Being gay is in your genes

[Catolico65]

The Church does **not **promise that one can be healed of these deep-seated tendencies while here on earth (or indeed of any temptations). We know healing sometimes occurs (you pointed to the miracles of Lourdes earlier in this thread), but there is not a formula to deliver it on earth. Christian perfection is not a state absent temptations. Christ is our example.

Of course the Church cannot promise that we can be healed because it requires faith on our part, which of course would be impossible if one believes God created them to have homosexual desires.

As far as accepting deep seated homosexual desires, the catechism states the person should gradually seek Christian perfection, which would not be accenting their condition but asking for healing. After, Christian perfection does not included having deep seated SSA because it is considered depraved enough that persons with said cannot be considered for the religious life.

My advice to whoever has SSA is to do what I did, recognize it is not ordained by God. Will it go away instantly. No. Will one still have them. Yes. Will they go away if one believes in Christ and Scripture. Yes. Can one believe that they can be healed if they at the same time believe God created them to have SSA. More than likely not(without intercession), hence their problem. Paz.

 

[Rau]

Of course the Church cannot promise that we can be healed because it requires faith on our part, which of course would be impossible if one believes God created them to have homosexual desires.

As far as accepting deep seated homosexual desires, the catechism states the person should gradually seek Christian perfection, which would not be accenting their condition but asking for healing. After, Christian perfection does not included having deep seated SSA because it is considered depraved enough that persons with said cannot be considered for the religious life.

My advice to whoever has SSA is to do what I did, recognize it is not ordained by God. Will it go away instantly. No. Will one still have them. Yes. Will they go away if one believes in Christ and Scripture. Yes. Can one believe that they can be healed if they at the same time believe God created them to have SSA. More than likely not(without intercession), hence their problem. Paz.

You are confused.

Who among the faithful would not wish to be relieved of what is a “trial”? Who among the faithful would not pray for relief?

Christian perfection is not a state absent temptations. Christ is our example.

SSA is not depraved - it is disordered. Homosexual acts are depraved. Read your Catechism.

Whoever said SSA was ordained by God? Not me. Like the Church, I do not know the cause.

 

[SMGS127]

Of course the Church cannot promise that we can be healed because it requires faith on our part, which of course would be impossible if one believes God created them to have homosexual desires.

God doesn’t create us to have concupiscence; He allows it to happen. This has been said many, many times on this thread, and I’m almost positive it is doctrinal knowledge. Saying God “creates us to have [insert consequence of original sin here]” is, in my opinion, heretical. No one here is arguing that God made people, laughed, and said “I think I’ll make THIS PERSON suffer!” That’s not who God is. But He does allow us to feel the consequences of our original sin, much as our parents sometimes allow us to feel the consequences of our mistakes out of love for us.

As far as accepting deep seated homosexual desires, the catechism states the person should gradually seek Christian perfection, which would not be accenting their condition but asking for healing. After, Christian perfection does not included having deep seated SSA because it is considered depraved enough that persons with said cannot be considered for the religious life.

Someone can have SSAs and achieve Christian Earthly perfection. Christian perfection is a collection of the totality of our actions in life, both mental and physical. Passive attributes, like SSAs or even OSAs, have no actual bearing on our ability to achieve Christian perfection. It is how we react to these temptations (again, SS and/or OS) that determines whether we are on the path to Christian perfection or not.

 

[Rin]

Of course the Church cannot promise that we can be healed because it requires faith on our part

So you are indeed a Haginist. Interesting.

 

[JamesCaruso]

I would like to point out the following observations:

1. Most of those who suffer from SSA here in this forum(as well as other forums) outright believe it is innate or have no problem suggesting that it is.
2. The aforementioned group firmly believes in telling others that their SSA cannot be changed, ie that they were born with it.
3. There is nothing in Scripture nor doctrine that supports an innate condition of SSA, on the contrary.
4. There is no definitive scientific study that can support that SSA, on the contrary the latest studies overwhelmingly point to a psychological cause.
5. The Bible and the catechism support a psychological cause of SSA.

Given all of the facts, what the real tragedy is that confused people, especially youth, are being told their condition is permanent, which is a lie of course. Given that Jesus Himself said it would be better to tie a stone around one’s neck and throw themselves into the sea before causing a child to sin we should take this issue very seriously.

Regarding your statement about my “unqualified” advice please be aware that the APA says conversion therapy does not work and is forbidden, which of course opposes Catholic teaching. therefore, my advice to you as a fellow Christian is never accept what the world says over your Catholic faith. Also, I read on a frequent basis testimonies from Christian who once were practicing homosexuals but were healed by God so to say this doesn’t work is an untruth. Finally, the report I referenced is a compilation of more than 10,000 scientific studies and the results clearly show homosexuality is temporary for the majority of people - this is fact and is not up for debate. Paz.

I don’t think you’ve said anything contrary to what I said. The only possible difference is that I am claiming ignorance of what the number are that can be changed and you are saying with certainty that most can.

I do object to the idea that a person thinking they can’t change their sexuality is tantamount to causing them to sin. That is contrary to Catholic teaching.

If homosexuality is 100% psychological, then why did you also say that it is only temporary in the majority of the cases? Does it matter whether the cause of permanence is psychological or innate when you get right down to it?

I am encouraged by the fact that you believe you know that homosexuality is always psychological, and I hope that’s true, especially because then, even some of those “permanent” cases you mentioned might be subject to change with advances in understanding. But I also heard people in the thread claim injury has occurred to people from zealous attempts to change people’s orientation, and I would want to err on the side of caution if that is a present danger. If it is not a danger, so far I only have your opinion that it is not.

As for the term “unqualified”, I did not have you in mind, but anyone who thinks they know what they are doing regarding psychiatric or psychological help but really have no training or qualifications for the task. You are being unnecessarily defensive, because I didn’t even realize that you were involved in deprogramming (or whatever it is called) homosexuals. If it works, glory to God. I’'ll have to learn more about this to make my own judgment about this, not that I do not respect your thoughts and opinion.

 

[JamesCaruso]

With regard to the one source of homosexuality, it is St Paul who makes this claim and not I.

.

Paul writes:

Because that, when they knew God, they have not glorified him as God, or given thanks; but became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened. For professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man, and of birds, and of fourfooted beasts, and of creeping things.

Wherefore God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness, to dishonour their own bodies among themselves. Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error.

Am I correct in believing this is what you are referring to? Here it says that because they gave up the worship of God their minds became darkened and in some cases they were given over to lusting after persons of the same sex. Am I correct in my paraphrase?

Where does it say that God caused them to become homosexuals? What if some were already homosexual in orientation or partially so, but because they gave up the worship of God they could no longer control their sexual behavior? Weren’t many pagans in those days bisexual in their sexual behavior? It seems to me that Romans is talking about people giving into sexual lusts, and not about people’s orientation being changed. A God fearing man who obedient to God, even if he has a homosexual or bisexual orientation, would not burn with lust for another man. If that same person gave up the worship of God, I can see where they might. Paul does not say there is only one way to become homosexual, he says there is only one way to give into the sin of same sex lust, and that is by giving up the worship of God. In fact, it goes on to say that giving up the worship of God is the cause of all sin, not just homosexual sin.

This is how I see it. I can’t see how you make the leap to God causing the condition, as if the condition causes the sin. Sexual orientation does not cause sin. I notice all the time that I am attracted to women. The only thing that causes sin is if I give into the temptation to lust after women. Sin is in the heart, not in the attraction. Not worshiping God may cause you to be unable to resist the temptation springing from the attraction, but St. Paul does not make it clear that in all cases it causes an change in orientation, although he does seem to suggest it can. Leaving the natural use of women to lust after men addresses behavior, not necessarily orientation.

I am not bringing this up to be argumentative. It’s just that I think you have read something into Scripture that is not there. I think maybe you are too close to the subject. From our other discussion, you know I am happy to believe that maybe all homosexual orientation may be cured by psychological treatment. I am willing to believe in the possibility that God delivered nonbelievers up to a change in orientation, but if that’s true, I still don’t see it revealed in Romans. All I ask is that you consider my interpretation of what is written.

 

[pnewton]

With all due respect that is right out the gay lobby’s handbook. I will pray for you.

As odd as this sounds, to you know how condescending it seems when you respond like this? Try and imagine someone saying to you that you are just misguided. They will pray for you. We pray for people with needs, not because their opinions are different.

I think we need to remember the Golden Rule when posting.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

I would like to point out the following observations:

1. Most of those who suffer from SSA here in this forum(as well as other forums) outright believe it is innate or have no problem suggesting that it is.
2. The aforementioned group firmly believes in telling others that their SSA cannot be changed, ie that they were born with it.
3. There is nothing in Scripture nor doctrine that supports an innate condition of SSA, on the contrary.
4. There is no definitive scientific study that can support that SSA, on the contrary the latest studies overwhelmingly point to a psychological cause.
5. The Bible and the catechism support a psychological cause of SSA.

Given all of the facts, what the real tragedy is that confused people, especially youth, are being told their condition is permanent, which is a lie of course. Given that Jesus Himself said it would be better to tie a stone around one’s neck and throw themselves into the sea before causing a child to sin we should take this issue very seriously.

Regarding your statement about my “unqualified” advice please be aware that the APA says conversion therapy does not work and is forbidden, which of course opposes Catholic teaching. therefore, my advice to you as a fellow Christian is never accept what the world says over your Catholic faith. Also, I read on a frequent basis testimonies from Christian who once were practicing homosexuals but were healed by God so to say this doesn’t work is an untruth. Finally, the report I referenced is a compilation of more than 10,000 scientific studies and the results clearly show homosexuality is temporary for the majority of people - this is fact and is not up for debate. Paz.

1. given the extremely lackluster data from every study that tries to prove how that sexual orientation is changeable it isn’t surprising
2. I don’t think I’ve seen many claim here that it can’t be changed, merely that it hasn’t
3. There’s nothing in Scripture nor doctrine that supports an innate condition of left handedness
4. Well, if you claim that every study that disagrees with what you think is junk science then of course what you agree with is going to be all that remains.
5. The Catechism doesn’t purport to know why some people are like that, it doesn’t claim that it was a result of nurture, merely doesn’t rule it out. As to your Bible quotes, well, that’s just your eisegesis, man.

Cite one study accessible online of over one fifty people where the majority of people change from homosexual to completely heterosexual. Surely there are at least a couple if the book has “more than 10,000 scientific studies and the results clearly show homosexuality is temporary for the majority of people”. I’m not referring to identity, I am referring to sexual attractions.

 

[Cherry5]

1. given the extremely lackluster data from every study that tries to prove how that sexual orientation is changeable it isn’t surprising
2. I don’t think I’ve seen many claim here that it can’t be changed, merely that it hasn’t
3. There’s nothing in Scripture nor doctrine that supports an innate condition of left handedness
4. Well, if you claim that every study that disagrees with what you think is junk science then of course what you agree with is going to be all that remains.
5. The Catechism doesn’t purport to know why some people are like that, it doesn’t claim that it was a result of nurture, merely doesn’t rule it out. As to your Bible quotes, well, that’s just your eisegesis, man.

Cite one study accessible online of over one fifty people where the majority of people change from homosexual to completely heterosexual. Surely there are at least a couple if the book has “more than 10,000 scientific studies and the results clearly show homosexuality is temporary for the majority of people”. I’m not referring to identity, I am referring to sexual attractions.

Well put, I see eissgesis just too frequently here.

 

[JamesCaruso]

.

I hope we are not talking at each other, or past each other! I think it is important that we remain friends in this sharing of opinions and different vantage points. Nothing will be gained by our becoming adversaries in the hopes of converting the other to our point of view, no matter how important we feel our view is. We can hope in these dialogues to advance our understanding by seeing how and why other people think and feel differently, though this does not mean we will necessarily change our view or even alter it the slightest bit. The real hope is that the Holy Spirit can work in an atmosphere of openness, love and truthfulness to imbue our souls with his wisdom from above, and if there can be a meeting of our minds, he will bring about this miracle of love. In point of fact, in some way we may all be wrong, and yet we are all right if we continue to talk in love for the purpose of edifying one another in love. If that’s mentioning love an awful lot, I think when it comes to God, “What else is there?” Paz

 

[Catolico65]

*"Explicit treatment of the problem was given in this Congregation’s “Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics” of December 29, 1975. That document stressed the duty of trying to understand the homosexual condition and noted that culpability for homosexual acts should only be judged with prudence. At the same time the Congregation took note of the distinction commonly drawn between the homosexual condition or tendency and individual homosexual actions. These were described as deprived of their essential and indispensable finality, as being “intrinsically disordered”, and able in no case to be approved of (cf. n. 8, $4).

In the discussion which followed the publication of the Declaration, however, an overly benign interpretation was given to the homosexual condition itself, some going so far as to call it neutral, or even good. Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.
**
Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be directed toward those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not."
*
*
"Nevertheless, increasing numbers of people today, even within the Church, are bringing enormous pressure to bear on the Church to accept the homosexual condition as though it were not disordered** and to condone homosexual activity. Those within the Church who argue in this fashion** often have close ties with those with similar views outside it.** These latter groups are guided by a vision opposed to the truth about the human person, which is fully disclosed in the mystery of Christ. They reflect, even if not entirely consciously, a materialistic ideology which denies the transcendent nature of the human person as well as the supernatural vocation of every individual.

**The Church’s ministers must ensure that homosexual persons in their care will not be misled by this point of view, **so profoundly opposed to the teaching of the Church. But the risk is great and there are many who seek to create confusion regarding the Church’s position, and then to use that confusion to their own advantage.

1. The movement within the Church, which takes the form of pressure groups of various names and sizes, attempts to give the impression that it represents all homosexual persons who are Catholics. As a matter of fact, its membership is by and large restricted to those who either ignore the teaching of the Church or seek somehow to undermine it. It brings together under the aegis of Catholicism homosexual persons who have no intention of abandoning their homosexual behaviour. One tactic used is to protest that any and all criticism of or reservations about homosexual people, their activity and lifestyle, are simply diverse forms of unjust discrimination."*

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html

 

[JamesCaruso]

*"Explicit treatment of the problem was given in this Congregation’s “Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics” of December 29, 1975. That document stressed the duty of trying to understand the homosexual condition and noted that culpability for homosexual acts should only be judged with prudence. At the same time the Congregation took note of the distinction commonly drawn between the homosexual condition or tendency and individual homosexual actions. These were described as deprived of their essential and indispensable finality, as being “intrinsically disordered”, and able in no case to be approved of (cf. n. 8, $4).

In the discussion which followed the publication of the Declaration, however, an overly benign interpretation was given to the homosexual condition itself, some going so far as to call it neutral, or even good. **Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.

---

Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be directed toward those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not."
"Nevertheless, increasing numbers of people today, even within the Church,** are bringing enormous pressure to bear on the Church to accept the homosexual condition as though it were not disordered*** and to condone homosexual activity. Those within the Church who argue in this fashion** often have close ties with those with similar views outside it.** These latter groups are guided by a vision opposed to the truth about the human person, which is fully disclosed in the mystery of Christ. They reflect, even if not entirely consciously, a materialistic ideology which denies the transcendent nature of the human person as well as the supernatural vocation of every individual.

**The Church’s ministers must ensure that homosexual persons in their care will not be misled by this point of view, **so profoundly opposed to the teaching of the Church. But the risk is great and there are many who seek to create confusion regarding the Church’s position, and then to use that confusion to their own advantage.

1. The movement within the Church, which takes the form of pressure groups of various names and sizes, attempts to give the impression that it represents all homosexual persons who are Catholics. As a matter of fact, its membership is by and large restricted to those who either ignore the teaching of the Church or seek somehow to undermine it. It brings together under the aegis of Catholicism homosexual persons who have no intention of abandoning their homosexual behaviour. One tactic used is to protest that any and all criticism of or reservations about homosexual people, their activity and lifestyle, are simply diverse forms of unjust discrimination."

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html

Catolico, I am on your side, but again you have invited disagreement by ignoring part of this rather lengthy document. Whether intentional or not, section 11, when combined with the document in its entirely, provides a more balanced view.

1. It has been argued that the homosexual orientation in certain cases is not the result of deliberate choice; and so the homosexual person would then have no choice but to behave in a homosexual fashion. Lacking freedom, such a person, even if engaged in homosexual activity, would not be culpable.

Here, the Church’s wise moral tradition is necessary since it warns against generalizations in judging individual cases. In fact, circumstances may exist, or may have existed in the past, which would reduce or remove the culpability of the individual in a given instance; or other circumstances may increase it. What is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behaviour of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable. What is essential is that the fundamental liberty which characterizes the human person and gives him his dignity be recognized as belonging to the homosexual person as well. As in every conversion from evil, the abandonment of homosexual activity will require a profound collaboration of the individual with God’s liberating grace.

My view before reading the document had been that mitigating circumstances, such as compulsiveness, never reduced such sin from mortal to venial, much less ever completely removed culpability. Now I must adjust my view to include the possibility that a person may be sinless or only venially sinful due to compulsiveness, that is, a lacking in freedom to choose one’s behavior to some degree or other.

I believe your purpose is to save homosexuals from any views that might serve to weaken their resolve to escape this sin which has such a strong, gripping hold, but those in the battle need to know all the facts, not just the ones we in our wisdom want them to know. When they do come across these revelations, they may lose trust in our ability to guide them.

Thank you for your efforts to help free people from this terrible disorder. I hope the day comes when anyone so afflicted will have confidence they can overcome it with God’s grace. Even now, anyone can be sure that they will not wear out their welcome in the confessional, because God’s mercy has no limit. Peace.

 

[Catolico65]

Catolico, I am on your side, but again you have invited disagreement by ignoring part of this rather lengthy document. Whether intentional or not, section 11, when combined with the document in its entirely, provides a more balanced view.

1. It has been argued that the homosexual orientation in certain cases is not the result of deliberate choice; and so the homosexual person would then have no choice but to behave in a homosexual fashion. Lacking freedom, such a person, even if engaged in homosexual activity, would not be culpable.

Here, the Church’s wise moral tradition is necessary since it warns against generalizations in judging individual cases. In fact, circumstances may exist, or may have existed in the past, which would reduce or remove the culpability of the individual in a given instance; or other circumstances may increase it. What is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behaviour of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable. What is essential is that the fundamental liberty which characterizes the human person and gives him his dignity be recognized as belonging to the homosexual person as well. As in every conversion from evil, the abandonment of homosexual activity will require a profound collaboration of the individual with God’s liberating grace.

My view before reading the document had been that mitigating circumstances, such as compulsiveness, never reduced such sin from mortal to venial, much less ever completely removed culpability. Now I must adjust my view to include the possibility that a person may be sinless or only venially sinful due to compulsiveness, that is, a lacking in freedom to choose one’s behavior to some degree or other.

I believe your purpose is to save homosexuals from any views that might serve to weaken their resolve to escape this sin which has such a strong, gripping hold, but those in the battle need to know all the facts, not just the ones we in our wisdom want them to know. When they do come across these revelations, they may lose trust in our ability to guide them.

Thank you for your efforts to help free people from this terrible disorder. I hope the day comes when anyone so afflicted will have confidence they can overcome it with God’s grace. Even now, anyone can be sure that they will not wear out their welcome in the confessional, because God’s mercy has no limit. Peace.

My goal as a Catholic is to do what Christ’s Church teaches, and not take doctrinal commentaries out of context for the purposes of undermining their original intent, as the gay lobby does. This phenomenon is clearly explained in the document I posted. Also, as someone who has suffered and been relieved of SSA and seen other’s lives destroyed by the gay lobby indoctrination I am not interested in mincing words nor much less minimizing the great threat that is homosexual indoctrination.

My advice to you is to read more of the Church’s teaching as opposed to using your own intellect to try to understand the right and wrong of the situation from the perspective of the Church. I would also ask you to contemplate the serious consequences of spreading doubt among the believers given the clear guidelines the Church has established. Therefore, instead of postulating and possibly fomenting doubt, the main tool of the devil, a true Christian soldier presents the stance of the Church and refrains to comment about any areas of personal misunderstanding until the point at which the Holy Spirit reveals it to him. Paz.

 

[JamesCaruso]

My goal as a Catholic is to do what Christ’s Church teaches, and not take doctrinal commentaries out of context for the purposes of undermining their original intent, as the gay lobby does.

But it seems like you did just that (take things out of context) by your omission, perhaps, inadvertently, because it did not match your purpose. I, on the other hand, tried to restore the context which you omitted.

This phenomenon is clearly explained in the document I posted…

Yes. it is. for those who take the time to read it in its entirely as I did.

Also, as someone who has suffered and been relieved of SSA and seen other’s lives destroyed by the gay lobby indoctrination I am not interested in mincing words nor much less minimizing the great threat that is homosexual indoctrination[Boldface added.].

Nor should you be wanting to exaggerate the Church’s position.

My advice to you is to read more of the Church’s teaching as opposed to using your own intellect to try to understand the right and wrong of the situation from the perspective of the Church.

And am I supposed to suspend my intellect as I read more of the Church’s teaching? Do you feel that then Cardinal Ratzinger did not fully express the Church’s position? Furthermore, I do read everything from the perspective of the Church. Do you? Or is your judgment clouded by your personal experience, and your interpretation of your experience, which seems to differ somewhat from the Church’s position.

would also ask you to contemplate the serious consequences of spreading doubt among the believers given the clear guidelines the Church has established.

Then, are you saying that the Cardinal spread doubt, since all I did was bring attention to his very words?

Therefore, instead of postulating and possibly fomenting doubt, the main tool of the devil, a true Christian soldier presents the stance of the Church and refrains to comment…

…and Ratzinger, I presume he is not a true Christian soldier? I pointed out his words in context. You, my friend, seem to be delivering the commentary according to Catolico on everything the Church teaches, amplifying it beyond its intent or meaning.

…about any areas of personal misunderstanding until the point at which the Holy Spirit reveals it to him. Paz.

So, are you saying that you have a private revelation about the issue of homosexuality that the Church and Cardinal Ratzinger are missing?

How dare you insinuate that I do not read with an openness to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I have witnessed so many well meaning Catholics go off on a tangent of their own by their intuiting what the Holy Spirit is saying. That kind of subjectivity plagued the early Church. The remedy of course is to test everything one thinks the Spirit is saying against the objective teaching of the Church, which I have formed a habit of doing.

At least, you should be humble to admit that you may not have all the answers, your experience not withstanding, and try not to foist your subjective feelings about what the Holy Spirit is saying on others, since the Holy Spirit never contradicts the teaching of the Church, which you are beginning to sound like you think is inadequate in the present circumstance. I read the document that you yourself recommended, and I had no trouble understanding its contents. If that teaching has been added to, or modified in any way, please point me to the document of the Church that says otherwise. Thank you.

You are unnecessarily making a argument out of nothing due to your belief that you know better than the Church in some nuanced manner.

When I myself was troubled by compulsive ( you might prefer to say “indulgent,” but it was not wholly so), behavior, it was music to my ears to hear that the Church did indeed understand the role that compulsiveness played in my sin. The fact that I had to make many repeated confessions over many years before I overcame my compulsiveness, was made easier by the understanding that the Church did understand my dilemma and did not necessarily view my chronic behavior as a sign of insincerity or lack of firm resolve. She also understands that concupiscence makes falling into sin very easy and very natural. Bolstered by the Church’s compassionate understanding, I was able to stick it out, not leave the Church out of despair of ever getting it right, and was finally able to master my compulsion. There may be some truth in what I experienced that could help homosexuals, as well, but I don’t pretend that it is the whole solution. Professional help may be required, and the help of others who have had similar problems may also be beneficial. I do not think that one solution fits all, due to our differences in personality, upbringing, experiences, spirituality, and psychological make up, and whatever other factors may play a part. If I were you, I would keep an open mind in the area of treatment that extends beyond the confessional, but which may be needed nonetheless, taking into consideration all the Church’s teaching on the subject…

 

[Catolico65]

But it seems like you did just that (take things out of context) by your omission, perhaps, inadvertently, because it did not match your purpose. I, on the other hand, tried to restore the context which you omitted.

Yes. it is. for those who take the time to read it in its entirely as I did.

Nor should you be wanting to exaggerate the Church’s position.

And am I supposed to suspend my intellect as I read more of the Church’s teaching? Do you feel that then Cardinal Ratzinger did not fully express the Church’s position? Furthermore, I do read everything from the perspective of the Church. Do you? Or is your judgment clouded by your personal experience, and your interpretation of your experience, which seems to differ somewhat from the Church’s position.

Then, are you saying that the Cardinal spread doubt, since all I did was bring attention to his very words?

…and Ratzinger, I presume he is not a true Christian soldier? I pointed out his words in context. You, my friend, seem to be delivering the commentary according to Catolico on everything the Church teaches, amplifying it beyond its intent or meaning.

So, are you saying that you have a private revelation about the issue of homosexuality that the Church and Cardinal Ratzinger are missing?

How dare you insinuate that I do not read with an openness to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I have witnessed so many well meaning Catholics go off on a tangent of their own by their intuiting what the Holy Spirit is saying. That kind of subjectivity plagued the early Church. The remedy of course is to test everything one thinks the Spirit is saying against the objective teaching of the Church, which I have formed a habit of doing.

At least, you should be humble to admit that you may not have all the answers, your experience not withstanding, and try not to foist your subjective feelings about what the Holy Spirit is saying on others, since the Holy Spirit never contradicts the teaching of the Church, which you are beginning to sound like you think is inadequate in the present circumstance. I read the document that you yourself recommended, and I had no trouble understanding its contents. If that teaching has been added to, or modified in any way, please point me to the document of the Church that says otherwise. Thank you.

You are unnecessarily making a argument out of nothing due to your belief that you know better than the Church in some nuanced manner.

When I myself was troubled by compulsive ( you might prefer to say “indulgent,” but it was not wholly so), behavior, it was music to my ears to hear that the Church did indeed understand the role that compulsiveness played in my sin. The fact that I had to make many repeated confessions over many years before I overcame my compulsiveness, was made easier by the understanding that the Church did understand my dilemma and did not necessarily view my chronic behavior as a sign of insincerity or lack of firm resolve. She also understands that concupiscence makes falling into sin very easy and very natural. Bolstered by the Church’s compassionate understanding, I was able to stick it out, not leave the Church out of despair of ever getting it right, and was finally able to master my compulsion. There may be some truth in what I experienced that could help homosexuals, as well, but I don’t pretend that it is the whole solution. Professional help may be required, and the help of others who have had similar problems may also be beneficial. I do not think that one solution fits all, due to our differences in personality, upbringing, experiences, spirituality, and psychological make up, and whatever other factors may play a part. If I were you, I would keep an open mind in the area of treatment that extends beyond the confessional, but which may be needed nonetheless, taking into consideration all the Church’s teaching on the subject…

I have no doctrinal opinion apart from the Church’s. Rather, others are taking doctrinal commentary out of context, in fact that is the general theme in threads like this.

Also, the fact that you postulate in this thread about the topic infers doubt. While we are certainly all in the doubt on some issues regarding the larger context of God’s will, we need to be careful when discussing delicate matters such as this in order that others do not have their faith weakened. This is why obedience is so important for religious orders in the Church, to stem doubt because it is used aggressively by the devil. Paz.

 

[Rin]

I do not think that one solution fits all

This is very important, and often ignored by some gay activists (who may say the only solution is to give in to one’s temptations) and extreme “anti-gays” (who may say the only solution is “being healed” or “changing orientation”, and in the case of some in this thread, even imply that those who can’t do that lack faith or some other random quality) alike.

I often find the “gay movement” and “anti-gay movement” to fall for the same fallacies and errors - one solution fits all, inferring an “ought” from an “is” (thinking that if homosexual attractions are proved to be biological in basis, acting on them must be morally licit) and so on. It’s interesting how extremes tend to share many premises, but arrive at completely opposite solutions.

 

[Catolico65]

This is very important, and often ignored by some gay activists (who may say the only solution is to give in to one’s temptations) and extreme “anti-gays” (who may say the only solution is “being healed” or “changing orientation”, and in the case of some in this thread, even imply that those who can’t do that lack faith or some other random quality) alike.

I often find the “gay movement” and “anti-gay movement” to fall for the same fallacies and errors - one solution fits all, inferring an “ought” from an “is” (thinking that if homosexual attractions are proved to be biological in basis, acting on them must be morally licit) and so on. It’s interesting how extremes tend to share many premises, but arrive at completely opposite solutions.

With all due respect God is anti gay because it opposes Him. He did not create people to have homosexual desires and according to doctrine is not pleased with us impeding these persons healing. After all those who believe they aren’t sick don’t go to the doctor.

 

[Rau]

With all due respect God is anti gay because it opposes Him. He did not create people to have homosexual desires and according to doctrine is not pleased with us impeding these persons healing. After all those who believe they aren’t sick don’t go to the doctor.

The discussion is not about those who seek to lead others astray or encourage sin, though apparently you see this wherever you look, with whomever you correspond.

Would that we ALL could be “healed” of our demons and temptations! Thanks be to God if our demons and temptations leave us! But that is not what God asks, only that we turn away from sin. ‘Get behind me satan - I will not follow!’

 

[JamesCaruso]

I have no doctrinal opinion apart from the Church’s. Rather, others are taking doctrinal commentary out of context, in fact that is the general theme in threads like this.

Also, the fact that you postulate in this thread about the topic infers doubt. While we are certainly all in the doubt on some issues regarding the larger context of God’s will, we need to be careful when discussing delicate matters such as this in order that others do not have their faith weakened. This is why obedience is so important for religious orders in the Church, to stem doubt because it is used aggressively by the devil. Paz.

I postulate nothing. I only repeated Cardinal Ratzinger’s statement of fact to create the context for your quotes from the same article. If I am guilty of inferring doubt, then he is, also. But in fact he only state the facts, and I only repeat the facts. When discussing delicate matters, we need not sweep anything under the rug,or hide them for fear of misunderstanding, but simply make sure that our words fully disclose the facts, all the facts, and put them into their proper context. That is what is meant by “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” Since neither of us is under the vow of obedience, it does not apply, and I question it has anything much to do with stemming doubt… See newadvent.org/cathen/11182a.htm on religious obedience.

And even with delicate matters, we should not be overly anxious about misunderstandings that might ensue. Consider how often our present Holy Father says things that are misconstrued by the media. The burden of seeking understanding still lies on the person hearing us. If they are disposed to the truth, they will seek out our meaning, and if they are looking for a way to stay in their sin, they will seek that, also. We can only do our best in telling the whole truth, led by the Holy Spirit, and leave it to God to do the rest. Discretion, not fear, should be our goal. I believe I have exercised sufficient discretion. I doubt anyone here but you believes I am giving homosexuals room for doubt as to what I or now Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI is saying.

 

[Catolico65]

The discussion is not about those who seek to lead others astray or encourage sin, though apparently you see this wherever you look, with whomever you correspond.

I base my posts only on what has been posted. Also, as is clearly evidenced there have been some posters that have contributed that were confused about the topic and have been confused even more by all of the postulating and loophole interpretations.

In summary, what has been propagated on threads like this is that homosexual temptations are nothing to worry about. The irony is is if a person had constant sexual desires for prepubescent children or animals they would know they have a problem and as such would turn to Christ. As it is it is apparent that many of those that suffer from SSA minimize their condition instead of addressing it. This shows either a poor understanding of what Christ has done for us as or a proud heart that refuses to repent of their sins(not of SSA attractions) and submit. Interestingly enough, in my many years of discussing topic like this persons that suffer from SSA they are consistently resistant to submitting to Christ and His Word completely, which reflect a proud heart. This arrogance interestingly enough according to the Bible could be the cause of their condition yet they don’t feel it necessary to submit and be healed, thus they are stuck in their own condition. I myself on the other hand reject my personal pride and will not oppose doctrine or the Word of God as far as I can understand it, ie I recognize my sins no matter how difficult it may be. Maybe that’s why the devil can no longer convince me I am something I am not. Paz.