Numerous commentators have raised concerns about a proposed bill currently in the California Senate, Assembly Bill 2943. The bill would amend the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act to prohibit “sexual orientation change efforts.”
Most discussion of the bill has focused on its potential ban on Bible sales. It seems much more likely that the bill will make religious education programs the target of “death by litigation.”
The Catechism of the Catholic Church is very clear on the church’s position on homosexuality in three sections:
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, 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.
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is 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.
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.
If a religious education teacher refers to sections 2357-2359 of the catechism and, if AB 2943 is in place, the parish is exposed to a potential lawsuit.
The potential risk that parochial schools, particularly high schools where issues of sex and sexuality are a major part of students’ lives, will be ensnared by AB 2943 is also high. Parents at these schools pay tuition and are therefore paying for services and goods.
AB 2943 is impermissibly vague and broad. As drafted, it will impinge on the First Amendment rights of numerous religious groups. Many religious education programs will self-censor due to potential lawsuits. Those who refuse to do so risk being sued out of existence or into submission.
Full story at The Federalist.
This bill will go down before any court challenge. My seventh graders will still learn Christ’s truths, among which; “Male and female He created them’.
Where are our CA bishops now, pray tell? They should be speaking out against this bill. Oh yes…..they are down at the border literally and figuratively protecting lawbreakers who wish to avail themselves of all the ‘free stuff’ at taxpayer expense. The bishops should be protecting the faith first and foremost!
It is really disappointing that once again the Bishops aren’t concerned enough to sound off against this horrific anti-Catholic / anti-Christian legislation.
If California breaks into three different states, which laws apply where?
Yes, the law would ban teaching the Catholic Faith, but a Trump Supreme Court would rule that ban unconstitutional. Just like the law forcing pro-life pregnancy centers to promote abortion was ruled unconstitutional.
Where is YFC when you would enjoy hearing from him?
Just for you Larry: The authors of this bill misstate what it does. It does not prevent teachers of Catholic faith from teaching authentic catholic teaching. The Catechism itself says “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.” Any practitioner who tries to change what God has brought into their lives is itself a mistreatment which denies the respect, compassion and sensitivity that they deserve, and therefore, the Catholic Church rightly condemns those efforts.
Even if, as the CCC says, it is a trial for them? If people suffer because of it and want help?
Dude, that is the most cold blooded thing I’ve read all week. Besides, organizations like Courage don’t try to “change what God has brought into their lives” whatever the heck that means. They assist in chaste living in the light of Christ. And they would be a major target of this bill.
Chardin, the juxtapositioning of the sentence that it is for most a trial with the need to treat them with respect, compassion, and sensitivity suggests that at least part of what makes it a trial is the mistreatment that homosexual people receive, hence the need for the very next sentence.
I do think the bill has a gray area that should be corrected before it reaches final form, and you have hit squarely on it: It appears that this version prohibits attempts to help adults lead chaste lives. That would be a problem for a lot of constitutional reasons, and I don’t think it will survive.
It’s a trial because it’s a disordered inclination, not because of mistreatment by others on account of it. Blindness is a trial in itself, not because people mistreat blind people.
Gay people aren’t blind, anonymous. Until recently, they were treated horribly by society, and many still do treat them horribly. Violently, with derision and bullying. Being treated violently and with derision is INDEED a trial. The Church is making an important statement when it rightly calls out straight people for mistreating and discriminating against gay people.
Of course what YFC demands is that sodomy be accepted as on par with marriage as God intended: Man and Woman. The Truth of Christ cannot be reconciled with sodomy, no matter what a sodomite in the Church’s hierarchy has to say.
“YFC”, “what God has brought into their lives”?? God is not a tempter of persons, that is the work of the Evil One. All are responsible for their own actions. they can embrace sin or grace, their decision.
And Larry, no – don’t enjoy hearing apologists presenting their twisted view of the Church’s teachings on homosexuality.
In an original sin analysis, I supposed you could make that argument Kristin. But the Evil One brings many things into every life as a result of Original Sin. But the fact is that all people are creations of God, and to the extent that sexual orientation is a part of their humanity, their sexual orientation is something that God has allowed to happen in people’s lives, and is not the result of the direct sinfulness or cooperation with the evil one, for which they are responsible. That’s not a twisted view of Church teaching, it is a pretty important premise based on Church teaching. You can read much more about it in the paragraphs of the Catechism leading up to those most directly related.
“YFC”, in her wisdom, the Church provides comprehensive teachings on the properly ordered use of one’s sexual faculties. In short, all are called to chastity, regardless of their state, i.e., married, single, religious. Homosexual inclination is irrelevant – chaste behavior is God’s call for ALL. There is no exemption for those who believe they were “born that way”, a pithy designation which by the way, the Church does not teach. God’s plan for human sexual expression cannot be twisted into a free pass for those who choose to credit original sin for their inability to tame their disordered passions. Chastity!
Kristin, thank you for summarizing good Catholic teaching on human sexuality. You are correct, there are no exemptions from the call to chastity. While the Church doesn’t teach that people were “born that way” (and by the way, I didn’t use that expression either), it does say “they don’t choose their homosexual inclination”, so the result is the same. Sexual orientation is an innate characteristic and is not the result of cooperation with the Evil One, or a turning away from God. That is not the same as saying that people get a free pass, as you call it. I never said that gay people get a free pass. Clearly, no one gets a free pass.
“YFC” – Reparative therapy is a powerful yet much eschewed (by homosexual activists) process wherein one can examine their same sex attraction, and uncover deeply rooted issues that underlie a homosexual inclination. While there is no scientific or theological evidence that suggests these inclinations are inborn or God given, the reluctance of same sex attracted people to avail themselves of this kind of specific therapy shows a prideful clinging to harmful occasions of sin.
Catholic Catechism: #2387: 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.
This is the part that those who like to excuse or encourage the practice leave out.
Fr. James Martin wholeheartedly and completely agrees that what you quoted is official Church teaching at the present time.
But it will always be Church teaching. There are some things even the pope cannot change, and Pope Francis condemned it. All church approved catechisms in the past condemned the practice for the reasons stated in that passage, plus the fact it is a dangerous, unhealthy practice that leads to many diseases and bodily harm — anal and colon cancer and tearing with infection of that part of the body being some of the worst ones. I need not go into any more detail.
I should clarify that Pope Francis condemned the practice and has said marriage is always between on man and one woman according to many reliable Catholic websites.