Anyone know the Catholics Church's official stance on the nature of homosexuality?

[Urf]

fix:

The concept of absolute truth is not a perspective, but is reality. Your understanding of reality seems to be primarily one of feelings and opinion rather than logic and reason.

The proof that the CC speaks infallibly can be reasoned and we can go through those reasons on another thread if you desire.

The fact that you regard your beliefs as true ABOVE EVERYTHING else shows that you have in fact not brought it into question and you are not using your own logic. That pretty much ends any discussion we could possibly have, I wish you had said that sooner.

 

[Urf]

urban-hermit:

Good point - it is important to choose words carefully and I did not.

Yes, I meant “attraction” when I used the word “tendency”.

So, to re-state, by submitting to what I believe are the moral teachings of Jesus Christ - the moral teachings of the Catholic Church - I have, over the course of about 3 years, experienced decreased attractions toward other men and some feelings of attraction and excitement around women, whereas previously there was very little if any.

Does this mean that if I can change, but choose not to aggressively pursue that avenue, that my having same-sex attractions is a choice?

I think some people see it that way. I believe these people are glossing over the difficulty involved in this process and the real suffering that is encountered along the way. But even more than that, as Fr Harvey, the widely respected (among faithful Catholics at least) director of the Courage apostolate has said, not everyone who seeks to rid themselves of same-sex attractions will be successful. And so the Church does not require people to pour great amounts of emotional and often financial (for therapy) resources into this endeavor.

What the Church does require is what it requires of every one of her members: chastity. All married Catholics are called to marital chastity (faithfulness to one another, and faithfulness to God in being open to life). All single Catholics are called to celibate (unmarried) chastity.

( BTW: isn’t this thread in the wrong category ? )

Does this put pre-marital sex on the same level as sex between 2 partners of the same sex? I’m just trying to understand things clearly, because the focus that gets put on certain subjects really messes with what is really important.

 

[fix]

Urf:

The fact that you regard your beliefs as true ABOVE EVERYTHING else shows that you have in fact not brought it into question and you are not using your own logic. That pretty much ends any discussion we could possibly have, I wish you had said that sooner.

It is not my belief, as if it were one man’s opinion, but truth that we are both after.

This has given rise to different forms of agnosticism and relativism which have led philosophical research to lose its way in the shifting sands of widespread scepticism. Recent times have seen the rise to prominence of various doctrines which tend to devalue even the truths which had been judged certain. A legitimate plurality of positions has yielded to an undifferentiated pluralism, based upon the assumption that all positions are equally valid, which is one of today’s most widespread symptoms of the lack of confidence in truth. Even certain conceptions of life coming from the East betray this lack of confidence, denying truth its exclusive character and assuming that truth reveals itself equally in different doctrines, even if they contradict one another. On this understanding, everything is reduced to opinion; and there is a sense of being adrift…
Christian Revelation is the true lodestar of men and women as they strive to make their way amid the pressures of an immanentist habit of mind and the constrictions of a technocratic logic. It is the ultimate possibility offered by God for the human being to know in all its fullness the seminal plan of love which began with creation. To those wishing to know the truth, if they can look beyond themselves and their own concerns, there is given the possibility of taking full and harmonious possession of their lives, precisely by following the path of truth…
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_15101998_fides-et-ratio_en.html

No one can escape from the fundamental questions: *What must I do? How do I distinguish good from evil? *The answer is only possible thanks to the splendour of the truth which shines forth deep within the human spirit…

As is immediately evident, *the crisis of truth *is not unconnected with this development. Once the idea of a universal truth about the good, knowable by human reason, is lost, inevitably the notion of conscience also changes. Conscience is no longer considered in its primordial reality as an act of a person’s intelligence, the function of which is to apply the universal knowledge of the good in a specific situation and thus to express a judgment about the right conduct to be chosen here and now. Instead, there is a tendency to grant to the individual conscience the prerogative of independently determining the criteria of good and evil and then acting accordingly. Such an outlook is quite congenial to an individualist ethic, wherein each individual is faced with his own truth, different from the truth of others. Taken to its extreme consequences, this individualism leads to a denial of the very idea of human nature…
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor_en.html

I accept an objective reality and objective morality exists and we can go over proofs if you desire. I am afraid it is you who have placed his own 'beliefs" as superior to reality and morality.

 

[Urf]

fix:

It is not my belief, as if it were one man’s opinion, but truth that we are both after.

I accept an objective reality and objective morality exists and we can go over proofs if you desire. I am afraid it is you who have placed his own 'beliefs" as superior to reality and morality.

So… why dont you see what I’m saying? I cant figure out where the misunderstanding. You say I place my beliefs over reality and morality… so you’re saying “your beliefs are wrong” from the start without an argument. Like I said, it’s a waste of my time if you are simply going to quote arguments that arent your own. Dont try and tell me that you question when you repeatedly refer to your beliefs as absolute truth. Dont tell me you have logic and reason when all you can do is quote other people’s beliefs and arguments.

 

[fix]

Urf:

So… why dont you see what I’m saying? I cant figure out where the misunderstanding. You say I place my beliefs over reality and morality… so you’re saying “your beliefs are wrong” from the start without an argument.

Yes, they are wrong and the argument, among many, is that relativism is illogical. You can’t have truth contradicting truth. It makes no sense.

Like I said, it’s a waste of my time if you are simply going to quote arguments that arent your own. Dont try and tell me that you question when you repeatedly refer to your beliefs as absolute truth. Dont tell me you have logic and reason when all you can do is quote other people’s beliefs and arguments.

We are talking of moral truth. We are not talking about both looking at a tree and agreeing it is a tree and not an apple.

Morality is objective and can be known by all, it is not relative.
You seem to agree questioning is a good thing, but when one finds the truth are they wrong to stop questioning? Why would I question something that is real, unless I have some type of existential neurosis? Do you question an apple is not an apple while you eat it. Are you afraid it is actually an orange?

There is nothing wrong with questioning, but there is something wrong when one claims there is no truth or that truth is relative. That is what I question. How is it that relativism is logical?

It seems you think I am being uncritical because I have reasoned and accept that truth exists. The opposite is true. Claiming that there are multiple truths, or that it cannot be known, is really uncritical.

You have not shown me where my logic is in error other than to falsely claim I am not thinking.

 

[Urf]

This discussion is over, you’ve pretty much repeated the same thing for the last 3 or 4 posts, and continue to bring up things I’ve already responded to without bringing anything new to it. Most forum arguments come to this when they is between 2 people, and they never get past this. I’m not going to bash my head into a brick wall by trying to get the same point across to you repeatedly.

 

[fix]

Urf:

This discussion is over, you’ve pretty much repeated the same thing for the last 3 or 4 posts, and continue to bring up things I’ve already responded to without bringing anything new to it. Most forum arguments come to this when they is between 2 people, and they never get past this. I’m not going to bash my head into a brick wall by trying to get the same point across to you repeatedly.

It is over because you have not proven your point or refuted my position. I have no idea why you think relativism is a valid argument other than to claim I am repeating myself or not thinking critically.

 

[Urf]

Read my post in the Rome and Juliet thread if you want to actually see my views instead of classifying them as what you see fit.

The issue is not my views vs yours and it hasnt been even if you try to make it about that. Read back to see how this debate started and maybe we can go from there; you seem to have forgotten.

 

[felra]

Urf:

As in whether it is a choice or genetic, etc…

Does anyone know?

There is no conclusive evidence for homosexuality being genetic, though certain pro-gay/homosexual groups make this there over riding PR media agenda.

There is more scientific evidence that “nurture” plays a determining influence whether a person develops homosexual orientation.

I believe that it is a fallacy to to frame that someone can “choose” the disordered desire of SSA, since it is a manifestation of an underlying psychological disorder, which derives its origin through formative psych-social-sexual developmental processes. I suppose that a person can beyond the formative developmental years “acquire a taste” and develop a ego-syntonic acquisition through repeated willfully enjoined (“choosing”) exposure to homosexual activity–not really a case though for “choice” to be SSA in one’s sexual orientation.

The real choice is whether or not the person afflicted with SSA chooses to act on this desire which by nature is intrinsically disordered.

cathmed.org/publications/homosexuality.html

The Catholic Medical Association is dedicated to upholding the principles of the Catholic Faith as related to the practice of medicine and to promoting Catholic medical ethics to the medical profession, including mental health professionals, the clergy, and the general public.

A number of researchers have sought to find a biological cause for same-sexual attraction. The media have promoted the idea that a “gay gene” has already been discovered (Burr 1996[3]), but in spite of several attempts, none of the much publicized studies (Hamer 1993[4]; LeVay 1991[5]) has been scientifically replicated. (Gadd 1998) A number of authors have carefully reviewed these studies and found that not only do the studies not prove a genetic basis for same-sex attraction; the reports do not even contain such claims. (Byne 1963[6]; Crewdson 1995[7]; Goldberg1992; Horgan 1995[8]; McGuire 1995[9]; Porter 1996; Rice 1999[10])

If same-sex attraction were genetically determined, then one would expect identical twins to be identical in their sexual attractions. There are, however, numerous reports of identical twins who are not identical in their sexual attractions. (Bailey 1991[11]; Eckert 1986; Friedman 1976; Green 1974; Heston 1968; McConaghy 1980; Rainer 1960; Zuger 1976) Case histories frequently reveal environmental factors which account for the development of different sexual attraction patterns in genetically identical children, supporting the theory that same-sex attraction is a product of the interplay of a variety of environmental factors. (Parker 1964[12])

 

[felra]

Urf:

Read my post in the Rome and Juliet thread if you want to actually see my views instead of classifying them as what you see fit.

The issue is not my views vs yours and it hasnt been even if you try to make it about that. Read back to see how this debate started and maybe we can go from there; you seem to have forgotten.

I hate to jump in on a good sparring match, but … (I will) …for Catholics, we are called to exercise the full domain of our intellect and logic, however, in contradistinction with those not of the Catholic (or Christian world view/gift of faith) faith, we are also graced with the gift of an enlightened intellect which allows us to come to know and accept the truth which derives itself directly from the Truth, which is a god-man in the person of Jesus Christ.

My point being, Catholics are called to think freely, but can only do this fully with the mind of the Church, which is to have the mind of Christ. This is entirely different than being a puppet mouthpiece spewing out Church teaching, but rather joining and owning the debate of ideas with the mind of Christ, which is the mind of the Church.

 

[fix]

Urf:

Read my post in the Rome and Juliet thread if you want to actually see my views instead of classifying them as what you see fit.

The issue is not my views vs yours and it hasnt been even if you try to make it about that. Read back to see how this debate started and maybe we can go from there; you seem to have forgotten.

I read the thread. Your position only restated that you are the final authority which is moral relativism which is illogical.

You claim to “think for yourself”. By that you mean you decide what is good and evil. How is that logical? What is your authority?

Another person can pop up and claim they are thinking for themself and come to a different and opposite conclusion. Charles Manson thought for himself. Mother Theresa though for herself. How does such an assertion lead to good conduct?

 

[Urf]

Why are you under the impression that it constitutes as thinking freely if you can only do so within the boundaries of the church?

And regarding the sites on homosexuality, those arent really very helpful. As to whether or not nurture has shown from studies to have the cause… those sites dont seek to find the real answer, they seek to provide evidence for their views and evidence against views that contradict theirs. That’s not a very effective way to find the truth.

 

[felra]

Why are you under the impression that it constitutes as thinking freely

if you can only do so within the boundaries of the church?
Boundaries? …again, you are thinking in restrictive terms, not mutually enjoining joining.

And regarding the sites on homosexuality, those arent really very helpful. As to whether or not nurture has shown from studies to have the cause… those sites dont seek to find the real answer, they seek to provide evidence for their views and evidence against views that contradict theirs. That’s not a very effective way to find the truth.

Your opinion, or based on fact? Please offer source citation for your assertion to carry credibility beyond your opinion.

 

[JMJ_Pinoy]

So… why is this thread in the Popular Media forum?

 

[urban-hermit]

Why are you under the impression that it constitutes as thinking freely if you can only do so within the boundaries of the church?

I think you are bringing up a good point: How do we define freedom?

I have heard freedom defined as “a power to do and to be what I ought”. I think this is more of a philosophical or theological definition of freedom. But even in everyday language, freedom can have a range of meanings. m-w.com says that the word freedom “has a broad range of application from total absence of restraint to merely a sense of not being unduly hampered or frustrated.”

Am I “free” to do anything I want in the good old USA ? Am I free to steal a car that I like? Am I free to be a concert pianist, even though I don’t know how to play very well?

“License” means a freedom without responsibility. It’s not real freedom. I found m-w.com’s definition #1b of freedom interesting: "liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another " (Think sin and the devil and that is where the church is going with its definition of freedom - Paul says “the man who sins is a slave of sin” - and most of us find that to be true in our own experience. Sin is very seductive, whether it is selfishness, lust, impatience with others, … we tend to justify all kinds of sins to ourselves)

As a Catholic, part of my identity is my faith that the Church teaches me truths that would take me many years to learn on my own, if indeed I ever even could.

It has been very helpful to me, after spending years away from the Church, to think in terms of first assuming that the teachings of the Church are true, and then trying to see the sense in them, both by obeying them and noting the results, and by reflecting upon them in my own mind. My testimonial is … it works!

 

[urban-hermit]

Does this put pre-marital sex on the same level as sex between 2 partners of the same sex? I’m just trying to understand things clearly, because the focus that gets put on certain subjects really messes with what is really important.

I think that is an interesting and seldom-discussed point. Usually I hear the emphasis on the fact that adultery and homosexual relations are not the same. And I agree, they are different sins and the differences have implications. However I believe I am correct in saying they are similar in that they are both mortal sins in the same category, sexual morality.

I heard a speaker on EWTN once say that he believed the problems we have with homosexuality in our culture now, were actually ushered in in the 1960s when we as a culture opened the door to contraception. “Huh?” I said. But then he said think about it - if people believe pleasure is all that matters in sex, then … well it has a lot of implications for how they will act.

I think it’s fair to say that droves of Catholics have not, shall we say, “received enough guidance” regarding the importance of following Jesus’ moral commandments regarding sexuality. I feel that is changing now. But the laxness in this area has led same-sex attracted people to feel that they are entitled to the same “freedom”.

Here is an excellent series from EWTN called Christian Anthropology and Homosexuality. It’s kinda long, but in PART 1, in section “4. The moral dimension” there is a very interesting introduction to keeping moral transgressions in perspective. An excerpt:

A preliminary, essential warning: in discussing ethical questions about homosexuality a rather easy and widespread danger must be carefully avoided. It is the danger of forgetting that the same principles and moral evaluation apply to both heterosexuality and homosexuality…

…Another observation concerns the traditional distinction between sins “in accordance with” or “against” nature, since homosexuality is understood as a disorder contra naturam [against nature]. Such a distinction has a legitimate place in relation to human nature … however, … adultery, for example, is no less sinful than homosexual relations.