Analogy: Alcoholism and Homosexuality

[m134e5]

LovedOne:

First of all, to drink moderately is NOT sinful. Christ’s first miracle was to make sure there was enough alcohol (wine) at the wedding feast.
It is not “disordered” or unnatural to desire to drink an alcoholic beverage. Or two.
There is no comparison to homosexuality.
The condition or inclination of homosexuality in ITSELF is disordered.
One cannot “have just one” experience - or indulge moderately - like you can with alcohol - and be free from sin.
One is a SIN - one is not. (Excessive drinking of course would be sinful)

There is no sin in “being” a homosexual person.
There is no sin in “being” an alchoholic.
It is only when one gives in to the compulsion to engage in homosexual or drunkenness that it becomes sinful.

So the first distinction you need to make is that one condition (homosexuality) is in and of itself “disordered” and the other (alcoholism) is not.

One can be addicted to food and fall into the sin of gluttony.
But it is not in and of itself (eating) “disordered.”
Same thing as alcohol.

The comparison is not the sinfulness- the comparison is the inclination. Alcoholism is a temptation that genetics may make alcoholism more likely. Homosexuality is a temptation that genetics may make more likely. That is the comparison. Alchoholism most certainly is disordered. Alchoholism does NOT mean you like to have a drink now and then- it means you have to have a drink (or more then one) all the time. I am not an alcoholic, yet I have a beer on occasion. Other then that many homosexuals use sex as a pain killer (heterosexuals do too) and many alcoholics use alcohol as a pain killer, there is no further comparison between the two that I can see.

 

[manualman]

Most caught the distinction, but I’ll clarify anyway. The comparison isn’t between drinking alcohol and homosexual conduct. The comparison is between alcoholISM and homosexuality. Very different.

As I understand it, there IS NO safe level of drinking for an alcoholic. So the analogy stands tall there too.

There is no doubt that the gay activists take some blame for the problem. Just like the ‘prochoice’ crowd, they have used media spin to a remarkable effect. But we as catholics somehow didn’t respond the same to gay activists as we do to ‘prochoice’ activists with a clear, consistent message.

Albedo, I would go so far as to agree that it is NOT a settled question as to whether ALL people with SSA can become totally hetero. Probably there are folks that will always have an SSA. But that is an irrelevent question in the matter of getting our thinking straight on just how we as a catholic people need to treat folks with SSA. And it still seems to me that the way we treat alcoholics makes a darn good model. We strongly denounce the behavior, we are compassionate to those suffering from it, we refuse to enable it, we offer assistance to those seeking help dealing with it.

Coincidentally, my parish bulletin this weekend included a first ever announcement for a regional Courage meeting. I think we’ve too long pretended this isn’t an issue and have let the other side define all the discussion framework. It’s time the church shakes off the false dilemma and starts promoting a healthy catholic alternative way of living for folks that have SSAs.

 

[LSK]

goofyjim:

Well, I must admit, It was a little easier to declare since I had never acted out on my ssa. Unfortunately I feel I have wasted so much time trying to look at the positive aspects of it w/o realizing that this approach would go against what my namesake wrote in his letter-it is us who allow our minds to be filled with thoughts which lead to sin.

Shoot, I think you are very brave. I think you are declaring yourself a faithful Catholic Christian with a desire to His Will and that is fabulous.

Many people will try to tell you that you have been ‘brainwashed’ by the therapist. They tried to tell me I was brainwashed by AA - I am not kidding you! I finally learned to tell those people that they were absolutely right - because, afterall, the state my brain was in, it was obvious that it needed some washin’.

 

[stanley123]

manualman:

It’s time the church shakes off the false dilemma and starts promoting a healthy catholic alternative way of living for folks that have SSAs.

?
The Bible condemns certain types of activity rather strongly:
Leviticus 18:22****

“Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”

Leviticus 20:13

“And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”

 

[MikeWM]

?
The Bible condemns certain types of activity rather strongly:
Leviticus 18:22****

“Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”

Leviticus 20:13

“And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”

I hope you follow all the laws in Leviticus yourself. I hope you don’t cut the hair at the side of your head (19:27), all your clothes are made of only one type of material (19:19), have never cursed your parents (20:27 - this one carries the death penalty too), and you no doubt have some slaves (25:44-45).

Mike

 

[manualman]

Stanley, we meet again.

I’m not sure if you got what I meant. My proposition is entirely consistent with those Leviticus passages. We MUST wholeheartedly oppose sinful sexual acts. The church must stay consistent and on message that such behavior is not acceptable. But imposing the death penalty as prescribed in Leviticus went out with Christ’s death on the cross! (Shall we stone all adulterers too? The NEW covenent says no.)

But that can be done in a way that abhors the act without abhoring the sinner. My point is that we do this very well with alcoholics. With homosexuality, the tendency seems to be to either hate, ignore or enable them. None of those attitudes are appropriate.

 

[stanley123]

MikeWM:

you no doubt have some slaves (25:44-45).

Actually, I do not own any slaves, and I never have owned slaves. Personally, I am opposed to slavery. However, according to what I read, the RCC did approve of slavery until recently, and it has now changed its teaching on slavery and is against it. This seems like it would be an essential change in Catholic teaching.

 

[stanley123]

manualman:

We MUST wholeheartedly oppose sinful sexual acts. But that can be done in a way that abhors the act without abhoring the sinner. My point is that we do this very well with alcoholics. With homosexuality, the tendency seems to be to either hate, ignore or enable them. None of those attitudes are appropriate.

That would bring up the point of whether or not it would be a good idea to allow homosexuals as priests. I have seen articles where the RCC leadership has been savaged for a new regulation coming that would ban them from the seminary. Personally, I agree with the ban. However, the argument is that the ban is unfair as it amounts to either hate or ignore - at least that is the argument. And you appear to be against both hating and ignoring. So it is a problem.

 

[fix]

stanley123:

Actually, I do not own any slaves, and I never have owned slaves. Personally, I am opposed to slavery. However, according to what I read, the RCC did approve of slavery until recently, and it has now changed its teaching on slavery and is against it. This seems like it would be an essential change in Catholic teaching.

Perhaps more reading on the subject may help clarify and show the Church has never reversed Herself.

As a starting point:

Despite this evidence, critics still insist the Magisterium did too little too late regarding slavery. Why? One reason is the critics’ failure to distinguish between just and unjust forms of servitude. The Magisterium condemned unjust enslavement early on, but it also recognized what is known as “just title slavery.” That included forced servitude of prisoners of war and criminals, and voluntary servitude of indentured servants, forms of servitude mentioned at the outset of this article. But chattel slavery as practiced in the United States and elsewhere differed in kind, not merely degree, from just tide slavery. For it made a claim on the slave as property and enslaved people who were not criminals or prisoners of war. By focusing on just title servitude, critics unfairly neglect the vigorous papal denunciations of chattel slavery.catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0006.html

 

[Ham1]

stanley123:

That would bring up the point of whether or not it would be a good idea to allow homosexuals as priests. I have seen articles where the RCC leadership has been savaged for a new regulation coming that would ban them from the seminary. Personally, I agree with the ban. However, the argument is that the ban is unfair as it amounts to either hate or ignore - at least that is the argument. And you appear to be against both hating and ignoring. So it is a problem.

This is silly. You presume too much when you declare that such a policy would fall under “hate or ignore.” There are a good many here who would say that such a policy is a prudent and loving treatment of homosexuals which is EXACTLY what Manualman is advocating.

 

[Trelow]

stanley123:

Actually, I do not own any slaves, and I never have owned slaves. Personally, I am opposed to slavery. However, according to what I read, the RCC did approve of slavery until recently, and it has now changed its teaching on slavery and is against it. This seems like it would be an essential change in Catholic teaching.

Sorry Charlie. The Church has always opposed racial slavery. Try reading: Sicut Dudum, Sublimis Deus, Pastorale Officium, or In Supremo.

 

[koda]

So how do you treat homosexuals that you know? I live in Los Angeles and work in the entertainment business and know a lot of them. They are well aware of the Church’s position on their lifestyle and don’t need to hear it from me. I don’t encourage details of their life and I try to be a good Christian example by treating them with decency that should be accorded every human being as a child of God, and even friendship. Telling them they’re all going to hell won’t win converts. Indeed, it their eyes it just makes us look self-righteous - none of that mercy and compassion Jesus talked about. I think the best way to make them consider changing is to be a good Christian witness. Hey, you might be the only positive Christian reference they have. And I pray for them.

So, back to my original question: how do you treat them?

 

[manualman]

As I understand it, the debate about ordaining men with a SSA to priesthood is a prudential judgement matter, not a theological one. It may be entirely appropriate to ask such men NOT to pursue priesthood right now since the very nature of ministry places them into the proximity of sin. Seminary dorms full of men, religious communities of all men living together, unsuspecting parishoners coming to seek advice on what to do about their own SSA.

It is not clear to me, or apparently, church leaders if placing men in such a condition would be placing them at increased risk. To stretch my analogy, it might be allowing alcoholics to work in the winery!

 

[goofyjim]

manualman:

As I understand it, the debate about ordaining men with a SSA to priesthood is a prudential judgement matter, not a theological one. It may be entirely appropriate to ask such men NOT to pursue priesthood right now since the very nature of ministry places them into the proximity of sin. Seminary dorms full of men, religious communities of all men living together, unsuspecting parishoners coming to seek advice on what to do about their own SSA.

It is not clear to me, or apparently, church leaders if placing men in such a condition would be placing them at increased risk. To stretch my analogy, it might be allowing alcoholics to work in the winery!

I suppose you would have advised me not to have had a dorm room at a regular college when I was still experiencing SSA. Well, for a year I did have a room on campus. I saw no harm done.

I also went to an all boys high school. Was this a mistake? These are the areas where one might get into discrimination against those with SSA.

 

[manualman]

You may be right. To me this seems to be one of those areas where the church does NOT enjoy infallibility. Let’s pray they get it right.

 

[stanley123]

fix:

Perhaps more reading on the subject may help clarify and show the Church has never reversed Herself.
:

1866 AD

The Holy Office in an instruction signed by Pope Pius IX

declares: "Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature,

is not at all contary to the natural and divine law, and there can

be several just titles of slavery, and these are referred to by

approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons …

It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be

sold, bought, exchanged or given".

 

[stanley123]

Trelow:

Sorry Charlie. The Church has always opposed racial slavery.

1866 AD

The Holy Office in an instruction signed by Pope Pius IX

declares: "Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature,

is not at all contary to the natural and divine law, and there can

be several just titles of slavery, and these are referred to by

approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons …

It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be

sold, bought, exchanged or given".

 

[LittleDeb]

koda:

So how do you treat homosexuals that you know? I live in Los Angeles and work in the entertainment business and know a lot of them. They are well aware of the Church’s position on their lifestyle and don’t need to hear it from me. I don’t encourage details of their life and I try to be a good Christian example by treating them with decency that should be accorded every human being as a child of God, and even friendship. Telling them they’re all going to hell won’t win converts. Indeed, it their eyes it just makes us look self-righteous - none of that mercy and compassion Jesus talked about. I think the best way to make them consider changing is to be a good Christian witness. Hey, you might be the only positive Christian reference they have. And I pray for them.

So, back to my original question: how do you treat them?

This is my question too. In my theatre groups I have many friends who are homosexual. Since I am Catholic many in the theatre assume I “hate” these folks. I don’t. I love them for who they are, God’s beautiful creations.

This analogy with alcoholism is good, as this is generally how I treat my friends who suffer SSA. Sadly though most of my friends in theatre are very far from “on the wagon,” so I second this question. How do we treat them? How does one treat an alcoholic they love that has refused to live a sober life? How does one treat a homosexual they love who refuses to live a chaste life?

Thanks for this topic. :clapping: This has specifically been on my mind lately. I hope we can find a good, workable answer.

 

[fix]

stanley123:

1866 AD

The Holy Office in an instruction signed by Pope Pius IX

declares: "Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature,

is not at all contary to the natural and divine law, and there can

be several just titles of slavery, and these are referred to by

approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons …

It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be

sold, bought, exchanged or given".

The second reason is that the 1866 statement allowed Catholics in a particular situation in Africa to have slaves under certain conditions. (We must remember that in this situation slavery was intimately connected with every part of the culture.) For example, one question was this: “Whether it is permitted to admit to the sacraments any Christian merchant who normally abhors the buying and selling of slaves for the sake of profit, but, lest he suffer harm to his family affairs, wants to resell some slaves whom once he was forced, by a seller who was a noble, to take as the price of his wages.” The response was that there were “just titles” to slavery which were generally accepted, such as if a person had been deprived of his liberty justly, or if a person entered into a slavery agreement willingly. But one could not have slaves, or sell them, if the title, as was no doubt usually the case, was unjust.

Catholics were also forbidden to do anything in connection with such a slave which would lead to a detriment to his life, his morals, or his Catholic faith. Masters also had to instruct their slaves in the Catholic faith, treat them according to Christian charity, and not interfere with their marriage rights and duties…

He also draws a parallel between the acceptance by Catholics of papal teaching on slavery and their acceptance of papal teaching on contraception in the last thirty years. In each case the popes stated clearly, correctly, and consistently what Catholics should do, and in each case most Catholics refused to do it. And, as bishops went long with disobedience regarding slavery, they have gone along also with disobedience regarding contraception.catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0013.html

 

[felra]

LittleDeb:

This is my question too. In my theatre groups I have many friends who are homosexual. Since I am Catholic many in the theatre assume I “hate” these folks. I don’t. I love them for who they are, God’s beautiful creations.

This analogy with alcoholism is good, as this is generally how I treat my friends who suffer SSA. Sadly though most of my friends in theatre are very far from “on the wagon,” so I second this question. How do we treat them? How does one treat an alcoholic they love that has refused to live a sober life? How does one treat a homosexual they love who refuses to live a chaste life?

Thanks for this topic. :clapping: This has specifically been on my mind lately. I hope we can find a good, workable answer.

There is not one fit all answer. With all the politically correct winds and pressure from the pro-homosexual agenda folks (hollywood & media especially) to socially engineer the acceptance of gay lifestyle as “normal” and mainstream, the cards are stacked against the SSA afflicted person in coming to face the reality of their affliction/disorder and unhealthy lifestyle choices. There is more “plotically correct” social stigma against smoking than there is about enagaging in the gay lifestyle!!

The most unfortunate and insidious aspect of all this is that the gay lifestyle individual can readily affirm their choice. Like the alcoholic in denial who cuts off accountable relationships, I believe that prayer, continuing to love the sinner (and not compromising the truth by sending mixed messages) while looking for opportunities to invite, point out the self-destructiveness of such a lifestyle choice. I believe that God in His infinite mercy will honor our prayers and help this SSA afflicted person “hit bottom” and have a serious reckoning of the reality of their sin and the peril of continuing in their sinful lifestyle. This is the work of the Holy Spirit.