For those who believe homosexuals can change their orientation....

[Hadrianus]

As others have repeated pointed out, the Church has no opinion upon the merits of psychotherapy with regard to homosexual orientation. People are free to debate this question, but as it does not directly touch upon Catholic doctrine it remains in the area of private opinion, nothing more. Until such tome as the Church chooses to make some statement on the matter, I have nothing further to add.

 

[SirJack]

However, I’d like to stress that the meaning of such statement is that homosexuality is not in anyway “an alternative sexuality”. Thus in other words, according to the chruch, the ordered condition is heterosexuality, the only ordered form of sexuality without any alternative.

I stress this because the term “sexual orientation” can be intepreted “as if” the church admit that there is an alternative sexuality, that so long one does not practice it, then everything is OK. Such is NOT what the church say. What the church say is that homosexuality is a disordered condition, NOT a form of sexuality.

I’d like to clarify the use of the term disordered. My understanding is that the use of the term reflects the Church’s understanding that the Natural Law is ordered towards unity and fecundity. The use of the term “disordered” reflects that homosexual acts do not have those qualities.

I would express caution in considering the term “disordered” as anything other than a philosophical statement. To do so would not only take Church teaching out of its proper context and give rise to confusion, but it can also give rise to the idea that the term reflects a psychological judgement. It does not.

While there are Christians who regard homosexuals as pathologically disturbed, that is not the teaching outlined in the Catechism. Again, there is a distinction made between the acts and the actors. And the actors - regardless of the state of their soul - are to be treated as any other children of God.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Despite the church say that “sexual orientation” is not intrinsically sinful, this statement is tied to the other statment that say “homosexuality is a disordered condition”. So if somebody suffer this disordered condition, but they “abstain” from the disordered form of behavior, they are not sinful.

I was baptized roman catholic when I was ten, being confirmed when I was 15. I got married in the catholic church. My son was baptized roman catholic . My hubby is also a baptized roman catholic.

Well, what exactly is “homosexuality” in your eyes?
Is it being exclusively/predominantly sexually attracted to the same sex? Or does it also include attraction on a psychological level? Or is it something else?

It is disorder in the sense of not being ordered towards natural law; it is disordered in the theological sense not the medical sense (which is how you appear to see it).

 

[Hadrianus]

Paragraphs 2357-2359 of the CCC present the Catholic position. Incidentally, the Latin text uses the word “inordinata” for what the English translates as 'disordered." Thus the Latin does not carry with it the implied connotation of a psychological disorder, but rather of an imbalance. That which is not ordered within the right bounds.

In para 2357 the catechism says explicitly that the cause of homosexual attraction remains largely unknown. Until some future date, when perhaps psychology and/or neurobiology comes up with more information of a verifiable nature, this must remain the Catholic view.

Without doing an exhaustive survey of Roman documents, I’d say, from what I have read that the Church tends to use “homosexuality” to refer to actions, and “homosexual person” to refer to those who experience same sex attraction. “Gay” which is a secular term may come from old theater slang, and usually, though not always seems to mean by those who use it that the person engages in homosexual activity, though my impression is that younger people tend to use it in a more neutral way. The term SSA is, so far as I have read, used exclusively in the United States. It is in someways convenient, but probably too cumbersome ever to enter into general usage.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Paragraphs 2357-2359 of the CCC present the Catholic position. Incidentally, the Latin text uses the word “inordinata” for what the English translates as 'disordered." Thus the Latin does not carry with it the implied connotation of a psychological disorder, but rather of an imbalance. That which is not ordered within the right bounds.

In para 2357 the catechism says explicitly that the cause of homosexual attraction remains largely unknown. Until some future date, when perhaps psychology and/or neurobiology comes up with more information of a verifiable nature, this must remain the Catholic view.

Without doing an exhaustive survey of Roman documents, I’d say, from what I have read that the Church tends to use “homosexuality” to refer to actions, and “homosexual person” to refer to those who experience same sex attraction. “Gay” which is a secular term may come from old theater slang, and usually, though not always seems to mean by those who use it that the person engages in homosexual activity, though my impression is that younger people tend to use it in a more neutral way. The term SSA is, so far as I have read, used exclusively in the United States. It is in someways convenient, but probably too cumbersome ever to enter into general usage.

I’ve come to similar conclusions on usage, consistency would be nice on their part.

In paragraph 2359 what does “amicitiae gratuitae auxilio” mean? In the English it is translated as “disinterested friendship” which is about as clear as mud.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Despite the church say that “sexual orientation” is not intrinsically sinful, this statement is tied to the other statment that say “homosexuality is a disordered condition”. So if somebody suffer this disordered condition, but they “abstain” from the disordered form of behavior, they are not sinful.

I was baptized roman catholic when I was ten, being confirmed when I was 15. I got married in the catholic church. My son was baptized roman catholic . My hubby is also a baptized roman catholic.

Nice dodge, you didn’t answer the question - do you consider yourself Catholic now?

 

[Elizabeth502]

Guys, if I can interject here and try to be a peacemaker or interpreter…

I think people are stuck on language, but I’ve read many of francisca’s posts on other threads as well, and I think she gets it: She understands that the words “temptation” and “orientation” are distinct from behavior, or acts. What she seems to react to, and what lots of people react to, is the manipulation of the word, or the meaning of, “orientation” either as:

(1) a state which denotes inevitable behavior: i.e., the assumption that (or the fact that – have it either way) “orientation” is “out of one’s control,” implies that behavior linked to that orientation is also out of one’s control, and/or releases the actor of culpability.

(2) a “separate” (legitimate) “sexuality.” That is actually the subject of another thread as well, but it has been tangentially touched upon in this thread. She is distinguishing that assumption from Catholic teaching about ordered sexuality.

Regarding point (1), she was earlier trying to differentiate (accurately, i.m.o.) sexual “orientation” (really, attraction is the simpler word) from clinical compulsions. One of the major efforts of the pro-homosexual-behavior group, in and outside of the Church, is that “homosexuals can’t help themselves.” (And supposedly, therefore, their expression of sexuality, no matter how the Church describes it as disordered, is an expression which is morally neutral.) This is complete poppycock. And she rightly compares this to anger management (something I have also brought up on other threads.) Unless one is psychotic (clinical condition), an individual is both morally culpable and legally culpable for outbursts of excessive anger. The courts recognize this by demanding correction of such people who have not exercised control over their “temptations” and “orientations.” The courts mandate, and build into judicial sentences, anger management workshops. It doesn’t matter whether you “never knew anything but anger,” “always knew you were an angry person,” “felt angry since before you had long-term memory,” etc.

(And if you’re psychotically angry, you will be sentenced to an institution which provides psychiatry, including medications, regularly.)

She can correct me if I misunderstand her.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Guys, if I can interject here and try to be a peacemaker or interpreter…

I think people are stuck on language, but I’ve read many of francisca’s posts on other threads as well, and I think she gets it: She understands that the words “temptation” and “orientation” are distinct from behavior, or acts. What she seems to react to, and what lots of people react to, is the manipulation of the word, or the meaning of, “orientation” either as:

(1) a state which denotes inevitable behavior: i.e., the assumption that (or the fact that – have it either way) “orientation” is “out of one’s control,” implies that behavior linked to that orientation is also out of one’s control, and/or releases the actor of culpability.

(2) a “separate” (legitimate) “sexuality.” That is actually the subject of another thread as well, but it has been tangentially touched upon in this thread. She is distinguishing that assumption from Catholic teaching about ordered sexuality.

Regarding point (1), she was earlier trying to differentiate (accurately, i.m.o.) sexual “orientation” (really, attraction is the simpler word) from clinical compulsions. One of the major efforts of the pro-homosexual-behavior group, in and outside of the Church, is that “homosexuals can’t help themselves.” (And supposedly, therefore, their expression of sexuality, no matter how the Church describes it as disordered, is an expression which is morally neutral.) This is complete poppycock. And she rightly compares this to anger management (something I have also brought up on other threads.) Unless one is psychotic (clinical condition), an individual is both morally culpable and legally culpable for outbursts of excessive anger. The courts recognize this by demanding correction of such people who have not exercised control over their “temptations” and “orientations.” The courts mandate, and build into judicial sentences, anger management workshops. It doesn’t matter whether you “never knew anything but anger,” “always knew you were an angry person,” “felt angry since before you had long-term memory,” etc.

(And if you’re psychotically angry, you will be sentenced to an institution which provides psychiatry, including medications, regularly.)

She can correct me if I misunderstand her.

It has been said that one’s attractions are out of one’s control, I don’t remember anyone trying to argue that acting on those is out of one’s control.

Some people do have a capacity for sexual feelings for the opposite sex, it is extremely frequently a cofactor with attraction to the same sex. I don’t think anyone has been trying to argue that homosexuality is in fact ordered.

Frankly I think the problem is the depravity and hypersexualization of modern Western society caused by an abandonment of Church virtues followed by an embrace of tolerastic and liberastic ways. This has since been become pervasive with the result that people who experience attraction to the same sex have been corrupted by this with disastrous results. While same sex attraction will always be felt by people in society we can note that when the society is Catholic in values that there is a lack of men buggering other men and instead we have extremely strong friendships develop in the Middle Ages. Indeed in England for example there was a ceremony of sorts where they would plight one’s troth to each other sealed by the Eucharist and witnessed by the saints*. Unlike other religions Catholicism does not destroy things, it purifies them and sanctifies them.

*This was absolutely not and should never be thought of as marriage, especially since it was thought to last through even death. In Vita conjuncti, In Morte non divisi indeed!

 

[Hadrianus]

“amicitiae gratuitae auxilio” could be translated as “by the aid of friendships which do not seek the fulfillment of sexual desire.” That which is “gratuita” in Latin is that which is given without desire for some selfish gain. It is not always easy to find exact English equivalents for Latin phrases without expanding upon them, as well as looking at the context. “disinterested friendship” is not an incorrect translation, but admittedly, in modern English “disinterested” takes on the nuance almost of apathy.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

“amicitiae gratuitae auxilio” could be translated as “by the aid of friendships which do not seek the fulfillment of sexual desire.” That which is “gratuita” in Latin is that which is given without desire for some selfish gain. It is not always easy to find exact English equivalents for Latin phrases without expanding upon them, as well as looking at the context. “disinterested friendship” is not an incorrect translation, but admittedly, in modern English “disinterested” takes on the nuance almost of apathy.

Would gratuitous have been a better word? Also gratuitae (or whatever is the base) is the root of it
gratuitous: given or done free of charge.

 

[RaymondJensen]

Okay I think this debate is getting a wee bit heated for my taste so I’ll just throw this out there and hope that it comes out alright. First of all I have no quarrel with same sex attraction terminology. I apply it to myself in fact. Thing is to me, I think that most people have a same sex attraction to some extent (doesn’t make them not straight). I say gayness more like a fetish then anything. If I liked incest is that a different sexuality? No it’s not. If I’m attracted to only female blood relatives and no one else, that still isn’t a sexual orientation it’s a preference. If I’m attracted to dogs and noting else that still isn’t a sexual orientation it’s a preference. I admit I’ve had gay sex before, then again I was confused at the time and called myself bisexual and left the church. Today I realize I’m straight like the rest of the population. Just because you have gay tendencies (and I don’t mean cross dressing nor wanting a sex change cause men and woman who associate themselves as straight sometimes does that as well) doesn’t mean that you are gay. All it means is that you are human who is being tempted to sin just like I might be tempted to masturbate. I do not associate myself as a “ex-gay” or even “ex-bi”, I associate myself as “straight”.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Okay I think this debate is getting a wee bit heated for my taste so I’ll just throw this out there and hope that it comes out alright. First of all I have no quarrel with same sex attraction terminology. I apply it to myself in fact. Thing is to me, I think that most people have a same sex attraction to some extent (doesn’t make them not straight). I say gayness more like a fetish then anything. If I liked incest is that a different sexuality? No it’s not. If I’m attracted to only female blood relatives and no one else, that still isn’t a sexual orientation it’s a preference. If I’m attracted to dogs and noting else that still isn’t a sexual orientation it’s a preference. I admit I’ve had gay sex before, then again I was confused at the time and called myself bisexual and left the church. Today I realize I’m straight like the rest of the population. Just because you have gay tendencies (and I don’t mean cross dressing nor wanting a sex change cause men and woman who associate themselves as straight sometimes does that as well) doesn’t mean that you are gay. All it means is that you are human who is being tempted to sin just like I might be tempted to masturbate. I do not associate myself as a “ex-gay” or even “ex-bi”, I associate myself as “straight”.

so… much… camp…
:dts:

What you just wrote is bad taste and has serious ironic value, but I think you didn’t intend to write camp, if you didn’t then you just got out camped by your own campiness
We need to go deeper… campception…

If you think that SSA is a fetish you either do not understand fetish or you understand neither

fetish: a form of sexual desire in which gratification is linked to an abnormal degree to a particular object, item of clothing, part of the body, etc.

 

[Hadrianus]

Would gratuitous have been a better word? Also gratuitae (or whatever is the base) is the root of it
gratuitous: given or done free of charge.

Yes, gratuitous would be possible, though, again, in modern English “gratuitous” often has a slightly negative connotation which is not present in Latin.The Latin gratuitus is related to the adverb gratis, meaning “for nothing.” “Gratia”, or grace is related to this notion, in that it is a gift which is given freely by God.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Yes, gratuitous would be possible, though, again, in modern English “gratuitous” often has a slightly negative connotation which is not present in Latin.The Latin gratuitus is related to the adverb gratis, meaning “for nothing.” “Gratia”, or grace is related to this notion, in that it is a gift which is given freely by God.

Ah, my dictionary has gratuitous coming from gratuitus ‘given freely, spontaneous’.

 

[francisca]

HI all, I’ve just read all of your posts.

All I wanted to say is : a statement that say “the church say that sexual orientation is not sinful” gives a connotation that I believe has never intended to mean that way by the church.

“Ordered/ disordered towards natural law” includes all natural aspects of a person such as biological, medical, etc.

Biblical statement saying that “homosexuality is an abomination” only include spiritual (philosophical) aspects, because abomination doesn’t talk about our natural body. But “natural law” as in the church documents include our natural body and all of the aspects in it.

Thank’s Elizabeth502 for your post.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

HI all, I’ve just read all of your posts.

All I wanted to say is : a statement that say “the church say that sexual orientation is not sinful” gives a connotation that I believe has never intended to mean that way by the church.

“Ordered/ disordered towards natural law” includes all natural aspects of a person such as biological, medical, etc.

Biblical statement saying that “homosexuality is an abomination” only include spiritual (philosophical) aspects, because abomination doesn’t talk about our natural body. But “natural law” as in the church documents include our natural body and all of the aspects in it.

Thank’s Elizabeth502 for your post.

Which is why it would be better to say “the church say that sexual orientation is not in and of itself sinful”. Things must be looked at by how they are used and what they further, for example a gun is a morally neutral object, when it is used to murder someone it becomes morally bad, but when it is used for example to hunt an animal to provide food for one’s family it becomes morally good. Likewise with money which if used to acquire hookers and blow it is morally bad, but if used to provide to the needs of people and furthers natural law it becomes good. Even heterosexuality is this way, when it causes one to engage in sinful acts (sex with someone who isn’t you spouse for example) it is morally bad whereas if it is used in a manner consistent with natural law then it is morally good.

 

[francisca]

Which is why it would be better to say “the church say that sexual orientation is not in and of itself sinful”. Things must be looked at by how they are used and what they further, for example a gun is a morally neutral object, when it is used to murder someone it becomes morally bad, but when it is used for example to hunt an animal to provide food for one’s family it becomes morally good. Likewise with money which if used to acquire hookers and blow it is morally bad, but if used to provide to the needs of people and furthers natural law it becomes good. Even heterosexuality is this way, when it causes one to engage in sinful acts (sex with someone who isn’t you spouse for example) it is morally bad whereas if it is used in a manner consistent with natural law then it is morally good.

Your analogy on “gun and money” is trying to suggest that “sexual orientation” can be used for something good, just similar to “gun and money”. This analogy sounds so “neutral”. But it is not so.

The words “sexual orientaion” is not neutral. It is loaded and very suggestive about homosexuality. It is in opposition and against the church teachings.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Your analogy on “gun and money” is trying to suggest that “sexual orientation” can be used for something good, just similar to “gun and money”. This analogy sounds so “neutral”. But it is not so.

The words “sexual orientaion” is not neutral. It is loaded and very suggestive about homosexuality. It is in opposition and against the church teachings.

Well actually love can be both good and evil, on the one hand it can cause people to do absolutely selfless acts, on another it can cause them to do terrible things for another, on the other hand we have Amis et Amiles… (The good, the bad and the WTH?)

 

[Hadrianus]

Your analogy on “gun and money” is trying to suggest that “sexual orientation” can be used for something good, just similar to “gun and money”. This analogy sounds so “neutral”. But it is not so.

The words “sexual orientaion” is not neutral. It is loaded and very suggestive about homosexuality. It is in opposition and against the church teachings.

Francisca, unless you can produce a document of the Church’s magisterium to support your contention that the term “sexual orientation” is against Catholic teaching, you really oughtn’t to present your personal opinion as Catholic doctrine. It’s a temptation we all have, but we must be very careful not to succumb to it.

“Sexual Orientation” is a psychological term, and in over 30 years of reading documents of the Church, I have never come across any condemnation of it. Catholic moral theology concerns itself with human acts, whether by thought, word or deed, but not with causes of particular temptations of a medico-psychological nature. Psychology, neurobiology etc, can be useful tools, but the Church doesn’t usually pronounce upon them directly unless they say something contrary to Catholic teaching.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Well actually love can be both good and evil, on the one hand it can cause people to do absolutely selfless acts, on another it can cause them to do terrible things for another, on the other hand we have Amis et Amiles… (The good, the bad and the WTH?)

Actually on reading the English versions of [that epic](http://www.yorku.ca/(name removed by moderator)ar/amis_rickert.pdf) I realized that it’s pretty good, if you have the time you should read it, only 31 printed pages