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

[francisca]

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.

Why don’t you present the church document that say “sexual orientation is not on and of itself sinful”, since you are the one to say :
Handrianus - post 155:

trying to change it, but I do believe strongly, that exaggerated claims for success in this area should not be, well, exaggerated. As there is nothing sinful in the orientation itself, there is no need to impose any kind of “forced cure” upon anyone. Anger is entirely different, left uncontrolled it does harm society. I’d say the same for homosexual acts; but these latter are containable by grace and the sacraments which God has given us. Surely, that suffices.

You have not back your own statement above with any prove. So…
Why don’t you now prove it with some church document . Thankyou in advance.

“Sexual Orientation” is a psychological term

Yay. Let’s read your previous posts regarding “psychology”
Handrianus - post 173:

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.**

Your above post say that psychology must remain in the are of private opiion, yet you said also that “sexual orientation-- which is psychological term (according to you)-- is not on and of itself sinful”-- this statement also acoording to you-- is the church teaching. And then you said that my disagreement with you is opposing the church.
Handiranus - post 167:

More problematic is your view that a homosexual orientation is a sin in itself. This is seriously contrary to the teaching of the Church, but I imagine must stem from your unfamiliarity with Catholic teaching

Let’s see what you “add again” now

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****.

Well APA say in the press release that sexual orientation doesn’t need any therapy. Moreover, reparative therapy is dangerous. The Church say that homosexuality is a disordered condition. Now, is it possible that we intepret those in this way “homosexuality is a disordered condition, but it requires no therapy”? No, we can’t. If homosexuality is a disordered condition, it will requires therapy (or healing). Otherwise, homosexuaity is a healthy condition, and therefore need no therapy (neither it needs any healing). We just can’t have it both ways.

 

[francisca]

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?)

Love can’t be evil. God is love. Evil is NOT love.

 

[michelleds]

Originally Posted by francisca
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.

one can hardly deny that “sexual orientation” is a loaded term which is purposely used to evoke the idea that one’s [disordered] attractions are so much a part of oneself that they can’t be wrong. In the subtle context of social discourse, yes, “sexual orientation” as a concept, is against Church teaching. Furthermore, Francisca is correct is saying that comparing sexual orientation to guns and money is a flawed analogy. the poster who drew that comparison was saying that sexual orientation, like guns and money, can be both good and bad. but as used in popular culture and psychological literature, “sexual orientation” is much more far-reaching that just SSA.

For many other of the posters in this thread, how can you ignore the Grace of God? victory over sin and disordered attractions require us to become a New Man (see St. Paul’s writings) and this comes about thru the Grace of God. Not will power, not wishing, not therapy–while those may be tools, we should be looking to the Grace of God, not psychotherapy, for healing. We all need healing, not just those with SSA. and identifying oneself with one’s sin or attachment to sin is not seeking healing, it’s continuing to nurture the attachment in complete contradiction to Biblical teaching.

 

[michelleds]

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?)

love doesn’t cause people to do terrible things. that’s the kind of thing that batterers say, “I love you so much, I have to kill you”. sounds ludicrous doesn’t it? the root of terrible things isn’t love–the root will be one of the seven deadly sins.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

love doesn’t cause people to do terrible things. that’s the kind of thing that batterers say, “I love you so much, I have to kill you”. sounds ludicrous doesn’t it? the root of terrible things isn’t love–the root will be one of the seven deadly sins.

Love can make you do wrong things to aid who you love, for example impersonating them in trial by combat because they’re guilty so they fight the other person. Or confessing to something the other did so they stay free, etc.

 

[JD27076]

I do not think they are born with it…YAY 100th post!!

 

[michelleds]

Love can make you do wrong things to aid who you love, for example impersonating them in trial by combat because they’re guilty so they fight the other person. Or confessing to something the other did so they stay free, etc.

well, see you just changed the parameters of the discussion. you originally stated “love will make you do **terrible **things”. now you are saying it makes you do “**wrong **things”. However, I will continue to contend that “love” doesn’t make someone do anything. someone might choose some action and attribute the motivation to “love” but that is not the same thing. (I am purposefully not addressing an agape style love because your examples are specifically human-human without regard to God and so I am responding in the same vein.)

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

well, see you just changed the parameters of the discussion. you originally stated “love will make you do **terrible **things”. now you are saying it makes you do “**wrong **things”. However, I will continue to contend that “love” doesn’t make someone do anything. someone might choose some action and attribute the motivation to “love” but that is not the same thing. (I am purposefully not addressing an agape style love because your examples are specifically human-human without regard to God and so I am responding in the same vein.)

I apologize for my use of hyperbole.

True, in the same sense that no on can make you angry, only you can. I mean sure they might be slicing off your fingers one joint at a time, but you choose to be angry at them, they can’t make you angry.

 

[Hadrianus]

Why don’t you present the church document that say “sexual orientation is not on and of itself sinful”, since you are the one to say :

You have not back your own statement above with any prove. So…
Why don’t you now prove it with some church document . Thankyou in advance.

Yay. Let’s read your previous posts regarding “psychology”

Your above post say that psychology must remain in the are of private opiion, yet you said also that “sexual orientation-- which is psychological term (according to you)-- is not on and of itself sinful”-- this statement also acoording to you-- is the church teaching. And then you said that my disagreement with you is opposing the church.

Let’s see what you “add again” now

Well APA say in the press release that sexual orientation doesn’t need any therapy. Moreover, reparative therapy is dangerous. The Church say that homosexuality is a disordered condition. Now, is it possible that we intepret those in this way “homosexuality is a disordered condition, but it requires no therapy”? No, we can’t. If homosexuality is a disordered condition, it will requires therapy (or healing). Otherwise, homosexuaity is a healthy condition, and therefore need no therapy (neither it needs any healing). We just can’t have it both ways.

The Church in the CCC 2357 uses the word “homosexuality” to refer to sexual acts which it calls intrinsically disordered. In 2358 it refers to the inclination (Latin “propensio”) as being “objectively disordered” In 2359 The Church states that homosexual persons are called to chastity. it goes on to say that by prayer and sacramental grace they can reach Christian perfection.

You will note that there is no mention anywhere of the need for psychotherapy. I readily admit that I have used the term “orientation: in the popular and psychological sense; the Church clearly prefers 'Inclination”, and I should have stuck with the latter term. At the same time, the Church has nowhere condemned the use of the term orientation.

As to the APA: It is obvious from the above that the Church does not endorse the APA position that homosexual acts are morally permissible, but neither does the Church make any comment about the use of the term orientation.

Francisca, I appreciate the fact that you feel that those with homosexual inclinations should undergo therapy. You have a right to your opinion; it’s simply not the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, and as this is a public forum to which people come who may want to know the official position of the Church, it is necessary to clarify this.

 

[francisca]

The Church in the CCC 2357 uses the word “homosexuality” to refer to sexual acts which it calls intrinsically disordered. In 2358 it refers to the inclination (Latin “propensio”) as being “objectively disordered” In 2359 The Church states that homosexual persons are called to chastity. it goes on to say that by prayer and sacramental grace they can reach Christian perfection.

You will note that there is no mention anywhere of the need for psychotherapy. I readily admit that I have used the term “orientation: in the popular and psychological sense; the Church clearly prefers 'Inclination”, and I should have stuck with the latter term. At the same time, the Church has nowhere condemned the use of the term orientation.

As to the APA: It is obvious from the above that the Church does not endorse the APA position that homosexual acts are morally permissible, **but neither does the Church make any comment about the use of the term orientation. **

Even without direct “comment” on the term, we can tell that there is noway the church approve the concept of “sexual orientation”. Sexual orientation suggests that there are “two forms of sexuality”, that is heterosexuality and homosexuality, and therefore people are with sexual orientation. This is contrary to the church teaching, because the church only recognize one and only form of sexuality, that is heterosexuality. Homosexuality is regarded as a disordered condition. In this logic, there is no room for “orientation” concept, because there is only one form of sexuality. The disordered form of sexuality is NOT seen as “another form of sexuality”, instead it is only regarded as “a disordered condition”.

Francisca, I appreciate the fact that you feel that those with homosexual inclinations should undergo therapy. You have a right to your opinion;** it’s simply not the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church**, and as this is a public forum to which people come who may want to know the official position of the Church, it is necessary to clarify this.

Please provide your private opinion with some prove when you try to claim that your private opinion is “the official position of the church”.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Even without direct “comment” on the term, we can tell that there is noway the church approve the concept of “sexual orientation”. Sexual orientation suggests that there are “two forms of sexuality”, that is heterosexuality and homosexuality, and therefore people are with sexual orientation. This is contrary to the church teaching, because the church only recognize one and only form of sexuality, that is heterosexuality. Homosexuality is regarded as a disordered condition. In this logic, there is no room for “orientation” concept, because there is only one form of sexuality. The disordered form of sexuality is NOT seen as “another form of sexuality”, instead it is only regarded as “a disordered condition”.

Please provide your private opinion with some prove when you try to claim that your private opinion is “the official position of the church”.

A compass that is consistently off a number of degrees has an orientation, it just doesn’t have a nothern orientation.

Orientation in this context means “orientated towards” and I believe we can agree that people with SSA are sexually orientated towards the same sex. Homosexuality being another sexuality wouldn’t make it ordered.

PS, I went to the Courage meeting last night, it appears to be centered a bit on the twelve steps, but this doesn’t mean much to me since I’m not addicted to anything. For those of us who are already chaste it seems to have limited value.

 

[michelleds]

A compass that is consistently off a number of degrees has an orientation, it just doesn’t have a nothern orientation.

Orientation in this context means “orientated towards” and I believe we can agree that people with SSA are sexually orientated towards the same sex. Homosexuality being another sexuality wouldn’t make it ordered.

PS, I went to the Courage meeting last night, it appears to be centered a bit on the twelve steps, but this doesn’t mean much to me since I’m not addicted to anything. For those of us who are already chaste it seems to have limited value.

Words have power. They have meaning. They shape our society including what we, as a group, think about concepts described by the words. “sexual orientation” is such a word, coined to alleviate the “shame” of saying ‘homosexual’.

I don’t generally like to quote wikipedia, but since this discussion is now involving the popular use of a certain phrase, i think it’s apropos.

Sexual orientation describes a pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to the opposite sex, the same sex, both, or neither, and the genders that accompany them. By the convention of organized researchers, these attractions are subsumed under heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, and asexuality. According to the American Psychological Association, sexual orientation is enduring and also refers to a person’s sense of "personal and social identity based on those attractions, behaviors expressing them, and membership in a community of others who share them."

[empasis mine]

if you read the emphasized portion above, you can see that “sexual orientation” is about more than merely who one is attracted to. It’s about identity and our identity should be as the New Man (Woman) in Christ.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Words have power. They have meaning. They shape our society including what we, as a group, think about concepts described by the words. “sexual orientation” is such a word, coined to alleviate the “shame” of saying ‘homosexual’.

I don’t generally like to quote wikipedia, but since this discussion is now involving the popular use of a certain phrase, i think it’s apropos.

[empasis mine]

if you read the emphasized portion above, you can see that “sexual orientation” is about more than merely who one is attracted to. It’s about identity and our identity should be as the New Man (Woman) in Christ.

What’s next, are you going to tell me the swastika is purely a symbol of evil?

 

[Hadrianus]

Even without direct “comment” on the term, we can tell that there is noway the church approve the concept of “sexual orientation”. Sexual orientation suggests that there are “two forms of sexuality”, that is heterosexuality and homosexuality, and therefore people are with sexual orientation. This is contrary to the church teaching, because the church only recognize one and only form of sexuality, that is heterosexuality. Homosexuality is regarded as a disordered condition. In this logic, there is no room for “orientation” concept, because there is only one form of sexuality. The disordered form of sexuality is NOT seen as “another form of sexuality”, instead it is only regarded as “a disordered condition”.

Please provide your private opinion with some prove when you try to claim that your private opinion is “the official position of the church”.

When the Church in “noway” approves of a concept she condemns that concept. The concept of sexual orientation has been around for about a century now, and the Church has never condemned it.In a fallen world there can be any number of sexualities, but that is merely a clinical question, not a moral one. Sexuality in the sense of sexual desire is, in any case, a secondary human characteristic. It will not exist in heaven. What the Church does say is that homosexual inclinations are objectively disordered, and therefore cannot be acted upon. I refer you again to the CCC which presents the official position of the Church.

 

[francisca]

When the Church in “noway” approves of a concept she condemns that concept. The concept of sexual orientation has been around for about a century now, and the Church has never condemned it.

It doesn’t mean that she approves it. Her teaching reflect her position clearly.

In a fallen world there can be any number of sexualities, but that is merely a clinical question, not a moral one.

Some sexual behavior are immoral according to church teaching.

Sexuality in the sense of sexual desire is, in any case, a secondary human characteristic. It will not exist in heaven.

The Church is the bride of Christ. What do you know about what will exist and won’t exist in heaven?

What the Church does say is that homosexual inclinations are objectively disordered, and therefore cannot be acted upon. I refer you again to the CCC which presents the official position of the Church.

Our disagreement is about the term “sexual orientation”. I don’t debate the above CCC. In fact, I use the above teaching to prove to you that The church would never agree to “sexual orientation” concept, because sexual orientation suggest there are two forms of human sexuality, whereas the church only recognize one, and refer to the other one as a disordered condition.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Our disagreement is about the term “sexual orientation”. I don’t debate the above CCC. In fact, I use the above teaching to prove to you that The church would never agree to “sexual orientation” concept, because sexual orientation suggest there are two forms of human sexuality, whereas the church only recognize one, and refer to the other one as a disordered condition.

Yes. “Orientation” is a secular term which implies, and/or has been manipulated in the secular press and by the Gay Lobby to mean:

~moral equivalency to heterosexuality
~genetic predisposition (although there is no conclusive evidence of that)
~determinism (“can’t help myself”)
~permission --even necessity --to activate an inclination
~permanence (“couldn’t change if I wanted to”)
and even
~ontological separateness (a “different” variety of human nature )

None of that ^ is compatible with Roman Catholic moral theology.

Interesting that Dakota remarked on the connection to orienteering. I thought of the same quite awhile ago and have not yet brought it up in these discussions. I think there’s some subtle manipulation (not by him!) in that connection, as well. It implies an “absolutism,” as if there’s an alternate genuine “compass” which is a different “true North.”

And I agree with michelle that language is huge, and that the Church takes language very seriously, and chooses her words with care when composing any official documents, including the Catechism.

 

[mrld20]

The Catechism is clear when it uses the term “inclination.”

However if we were to look at some of the positions of Catholic lay societies such as the Catholic Medical Association etc we see a variety of terms used such as same-sex attractions, homosexual dispensation, homosexual orientation, homosexual attractions etc.

So there are some instances when a Catholic group uses a term such as “orientation.” However, whatever the term used it is always meant to be within the teachings of the Church. The Church specifically rejects the terms such as “gay, lesbian etc.”

So there are instances when a Catholic group uses the word “orientation.” However all groups who do this who are in good standing with the Church reiterate Church teaching that homosexual acts can never be approved and that the “orientation, ssa, inclination or w/e terms you prefer” are disordered.

 

[Elizabeth502]

^ francisca was making the point that official church documents do not use the term orientation. The fact that some Catholic lay groups may use the term does not mean that the Magisterium would ever use the term. (And for good reason; it’s too easy to confuse its meaning.)

 

[mrld20]

I also want to add; the Church doesn’t force people with SSA to undergo therapy to change their inclinations… It’s rather silent on that… It recommends therapy to cope with comorbid mental health issues and accepting the condition… But it by no means says people who are homosexuals have to change…

Documents: Pastoral Ministry to Young People with Same-Sex Attraction

Always Our Children

 

[Elizabeth502]

I also want to add; the Church doesn’t force people with SSA to undergo therapy to change their inclinations.

Straw man. No one has said that.

It recommends therapy to cope with comorbid mental health issues and accepting the condition…

Not quite. It recommends long-term therapy for anyone who might have one or more variety of disorders, including SSA. It is sometimes discovered in such long-term therapy that the patient rejects SSA once he or she realizes the origins of it for him or her. (When there is recognition that SSA has become a disordered substitute for a genuine, unfilled need.)

The Church does not necessarily endorse any therapy for the purpose of merely confirming someone in “the condition” of SSA.