Being gay is in your genes

[Robertanthony]

The solution of course is the Cross, but it is not a cure for the suffering caused by this ailment, the ailment of being homosexual, regardless of its origin. It only helps one to put their suffering into a good and redemptive context (not to minimize the Cross in any way). All I’m saying is that the suffering remains and must be endured. Where same-sex attraction is largely one’s fault, I can see attributing some of that suffering to one’s just deserts, but like the man who was blind from birth we cannot always attribute a person’s mental or physical condition to sin. In either case, suffering is a reality for those nailing their sexual appetites to the Cross, especially those who have little hope of ever finding a right expression for their sexuality. I would not snuff out hope for all homosexuals in someday being partially, if not wholly, restored/changed to heterosexuality, but it does not appear to be likely in some cases (I’ll leave it to you to judge what percentage of homosexuals that means).

Nailing our sex drives to the Cross is of course a continually painful thing to do, and even more so when reasonable hope of changing one’s sexual preference seems impossible. The suffering of homosexual chastity seems akin to single person and priestly/religious celibacy, especially the latter, which has no hope of ever experiencing sexual fulfillment due to the permanence of his or her vow. The main difference is that one is always unnatural. Are priests and religious unfaithful to their vows, and single persons unfaithful to chastity? The answer is undoubtedly, “Yes,” in many cases. Just as celibate homosexuals may backslide, priests and single persons may fall. In a way, only the priest and the religious are in a position to fully empathize with the celibate homosexual who sees little or no hope for changing his or her sexual identity, because both have made a deliberate choice for God over their sexual appetites, and both hold no hope for future sexual fulfillment, except by failure to live a chaste life (if that could be called “fulfillment”).

We must never fail to extend empathy and understanding to out homosexual brothers and sisters, because there is true and unavoidable suffering in their living of chaste lives. We who are not celibate, and who enjoy the married life, can only appreciate what they are going through in part. We, too, must rein in our sexual appetites during the many times in our lives when sex in marriage is not available to us. But usually this is with hope and the reasonable expectation of resuming marital relations.

All of this is not to say that God is unfair in doling out crosses to those who wish to follow Christ. **All we can be sure of is that each of us is given the perfect cross, custom tailored for us, and sufficient grace to carry it. ** Where one person’s cross consists in this or that issue, another person’s cross consists in something altogether different. God is a fair judge, a judge who always weighs any mitigating circumstances, but also a judge who demands out complete surrender to his will, no ifs, ands, or buts, knowing that his grace is always sufficient, even for the weakest among us.

What council or what pope said ex cathedra that every human being who has ever lived had a perfect cross, lovingly tailored by God, or is that something you pulled out of your hat? Would you say God gave David Reimer a perfect cross, or would you say it was unduly harsh?

 

[Monkey1976]

What council or what pope said ex cathedra that every human being who has ever lived had a perfect cross, lovingly tailored by God, or is that something you pulled out of your hat? Would you say God gave David Reimer a perfect cross, or would you say it was unduly harsh?

[BIBLEDRB]1 Cor 10:13[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[Robertanthony]

[BIBLEDRB]1 Cor 10:13[/BIBLEDRB]

Perhaps Paul is referring to God’s protection to faithful Christians, perhaps the unbelievers can get more suffering than they can bear? Losing your penis as a 6 month old boy, being raised as a girl, being bullied by your peers and being lonely, it hardly seems like an excessive cross. Can you imagine if God was not benevolent?

 

[JamesCaruso]

What council or what pope said ex cathedra that every human being who has ever lived had a perfect cross, lovingly tailored by God, or is that something you pulled out of your hat? Would you say God gave David Reimer a perfect cross, or would you say it was unduly harsh?

My opinions are my opinions, but they are not solely mine, and they are I believe supported by Scripture. If you are only interested in council pronouncements and ex cathedra statements, then I think you are missing a wealth of helpful Catholic thought in the writings of the saints of the Church.

I think this notion of a cross custom fit for each of us is woven throughout the scriptures.

For example, what is meant by the following verses from Matthew 10?

And he that doth not take his cross and follow after me, is not worthy of me. He that findeth his life shall lose it; and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.

It seems unfair of Jesus to hold a person with a seemingly light cross, to the same standard as one with a seemingly heavy cross. And yet that is what he does. Since Jesus cannot be unfair (IMHO), I have to believe that no one is unfairly treated in the cross department. What you may see as a horrible cross in human terms, I conclude that God sees differently. I cannot believe that God favors one person over another. I cannot believe that it is more difficult for one person to follow Jesus than another. Jesus requires the same of all, that is, complete denial of self and taking up their cross and following him. Your example may be a heavier cross in the world’s view, or in a human way of thinking, but in God’s view, I don’t think so. Our only purpose in this life is to know, love and serve God. All the things that a person, say, born without arms and legs, cannot do because of his disadvantage, do not make it harder for that person to follow Jesus.

Remember when Jesus talked about having to suffer and die and Peter exclaimed, “Never, Lord!” and Jesus said to him, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.” Matt 16

Anyway, I hope I have explained where I am coming from. I respect your right to disagree. Honest people can disagree. Peace to you.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

What council or what pope said ex cathedra that every human being who has ever lived had a perfect cross, lovingly tailored by God, or is that something you pulled out of your hat? Would you say God gave David Reimer a perfect cross, or would you say it was unduly harsh?

Have I ever told you that humans are terrible?

 

[Rau]

It seems unfair of Jesus to hold a person with a seemingly light cross, to the same standard as one with a seemingly heavy cross. And yet that is what he does. Since Jesus cannot be unfair (IMHO), I have to believe that no one is unfairly treated in the cross department. What you may see as a horrible cross in human terms, I conclude that God sees differently. I cannot believe that God favors one person over another. I cannot believe that it is more difficult for one person to follow Jesus than another. Jesus requires the same of all, that is, complete denial of self and taking up their cross and following him. Your example may be a heavier cross in the world’s view, or in a human way of thinking, but in God’s view, I don’t think so. Our only purpose in this life is to know, love and serve God. All the things that a person, say, born without arms and legs, cannot do because of his disadvantage, do not make it harder for that person to follow Jesus.

It may also be that our differing talents and crosses give rise to a differing assessment of culpability for our failings.

 

[Catolico65]

Um okay.

The LGBT community has a number of valid complaints, that many advocates for that community try to solve those issues in incorrect ways doesn’t make the complaints less valid.

Humans aren’t generally bisexual, many, perhaps even most women are quite capable of enjoying a romantic, even sexual relationship with other women, but that doesn’t necessarily make them bisexual. Bisexuality requires one to be attracted to both sexes, not merely capable of enjoying sexual relations with both sexes.

God said Jerusalem was worse

Yeah, um, Romans 1:18-32 is one chunk of text that refers to sin alienating from God, 19-32 refer to

Your misunderstanding is the result of failing to examine Romans 1 as a unit.

The gay lobby has no redeeming values. All it does is promote the confusion of our children. They will pay a heavy price according to Christ.

Regarding the verse in Ezequial, I appreciate you pointing this out because what it does establish is that while Jerusalem may have acted worse they did not embrace homosexuality as had Sodom and thus weren’t meted out the same punishment. this is further evidence of God’s great ire for homosexuality when embraced by a society.

As far as trying to reinterpret Romans to your liking, that is in fact what the gay lobby does as is witnessed on many protestant websites. I prefer to follow the Catholic Church’s guidelines.

 

[Robertanthony]

Have I ever told you that humans are terrible?

Everything that happens is willed by God, either perfectly or permissively. I know from experience that humans are terrible, at least some of us are, but God is omnipotent and omniscient (I’ll let others think what they will regarding his omnibenevolence), and if I stick with David Reimer’s example, what started the cascade of tragedies is, from my understanding, a simple urinal infection. I understand many people are terrible, but David Reimer could not move God’s heart enough for God to not allow the urinal infection to occur, knowing the unspeakable tragedy that the medical procedure was going to set in motion. Having God as a god is like realizing very early that your father is a violent, alcoholic bigot, by then it’s too late to do anything about it, you’re your father’s biological product. As a human being, you can’t undo your perpetual state as an unfortunate creature of God. Everybody thinks your dad is a wonderful person, but you know he’s a fraud. Some people will not allow themselves to reach the only conclusion possible: God is not fair, God is not omnibenevolent, not everybody has the same chance at salvation, he favours some etc. If David Reimer closed himself to the love of God because he could not reconcile his condition, his tragedy with a loving God, then David Reimer is in hell, so essentially our all-knowing, all-loving God created someone out of nothing, he snatched him from the peace and quiet of nothingness for a miserable, unhappy life and an eternity of torment. However you look at it, God’s true nature is made manifest. He may have his occasional tearful moment like the prodigal son’s story, but his core nature is made manifest in the story of Job (tormenting someone to find out if he loves you) and in the story of the 3 people with 1, 5 or 10 talent(s), whereby the one who is anxious, timid, fearful is tormented, and the 10 talent guy, already mightily blessed, gets the additional benefit of the little that the one talent guy had. In a fact-based world, God is anything but omnibenevolent and fair, he’s an emperor walking without clothes on.

 

[pnewton]

It may also be that our differing talents and crosses give rise to a differing assessment of culpability for our failings.

No doubt it does, and an observation that we need to remember in judging others, if we are ever so brash.

 

[Catolico65]

Repeated quotation from Saint Alphonsus Liguori:

God is not worried about our minds being defiled by temptations which we reject. Only sin can defile the mind.

(Mind you: We must always pray that God remove our temptations. If that is all you are saying, I agree with you.)

Notwithstanding the saints commentary, God is indeed concerned about our minds being defiled. There are many passages in the Bible to support this. Here are a few from the NT:
“Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them?"*

“All these evils come from inside and defile a person.”

*“But not all have this knowledge. There are some who have been so used to idolatry up until now that, when they eat meat sacrificed to idols, their conscience, which is weak, is defiled. Now food will not bring us closer to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, nor are we better off if we do.f 9But make sure that this liberty of yours in no way becomes a stumbling block to the weak.g 10If someone sees you, with your knowledge, reclining at table in the temple of an idol, may not his conscience too, weak as it is, be “built up” to eat the meat sacrificed to idols? 11Thus through your knowledge, the weak person is brought to destruction, the brother for whom Christ died.h 12When you sin in this way against your brothers and wound their consciences, weak as they are, you are sinning against Christ.” *

In the OT, there are many more commandments by God to prevent the Jews from being defiled. While Christ clearly explains that defilement can only come from within a person, it is clearly established in both the OT and the NT that people with weak minds can be defiled by the mere presences of a defiling thought, such as is the case with constant homosexual desires.

Therefore, by convincing young children and confused people that they must accept homosexual attraction as normal we are enabling their consciences to be defiled. May God have mercy on all that do this.

 

[Catolico65]

“The problem is not having this tendency.” You must have missed that part.

You must have missed the part where the CC says people with deep seated homosexual desires can’t enter the religious orders or that the catechism says that those who suffer from said shoud:

“should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.”

Clearly the Catholic Church recommends that people with homosexual desires change with Christ’s help as opposed to accepting their condition as permanent.

 

[Catolico65]

The flood.
Among many other thihngs.

What is not mentioned in Romans 1 is Sodom. Yet we see in this list many things that are wicked besides homosexuality. They antecedent for “they” is “the unrighteous.” In the context of the argument Paul is laying out it is all unrighteous. Ever been disobedient to parents? You’re in there.

No, I wasn’t. I just do not agree with you.

With all due respect the Bible and dogma aren’t like tax laws where we are supposed to look for “loopholes”, on the contrary.

 

[Catolico65]

Who would wish what many find a “trial” to be permanent for those people? So of course neither the pope nor the Church nor any other charitable person wishes it. But, that’s not the same as “requiring” that condition to be eliminated.

Please stop misrepresenting the Catechism. Homosexuality - the state of ones attractions, is NOT itself condemned by the church - only by Catolico. The Church states that “homosexual acts” are depraved and contrary to natural law. The Church advocates chastity as the path to follow. If God sees fit to relieve a person of those attractions, then thanks be to God, but such is not necessary for salvation. Remaining chaste while failing to eliminate the SSA nails suffering to the cross and no more is asked.

With all due respect I ask you to stop misrepresenting CC doctrine regarding this matter.

Persons with deep seated homosexual tendencies have a serious problem and as such cannot be considered as religious candidates in the Church. Furthermore, the catechism states they “they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.” which of course implies that their condition of deep seated homosexual desires is lessened.

 

[Catolico65]

Homosexuality is certainly a problem for those who seek to follow God. Who denies that? **But I find no merit **in classifying temptations as natural or unnatural, so I do not say homosexual temptations are “natural”.

With all due respect if you have not suffered from SSA I will take your comment with a grain of salt because my comment are directed at those who do, paz.

 

[Catolico65]

Submittal to God and humility will keep a person from giving into same sex temptation, just as it will keep a person from giving into opposite sex temptation, but it will no more change a homosexual’s orientation than it will maintain a heterosexual’s orientation, neither of which is sinful. It may be possible to change a person’s sexual orientation, but that will not cure them of sin, for heterosexuals are also subject to sexual temptation. What a change in sexual orientation would do would be to provide a right object for one’s sexuality. That alone does not free them from temptation to sexual sin. If it’s possible, that’s grand, but I am no doctor and do not know if it is possible. It seems so in cases where it is largely a learned condition, but that is only my unprofessional reckonings. The orientation is not sinful, but the right orientation would open up hope for a right expression of one’s sexuality. At worst, it will change nothing, as some persons are called by God to a celibate life. In that case, like for the homosexual, celibacy is their Cross, or gift, as your perspective allows. St. Paul did not exactly give marriage his highest rating, advocating the celibate life as best, if possible, but that is a whole other discussion, as he was possibly speaking in the belief of Jesus’ imminent return.

With all due respect I was sexually abused and had SSA. Not only that there are many ex homosexuals that have been healed by Christ, but the gay lobby says we don’t exist. My advice to you is please don’t confuse yourself or other Christians about what God has made. Paz.

 

[pnewton]

With all due respect the Bible and dogma aren’t like tax laws where we are supposed to look for “loopholes”, on the contrary.

I think you have no concept as to what that word means. The Bible is not a “loophole”. Interpreting the Bible within the context of the Bible is not a loophole. I used the whole chapter to show that this idea of homosexuality being the ultimate sin is absurd. I mentioned that even this needs to be understood in the context of the letter to the Romans and the argument of Paul concerning salvation and the Law.

Dispelling your proof-texting is not a loophole, especially when you have to write words in to make it work.

Again, where does the Catholic Church teach the primacy of the sin of homosexuality?

Anyone here can pick up a catechism and in a few minutes, if not seconds, see who is telling the truth about what the Church teaches and who is not.

 

[Catolico65]

I think you have no concept as to what that word means. The Bible is not a “loophole”. Interpreting the Bible within the context of the Bible is not a loophole. I used the whole chapter to show that this idea of homosexuality being the ultimate sin is absurd. I mentioned that even this needs to be understood in the context of the letter to the Romans and the argument of Paul concerning salvation and the Law.

Dispelling your proof-texting is not a loophole, especially when you have to write words in to make it work.

Again, where does the Catholic Church teach the primacy of the sin of homosexuality?

Anyone here can pick up a catechism and in a few minutes, if not seconds, see who is telling the truth about what the Church teaches and who is not.

Nobody here has stated homosexuality is the “ultimate sin”, hence your confusion.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

While Christ clearly explains that defilement can only come from within a person, it is clearly established in both the OT and the NT that people with weak minds can be defiled by the mere presences of a defiling thought, such as is the case with constant homosexual desires.

Please substantiate this claim. The quotations you provided indicate that man’s wicked heart is the source of all kinds of defilement. They do not indicate that man’s **temptations **are the source of this defilement.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

The gay lobby has no redeeming values. All it does is promote the confusion of our children. They will pay a heavy price according to Christ.

Regarding the verse in Ezequial, I appreciate you pointing this out because what it does establish is that while Jerusalem may have acted worse they did not embrace homosexuality as had Sodom and thus weren’t meted out the same punishment. this is further evidence of God’s great ire for homosexuality when embraced by a society.

As far as trying to reinterpret Romans to your liking, that is in fact what the gay lobby does as is witnessed on many protestant websites. I prefer to follow the Catholic Church’s guidelines.

I didn’t say it was good.

May have? They did act worse. You’re aware that God was planning on destroying Sodom even before the angels went there, right?

“As far as trying to reinterpret Romans to your liking, that is in fact what the gay lobby does as is witnessed on many protestant websites. I prefer to follow the Catholic Church’s guidelines.”

Notwithstanding the saints commentary, God is indeed concerned about our minds being defiled. There are many passages in the Bible to support this. Here are a few from the NT:
“Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them?"*

“All these evils come from inside and defile a person.”

*“But not all have this knowledge. There are some who have been so used to idolatry up until now that, when they eat meat sacrificed to idols, their conscience, which is weak, is defiled. Now food will not bring us closer to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, nor are we better off if we do.f 9But make sure that this liberty of yours in no way becomes a stumbling block to the weak.g 10If someone sees you, with your knowledge, reclining at table in the temple of an idol, may not his conscience too, weak as it is, be “built up” to eat the meat sacrificed to idols? 11Thus through your knowledge, the weak person is brought to destruction, the brother for whom Christ died.h 12When you sin in this way against your brothers and wound their consciences, weak as they are, you are sinning against Christ.” *

In the OT, there are many more commandments by God to prevent the Jews from being defiled. While Christ clearly explains that defilement can only come from within a person, it is clearly established in both the OT and the NT that people with weak minds can be defiled by the mere presences of a defiling thought, such as is the case with constant homosexual desires.

Therefore, by convincing young children and confused people that they must accept homosexual attraction as normal we are enabling their consciences to be defiled. May God have mercy on all that do this.

Didn’t you see what I posted from Trent?

With all due respect I ask you to stop misrepresenting CC doctrine regarding this matter.

Persons with deep seated homosexual tendencies have a serious problem and as such cannot be considered as religious candidates in the Church. Furthermore, the catechism states they “they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.” which of course implies that their condition of deep seated homosexual desires is lessened.

That’s purely eisegesis on your part.

With all due respect if you have not suffered from SSA I will take your comment with a grain of salt because my comment are directed at those who do, paz.

So just to clarify if someone hasn’t experienced those attractions they are unqualified to discuss it and if they do experience those attractions then they are too biased to be qualified to discuss it?

 

[oldcatholicguy]

You must have missed the part where the CC says people with deep seated homosexual desires can’t enter the religious orders or that the catechism says that those who suffer from said shoud:

“should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.”

Clearly the Catholic Church recommends that people with homosexual desires change with Christ’s help as opposed to accepting their condition as permanent.

I can’t enter religious orders. I guess entering into the sacrament of marriage was a deviation from “Christian perfection.” How about those with physical or mental limitations that are barred from entering religious orders? They’ve deviated from “Christian perfection” too? Clearly you didn’t think through your argument when you went cherry picking for citations that support your viewpoint.