Replies

The idea of the homosexual qua homosexual is a late invention. Up until the 19th Century, the idea of a homosexual as such was unknown; same-sex intercourse (sodomy) was considered a vice common to married men of the upper classes, similar to alcoholism or opium addiction, not as a lifestyle.

The idea of homosexuality as a lifestyle alternative to heterosexuality is not a sexual idea, but a political idea — part of the broad spectrum of Revolutionary thought, and, as such, merely one more front in the Revolution's war against Christian civilization. This is a war of ideas; the idea of a person as "a homosexual" (i.e. a being defined by their sexual attraction) rather than as a human being suffering from homosexual urges is an ideological weapon. Its purpose is to destroy the natural order of human relations by redefining the human person as a creature of its sexual desires. The best way to confront the homosexual lifestyle movement is, therefore, to destroy the artificial construct of a person as a homosexual. By treating persons with homsexual desires as persons — i.e. by refusing to concede that such a thing as "a homosexual" exists — we deny the Revolution a major weapon in its ideological arsenal.

How should we do this? Once again, the Church provides the answer.

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.
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.
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. [Catechism, Part 3, Section 2, Chapter 2, Article 6, SubSection 2, Heading 5]

Here we see the means of defeating the gay movement: love. We must love those suffering from disordered sexual attractions — on an individual basis, as human beings, not as members of a political movement. We do this by refusing to accept the Revolutionary lie that any such thing as "a homosexual person" exists; instead, we should return to the traditional Western idea of sodomy as an individual vice. Western society has always dealt with sodomy in the context of vice, and has dealt with the damage caused by sodomy in a manner similar to that caused by alcohol and drug abuse — as a matter of individual suffering. The Church still treats it in this fashion. By refusing to accept the Revolution's redefinition of the human person, and by refusing play the Revolution's political game, we can blunt and ultimately destroy the Revolution's use of human sexuaity as a weapon against Christian civilization.

Western society has always dealt with sodomy in the context of vice, and has dealt with the damage caused by sodomy in a manner similar to that caused by alcohol and drug abuse — as a matter of individual suffering.

Historically speaking, it would be more accurate to say western society has generally dealt with sodomy by executing the sodomite.

The idea that homosexuality defines a person rather than a sin or dysfunction is indeed very modern. I wish I had more information about the history of this definition, but it is certainly less than 100 years old.

I don’t specifically disagree that; a person who has true homosexual urges, realizes it’s a sin and struggles with it from that aspect, deserves the Church’s (our) support. The current PC thinking is; it is a normal part of our person. Which IMO, is an assault on decency and society. Compassion, again IMO, does not work on this level. This is hedonism and I think we all know how that works out for civilizations.