Ex-Gay.

[manualman]

I will trust the APA over those without any psychological background when it comes to psychology.

You are trying to make this Church vs APA, when the reality is that the church says there is no problem with having a homosexual orientation. There is no “bet” to choose.

Show me an authoritative citation where the Church says “there is no problem with having a homosexual orientation.” Betcha a nickel you can’t. (I’m a high roller!) You can find it expressed that the orientation itself is not SINFUL because catholic teaching is that temptation is itself not sin. But that is a very different matter than saying that there is “no problem” with having temptations. In heaven we will no longer even HAVE temptations toward sin. Therefore it appears self-evident that there is, indeed, a problem in those who have homosexual inclinations. Don’t take me out of context. It isn’t THE uber-problem. We ALL have problems and personal weaknesses that tempt us towards sin. But you tread paper thin ice when you state that the temptation itself is something you do not even desire to be rid of.

 

[St_Francis]

I will trust the APA over those without any psychological background when it comes to psychology.

because human beings are so perfect and knowledgeable, right?

First the APA said it was a disorder, then they said it wasn’t. Which is right?

First the doctors said bloodletting was good then they said it was bad, and now they are looking at it again.

First they said maggots on wounds was bad, now they are using them.

You are trying to make this Church vs APA, when the reality is that the church says there is no problem with having a homosexual orientation. There is no “bet” to choose.

The APA deals with limited knowledge and a warped view of human nature. the Church says that homosexual desire is disordered because sexual desire is related to reproduction and homosexual activity does not lead to reproduction. Therefore, homosexual desire is ordered in the wrong direction, or as the Church calls it, disordered.

 

[St_Francis]

A Catholic theocracy sounds like a terrible idea. No religion should ever, under any circumstance, force its beliefs on a nation.

A theocracy is when the priests and religious are in charge. No one wants that, least of all the Church, which has been there, done that.

However, a Catholic nation would be great

 

[Dale_M]

A theocracy is when the priests and religious are in charge. No one wants that, least of all the Church, which has been there, done that.

However, a Catholic nation would be great

Yep, the Church does not favor a theocracy, despite the wishes of a few CAF members.

As for Catholic countries, there are a few. Periodically, members here will discuss the idea of moving to one of them. But as far as I know, none of them has actually made the move.

 

[St_Francis]

I don’t find charity, justice, mercy, lack of covetousness, objection to murder, or objection to theft to be offensive. Pkease do not lie. Also, I am a humanist but I am not a liberal, don’t make assumptions.

You don’t seem to understand the point they are trying to make, which is that you are picking and choosing your moral points and criticizing the imposition of some of them upon society.

Would you not agree that owning slaves is immoral? Would you agree with the laws against slavery? And yet these laws are “legislating morality,” imposing someone else’s morality on those who would disagree.

So one should not ignore morality but instead assure that the correct moral code is used.

 

[BobObob]

You are just making a smokescreen. What is Liberty? Why should all men have that right? It is a moral statement to say that all men deserve Liberty? Of course it is!

Liberty is “The condition of being free from restriction or control.” This is distinct from the word “freedom” defined in CCC 1731, which is why I said “liberty” rather than “freedom.” “Liberty” includes some license, while the same is not true of “freedom” (in the sense of CCC 1730-48).

All men should be guaranteed liberty because that’s what’s best for society and it’s why governments were formed to begin with.

The very concept of individual liberty grows out of the concept of individual human diginity bestowed on us by our Creator. It’s no coincidence that this form of government formed in Christendom rather than in Hindu cultures, Muslim cultures or Pagan cultures.

This form of government (constitutional republic) was first formed by Rome when it was a republic. I believe they took much, but not all, of their principles for their constitutional republic from the Greek statesman Solon (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solon ). However, people in Greece and Rome were pagan. They hadn’t been influenced (or at least not much) by Jews at that time (before Christ).

There are lots of parallels between America and the Republic of Rome. For example, George Washington is often seen by historians as a new Cincinnatus (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinnatus).

And the Constitution nowhere contains the concept of “separation of church and state” (Read it yourself, as you say.) What the Constitution contains is a prohibition against the government interfering with Church affairs. It was never meant to be a two way wall.

Before I talk about what the Constitution says, it’s noteworthy that the 1796 Treaty of Tripoli, which was ratified not long after the Constitution, said:

[T]he Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion

stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html

The Constitution upholds separation of Church and State, although not necessarily in a few words…

The Constitution contains more that just “a prohibition against the government interfering with Church affairs.” The first Amendment says, “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion.” Note that when the Constitution says “Congress shall write no law”, it means the federal government shall not have that power. One could argue that the Constitution doesn’t prohibit one’s religion influencing politics, so lets look at that…

The tenth amendment denies the federal government any power that this not given to it in the Constitution. If the Constitution doesn’t mention it (at least by strong implication), the federal government doesn’t have the power. None of the enumerated powers of the Constitution (which are contained primarily in article I, section 8 earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/constitution/text.html ) have anything to do with religion.

It is also noteworthy that article VI of the Constitution specifically prohibits religious tests as a qualification for office.

 

[BobObob]

You can find it expressed that the orientation itself is not SINFUL because catholic teaching is that temptation is itself not sin. But that is a very different matter than saying that there is “no problem” with having temptations. In heaven we will no longer even HAVE temptations toward sin. Therefore it appears self-evident that there is, indeed, a problem in those who have homosexual inclinations.

Temptations to sin are problems insofar as they make it more difficult for us to live a holy life or discomfort us in some way. If one has a homosexual orientation, but he could lead just as easily be celibate, be happy as a single, and would have not married anyways had he had a homosexual orientation, then his homosexual orientation can’t really be said to be a problem. However, that’s typically not the case…

 

[manualman]

Bob, you are failing to recognize the biased anti-theist sources you are relying upon. Gould!?? Please.

The Roman and earlier Greek governmental sources did indeed rely upon coalitions and votes. But look closer and recognize that these came about as political solutions to rival interests, not a growth out of any recognition of the innate dignity of each individual human. The fate of St. Paul (a Roman citizen, after all) illustrates that the reason for what appear to be democratic principles in Roman government were based on POWER, not recognition of human dignity. The idea of votes had merit, but it took centuries of christian influence before votes were bestowed based on the innate dignity of the voter rather than the level of power and wealth held by the voter. Surely you and I agree that is a critical difference!

The founding fathers of the USA explicitly stated that human dignity creates certain human rights that were “endowed by our Creator”. Gould and his ilk simply cannot explain that away (much as they try).

Back to homosexuality, you are thinking like a Nominalist. Catholics aren’t nominalists! (Muslims and Calvinists, maybe). Things are not immoral simply because God placed them on an arbitrary list (nominalism). God declares things to be sinful because they inherently are behaviors that damage a human’s ability to give and receive love. An inclination towards doing something evil is always a problem, even if you manage the inclination. That inclination is called concupiscence (i can’t spell usually) and it is part of the fallout of original sin. When we’ve been perfect (whether here or in purgatory) and enter heaven, we’ll no longer have concupiscence. Angelina Jolie could walk by naked, and no man will have lustful thoughts. See how different that is from a man who has merely successfully battled against his sinful inclinations? At SOME point, believers will all have final VICTORY in that battle. It is a form of despair to argue that it cannot occur this side of death.

 

[BobObob]

Bob, you are failing to recognize the biased anti-theist sources you are relying upon. Gould!?? Please.
…
Gould and his ilk simply cannot explain that away (much as they try).

I was not citing Gould. I was citing the text of 1796 Treaty of Tripoli, which happened to be on that website. If you read it you may have realized this. As long as that really is the text of that document, the source doesn’t really matter. I only used that website because it was the top result I got when googling “treaty of tripoli text" (google “treaty of tripoli text” to verify). If you want more sources, here are alternatives:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli
answers.com/topic/treaty-of-tripoli-1
usconstitution.net/tripoli.html
candst.tripod.com/tripoli1.htm
nobeliefs.com/document.htm
solarsabbath.org/TreatyofTripoli.pdf

They all, in article 11, say:

[T]he Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion

I think this clearly shows that the founders of this country wanted church and state to be separate.

The Roman and earlier Greek governmental sources did indeed rely upon coalitions and votes.

BTW, the thing that made the governments of Rome (when it was a republic) and America unique was not coalitions and votes, but a written constitution which restrained government. Democracy is a terrible form of government which reared its ugly head during the French Revolution. James Madison, the “father of the Constitution” said that democracies have “been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” (constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm )

The Roman and earlier Greek governmental sources did indeed rely upon coalitions and votes. But look closer and recognize that these came about as political solutions to rival interests, not a growth out of any recognition of the innate dignity of each individual human. The fate of St. Paul (a Roman citizen, after all) illustrates that the reason for what appear to be democratic principles in Roman government were based on POWER, not recognition of human dignity. The idea of votes had merit, but it took centuries of christian influence before votes were bestowed based on the innate dignity of the voter rather than the level of power and wealth held by the voter. Surely you and I agree that is a critical difference!

A few problems here…

I have not been talking about democracy (rule of majority). America is a constitutional republic. The majority is restricted by the law in a constitutional republic.

Saint Paul lived well after Rome ceased being a republic. Why do you think Jesus said “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s…” Having a Caesar, king, or other ruler who isn’t subject to laws (or virtually not subject to laws), is contrary to a republic.

Also, Rome adopted a constitutional republican form of government that recognized certain rights of men because the plebes demanded it against the tyrannical elite. England sort of did this with the Magna Carta and subsequent documents which recognized the rights of humans because the citizens demanded it against a tyrannical monarchy. America formed a constitutional republic independent from England which recognized innate rights of humans because the colonist demanded it against a tyrannical monarch. Notice the trend…

The founding fathers of the USA explicitly stated that human dignity creates certain human rights that were “endowed by our Creator”. Gould and his ilk simply cannot explain that away (much as they try).

As an American I’m embarrassed to admit this, but America was largely founded by hypocritical slave owners who said all men were created equal (accept women, black people, and native Americans of course). Not all of the founding fathers supported slavery, racism, or sexism, but many of them did to varying degrees. It seems sadly obvious to me that not all the signers of the Declaration of Independence meant “all humans” when the text says “all men are…” Their definition of man was different. Black people and native Americans didn’t qualify as men for many of the founders.

God declares things to be sinful because they inherently are behaviors that damage a human’s ability to give and receive love. An inclination towards doing something evil is always a problem, even if you manage the inclination.

“An inclination towards doing something evil is always a problem” depending on what you mean by problem. If by a problem you mean an issue that aught to be dealt with, than I would concur with your last statement. If by a problem you mean something that is having a negative impact, than an inclination towards sin may not be a problem in this sense if it is managed (if managing it isn’t debilitating or restricting).

 

[edwest2]

There was a time when psychologists and psychiatrists were telling us that marital faithfulness was bad.

Reference please?

God bless,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

I’ll believe that it’s possible to re-orient sexual attraction the moment a heterosexual ex-gay leader agrees to reorient his sexuality toward homosexuality.

Issues surrounding homosexuality are my greatest stumbling block as a Catholic, because I see it as a human rights issue and I cannot reconcile what my conscience tells me with what Rome tells me.

So, I have to be content with the fact that I was lucky enough to be born with a sexuality that I’m allowed to practice, according to my religion, as a married woman.

But, politically, I find myself becoming more and more pro gay rights. My conscience directs me that way. And, I recognize that we live in a pluralistic society, not a Catholic theocracy.

What is a Catholic theocracy? What convinces you that this is a human rights issue? Gay people can do whatever they want right now.

God bless,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Um, that was proven wrong fifty years ago. It was one of Freuds hairbrained ideas that was proven wrong by overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Scientific reference please?

God bless,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

All those beliefs have been forced on me. *And also on you. *But I don’t hear you complaining about those restrictions on your personal freedom.

Personally I am opposed to slavery and pedophilia and so on. But who am I to impose my personal beliefs on other people?

Do you believe there is such a thing as right and wrong? If not, who decides right and wrong for you?

God bless,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

What’s this nonsense about living in a nation where no-one is coerced into a morality they don’t personally hold to?

ALL, and I mean ALL laws are abotu morality. From murder to speed limits to taxes, ALL laws are an imposition of moral standards on the populace.

In this country, we are living a farce of pretending that the values established in the Constitution and subsequent amendments developed from thin air. The reality is that those concepts came from centuries of experience applying the principles of christianity in general and catholicism in particular (for most of those centuries).

The bold (and foolish) experiment our culture has embarked upon now is one in which we have identified certain specific moral principles we like, severed the connection to the roots that brought these moral principles to being in the first place and somehow expect that we will be able to maintain the plant without the roots.

No thanks.

May I respectfully point out that “our culture” now consists of a handful of judges who are willing to create “rights” out of thin air? The Supreme Court told us in 1973 that penumbras from the Constitution allowed a woman to kill her developing child in the womb.

You are right, all laws seek to impose good, right and moral activity on the population. Drive too fast? You get a ticket. Pick up a prostitute? You can go to jail.

Our media is rapidly approaching a “no standards” standard by showing hyper-sexualized and dysfunctional situations as entertainment.

The Leftists and anarchists only want constant change and a certain level of chaos. Stand firm in your faith.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Prodigal_Son]

BTW, the thing that made the governments of Rome (when it was a republic) and America unique was not coalitions and votes, but a written constitution which restrained government. Democracy is a terrible form of government which reared its ugly head during the French Revolution. James Madison, the “father of the Constitution” said that democracies have “been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” (constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm )

…

Also, Rome adopted a constitutional republican form of government that recognized certain rights of men because the plebes demanded it against the tyrannical elite. England sort of did this with the Magna Carta and subsequent documents which recognized the rights of humans because the citizens demanded it against a tyrannical monarchy. America formed a constitutional republic independent from England which recognized innate rights of humans because the colonist demanded it against a tyrannical monarch. Notice the trend…

Fact check, here:

Did Rome have a written constitution? Citation, please?

As far as the plebs in Rome advocating for “human rights”, this is completely revisionist history. The plebs grabbed at power when they saw the chance. They were happy enough to leave the people of the countryside disenfranchised.

It’s people like William Wilberforce that changed public opinion toward real human rights. And he, I’m afraid, was rather Christian.

 

[BobObob]

Did Rome have a written constitution? Citation, please?

Rome did have a written constitution (the Twelve Tables of Written Law), but it gradually was disregarded and disobeyed much like the US Constitution is now. Here are some references:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_Tables
performance-education.com/samples/sample_BZ-4473.pdf
ambrosevideo.com/resources/documents/Ancient%20Rome’s%20Timeline.pdf

As far as the plebs in Rome advocating for “human rights”, this is completely revisionist history. The plebs grabbed at power when they saw the chance. They were happy enough to leave the people of the countryside disenfranchised.

I wasn’t trying to say that Rome was championing human rights. My point was rather that when human rights is protected by government in history, it’s usually because of a conflict between the commoners and elite, in which the commoners benefit from human rights being guaranteed. That seems to be a trend in history.

It’s people like William Wilberforce that changed public opinion toward real human rights. And he, I’m afraid, was rather Christian.

William Wilberforce did do a lot of good pushing for human rights, but the Magna Carta and other documents existed before he did.

My point isn’t that there isn’t a link between Christianity and human rights (because I think there is in many cases), but rather that human rights isn’t an exclusively Christian thing.

 

[Apollos]

Reference please?

um, 1960-1979. were you there?

 

[Apollos]

Do you believe there is such a thing as right and wrong?

yes

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Rome did have a written constitution (the Twelve Tables of Written Law), but it gradually was disregarded and disobeyed much like the US Constitution is now.

The Twelve Tables were a rather obscure plate of specific laws on property and marriage and such. They were certainly an innovation, but they were not a constitution. Plato and Aristotle and the like, however, were writing constitutions in Athens around that time; but nobody cared to follow them.

I wasn’t trying to say that Rome was championing human rights. My point was rather that when human rights is protected by government in history, it’s usually because of a conflict between the commoners and elite, in which the commoners benefit from human rights being guaranteed. That seems to be a trend in history.

But I think this is more like “union rights” or “proletariat rights”, not human rights. Christianity allows for the innovation of real equality among men (and women!). But without Christian theology, we cannot sensibly claim that people should be treated equally – except as an exertion of political power.

 

[edwest2]

um, 1960-1979. were you there?

1. Yes, I was there in the sense that I was physically there but unaware of the reason for the change. It appears politics in the form of gay activists led to a vote to drop it.

God bless,
Ed