F
fish90
Guest
My sincere apologies to you.
You are dead on in your reply. The part about Jesuits was a little shaky however.
- Status
You are dead on in your reply. The part about Jesuits was a little shaky however.
O
onthenarrowpath
Guest
Wow. As sinners, we were powerless in our attempts to please God. There was nothing we could do that would impress Him, nor please Him, nor make up for our sinful natures. So Jesus died in our place, because only HE could do what we could not.
And now to find out there is something else about me, which I did NOT choose, that still damns me.
Man…gotta LOVE Catholicism.
It’s a good thing I know God has been with me in my life, despite the fact that I’ve been attracted to the same-sex since I was 15 and have known for a genuine FACT that I did NOT choose that attraction. Amazing how in these past 17 years that I’ve been celibate, and believed that God was with me and has spoken to my heart and spirit, that I’ve actually been lost and headed straight for hell.
It must be a total joy to be straight. With all that adultery, fornication, child abuse, and divorce, straight people still have it made. They don’t have to struggle, claw and fight on a daily basis against something core in their souls that just won’t go away. I may as well go jump off a cliff, because apparently there is nothing that can be done for me. I’ve cried out to God to help me stop being attracted to the same sex, and yet I still am. I must truly be a hopeless waste of human flesh.
Oh, BTW…if there is a moderator reading this post, DELETE MY MEMBERSHIP HERE. I can’t stomach the lies and hatred any longer.
And now to find out there is something else about me, which I did NOT choose, that still damns me.
Man…gotta LOVE Catholicism.
It’s a good thing I know God has been with me in my life, despite the fact that I’ve been attracted to the same-sex since I was 15 and have known for a genuine FACT that I did NOT choose that attraction. Amazing how in these past 17 years that I’ve been celibate, and believed that God was with me and has spoken to my heart and spirit, that I’ve actually been lost and headed straight for hell.
It must be a total joy to be straight. With all that adultery, fornication, child abuse, and divorce, straight people still have it made. They don’t have to struggle, claw and fight on a daily basis against something core in their souls that just won’t go away. I may as well go jump off a cliff, because apparently there is nothing that can be done for me. I’ve cried out to God to help me stop being attracted to the same sex, and yet I still am. I must truly be a hopeless waste of human flesh.
Oh, BTW…if there is a moderator reading this post, DELETE MY MEMBERSHIP HERE. I can’t stomach the lies and hatred any longer.
A
Andrew1983
Guest
Understand that fornication and adultery are sins just as well and should not be held to a lower standard simply because they are committed by heterosexuals. I personally don’t agree with Other Eric’s posts with regards as to how he interprets what is in the catechism, though I plan to eventually read it myself at some point within the new year after finishing the NAB Catholic Bible.
I can only imagine what this must be like and the only equivalent struggle I can come up with is an addictive behavior. The best approach or line of thinking that I can come up with to not so much see your struggle as a burden because it can lead to almost a kind of self-pitying victimization train of thought. Instead, think of it as a challenge to conquer and destroy. The greater the challenge to overcome, the more strength and mastery you will have. This is something that I’ve been using to gradually purge myself of habitual sin.
Have faith, brother. You can do it.
May God and the whole Host of Heaven continue to provide assistance and grant you peace.
C
chrysostim83
Guest
This is the most natural reaction to much of what was said above, and I think it plainly demonstrates why the misinterpretation of Christian teachings is so heinously evil. If people who experience same sex attractions are not saved until they stop having those experiences, then honestly they might as well go jump off a cliff right now. Since suicide is really not an option for anyone, we know something has gone wrong: the plain fact of the matter is, we are saved the moment we “turn around” (an act which ordinarily requires the sacraments) and make the conscious decision to accept the gift of redemption and to enact the will of God in our lives. Frankly, that’s the end of the story, and anyone who tells you more is required is lying to you.
Since folks insist on drawing analogies between “homosexuals” and other kinds of sinners, let me suggest the most positive one I can think of. Forget about alcoholics, pederasts, and murders. The next time you hear of a gay Catholic, try to think of a divorced Catholic who is striving to live as brother and sister with his or her new spouse. Is such a Catholic sinning just by trying to live out the circumstances of his or her life? Of course not! So, those of who feel so inclined, stop pretending that gay Catholics are sinning just by experiencing same sex attraction.
F
fish90
Guest
First off, a Catholic who is divorced has no authority or permission to find another spouse unless there is an annulment or any piece of the sacrament that made the marriage invalid.
onthenarrowpath, you have all the chances available to overcome your sinful ways. Nothing is impossible with God. Good luck and I will pray for you.
onthenarrowpath, you have all the chances available to overcome your sinful ways. Nothing is impossible with God. Good luck and I will pray for you.
D
dixieagle
Guest
Please do not for a minute believe that you are “headed straight to hell”; you have been celibate, are seeking God’s path, sharing - as the Church states - in the suffering of Christ through your struggle.
Church teaching states that homosexual inclination is not a sin - only acting upon it is. Those who state otherwise - whether Cardinal or mere poster on a forum - speak only for themselves.
God bless you in your battles; I will keep you in my prayers.
P
pcg2
Guest
Are you kidding me? While I agree that nothing is impossible with God, that doesn’t mean that He’s going to come in and CHANGE their sexual tendencies. He will help them bear this cross, not take it away - partake in his suffering, not give them a free pass from it.
I don’t understand your position on this topic… it clearly states in the catechism (and is common knowledge throughout the Church) that the desire in and of itself is not sinful. And yet you somehow think that God would condemn those that (in the vast majority of cases) have no control over the matter? Sin is an ACT OF THE WILL. Although disordered, a homosexual’s desires are just as much of a “choice” as your sexual desires are.
If I have your position on this topic incorrect, please forgive me. But if you truly believe this, know that you are in my prayers and I would hope that the love of God would enter your heart and help you to see the Truth of the matter.
onthenarrowpath, please know that you are in my prayers as well. God loves you and He would never condemn you for something you don’t choose (regardless of what a few people say on an internet forum).
T
Tsuwano
Guest
I don’t understand how we can proclaim ourselves a people of hope and faith and then declare that members of any particular group, because they are members of that group, will never enter into the reign of God. The only group we may be able to say that about is the group known as “sinners,” but all of us are members of that group and yet still have hope of entering into the reign of God. If the Cardinal wishes to state that homosexuality or transexuality can be a sin, then that is one thing, but I believe the Cardinal was wrong to claim that homosexuals or transexuals, or anyone else for that matter, will never enter the reign of God. That judgement is reserved for God alone. I think it is more important to emphasize God’s inclusive love rather than make declarations the Cardinal has no way of knowing.
S
Shin
Guest
I say, very well put!
I will note that the Cardinal quoted scripture accurately, and that someone who is afflicted with homosexual temptations if that person is truly on the Catholic page will not even identify as a homosexual, because that defines a disorder as his own self – Which is aberrant.
The person is not the disorder.
For all people who battle the passions properly, hatred of the temptation along with love of God is the key for overcoming it. That means, changing delight at the temptation, or morose delectation, into habitual disgust.
Or to put it simply, ‘Hate sin, love God.’
B
BobObob
Guest
Other Eric, it is really important that you read this carefully:
You have said that ““Inner freedom” and “Christian perfection” necessarily require a sexual orientation directed towards the opposite sex,” but this is mot true. You seem to base your argument on this. One does not need all of his tendencies to be leading his towards what is good and away from what is evil in order to attain inner freedom and Christian perfection, although it may certainly help. It would seem to me that if merely experiencing samesex attraction is a sin because that does not lead to inner freedom or Christian perfection, than for a married man experiencing a sexual attraction to someone other than his wife would be a sin for the same reasons. Others mentioned that before me.
Regarding chastity, you said, “Chastity means the successful integration of sexuality within the person and thus the inner unity of man in his bodily and spiritual being”. I believe this is correct, and is what the catechism says. However, successfully integration of sexuality in someone does not require that those person not have disordered sexual temptations, but only be able to manage these disordered temptations. The married man who is sexually attracted to someone other than his wife is experiencing a disordered attraction, but that does not mean that he has not had a successful integration of sexuality.
Regarding Thomistic theology, there are things you need to consider. First, St. Thomas, although much of the catechism is influenced by him, as a private theologian is not infallible. He actually can be wrong (even though many seem to accept him as an absolute authority). Second, It is very possible to misinterpret what he says (which I’m sure you are aware). Third, even if he is interpreted correctly, that correct interpretation may be improperly applied to a particular situation.
You also tend to assume that all people who experience eroticised samesex attraction can change if they want. Someone had asked you if you knew anyone who was gay, but you dismissed that as irrelevant. I am a mental health major at a Catholic College (Franciscan University) who has done extensive research on eroticised samesex attraction and treatment for people with unwanted eroticised samesex attraction.
You mention NARTH, but you obviously don’t know much about what members of that organization say about SSA and its treatment. You seem to dismiss that lack of knowledge as irrelevant, yet assume that anyone who can change their sexual orientation can. After all of my research, I believe that while many have been able to experience a change in their orientation with help from some of these therapies, it is very obvious to me that not all who want to get rid of their unwanted SSA can. NARTH agrees with me in this respect.
You also need to take into account the fact that the development of SSA is partly due to how they are treated by others during childhood and early adolescence. Thus, the development is largely out of that persons control.
Have you heard of the Catholic group Courage? Pope John Paul II said that “Courage is doing the work of God.” It is an organization that is sanctioned by the Catholic Church that encourages Catholics with unwanted SSA to live chaste lives. This group, which is approved by the Catholic Church, does not necessarily recommend seeking reparative therapy, but is certainly not oppose it either. Remember, it was founded by a cardinal (Terence Cardinal Cooke) and condoned by Pope John Paul II, and it has chastity as its central theme, but clearly does not demand that its members change their sexual orientation (although it certainly does not discourage them from doing so either).
The view that those who experience samesex attractions do not sin in passively experiencing them is also held by many of my theology professors (I’m also a theology major).
One last thing, I have SSA. I certainly did not choose to have SSA. I have been trying to change my sexual orientation using the methods I know how to best do it, but that has not made me heterosexual. I have not become heterosexual not because I don’t have enough motivation, rather, it is because sexual orientation can be extremely difficult to change regardless of motivation.
Also, failure in reparative therapy, or any sort of therapy, is not always due to motivation. Any good psychologist will tell you that not every patient who is extremely well motivated will have a good prognosis in therapy. Many come to therapy because they are highly motivated by have minimal or no improvement in the way that was intended.
You have said that ““Inner freedom” and “Christian perfection” necessarily require a sexual orientation directed towards the opposite sex,” but this is mot true. You seem to base your argument on this. One does not need all of his tendencies to be leading his towards what is good and away from what is evil in order to attain inner freedom and Christian perfection, although it may certainly help. It would seem to me that if merely experiencing samesex attraction is a sin because that does not lead to inner freedom or Christian perfection, than for a married man experiencing a sexual attraction to someone other than his wife would be a sin for the same reasons. Others mentioned that before me.
Regarding chastity, you said, “Chastity means the successful integration of sexuality within the person and thus the inner unity of man in his bodily and spiritual being”. I believe this is correct, and is what the catechism says. However, successfully integration of sexuality in someone does not require that those person not have disordered sexual temptations, but only be able to manage these disordered temptations. The married man who is sexually attracted to someone other than his wife is experiencing a disordered attraction, but that does not mean that he has not had a successful integration of sexuality.
Regarding Thomistic theology, there are things you need to consider. First, St. Thomas, although much of the catechism is influenced by him, as a private theologian is not infallible. He actually can be wrong (even though many seem to accept him as an absolute authority). Second, It is very possible to misinterpret what he says (which I’m sure you are aware). Third, even if he is interpreted correctly, that correct interpretation may be improperly applied to a particular situation.
You also tend to assume that all people who experience eroticised samesex attraction can change if they want. Someone had asked you if you knew anyone who was gay, but you dismissed that as irrelevant. I am a mental health major at a Catholic College (Franciscan University) who has done extensive research on eroticised samesex attraction and treatment for people with unwanted eroticised samesex attraction.
You mention NARTH, but you obviously don’t know much about what members of that organization say about SSA and its treatment. You seem to dismiss that lack of knowledge as irrelevant, yet assume that anyone who can change their sexual orientation can. After all of my research, I believe that while many have been able to experience a change in their orientation with help from some of these therapies, it is very obvious to me that not all who want to get rid of their unwanted SSA can. NARTH agrees with me in this respect.
You also need to take into account the fact that the development of SSA is partly due to how they are treated by others during childhood and early adolescence. Thus, the development is largely out of that persons control.
Have you heard of the Catholic group Courage? Pope John Paul II said that “Courage is doing the work of God.” It is an organization that is sanctioned by the Catholic Church that encourages Catholics with unwanted SSA to live chaste lives. This group, which is approved by the Catholic Church, does not necessarily recommend seeking reparative therapy, but is certainly not oppose it either. Remember, it was founded by a cardinal (Terence Cardinal Cooke) and condoned by Pope John Paul II, and it has chastity as its central theme, but clearly does not demand that its members change their sexual orientation (although it certainly does not discourage them from doing so either).
The view that those who experience samesex attractions do not sin in passively experiencing them is also held by many of my theology professors (I’m also a theology major).
One last thing, I have SSA. I certainly did not choose to have SSA. I have been trying to change my sexual orientation using the methods I know how to best do it, but that has not made me heterosexual. I have not become heterosexual not because I don’t have enough motivation, rather, it is because sexual orientation can be extremely difficult to change regardless of motivation.
Also, failure in reparative therapy, or any sort of therapy, is not always due to motivation. Any good psychologist will tell you that not every patient who is extremely well motivated will have a good prognosis in therapy. Many come to therapy because they are highly motivated by have minimal or no improvement in the way that was intended.
D
dixieagle
Guest
D
dixieagle
Guest
This is an excellent, intelligent and heartfelt analysis. Thank you for it. I want you to know that you are in my prayers.
I know that this is a very difficult path; I have someone who was once very close to me who chose to leave her husband for a woman a number of years back, at a time when her children really needed her. Her life since, and the resulting relationship, has been a model of profound selfishness that flies in the face of everything holy. My respect for people like you, fighting the good fight, is boundless. God bless you.
O
Other_Eric
Guest
Code:
I hope you’ll forgive the tardiness of my response, but I did want to give your position the due consideration you felt important.It makes no sense to say that a disordered sexuality can in any way be successfully integrated within a person. I would argue that it is the attempt to do so that animates many of the homosexual apologists and their unfortunate arguments. Same-sex attractions cannot be integrated into the human person because they are an inhuman appetite. Also, your attempt to draw equivalence between married man lusting after a woman not his wife and another man lusting after a member of the same sex fails to recognize that the former still retains it desire to imitate the communion of persons that is God and the life-giving properties thereof, while the latter is merely a crude form of hedonistic craving.
You have pointed out that St. Thomas is not infallible and is capable of error, that even when correct he may be misinterpreted and that, even if those first two possibilities have not been realized, that his arguments may be improperly applied. As an abstract matter, I fully agree on all these points, yet you have not demonstrated that any one of them applies here.
As for NARTH, the etiology of same-sex attractions or any research that has been conducted on this issue, I find that the question boils down to this: is the condition of same-sex attraction immutable? NARTH has consistently held that the answer to this question is “no.” Therefore, the failure of recovery in any one case can only be attributed to lack of motivation or some other deficiency within the subject. Perhaps the individual lacks a strong character (which would explain an early inability to get on with others). What is at all times to be avoided is the idea that the subject can abdicate any sense of personal responsibility in the matter.
I am well aware of Courage and note that this wouldn’t be the first organization within the Church, which was improperly supported by elements within the hierarchy. To be frank, the organization makes a mockery of avoiding the near occasion of sin, posits a relaxed standard of chastity for its members to order their lives by and has, as you have noted, taken a spineless position on the efficacy of therapy to treat the disorder. Under the rubric of “compassion” it offers to its members a vision of life that is far less than the glory God intends for them. It is a scandalous organization.
The charitable manner of dealing with those who experience same-sex attractions is to treat them with the respect and dignity they deserve and to tell them to make the correct effort required of them. It counters this ethic when the Christian faithful begin to develop excuses for those with same-sex attractions rather than calling them to be the men and women they are called to be.
R
redrosetea
Guest
Whomever dies in a state of grace will go to heaven, regardless of past sins…we may need to spend some time in purgatory atoning for them…but purgatory is the front porch of heaven
I suspect if I am lucky I will end up in purgatory, because I know I am not good enough for heaven…
I suspect if I am lucky I will end up in purgatory, because I know I am not good enough for heaven…
D
dixieagle
Guest
Are you, indeed, familiar with Courage? It sounds to me as if you have confused it with Dignity, a pseudo-Catholic group that promotes the “GLBT” agenda.
The following is from the section of the Courage website dealing with spiritual and emotional growth. (Oops, more of that “lazy” cutting and pasting!)
“Courage offers hope and fellowship for those who wish to be faithful to the guidance of the Church in dealing with their homosexual feelings. The Church says to all who will listen: Be chaste, be heroic, live the life of sexual self-control. But the voices of temptation are very strong. Many people run with their impulses, taking a path which leads to disappointment and even death. They call that freedom, but end up slaves to their desires. Courage members find that winning the battle with temptation is the beginning of true freedom and true happiness.”
Emphasis mine. Hardly advice that a “scandalous” organization would give.
Courage is a much-needed, Church-sanctioned group which offers Truth and Hope to those with SSA. (If you are aware of misinformation disseminated by any local Courage group, then, by all means, call them out on it, specifically.) Its website minces no words, and offers nothing that conflicts with Church teaching on the subject of SSA.
I think that all of us who sin - in any way - can take comfort in the fact that it is the all-just and all-merciful God who will be judging us; I truly fear none of us would be up to your standards.
O
Other_Eric
Guest
Code:
On the contrary, I am aware of the distinction between Courage and Dignity and note that their methods vary only in the amount of Tradition they are willing to ignore. Are you aware that Courage conducts among its members so-called support groups? Picture that for a minute: a group of same-sex men coming together in private. It does not matter that they claim chastity, since by behaving in such a manner, they are in direct violation of the obligation to avoid the near occasion of sin. Such a thing is tantamount to holding an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting in a bar.
D
dixieagle
Guest
I am trying to find a charitable way to say this…but this is simply around the bend.
Your view that homosexual people - even those striving mightily to live as God wants - can’t be trusted not to throw themselves at each other at the first opportunity is deeply cynical and sad.
Perhaps I should avoid the social after Mass on Sunday, or stay home from tomorrow’s football party, lest I find myself unable to resist the attractive men who might be there. Perhaps we should all live as hermits, in huts by ourselves, because temptation is all around.
No, I have far more faith in people, and especially in God’s grace, than that.
Definitely time to sign off, as some discussions are simply too disturbing…this is one.
N
nlm
Guest
Some time ago I was told on this forum that even when one receives one’s religious education from nuns and priests ( which was my experience) this does not guarantee that the information provided was indeed correct. The poster went on to add bishops to the list of possible faulty educators in the faith. Now we read that even a cardinal’s teachings are not correct. This is a man who, by virtue of his position within the church, is involved in the choosing of Popes and could possibly become a Pope himself.How is it that individuals at this upper level do not seem to know the " official" teachings of the church? Please don’t answer that he was giving his personal opinion. When one becomes a cardinal.I would think one should learn to keep one’s opinions to one’s self and teach the “official” position of the church. God Bless. NLM
F
fish90
Guest
I do not understand your offense to my post.Are you kidding me? While I agree that nothing is impossible with God, that doesn’t mean that He’s going to come in and CHANGE their sexual tendencies. He will help them bear this cross, not take it away - partake in his suffering, not give them a free pass from it.
I don’t understand your position on this topic… it clearly states in the catechism (and is common knowledge throughout the Church) that the desire in and of itself is not sinful. And yet you somehow think that God would condemn those that (in the vast majority of cases) have no control over the matter? Sin is an ACT OF THE WILL. Although disordered, a homosexual’s desires are just as much of a “choice” as your sexual desires are.
If I have your position on this topic incorrect, please forgive me. But if you truly believe this, know that you are in my prayers and I would hope that the love of God would enter your heart and help you to see the Truth of the matter.
onthenarrowpath, please know that you are in my prayers as well. God loves you and He would never condemn you for something you don’t choose (regardless of what a few people say on an internet forum).
The first point of the post regarded divorce and what I said is what the Church teaches and what is in the bible. Please read Luke 16:18.
For the second part, I do not understand what was so offensive. Every sinner has the chance to get over their sinful ways, because God has graced us with everything we need to become Saints. Overcoming sin takes will, time and a lot of grace from God. I do not see where I neglected this.
Please read post #4 and replace celibate with chastity.
Please read post # 26 and then read post #28 from Other Eric.
I have not seen any piece of evidence that determines that I am unchristian to homosexuals. My position is that to hate the sin and love the sinner while recognizing compassion without justice is stupid.
So long as a homosexual lives in a state of chastity while trying his/her best to overcome the sin, I have no problem. I recognize that the process does bear crosses and takes a long time.
B
BobObob
Guest
I do think that inner freedom and Cristian perfection can exist alongside an influence (or temptation) to do what is grave and intrinsic evil, but I don’t think that robs those terms of any substantive meaning. I certainly don’t think that that would impoverish and minimize the redemptive work of Christ, if anything, I think it would be the opposite. If someone has a temptation to do what is intrinsically wrong, regardless of whether it is a sexual sin or another sort of sin, I think that him not acting on those temptations glorifies God more because he had to choose against his inclinations.
God can take away SSA, but sometimes it may glorify him more for those individuals who want to be rid of SSA to pick up their cross everyday and follow Him. This is the same for concupiscence in general. God could just take it away, but such disordered condition can lead us closer to Him.
Regardless of how you want to argue regarding “inner freedom” and “Christian perfection”, in order to get a better idea on interpreting what the Church means by chastity, you should look at how it is used in context in the CCC. Here are some things the catechism says about chastity:
2349 “People should cultivate chastity in the way that is suited to their state of life…Married people are called to live conjugal chastity, others practice chastity in continence:
There are these forms of chastity: the first is that of spouses, the second that of widows, and third that of virgins. We do not praise any one of them to the exclusion of the others.”
Don’t you think that one with unwanted SSA would fall under the category of virgins?
You must be careful regarding what you mean by disordered sexuality.
If by disordered sexuality you mean a temptation to perform sexual acts that are sinful, rather than actually performing those acts, than that can be successfully integrated within a person. A person can live a Christ centered life with temptations to do such evil.
If by disordered sexuality you mean actually performing sexual acts that are sinful and go against God’s plan, than that cannot be integrated within a person.
This is an extremely black and white view. To say that sexual attraction can change (which NARTH says) is not to say that sexual attraction can always change (which NARTH does not say) or that sexual attraction can always change to a complete degree (which NARTH certainly does not say). You might be able to find a few individuals who have thankfully been able to change their sexual attractions who seem to think that everyone can change their sexual attraction completely if they really wanted to. However, even though NARTH has consistently held that SSA is not immutable, they certainly do not hold that everyone who really wants to will experience a complete change in sexual attraction.
You assume that failure to change one’s sexual attraction for someone with SSA is due to lack of motivation or some other deficiency in the subject. However, it seems to me that you are holding this because otherwise you would have to concede that there may be cases where individuals with SSA are not sinning by having SSA. I don’t mean to be personal here, but you sound like a person who is very set in his way that you are not willing to revise your views. That, and the fact that you had mentioned your understanding of Thomistic theology, is part of the reason why I mentioned in the previous post that Thomas’s views, our interpretation of his views, and our application of his views, could all be wrong.
CONTINUED…
- Status