Bisexuality / Homosexuality and Radical Feminism - Connection ?

[Peepers]

Post 54 – you accused me of providing mis-information when all I did was point out that Dr. Nicolosi was having much success with his theories about homosexual conditioning during the early formative stages of life. You accused me of bigotry and hatred because of this.

Post 61 – you referred to Dr. Nicolosi as a quack – NEVER addressing his successes
Post 78 – you ranted about Dr. Nicolosi’s incompetence and again didn’t bother to comment on his successes.
Post 158 – you again accused me of hatred and vitriol against homosexuals to veer the conversation away from the OP
Post 370 – you called my comparison of different mortal sins, “spiteful”. I was showing you a clear teaching of the Catholic Church, yet again, you tried to steer the conversation against me personally.
Post 372 – more of the same and again in Posts 377, 379.
Post 398 – you indicated that kissing wasn’t a sin at all. The only type of kissing that we were talking about was *homosexual *kissing, which is ALWAYS sinful. You also twisted my words regarding murder and homosexual behavior and inserted the prefix “mass” before the word “murder” in an attempt to once again, veer the conversation away from the grave matter of homosexual behavior.
Post 407 – you again downplay the comparison of girls kissing each other to murderers. This is AFTER I repeatedly gave you the Church’s position on the effects of mortal sin. I couldn’t have been more clear that ALL unrepented mortal sin carries with it an eternity in hell.

Finally – in Post 423, you made the statement, “… at some point every person must decide what is right and wrong.”****
This is perhaps the most clear-cut, morally relativist statement you have made. **
Right is RIGHT and wrong is WRONG – regardless of whether WE** decide that they are.**

Thank you for going to the trouble of tracking those down. I don’t think that exposing Dr. Nicolosi has anything to do with any statement about homosexuality. My intention was to expose him as a dangerous medical practitioner in the opinion the APA, which is the organization which governs professional standards in his field. My concern is that people would be foolish enough to take the risk of going to a person of his caliber, in the hopes of finding a “cure” which does not exist.

If Dr. Nicolosi were successful, in the opinion of his professional peers, I doubt that they would have publicly condemned his professional practices. That is a nearly unprecedented action. I suppose some people might list this accomplishment as one of his successes. It is certainly a rare event, and not easy to achieve while maintaining a professional license. It might show how reticent professional organizations are to revoke a license. I know that this a problem with physicians, anyway. There are many physicians who are known to be incompetent by their peers, yet no action is taken to revoke their licenses.

Yes. I still feel that for the purpose of rhetoric, comparing murder to two girls kissing is an intentionally spiteful analogy. There were plenty of other analogies available which are more apt. Your insistence that there is no difference between a kiss and murder is disingenuous, in my opinion.

My point has always been that we all must engage in “moral relativism”. You point out yourself that you would commit a mortal sin in order to make your wife feel good. This is precisely what you accuse others of doing.

I have never disagreed with you that the Church classes any sexual activity outside of marriage as a mortal sin. This includes masturbation, adultery, same sex activity, and so on. In my own life, I am celibate, not that it is anyone else’s business. I also stand up to bullies and prejudicial statements. If I over-reacted to some of your statements, then I apologize.

I would also hope that in the spirit of understanding each other, you will understand my objection to the murder analogy… and that it was not even the word murder, but the graphic image of slitting the throat. I have seen a corpse whose throat was slit, and also corpses who were beheaded. I have witnessed one beheading. Perhaps my own experience leads me to over-react. I would hope that you would consider that such words have power.

 

[Peepers]

No – I would disagree with you that ALL lying is grave – and so would the Church. Whereas all lying is inherently wrong – it is NOT all grave or mortal.

**Whereas using your company printer to send a letter to your friend may be a venial **sin - robbing abank and shooting the clerk would qualify as grave sin.

That’s not what I said at all. Once again, you are trying to twist my words. I never** said that some lying is okay and some lying was grave. **
Read my response above . . .

Hmmmm. That seems tantamount to saying that the Church endorses moral relativism. I am still researching it, but it seems to me from what I have found so far that the Church has been a strong proponent of moral relativism, up until John Paul II who started talking about it, and then Gregory XVI took it up with more vigor. This appears to be a radical and profound change in the direction that the Church is going.

I agree that they may be an immutable moral standard by which to measure out actions. However, we make choices in potential outcomes moment by moment. There is a commandment about lying. It stands to reason that all commandments describe a mortal sin. Then to qualify that, is to say… yes there is a standard, however we will apply a modifier which is to make the behavior relative to the circumstances. The commandment itself is very clear. There is no ambiguity to it. Yet, your claim is that our behavior does not have an absolute standard with respect to lying. In this respect, we agree.

Do you feel that is a distortion of your words?

 

[Peepers]

I know that killing for one’s country is not murder, that’s the point of my analogy - congratulations.

Moral relativist? How exactly am I doing that? Am I saying that homosexual acts are not sinful in certain circumstances? No I am not. I even acknowledged that two women kissing is always sinful, BUT is not always homosexual as the two women are not attracted to each other. I have two friends who are definately not homosexual, they have even made nasty comments about them. But they kissed each other to get attention from some guys in a club. It was still a SIN. It was still BAD. It was still a homosexual ACT. But they are not homosexual THEMSELVES.

Why can’t you understand that what I am saying has nothing to do with moral relativism?

I have been very well Catechised into the Catholic faith, thank you very much. Have you? Since when have I tried to disregard mortal sin as being OK? I’m tempted to put you on ignore because I have no time for posters who have groundless accusations and just appear to be full of anger.

There is this assumption by many around here that moral relativism is somehow wrong or evil. To be clear, what is being labeled as moral relativism is meta ethical moral relativism, as opposed to moral universalism. The idea of meta ethical moral relativism is that every moral standard is societal or personal, and therefore is relative to the cultural values, societal norms, or personal values of the individual.

I would propose that only a saint might not be a moral relativist. The example which has been given is the relative sinfulness of lying, in differing circumstances. I would propose that the commandment is very clear: “THOU SHALT NOT LIE” That is the universal moral standard. There is nothing ambiguous about it. It is a mortal sin to lie.

Yet, a kind person my tell his wife that she does not look fat in her new dress. A person who values the sanctity of life may lie to protect another person from certain outcomes, such as the SS men at the door looking for a Jew. Who among us (other than Kant) would say that a NET moral wrong has occurred? Yet, either a mortal sin has been committed in the lie, or there is an extenuating relative condition which mitigates the sin. However, the mitigating condition is a matter of personal conscience. I could just as easily believe that the SS men are working for the state, and the greater good of society, and that if any harm comes to my guest, then that is a secondary effect, and not at all relevant to my decision to tell the truth, or to lie. So, it is clear that the decision is relative to a very personal perspective.

This is a very slippery slope. My moral standard may be very different than yours IN PRACTICE, even if we agree on a universal moral standard in theory, and as a guide to our behavior. I would submit that even those who accuse others of the evil of moral relativism, are likely moral relativists themselves.

 

[Peepers]

This thread has forked in so many places now, but I wanted to give you my reaction to your post. I realize you are saying that parents and people in general should not be bashing gay people so the youth who may be struggling with sexual identity are not pushed to the path of confusion and despair. You have a good point there.

In this forum, among Catholics and people of other faiths, there are many who hold onto traditional values, that children are to be cherished.

I am perplexed with your statement that a gay child is not going to change and that your view seems to be along the line of full acceptance and support of the development towards homosexuality. You strongly imply that they would be served by good gay role models. I am not saying that homosexuals are bad people, or Sir John Gielgud led an unseemly life, but why promote what you are promoting?

Homosexuality is not a desirable ‘state of being’ to reach, not one that Catholic parents would want to facilitate or enable in raising their children.

Since you joined a Catholic forum and you self-identify as one ‘learning about Catholicism,’ I would like to share with you the following:

The Catholic Church, in consultation with professional psychologists, agrees that not all homosexuals can change, not the ones with deep- seated tendencies. There is no push that homosexuals change to become heterosexuals. The teaching is directed towards chastity. But in the young, especially, any homosexual tendency or condition is far from permanent. As Father Harvey of Courage said, there are curable forms thatare the result of false education, a lack of normal sexual development, habit, bad example, or other similar causes. This kind of homosexuality is believed to be transitory or at least not incurable.

So that you know and others who are following this thread know, the USCCB published
Always Our Children: A Pastoral Message to Parents of Homosexual Children and Suggestions for Pastoral Ministers, which I hope you will read. There is truth, beauty and goodness in the direction the Church has provided.

A portion of the document outlines advice to Catholic parents who have young children showing signs of sexual identity problems or struggling with orientation different from their sex:

*To Parents: *

1. Accept and love yourselves as parents in order to accept and love your son or daughter. Do not blame yourselves for a homosexual orientation in your child.
2. Do everything possible to continue demonstrating love for your child. However, accepting his or her homosexual orientation does not have to include approving of all related attitudes and behavioral choices. In fact, you may need to challenge certain aspects of a lifestyle that you find objectionable.
3. Urge your son or daughter to stay joined to the Catholic faith community. If they have left the Church, urge them to return and be reconciled to the community, especially through the sacrament of penance.
4. Recommend that your son or daughter find a spiritual director/mentor to offer guidance in prayer and in leading a chaste and virtuous life.
5. Seek help for yourself, perhaps in the form of counseling or spiritual direction, as you strive for understanding, acceptance, and inner peace. Also, consider joining a parents’ support group or participating in a retreat designed for Catholic parents of homosexual children. Other people have traveled the same road as you but may have journeyed even further. They can share effective ways of handling delicate family situations such as how to tell family members and friends about your child, how to explain homosexuality to younger children, and how to relate to your son or daughter’s friends in a Christian way.
6. Reach out in love and service to other parents struggling with a son or daughter’s homosexuality. Contact your parish about organizing a parents’ support group. Your diocesan family ministry office, Catholic Charities, or a special diocesan ministry to gay and lesbian persons may be able to offer assistance.
7. As you take advantage of opportunities for education and support, remember that you can only change yourself; you can only be responsible for your own beliefs and actions, not those of your adult children.
8. Put your faith completely in God, who is more powerful, more compassionate, and more forgiving than we are or ever could be.,

Thank you.

At no time have I “promoted” homosexuality. Human sexuality is complex. A gay person is a gay person. A lot is known about that, and the knowledge base continues to grow. The mysteries of how a person’s sexual orientation is formed may be known one day, and it may not be.

My point was that gay kids are particularly vulnerable, and that their parents should be supportive. That is all that I said.

If you browse this thread, one poster has actually likened a kiss to the act of slitting another person’s throat, and then retreated from accepting responsibility for such a hateful comparison as to say… “I am a parrot for the Church, it is a mortal sin, so there is no difference between the acts” I would submit this as an example of bigotry. The gay child of any parent who overheard his or her parent comparing homosexuality to the violent act of slitting another person’s throat is not likely to seek support or counsel from such a person. Any psychologist here who disagrees with that statement, feel free to jump in here. This is where education is important.

 

[Peepers]

There is this assumption by many around here that moral relativism is somehow wrong or evil. To be clear, what is being labeled as moral relativism is meta ethical moral relativism, as opposed to moral universalism. The idea of meta ethical moral relativism is that every moral standard is societal or personal, and therefore is relative to the cultural values, societal norms, or personal values of the individual.

I would propose that only a saint might not be a moral relativist. The example which has been given is the relative sinfulness of lying, in differing circumstances. I would propose that the commandment is very clear: “THOU SHALT NOT LIE” That is the universal moral standard. There is nothing ambiguous about it. It is a mortal sin to lie.

Yet, a kind person my tell his wife that she does not look fat in her new dress. A person who values the sanctity of life may lie to protect another person from certain outcomes, such as the SS men at the door looking for a Jew. Who among us (other than Kant) would say that a NET moral wrong has occurred? Yet, either a mortal sin has been committed in the lie, or there is an extenuating relative condition which mitigates the sin. However, the mitigating condition is a matter of personal conscience. I could just as easily believe that the SS men are working for the state, and the greater good of society, and that if any harm comes to my guest, then that is a secondary effect, and not at all relevant to my decision to tell the truth, or to lie. So, it is clear that the decision is relative to a very personal perspective.

This is a very slippery slope. My moral standard may be very different than yours IN PRACTICE, even if we agree on a universal moral standard in theory, and as a guide to our behavior. I would submit that even those who accuse others of the evil of moral relativism, are likely moral relativists themselves.

Oh… and I meant to mention. Do you think it would be better for gay kids to have positive role models, or not? They can find a porn on the Internet, and sites promoting a sexually active lifestyle, free gay newspapers on any college campus, demonstrations for gay marriage, and so on… Which is better, a vacuum as an alternative? Gay people as a general rule do not “out” other gay people. It is a complicated and personal decision to make, as to how open to be about one’s sexuality. But I do wonder why so few gay priests are out and open about their sexuality. What could be more supportive for a young gay catholic than the example of a celibate gay man leading a spiritual life? Yet, these role models are invisible.

Straight kids have role models all around them. A gay kid knows that none of that is going to be his or her life. So, why be opposed to positive role models which are an alternative to the lifestyle which the Church would call sinful?

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Thank you.

At no time have I “promoted” homosexuality. Human sexuality is complex. A gay person is a gay person. A lot is known about that, and the knowledge base continues to grow. The mysteries of how a person’s sexual orientation is formed may be known one day, and it may not be.

My point was that gay kids are particularly vulnerable, and that their parents should be supportive. That is all that I said.

If you browse this thread, one poster has actually likened a kiss to the act of slitting another person’s throat, and then retreated from accepting responsibility for such a hateful comparison as to say… “I am a parrot for the Church, it is a mortal sin, so there is no difference between the acts” I would submit this as an example of bigotry. The gay child of any parent who overheard his or her parent comparing homosexuality to the violent act of slitting another person’s throat is not likely to seek support or counsel from such a person. Any psychologist here who disagrees with that statement, feel free to jump in here. This is where education is important.

Your clarification is appreciated. Indeed human sexuality is complex. Kindly answer this: Should science prove that homosexuality has a genetic or biological link, do you expect the Church to change its teaching that homosexual acts are sinful or wrong?

Oh… and I meant to mention. Do you think it would be better for gay kids to have positive role models, or not? They can find a porn on the Internet, and sites promoting a sexually active lifestyle, free gay newspapers on any college campus, demonstrations for gay marriage, and so on… Which is better, a vacuum as an alternative? Gay people as a general rule do not “out” other gay people. It is a complicated and personal decision to make, as to how open to be about one’s sexuality. But I do wonder why so few gay priests are out and open about their sexuality. What could be more supportive for a young gay catholic than the example of a celibate gay man leading a spiritual life? Yet, these role models are invisible.

Straight kids have role models all around them. A gay kid knows that none of that is going to be his or her life. So, why be opposed to positive role models which are an alternative to the lifestyle which the Church would call sinful?

I realize you directed the above to Elvisman; however, let me offer my comments to a couple of things in your post.

It would be a big distraction to a priest who is gay and true to his vow of chastity and the people he serves if he were to put himself out as a gay role model, wouldn’t you think? His sexual orientation would be front and center instead of what needs to be achieved in his ministry. The Church and the priest himself expects that he will be chaste and forsake all sexual pleasures. Period. Surely, you understand that it would not be the same as with one who has a secular career in the world.

As an aside, but related to the topic, this is Pope Benedict’s position on homosexual seminarians and those already ordained:
*Homosexual men should not be admitted to seminaries even if they are celibate, because their condition suggests a serious personality disorder which detracts from their ability to serve as ministers.

Priests who have already been ordained, if they suffer from homosexual impulses, are strongly urged to renew their dedication to chastity, and a manner of life appropriate to the priesthood. *
Now before you suggest that there has been a change in Church teaching or policy on this, this is what should be understood:
The Instruction does not represent a change in Church teaching or policy. Catholic leaders have consistently taught that homosexual men should not be ordained to the priesthood. Pope John XXIII approved a formal policy to that effect, which still remains in effect. However, during the 1970s and 1980s, that policy was widely ignored, particularly in North America. The resulting crisis in the priesthood prompted Pope John Paul II to call for a new study on the question.
Btw, Sir John Gielgud, while not a pro-gay activist during his illustrious career, lived openly with a man or string of men. At least that’s what his biography reportedly indicates.

Perhaps to non-Catholics, having a gay role model is understandable. But it would be a curious or contradiction in terms or practice of the Catholic faith. Maybe I am misunderstanding your last question. But indulging in sex, whether heterosexual or homosexual is a private, private thing, and investigating whether one is celibate or not is hardly a worthwhile undertaking. Just saying.
,

 

[Peepers]

Your clarification is appreciated. Indeed human sexuality is complex. Kindly answer this: Should science prove that homosexuality has a genetic or biological link, do you expect the Church to change its teaching that homosexual acts are sinful or wrong?

I realize you directed the above to Elvisman; however, let me offer my comments to a couple of things in your post.

It would be a big distraction to a priest who is gay and true to his vow of chastity and the people he serves if he were to put himself out as a gay role model, wouldn’t you think? His sexual orientation would be front and center instead of what needs to be achieved in his ministry. The Church and the priest himself expects that he will be chaste and forsake all sexual desires. Period. Surely, you understand that it would not be the same as with one who has a secular career in the world.

As an aside, but related to the topic, this is Pope Benedict’s position on homosexual seminarians and those who were already ordained:
*Homosexual men should not be admitted to seminaries even if they are celibate, because their condition suggests a serious personality disorder which detracts from their ability to serve as ministers.

Priests who have already been ordained, if they suffer from homosexual impulses, are strongly urged to renew their dedication to chastity, and a manner of life appropriate to the priesthood. *
Now before you suggest that there has been a change in Church teaching or policy on this, this is what should be understood:*The Instruction does not represent a change in Church teaching or policy. Catholic leaders have consistently taught that homosexual men should not be ordained to the priesthood. Pope John XXIII approved a formal policy to that effect, which still remains in effect. However, during the 1970s and 1980s, that policy was widely ignored, particularly in North America. The resulting crisis in the priesthood prompted Pope John Paul II to call for a new study on the question.*Btw, Sir John Gielgud, while not a pro-gay activist during his illustrious career, lived openly with a man or string of men. At least that’s what his biography reportedly indicates.

Perhaps to non-Catholics, having a gay role model is understandable. But it would be a curious or contradiction in terms or practice of the Catholic faith. Maybe I am misunderstanding your last question. But indulging in sex, whether heterosexual or homosexual is a private, private thing, and investigating whether one is celibate or not is hardly a worthwhile undertaking. Just saying.
,

I would hardly expect a gay priest to be an activist or to draw particular attention to himself. Perhaps the example was not the best one, but there are gay priests. I have known several. One of them felt that he had to leave the Catholic Church, unfortunately for him and the Church.

Yes, I know that Pope Benedict has reacted to the child molestation problem by trying to eliminate gay priests from coming aboard. I doubt that this will work much better than it did for the military. Consider for a moment that a gay Catholic is already celibate, and if probably comfortable living in the company of men. If he has the calling, he may just do what gay soldiers have done who wanted to server their country.

I did not mean to suggest that the Church has changed its doctrine on homosexuality. But it has on other topics such as slavery, as far as I know. I don’t hold myself out to be an expert on Church doctrine. I am still learning about it and forming my opinions.

I have no idea what the Church will do, if a gay sexual orientation is discovered at some time to be a purely biological condition. I question that will ever happen, but as a hypothetical… it would propose some interesting questions. I would think that Catholics would look to the Church for answers to such questions as, why would God create sexual beings, and then prohibit them from realizing the full potential of their sexuality? I would think this might bring into question the Church’s view on (“non-disordered”) sex being explicitly procreative in nature. The sexual love that gay people feel is not substantively different than the love that straight people feel. The Church would have to address the issue of why she teaches that unitive sex is not sufficient, in order to come to terms with the science. On the other hand, the Church has never taught that masturbation is permissible, even though it is now known to be a healthy and normal activity scientifically. In fact from a health point of view, there is sufficient evidence to conclude that a lack of sexual activity, either through masturbation or otherwise increased cancer rates in men, and decreases vaginal health in women. I don’t know of any studies correlating sexual activity with cancer in women, other than as related to cancer causing STD’s. I can only speculate how the Church might respond to such information. I think the lesson was learned with Galileo, and the Church has been very cautious about making scientific pronouncements, and so on.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…
I have no idea what the Church will do, if a gay sexual orientation is discovered at some time to be a purely biological condition. I question that will ever happen, but as a hypothetical… it would propose some interesting questions. I would think that Catholics would look to the Church for answers to such questions as, why would God create sexual beings, and then prohibit them from realizing the full potential of their sexuality? I would think this might bring into question the Church’s view on (“non-disordered”) sex being explicitly procreative in nature. The sexual love that gay people feel is not substantively different than the love that straight people feel. The Church would have to address the issue of why she teaches that unitive sex is not sufficient, in order to come to terms with the science. On the other hand, the Church has never taught that masturbation is permissible, even though it is now known to be a healthy and normal activity scientifically. In fact from a health point of view, there is sufficient evidence to conclude that a lack of sexual activity, either through masturbation or otherwise increased cancer rates in men, and decreases vaginal health in women. I don’t know of any studies correlating sexual activity with cancer in women, other than as related to cancer causing STD’s. I can only speculate how the Church might respond to such information. I think the lesson was learned with Galileo, and the Church has been very cautious about making scientific pronouncements, and so on.

I did not ask if you know what the Church will do should there be a discovery of a genetic / biological link to homosexuality. I addressed it already in an earlier post, which you may have missed. What I asked is if you would then expect the Church to change its teaching that homosexual acts are sinful or wrong?
,

 

[Peepers]

I did not ask if you know what the Church will do should there be a discovery of a genetic / biological link to homosexuality. I addressed it already in an earlier post, which you may have missed. What I asked is if you would then expect the Church to change its teaching that homosexual acts are sinful or wrong?
,

I would expect the Church to review its teachings in light of any new scientific evidence of that sort, in order to determine if the new discovery had any moral significance. I have no expectation of the Church other than that it be responsible as an institution which is a source of moral authority and of spiritual guidance to people. I would not presume to have an expectation that the Church would change any of its teachings from a moral perspective. Having said that, in light of how the Church has changed its teachings in the past to reflect the changes in society around it, it would not surprise me if it evolved to a somewhat different teaching over time. It is popular here to say that Church teaching does not fundamentally change. Based on my research to date, it changes substantively but slowly. Otherwise, it would not have survived as long as it has, and as successfully as a political institution as it has.

So, the short answer is that while I would not expect it to happen, it would not surprise me if it happened slowly over time as older priests died off. The whole gay rights thing in the secular world is more generational than anything else. Attitudes change. Knowledge increases. Institutions change slowly as the population changes. Anyone who thinks that the Church is immune to that societal process, is either naive or in denial, in my opinion.

 

[Peepers]

I would like to add, that since you asked my opinion of change in the Church, and my expectations, that the only time that I have been directly critical of the Church or any of its clergy (including the Pope), is when it was clear to me that they failed to live up to their responsibility of moral or spiritual leadership. The way that the child molestation thing was handled was more out of political and financial consideration, then out of concern for moral responsibility. I would have expected that of a politician or a businessman, but not a moral leader.As I have said in another post, the true test of moral integrity is not as I sit here typing a comment, but when a moral decision can have a direct and important, perhaps even life and death, effect in my life. As a Marine, I learned to make life and death decisions, and to do my best to conduct myself to a higher standard when the stakes were higher. There were others who succumbed to baser impulses of power and revenge. So while I understand that those who made decisions in the matter were only human, as the leaders of the Church there was a higher standard for them to consider, then the one that they chose, apparently. Other than that, I have never been critical of the Church.

I have at times decided that I could not in good conscience be any part of the Catholic Church, which has resulted in anger and sadness, as well as plenty of rationalization and self righteousness. But that was more about me and my level of maturity and spiritual growth at the time than is was about the Church.

 

[Elizabeth502]

IYes, I know that Pope Benedict has reacted to the child molestation problem by trying to eliminate gay priests from coming aboard.

Pope Benedict’s elimination of a culture of homosexuality within the priesthood is a different issue than the issue of clergy molestation. Molesters, priests and laity, are found among heterosexuals (male to male and male to female) and among homosexuals (male to male), but the issue of gay subcultures within seminaries and the problem of ‘deep-seated homosexual tendencies’ was addressed here:

It is very important to understand that the Church is not speaking about people who simply have same-sex attractions. She’s speaking about those who have several serious impairments:

1. Actively gay
2. Embrace or support the gay lifestyle/culture
3. Deep seated homosexual tendencies (this means more than same-sex attractions. This is a person who identifies himself or herself as gay). When this becomes your identity, then there is a very serious problem here. Heterosexuals do not identify themselves as heterosexuals. They identify themselves as males and females. A person with same-sex attraction must be able to see himself as a whole person, not identify himself by his sexual attraction. Unless he can see himself as a whole person, he cannot relate to members of both genders in a healthy and appropriate way.
4. Those who struggle to remain chaste. If this is a struggle for the individual, he or she is not a good candidate for either the priesthood or the religious life. Everyone struggles with temptations. The Church is not saying that a priest or religious must be someone who never struggles with temptations. That would be unrealistic. The Church is speaking about the person for whom sexual temptation are a cross.

As to the publicity of the attraction there is something to be considered here. Someone posted it above. If one is celibate and comfortable in one’s celibate state, why should one’s sexual feelings come out into the public forum? Whethere you have same-sex attraction or opposite-sex attractions, this is not a topic for public discussion.

The OP also asked about someone who had come out earlier in life and now wants to become a priest or a brother. That person is disqualified. The very act of coming out is a statement that says to the world that I embrace my sexual attractions, am proud of it, and I don’t care what the world thinks. Otherwise, the person would have exercised some discretion. The act of coming out reveals a deep seated homosexual orientation as well as some difficulties with discretion. Such a person is not a good candidate for either priesthood or religious life.

The Church still loves this person and wants him or her to remain a part of the Church. But the person has identified himself according to his sexual attractions, rather than as a whole man or whole woman. That’s the whole problem with the gay movement. When you identify yourself as gay, you’re making a public display of your sexuality as if that were the defining trait in your humanity and you’re throwing off the balance in your life, because you’re much more than just a sexual being. This is what the Church calls “deep seated”. It becomes an identity, rather than a sexual attraction. I explain it as a sexual orientation that is blown out of proportion.

It’s a very complex issue and there is no perfect answer. Even the guidelines that the Church provides for religious orders and diocesan seminaries, she’s very careful to point out that novice masters for religious and formators of seminarians must really watch what happens in the day to day life in community. In the end, there is not perfect answer that fits every individual. The same struggles with sexuality can be found in heterosexuals. What a formator is looking at is whether there is a struggle. If there is, then the perosn is not suited for this life or for the priesthood, unless the struggle disappears for at least three years, I believe is the number.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=446153

What happened in the 1980’s and '90’s was the proliferation of a subculture of ‘exclusivity’ in seminaries, by which gays not suited to the priesthood, but seeking a male atmosphere more social than spiritual, and an extension of the gay activism that was being reflected in the secular environment (sexually acted out and politically ‘celebrated’) were “using” the seminary for such purposes. It was discouraging heterosexual males from entering selected seminaries where this was rampant, and it was introducing a morale problem to those candidates who were sincere about celibacy and who wanted to learn the witness of generosity toward both genders which celibacy promotes. Celibacy is a call to universal affection, not to a gay men’s club, which many seminaries, at least in this country, were becoming, at that time.

There will always be, in every walk of life. “men’s men” and “women’s men.” In the parish I attend most often, there are two priests, one of each of those. It’s hysterical looking at their Confession lines. In the one for the priest who is the “man’s man,” there is a mixture of males and females, slightly more males to females. In the other priest’s Confession line, there are almost exclusively females. But note that both genders are indeed present in the other line. (When out of the Confessional, both priests relate well to both genders; the woman’s man is considerably quieter and gentler; that’s all. )

The crisis of sexual abuse has been largely a crisis of protection, inaction, negligence, lack of awareness, and the worst loopholes in bureaucracy. The Pope is interested in that crisis as well.

 

[elvisman]

Hmmmm. That seems tantamount to saying that the Church endorses moral relativism. I am still researching it, but it seems to me from what I have found so far that the Church has been a strong proponent of moral relativism, up until John Paul II who started talking about it, and then Gregory XVI took it up with more vigor. This appears to be a radical and profound change in the direction that the Church is going.

I disagree with you. The Church has never been a proponent of moral relativism and I don’t even know where you’re getting this. I suspect it’s simply another ploy to derail the topic - which about the effects of radical feminism on homosexuality - not about moral relativism.

I agree that they may be an immutable moral standard by which to measure out actions. However, we make choices in potential outcomes moment by moment. There is a commandment about lying. It stands to reason that all commandments describe a mortal sin. Then to qualify that, is to say… yes there is a standard, however we will apply a modifier which is to make the behavior relative to the circumstances. The commandment itself is very clear. There is no ambiguity to it. Yet, your claim is that our behavior does not have an absolute standard with respect to lying. In this respect, we agree.

Do you feel that is a distortion of your words?

**I absolutely do. **
Killing a person who is threatening your life or the lives of your family is not a violation of the Fifth Commandment. Yes, you killed somebody, but it was in self defense and you have an obligation to protect them. This is not an issue of moral relativism, yet it seems to directly violate the Fifth Commandment.

As I stated earlier - EVERY, single, solitary sin that we commit is a violation of one of the commandments. Some lesser violations, such as the one I gave about using the company printer to send a letter are considered VENIAL sins. A grave violation of this commandment - as I have already stated - would be robbing a bank.

 

[Peepers]

I disagree with you. The Church has never been a proponent of moral relativism and I don’t even know where you’re getting this. I suspect it’s simply another ploy to derail the topic - which about the effects of radical feminism on homosexuality - not about moral relativism.

I absolutely do.
Killing a person who is threatening your life or the lives of your family is not a violation of the Fifth Commandment. Yes, you killed somebody, but it was in self defense and you have an obligation to protect them. This is not an issue of moral relativism, yet it seems to directly violate the Fifth Commandment.

As I stated earlier - EVERY, single, solitary sin that we commit is a violation of one of the commandments. Some lesser violations, such as the one I gave about using the company printer to send a letter are considered VENIAL sins. A grave violation of this commandment - as I have already stated - would be robbing a bank.

Yes, Elvis… I am full of insidious ploys to derail the topic. Actually, I was only pointing out where you engage in the same moral relativism which you accuse everyone else of. You are the one who brought it up, and now that the spotlight is on you, you try to derail the topic by pointing at me. The facts are, as you freely admit, that you believe that it is OK to lie, under certain circumstances. Lying is always a mortal sin. It is a commandment. You would have us believe that according to your personal judgment, that you may lie according to the outcome which you hope to achieve.

Now, don’t try to derail the topic again. Tell us why it is OK for you to engage in moral relativism, while you accuse others in derogatory terms of doing the same thing that you do. Please be direct in your response, and talk about yourself, not about others.

 

[elvisman]

Thank you for going to the trouble of tracking those down. I don’t think that exposing Dr. Nicolosi has anything to do with any statement about homosexuality. My intention was to expose him as a dangerous medical practitioner in the opinion the APA, which is the organization which governs professional standards in his field. My concern is that people would be foolish enough to take the risk of going to a person of his caliber, in the hopes of finding a “cure” which does not exist.

If Dr. Nicolosi were successful, in the opinion of his professional peers, I doubt that they would have publicly condemned his professional practices. That is a nearly unprecedented action. I suppose some people might list this accomplishment as one of his successes. It is certainly a rare event, and not easy to achieve while maintaining a professional license. It might show how reticent professional organizations are to revoke a license. I know that this a problem with physicians, anyway. There are many physicians who are known to be incompetent by their peers, yet no action is taken to revoke their licenses.

Again - he has experienced much success - whether or not you or the APA likes it.
**I work in the publishing of Behavioral Science journals and read a lot of them. The main contributors to the journals of the APA are college and university professors. NONE of them ever likes a researcher who goes against the grain because it does not agree with their indoctrination tactics of their students. **

You would have to be blind tyo say that the university system in this country is not a haven for leftist ideas, including socialism, and exclusive “rights” for those with gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender issues.

You would also have to be blind to say - especially with all of the quotes provided early on in this thread by modern-day feminists - that the status quo of the radical feminist movement is not heavily influenced by a rabid, man-hating, lesbian agenda.

Yes. I still feel that for the purpose of rhetoric, comparing murder to two girls kissing is an intentionally spiteful analogy. There were plenty of other analogies available which are more apt. Your insistence that there is no difference between a kiss and murder is disingenuous, in my opinion.

My point has always been that we all must engage in “moral relativism”. You point out yourself that you would commit a mortal sin in order to make your wife feel good. This is precisely what you accuse others of doing.

I have never disagreed with you that the Church classes any sexual activity outside of marriage as a mortal sin. This includes masturbation, adultery, same sex activity, and so on. In my own life, I am celibate, not that it is anyone else’s business. I also stand up to bullies and prejudicial statements. If I over-reacted to some of your statements, then I apologize.

I would also hope that in the spirit of understanding each other, you will understand my objection to the murder analogy… and that it was not even the word murder, but the graphic image of slitting the throat. I have seen a corpse whose throat was slit, and also corpses who were beheaded. I have witnessed one beheading. Perhaps my own experience leads me to over-react. I would hope that you would consider that such words have power.

I see your point about the picture I painted with the analogy of slitting one’s throat. If I offended you, I apologize - especially to somebody like you who has witnessed the horrors of war.

However, the fact is that the Church - as I have already stated ad nauseam - teaches that ANY unrepented mortal sin will get you the same punishment of Hell. It doesn’t matter if it is homosexual sex, fornication or killing 100 people.
Mortal sin is mortal sin and the wages of mortal sin is to be cut off from God’s grace (1 John 5:16).

 

[elvisman]

Yes, Elvis… I am full of insidious ploys to derail the topic. Actually, I was only pointing out where you engage in the same moral relativism which you accuse everyone else of. You are the one who brought it up, and now that the spotlight is on you, you try to derail the topic by pointing at me. The facts are, as you freely admit, that you believe that it is OK to lie, under certain circumstances. Lying is always a mortal sin. It is a commandment. You would have us believe that according to your personal judgment, that you may lie according to the outcome which you hope to achieve.

Now, don’t try to derail the topic again. Tell us why it is OK for you to engage in moral relativism, while you accuse others in derogatory terms of doing the same thing that you do. Please be direct in your response, and talk about yourself, not about others.

It is blindingly clear that you have no idea what mortal sin is. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

---

**1854 Sins are rightly evaluated according to their gravity. The distinction between mortal and venial sin, already evident in Scripture, became part of the tradition of the Church. It is corroborated by human experience. **

---

**1855 Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God’s law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him. **

---

**Venial sin allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it. **

---

As I told you before - I never lie on this forum. I simply present the Church’s position.

 

[Peepers]

Pope Benedict’s elimination of a culture of homosexuality within the priesthood is a different issue than the issue of clergy molestation. Molesters, priests and laity, are found among heterosexuals (male to male and male to female) and among homosexuals (male to male), but the issue of gay subcultures within seminaries and the problem of ‘deep-seated homosexual tendencies’ was addressed here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=446153

What happened in the 1980’s and '90’s was the proliferation of a subculture of ‘exclusivity’ in seminaries, by which gays not suited to the priesthood, but seeking a male atmosphere more social than spiritual, and an extension of the gay activism that was being reflected in the secular environment (sexually acted out and politically ‘celebrated’) were “using” the seminary for such purposes. It was discouraging heterosexual males from entering selected seminaries where this was rampant, and it was introducing a morale problem to those candidates who were sincere about celibacy and who wanted to learn the witness of generosity toward both genders which celibacy promotes. Celibacy is a call to universal affection, not to a gay men’s club, which many seminaries, at least in this country, were becoming, at that time.

There will always be, in every walk of life. “men’s men” and “women’s men.” In the parish I attend most often, there are two priests, one of each of those. It’s hysterical looking at their Confession lines. In the one for the priest who is the “man’s man,” there is a mixture of males and females, slightly more males to females. In the other priest’s Confession line, there are almost exclusively females. But note that both genders are indeed present in the other line. (When out of the Confessional, both priests relate well to both genders; the woman’s man is considerably quieter and gentler; that’s all. )

The crisis of sexual abuse has been largely a crisis of protection, inaction, negligence, lack of awareness, and the worst loopholes in bureaucracy. The Pope is interested in that crisis as well.

Uhmm… the whole child molestation issue is a touchy one, considering how it was covered up, and who was involved. Obviously, I am not privy to what happened behind closed doors. The public face of it is that the Church utterly and completely failed to step up to the plate as a moral leader. The response was to minimize public relations damage, and to minimize financial damage. Hopefully, ad Benedict XVI has gained some perspective on that, then the Church will regain a position of moral leadership which it lost under the pressure of the scandal. The most disappointing aspect of it all is that the true moral test is when one is tested under adversity. The Church really did fail that test, in my opinion. I also believe in redemption. Hopefully, enough time has passed that a position of moral leadership on the issue has been assumed again. It is not the first time in the history of the Church that it has failed. Yet, it recovers and recovers its moral compass. But I am not sure that beating this dead horse has much value either.

I imagine that Pope Benedict’s attempt to eliminate the culture of homosexuality in the priesthood will be ineffective. What can he do? People who are called will become priests. Homosexuals are attracted to the priesthood for a variety of reasons. The analogy might not be perfect, but every president inherits the military and the federal bureaucracy, which precede him and succeed him. No matter how the president tries to change the culture, his efforts are in vain. The Church is as much a political institution as a spiritual one. The Pope is proscribed by that, regardless of fantasies to the contrary. He rose to his position through the bureaucracy, and now he is subject to the same master/slave dialectic which is built into such an institution.

 

[cathoichelp]

I do

Cathoichelp, I don’t mind sparring with you in this forum. However, you simply throw a lot on the wall, hoping some would stick. For instance, upthread, you posted in reply to mine claims that the Dutch studies I cited were done by NARTH. I asked you to provide proof of it here in post #396. You have not gotten back to me. Is it because there is no evidence supporting your claim?
,

I’m sorry I haven’t been online much and didn’t see this - Theo G. M. Sandfort, and Ron de Graaf,
are funded by the Dutch Ministry of Public Health -
Which brings us to Joseph Nicolosi
Who was a founder of the mess we call NARTH

none of these studies are highly regarded by anyone other than those w a serious religious bias.

I apologize “done by” was terribly ambiguous -

 

[Peepers]

I apologize, Elvis. I often log on here rapidly, and I respond rapidly because I am very busy with other things.

So, your claim is that every sin is a violation of a commandment, yet some are venial and some are mortal. Let’s put aside the fact that I have killed people for a moment. That is complicated to consider, in light of self defense, government, just war… the topics are weighty.

Would you please tell me what your understanding is of when it is a lesser evil to lie, or when it is not permissible to lie? Hmmm… even that question smacks of a trap. Sorry. Would you please tell me how you interpret lying, and I mean, when is lying a venial sin, and when is it a mortal sin? How do you decide the difference, if it is not moral relativism? Where is the absolute standard which you apply to such a decision?

 

[cathoichelp]

Insearchoflight -
it stands to reason that a homosexual catholic would be more prone to depression -
People naturally crave partnership - gay catholics are told their cross to bear is celibacy …
If I presented you w an infertile Catholic woman who was depressed would her depression shock you? Would it seem unnatural to you to be depressed as a women if your cross to bear was not having children …
There are medical options but that is immoral so her longing is never fulfilled.

It also stands to reason that any child who is not accepted teased or bullied or made to feel like something is “wrong” with them or completely undesirable - not only by their community family or peers but by God himself would be more prone to depression and suicide.

We have middle school children committing suicide. That is insane. Many of these kids were not “gay” - yet they were teased for being such … that does not make it true-
So is the problem w. that child? Is the problem w a boy who was not great at sports and labeled as gay at 11… or with the children who are treating their peers this way.
Where does that kind of intolerance and gender bias come from?

 

[InSearchofGrace]

I’m sorry I haven’t been online much and didn’t see this - Theo G. M. Sandfort, and Ron de Graaf,
are funded by the Dutch Ministry of Public Health -
Which brings us to Joseph Nicolosi
Who was a founder of the mess we call NARTH

none of these studies are highly regarded by anyone other than those w a serious religious bias.

I apologize “done by” was terribly ambiguous -

You have not made the connection of the Netherlands Ministry of Public Health with Dr. Nicolosi or the group that you habitually disparage for not falling in line with the APA, notwithstanding its own following even after mainstream professionals continously discredit it.

Just provide a cite of a credible link or source instead of making a representation please and we can put your claim to bed with my thanks.
,