of
Faith? It doesn't.

Do you have a reason to believe any of God's children has an exclusive SSA as the Magisterium has recently
started to claim? I do not.

If you do can you share?

God bless

The very fact that the Bible discusses homosexuality shows that homosexuals do exist, and that they are, indeed, attracted to members of their own sex instead of the opposite sex. If the Bible acknowledges it exists, why do you say that it does not?

The Bible speaks of SSA and SS behavior, the Bible does not mention exclusive SSA. The concepts of
“homosexuality” and “homosexuals” are not considered in the Bible. If you can show the idea of
exclusive SSA in the Bible please show the reference.

I am sad that a push to normalize the mythical “homosexual person” is so prevalent today outside and
Inside the Church.

I bear no one ill-will my heart breaks for those confused souls lost to the false premise of the “homosexual
person”. I believe it is a serious error by the Church to promote this false premise and put this stumbling
blocks on their path to Eternal Life.

I believe there is a conscious effort by some in the Church to normalize the “homosexual person”
look at:

1 Corinthians 6:9 NAB 1970 edition

“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 sodomites”

NAB 1986 edition

"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”

NAB 2011 edition(current edition)

“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 sodomites”

This translation was changed and then changed back. Clearly, someone was trying to retrofit ST.
Paul’s teaching to conform to the false premise of the “homosexual person”. The USCCB site has the
NAB 2011 edition(current edition). The Vatican site has the NAB 2002 edition which has the same
language as the NAB 1986 edition.

Do you have a reason to believe any of God's children has an exclusive SSA as the Magisterium has recently
started to claim? I do not.

If you do can you share?

God bless

Nm

I think I know what he is saying, and he has a point. The idea of someone who, in the current politically correct parlance 'identifies' as a homosexual and bases his entire life on that identity, IS indeed a very recent phenomenon, historically speaking.


It is often said that ancient Greece and Rome were tolerant of homosexuality. This is at best a half-truth. Homosexuality was considered to be something that someone DID not something that they ARE. The belief was that young people would experiment with homosexuality for a while, but it was just a phase, and that homosexual behavior was a sign of immaturity that they would grow out of and then go on to marry someone of the opposite sex and have babies. Those who continued to indulge in homosexual behavior into middle age, like Julius Caesar, were regarded not as 'perverted' but as immature, and Caesar's political enemies did not hesitate to use his homosexual behavior against him for political reasons. So, no, there was no such thing as a 'gay identity' in antiquity, which is why modern gay activists who like to compile lists of historical figures like Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar or Oscar Wilde are just completely wrong. None of these men were 'gay' in the modern sense of the word, because the concept of 'gay' did not exist until the 20th century. And the modern homosexual subculture can be traced only as a far as post-Reformation London and Amsterdam.

This is the distinction between someone who is 'homosexual' and someone who is 'gay', there are many homosexuals who are not 'gay'. A gay person is a person who has adopted a particular moral, political and religious philosophy of life, not someone who has indulged in a particular behavior, and there are many homosexuals who refuse to call themselves 'gay' for exactly that reason. One example would be political commentator Camille Pagilla.

Along with the idea of the gay 'identity' is the idea that gays are just 'born that way' and that if a homosexual should find himself in a relationship with a person of the opposite sex, then that relationship is just 'a lie' and they could never be happy. Absolutely none of this is true. It's all fictional. It's entirely possible and has happened literally thousands of times in history, that a person who has a homosexual proclivity could fall in love with a person of the opposite sex and be happy.

I'm also increasingly disinclined to take seriously the idea that homosexuals are simply 'born that way.' Gay activists claim that the number of avowed homosexuals is increasing, although, among baby boomers and generation X, only about 2-3% identify as 'gay', the claim is that among millennials, the number is closer to 20 or even 30%. I personally think this is complete nonsense, but lets for a moment consider that it might be true. If true, it is difficult to see how it supports the idea that homosexuals are 'born that way' if homosexuality is genetic, then the number of homosexuals should remain constant from one generation to the next. If the number of homosexuals is increasing, then this is an indication that homosexuality is a SOCIAL phenomenon and not a biological one.


At any rate, it is impossible to battle against the gay agenda with any effectiveness is you accept wholesale their myth of the homosexual 'identity.'

+1

If you believe the Magisterium has crossed this line, as I do, can you ask your Bishop
to serve the Lord and work to have the Magisterium correct this error. For reason
I do not know my Bishop will not address this issue.

God bless and thanks