Big problem relating to homosexuality

[jhickey]

I fail to see how one can be “happy” with an inclination that “itself must be seen as an objective disorder”. What I presented is the Church’s understanding of “the homosexual condition or tendency”:

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

I can understand that you fail to see how one can be happy with it. But I am. There is no church writings that say one cannot be happy about their sexual orientation. My happiness comes in the form of acceptance and understanding (and not looking at this as a “big problem”) of who I am and the cards that I have been delt. There is no changing them.

I understand the church’s position too. There is nothing there saying that one shoudl feel guilty or repulsed about being a homosexual. I don’t look at this as a disorder in terms of me having to seek treatment of any kind. This is who I am, I accept it and live with it and am happy.

 

[Faith1960]

I can understand that you fail to see how one can be happy with it. But I am. There is no church writings that say one cannot be happy about their sexual orientation. My happiness comes in the form of acceptance and understanding (and not looking at this as a “big problem”) of who I am and the cards that I have been delt. There is no changing them.

I understand the church’s position too. There is nothing there saying that one shoudl feel guilty or repulsed about being a homosexual. I don’t look at this as a disorder in terms of me having to seek treatment of any kind. This is who I am, I accept it and live with it and am happy.

Are you/have you been involved in a homosexual relationship? Or are you planning to remain single and celibate for the rest of your life?

 

[jmcrae]

I

I understand the church’s position too. There is nothing there saying that one shoudl feel guilty or repulsed about being a homosexual. I don’t look at this as a disorder in terms of me having to seek treatment of any kind. This is who I am, I accept it and live with it and am happy.

This seems like a very healthy attitude - I say, “Good for you,” and now, let us plot some way to do evangelism in our neighborhood, and teach these people something about Jesus, and maybe even get them out to Sunday Mass, shall we?

 

[jhickey]

Are you/have you been involved in a homosexual relationship? Or are you planning to remain single and celibate for the rest of your life?

Yes. I have been in many homosexual relationships.

 

[setter]

I can understand that you fail to see how one can be happy with it. But I am. There is no church writings that say one cannot be happy about their sexual orientation. My happiness comes in the form of acceptance and understanding (and not looking at this as a “big problem”) of who I am and the cards that I have been delt. There is no changing them.

I understand the church’s position too. There is nothing there saying that one shoudl feel guilty or repulsed about being a homosexual. I don’t look at this as a disorder in terms of me having to seek treatment of any kind. This is who I am, I accept it and live with it and am happy.

This sounds all nice and consonant with Church teaching on the surface. However, I am not duped by your false portrayal of a disordered sexual attraction/orientation as something that “This is who I am, I accept it and live with it and am happy.” Bunk. One cannot in truth satisfy themselves in a content and “happy” acceptance of a personal identity that is over identified (“This is who I am”) with a intrinsic [psychosexual] disorder.

Again, this is what the Church instructs and offers as true compassion to those finding themselves afflicted with the particuar cross of a predominent homosexual attraction:

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.

The human person, made in the image and likeness of God, can hardly be adequately described by a reductionist reference to his or her sexual orientation. Every one living on the face of the earth has personal problems and difficulties, but challenges to growth, strengths, talents and gifts as well. Today, the Church provides a badly needed context for the care of the human person when she refuses to consider the person as a “heterosexual” or a “homosexual” and insists that every person has a fundamental Identity: the creature of God, and by grace, his child and heir to eternal life.

vatican.va/roman_curia/co…ersons_en.html

 

[setter]

Yes. I have been in many homosexual relationships.

What matters for welfare of your eternal destiny and soul and true happiness is whether you have repented of these past gravely sinful behavior and disordered sexual relationships and if you are currently committed to living a chaste lifestyle in your current state in life.

Here is further instruction by the Church as to what is true compassion to one afflicted with a homosexual attraction:

1. The Church, obedient to the Lord who founded her and gave to her the sacramental life, celebrates the divine plan of the loving and live-giving union of men and women in the sacrament of marriage. It is only in the marital relationship that the use of the sexual faculty can be morally good. A person engaging in homosexual behaviour therefore acts immorally.

To chose someone of the same sex for one’s sexual activity is to annul the rich symbolism and meaning, not to mention the goals, of the Creator’s sexual design. Homosexual activity is not a complementary union, able to transmit life; and so it thwarts the call to a life of that form of self-giving which the Gospel says is the essence of Christian living. This does not mean that homosexual persons are not often generous and giving of themselves; but when they engage in homosexual activity they confirm within themselves a disordered sexual inclination which is essentially self-indulgent.

As in every moral disorder, homosexual activity prevents one’s own fulfillment and happiness by acting contrary to the creative wisdom of God. The Church, in rejecting erroneous opinions regarding homosexuality, does not limit but rather defends personal freedom and dignity realistically and authentically understood.

1. What, then, are homosexual persons to do who seek to follow the Lord? Fundamentally, they are called to enact the will of God in their life by joining whatever sufferings and difficulties they experience in virtue of their condition to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross. That Cross, for the believer, is a fruitful sacrifice since from that death come life and redemption. While any call to carry the cross or to understand a Christian’s suffering in this way will predictably be met with bitter ridicule by some, it should be remembered that this is the way to eternal life for all who follow Christ.

It is, in effect, none other than the teaching of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians when he says that the Spirit produces in the lives of the faithful “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, trustfulness, gentleness and self-control” (5:22) and further (v. 24), "You cannot belong to Christ unless you crucify all self-indulgent passions and desires."

It is easily misunderstood, however, if it is merely seen as a pointless effort at self-denial. The Cross is a denial of self, but in service to the will of God himself who makes life come from death and empowers those who trust in him to practise virtue in place of vice.

To celebrate the Paschal Mystery, it is necessary to let that Mystery become imprinted in the fabric of daily life. To refuse to sacrifice one’s own will in obedience to the will of the Lord is effectively to prevent salvation. Just as the Cross was central to the expression of God’s redemptive love for us in Jesus, so the conformity of the self-denial of homosexual men and women with the sacrifice of the Lord will constitute for them a source of self-giving which will save them from a way of life which constantly threatens to destroy them.

Christians who are homosexual are called, as all of us are, to a chaste life. As they dedicate their lives to understanding the nature of God’s personal call to them, they will be able to celebrate the Sacrament of Penance more faithfully and receive the Lord’s grace so freely offered there in order to convert their lives more fully to his Way.

vatican.va/roman_curia/co…ersons_en.html

 

[jhickey]

This sounds all nice and consonant with Church teaching on the surface. However, I am not duped by your false portrayal of a disordered sexual attraction/orientation as something that “This is who I am, I accept it and live with it and am happy.” Bunk. One cannot in truth satisfy themselves in a content and “happy” acceptance of a personal identity that is over identified (“This is who I am”) with a intrinsic [psychosexual] disorder.

Again, this is what the Church instructs and offers as true compassion to those finding themselves afflicted with the particuar cross of a predominent homosexual attraction:

vatican.va/roman_curia/co…ersons_en.html

Thanks for the reply. Your point is taken though truley flawed.

 

[Other_Eric]

I think in jhickey’s responses we can see the heretical damage that over twenty years of Courage has wrought. This individual is yet another misguided soul who equates the great virtue of chastity merely with the absence of genital expression and thereby blasphemes the virtue.

To be “happy” with one’s same-sex attractions, even if never expressed is to be happy with a severe spiritual and psychological disorder that is pitted against God and nature. It is to claim that one has found joy outside of God’s created design. The only licit response to this disorder is to work to achieve an unreserved attraction to the opposite sex. To encourage these men and women to seek anything less is to encourage sloth.

 

[jmcrae]

To be “happy” with one’s same-sex attractions, even if never expressed is to be happy with a severe spiritual and psychological disorder that is pitted against God and nature. It is to claim that one has found joy outside of God’s created design.

Obviously, God has created the person as a homosexual. Therefore, God intends that the person be happy in the homosexual state.

This doesn’t mean that they should seek out sexual expression of that condition, but I really don’t see how the person has any other choice than to be happy with how God made them, and live with the situation as it is. Homosexuality is not exactly a curable condition.

The only licit response to this disorder is to work to achieve an unreserved attraction to the opposite sex. To encourage these men and women to seek anything less is to encourage sloth.

This is physically impossible - God has not created them with this particular function. To ape it in pretense of heterosexual normality would be even worse than to live the celibate life.

 

[Riley259]

Thanks for the feedback again. There are some points that I do not agree with in your last post. namely “a disordered homosexual attraction from one’s core identity and dignity.” I will not further this thread…(perhaps another though), as it is deviating from my original intent for this young kid.

I am happy with my homosexuality and do not view it as a deviation or distorition.

Homosexuality is disordered although if not acted on not necessarily sinful. It’s troubling to hear that you are happy with your same-sex orientation and that you don’t recognize it’s disordered nature. The natural law and obvious complementarity of the two genders clearly points to same-sex attractions as a distortion. You can be helped - I suggest you go to the courage.org link for ways to address this burden.

 

[Exalt]

Homosexuality is disordered although if not acted on not necessarily sinful. It’s troubling to hear that you are happy with your same-sex orientation and that you don’t recognize it’s disordered nature. The natural law and obvious complementarity of the two genders clearly points to same-sex attractions as a distortion.

Prove it.

(I posted this bit below on another thread. I feel it would be pointless to type up the same thing in another way. I don’t think it’s against the forum rules or anything, so here goes: )

The “Natural Law” argument is flawed on the basis that just because a human being’s disposition, trait, or body part is obviously ordered towards one thing, it doesn’t neccessarily mean that alterations to one’s “natural” disposition, transcendence beyond “normal” traits, or different uses for those body parts are immoral or wrong. For example, it is not by the nature of the mouth obviously being ordered towards eating that makes trying to eat a spoon an incorrect and dangerous action. It’s the fact that you would choke and possibly die. Furthermore, the nose, for instance, is obviously ordered towards breathing and smelling, not for holding one’s glasses. However, no “Natural Law” theorist has ever made the case for the immorality of wearing glasses. Natural Law theory is too simplistic for the modern world in which we live in today.

If Natural Law theory is true, then I had better stop wearing glasses. Or clothes, for that matter. After all, God did not design us to wear clothes at all.

 

[jmcrae]

If Natural Law theory is true, then I had better stop wearing glasses. Or clothes, for that matter. After all, God did not design us to wear clothes at all.

No - but wearing clothes and glasses also don’t usually lead to disease or disfigurement in the way that some homosexual practices do. (Many male homosexuals, for example, lose the “elasticity” in their rectums, and become required to wear diapers for the rest of their lives. We don’t see these kind of drastic consequences when we wear clothing or glasses.)

Besides, didn’t God Himself make clothing for Adam and Eve when they were being ushered out of the Garden?

 

[MikeinSD]

(Many male homosexuals, for example, lose the “elasticity” in their rectums, and become required to wear diapers for the rest of their lives. We don’t see these kind of drastic consequences when we wear clothing or glasses.)

You GOT to be kidding here. Any source for libel?

 

[jmcrae]

(Many male homosexuals, for example, lose the “elasticity” in their rectums, and become required to wear diapers for the rest of their lives. We don’t see these kind of drastic consequences when we wear clothing or glasses.)

You GOT to be kidding here. Any source for libel?

This is a well-known medical fact - I’m surprised you didn’t already know.

 

[MikeinSD]

This is a well-known medical fact - I’m surprised you didn’t already know.

Hi. I’m a gay man and I have a partner. You know us kind of people read here too.

Neither I, my partner, my friends, nor anyone I know has to use diapers. I’ve heard the whole gerbil joke but this is a new one. I’m not angry. More bemused than anything.

I’ll let you on a little known fact – libel always backfires. The best friend the Jews have is a ranting anti-semite quoting from the Protocols of The Elders of Zion. The anti-semite makes himself look ridiculous. And therefore his arguments ridiculous.

I’m not going to argue about homosexuality and Catholic teachings. That’s your business. But I can tell you that repeating the libel that gay men have to use diapers makes you look small and silly. Do you want Catholic teachings also look small and silly due to your false witness?

 

[Exalt]

Note: I’m not sure how I can discuss the issues brought up by jmcrae without being somewhat explicit. If there is a problem with my explicity level, please inform me and edit my post.

No - but wearing clothes and glasses also don’t usually lead to disease or disfigurement in the way that some homosexual practices do.

Homosexual practices don’t “usually lead” to disease or disfigurement. List for me the specific homosexual practices that you claim to cause disease or disfigurement. You’ve named one, which I deal with below.

(Many male homosexuals, for example, lose the “elasticity” in their rectums, and become required to wear diapers for the rest of their lives. We don’t see these kind of drastic consequences when we wear clothing or glasses.)

First of all, I’d like to see some medical sources for that. I had trouble finding some. I’d like for you to qualify (and provide evidence for) what you mean by “many” homosexuals, as well.

Second of all, I do not doubt that an excessive amount of anal intercourse could cause serious elasticity problems like the ones you mention. However, I feel fairly certain that only practicing anal sex rarely would not cause that problem. Because I lack objective medical sources for both the claim of elasticity loss and the rate, I can’t qualify that claim - but it does make sense.

Third, anal sex is not the only way homosexuals express sexual intimacy. Are other forms of sexual practice (perhaps oral sex) inherantly detremintal to one’s health, according to you?

Finally, sex is only a small part of a homosexual relationship. It is certianly not the most important. Are other parts of a homosexual relationship “determintal to one’s health”? Personally, I have never heard of two men hold hands causing them to break out into sores, but perhaps I’m wrong.

Besides, didn’t God Himself make clothing for Adam and Eve when they were being ushered out of the Garden?

Very good point! So, human beings are allowed to move beyond our original designs - even according to biblical teaching?

Natural Law as an ethical theory fails because it does not allow for human beings to transcend thier original designs. It is an inadequate theory. Dying one’s hair to an “unnatural” color is not immoral, but two men falling in love is? Eating genetically engineered food (which is “unnatural”) is not immoral, but two women falling in love is?

Is my nose designed to wear glasses? Is my foot designed to wear a shoe? No. We are are allowed to transcend our original design.

 

[jhickey]

This is a well-known medical fact - I’m surprised you didn’t already know.

As some on the forum have so eloquently put it…prove it. I have NEVER heard of this before. I have many practicing “bottom” gay friends and NONE of them have ever heard of this. It sounds like you took it of of one of those 1950s Movie-tone News educational videos.

To all of you - thanks. I see your points. I really do. But if you look at my condition as a “disorder” or a retardation of natural law maybe you can correlate me (though I do not) to a person born without legs or some other kind of disfugurement. They will live out their lives happily with their disfunction - not try to deny that it exists. Some seek therapy but in the end have to realize that (a) they are different and (b) they’re better off accepting it than than trying to change what they cannot.

This is the best I can do for you. All I said is that I am happy with my homosexuality and for some reason I have really disrupted the beehive here. What sin have I committed? To be happy with the way God made me, with the cross he handed me? Trust me, it is a cross! But as all crosses do, they help you see the world a little differently and teach you a lot about yourself. I love the way God made me. No amount of CCC references are going to change that because there is nothing in there that says I cannot. If anything is unnatural, it is to dare suggest that I wallow in some kind of guilt or embarassment for who I am…that called “the closet.” That’s called, getting married and having kinds knowing that you have no attraction physically to your wife.

Thanks, all. I do appreciate it.

 

[jhickey]

Note: I’m not sure how I can discuss the issues brought up by jmcrae without being somewhat explicit. If there is a problem with my explicity level, please inform me and edit my post.

Homosexual practices don’t “usually lead” to disease or disfigurement. List for me the specific homosexual practices that you claim to cause disease or disfigurement. You’ve named one, which I deal with below.

First of all, I’d like to see some medical sources for that. I had trouble finding some. I’d like for you to qualify (and provide evidence for) what you mean by “many” homosexuals, as well.

Second of all, I do not doubt that an excessive amount of anal intercourse could cause serious elasticity problems like the ones you mention. However, I feel fairly certain that only practicing anal sex rarely would not cause that problem. Because I lack objective medical sources for both the claim of elasticity loss and the rate, I can’t qualify that claim - but it does make sense.

Third, anal sex is not the only way homosexuals express sexual intimacy. Are other forms of sexual practice (perhaps oral sex) inherantly detremintal to one’s health, according to you?

Finally, sex is only a small part of a homosexual relationship. It is certianly not the most important. Are other parts of a homosexual relationship “determintal to one’s health”? Personally, I have never heard of two men hold hands causing them to break out into sores, but perhaps I’m wrong.

Very good point! So, human beings are allowed to move beyond our original designs - even according to biblical teaching?

Natural Law as an ethical theory fails because it does not allow for human beings to transcend thier original designs. It is an inadequate theory. Dying one’s hair to an “unnatural” color is not immoral, but two men falling in love is? Eating genetically engineered food (which is “unnatural”) is not immoral, but two women falling in love is?

Is my nose designed to wear glasses? Is my foot designed to wear a shoe? No. We are are allowed to transcend our original design.

This is a great point.

 

[Catherine_S]

.
A very sobering reality on this subject as well…
.
Researchers Doubt Vaccine For
HIV Will Ever Be Found

**July 20, 2006 - A Harvard researcher who has spent two decades searching for a vaccine for HIV, says it may never be found. **

Researcher Ronald Desrosiers says: 'It would be the greatest good we could do for mankind, and we should try like hell." But, he acknowledges, “It’s seriously questionable whether there will ever be an effective vaccine for HIV.” His comments were published in a feature of Newhouse News Service by George Jordan.
Emilio Emini, with the drugmaker Wyeth agrees. He says: “…it is very difficult to conceive how one will make a vaccine” to protect against HIV.

According to Jordan, the AIDS virus is different than others. It targets T-cells, turning them into virus-producing factories that can create more than one million copies a day. **The outer shell of the virus renders antibodies ineffective by cloaking the molecular sites where they can attach. **

In addition, HIV is a retrovirus, which means it can hibernate for years before becoming active in the body. As Emini says: "It’s a very clever piece of engineering. Once you get the infection, it does not go away."
Since 1981, HIV/AIDS has infected 65 million people and killed 25 million. The U.S. sees an average of 40,000 new infections yearly.

narth.com/docs/vaccine.html

.

 

[jmcrae]

Hi. I’m a gay man and I have a partner. You know us kind of people read here too.

Neither I, my partner, my friends, nor anyone I know has to use diapers. I’ve heard the whole gerbil joke but this is a new one. I’m not angry. More bemused than anything.

I’m afraid I don’t know the “gerbil joke.”

I’ll let you on a little known fact – libel always backfires. The best friend the Jews have is a ranting anti-semite quoting from the Protocols of The Elders of Zion. The anti-semite makes himself look ridiculous. And therefore his arguments ridiculous.

I’m not going to argue about homosexuality and Catholic teachings. That’s your business. But I can tell you that repeating the libel that gay men have to use diapers makes you look small and silly. Do you want Catholic teachings also look small and silly due to your false witness?

So, don’t believe me. then. Whatever.

But I know what I know - this is a real thing. I’m not going to name names because that would be embarassing, but there are, in fact, gay men who suffer from this condition - and some of them may well be people that you know - and unless you undress everyone you know, you don’t know what they have on under their pants. Are you absolutely certain that you don’t know anybody who’s experienced this?

For the most part, I’m on your side - I don’t want you to “become” heterosexual, or anything else you don’t want to be, you know.