Camping Anyone? Gender Theory, Personhood, and Catholicism

Recently, the significance of embraced identity and how it impacts our lives and overarching social climate has been brought to light. However, many (who ironically defend their own embraced identity) seem to be closed to the idea that people should take this matter into consideration. As well, many overtly attempt to distract or prevent people from addressing the mere question of embraced identity itself.

With regards to homosexuality in particular, two polarized camps have emerged:

Camp 1: “I’m Gay and Catholic”
Camp 2: “I’m a person (beloved child [son {XY} or daughter {XX}] of God) who experiences same-sex attractions.”

However, before examining those camps I invite you to consider the underlying objectives of contemporary gender theory. This is important because it will help us understand how those camps actually measure up. If they contradict each other, then both cannot be accurate in their reflection of the Catholic faith. Further, whether a camp is praised or rejected by our world will give us a means to evaluate the degree to which a camp is onside with the world, as compared to being onside with the Church.

Gender Theory Objectives

1. Ensure terms like “gay” and “straight” become commonly used as means of self-identifying and defining ourselves and others.

Notice that the “gay-straight” spectrum would need to exist before an “us vs. them” mentality could exist. And this would need to exist before the “victim” mentality could ever be embraced. Further, note that these “victims” would need to exist before the critical mass of people could swell in support of said “victims.”

Today we have that swelling of support for this socially-constructed caste of “victims,” thus making the imposition of this sexuality-anchored spectrum of self-identifying and defining oneself, one of the greatest social engineering feats of our time.

a) Wherever it is thriving, shame is imposed onto Catholics and the Church is being decimated.

b) Wherever it is just beginning, the Church will be decimated. Please do not fool yourself into thinking otherwise – even in the most Catholic or Orthodox Nations – such as Ukraine, Poland, or the Philippines. And please do not fool yourself into thinking “The priests will take care of it.” This is about reaching the critical mass, and it starts with none other than you and me. If the priests attempt to do counter this movement, it will be rejected by the critical mass of Catholics whose hearts have been swayed by this well-crafted social movement.

2: Aim to influence the hearts of the critical mass.

A (socially constructed) minority group alone does not have power. However, if the critical mass sides with said minority, then it will have power. Relating to this topic, this power has been brought to life by many well-intentioned people whose hearts have been convicted by the plight of the “victims.” This brilliant strategy has effectively accelerated the advancement of the objectives held by sexual-minority advocates, on account of the swayed critical mass.

I invite you to consider whether or not their good-intentions have been taken advantage of, for the underlying (unpublicized) purposes of targeting Christianity (Catholicism in particular) – based on the reality that there is near silence against Islam in which homosexual acts (even upon accusation) are punishable by death, according to most if not all interpretations of Sharia Law.

Assessment of Camps

Camp 1: Non-clarified language is deliberately used, which inhibits from being known, the objective truth that attractions experienced (not specifically chosen) are distinct from embraced identity(specifically chosen).

Camp 2: Clarified language is deliberately used, as to reflect a greater degree of objective truth, and to offer people the opportunity to embrace a greater degree of self-honesty about what objectively “is.”

***

Camp 1: People are drawn to self-identify and define themselves first and foremost according to attractions experienced (reflective of one facet of their being), as opposed to self-identifying first and foremost as a person (reflective of all facets of their being). This elevates less than the fullness of personhood to be greater than the fullness of personhood, within embraced identity.

Camp 2: People are invited to self-identify first and foremost as persons, in order to reflect the objective truth that the fullness of personhood is greater than less than the fullness of personhood.

***

Camp 1: People are drawn to self-identify and define themselves first and foremost according to sexual attractions experienced (which are of finite creation), as opposed to self-identifying first and foremost according to their relationship with God (who is infinite Creator). This elevates the finite to be greater than the infinite, within embraced identity.

Camp 2: People are invited to self-identify first and foremost as persons (beloved children of God), in order to reflect the objective truth that the infinite is greater than the finite.

***

Camp 1: The idea that it is our nature “to be gay” (or “to be straight”) is implicitly promoted, by virtue of the deliberate use of language that, by design, impedes people from coming to see attractions experienced and embraced identity as distinct. This helps entrench the idea that attractions experienced “are who you are” (and who you forever will be), and thus the only road to self-honesty is to come to fruition within that type of identity. This draws people to reject chastity, for it will be most often seen to be incompatible with how they perceive their nature (originating from that perceived inseparability between attractions experienced and identity embraced).

Camp 2: People are invited to see specific sexual attractions as a facet of our fluid human experience. This is compatible with the well-established notion that there is mobility within and between the sexual identity labels (which is an idea very much promoted by sexual-minority advocates). That is, people are invited to see that specific sexual attractions are not our nature, despite it being our nature to love and to want to be loved.  With attractions experienced not made to be inseparable from our perception of our nature, chastity is less likely to be seen as white-knuckled form of being dishonest with ourselves about “who we are” but rather will be more likely to be seen as a viable option for living a joyful and fulfilling life – such as long this option is able to be made known to them.

***

Camp 1: Those who disagree with this camp are often subject to accusation of being socially repressive, brainwashed, self-hating, and or worthy of pity. These are all common (and very predictable) responses, that attempt to sway the critical mass into dismissing the legitimacy of said person who presents the invitation to pursue a greater degree of truth in an uninhibited fashion.

Camp 2: Those who disagree with this camp are invited to consider the impact of their choices to deliberately inhibit people from coming to know a greater degree of truth (via their choices to use language that is non-clarified, errantly elevating of one facet above all facets, and errantly elevating that which is finite to be greater than that which is infinite) within their embraced identity.

The Net Effect

Camp 1 offers the precise perspective as those invested in LGBTQ activism, and they are doing (en masse) what LGBTQ activists never could; they are drawing Catholics to self-identify and define themselves along the gay-straight identity spectrum, while presenting it as something that is not only compatible with an uninhibited journey towards objective truth, but also something that is compatible with self-honesty — all the while striving to shame those who oppose.

Meanwhile, Camp 2 is being crucified.

Which camp are you in?

And which camp models Christ?