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

[Mudgely]

Straw man. No one has said that.

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.

“Since 1975, the American Psychological Association has called on psychologists to take the lead in removing the stigma of mental illness that has long been associated with lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations. The discipline of psychology is concerned with the well-being of people and groups and therefore with threats to that well-being. The prejudice and discrimination that people who identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual regularly experience have been shown to have negative psychological effects.”

apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx

That is the legitimate professional view on the topic. It is possible that a person’s sexuality in the course of psychotherapy could be affected through greater self understanding and self acceptance. The job of a therapist on NOT to change someone’s sexual orientation. The more common approach is to help the individual come to terms with it, and to gain self acceptance and an improved self image. For a Catholic, this might mean learning to be more content with a life of celibacy, or to examine whether a more accepting religion would lead to greater happiness. There are many possibilities. But it is very unlikely that someone will change sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is thought to be established prior to adolescence.

 

[mrld20]

Straw man. No one has said that.

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.

If you would read either of those documents especially the Canadian one; you will see that therapy is recommended for mental health issues… And you just don’t walk away from SSA dude… I’ve got deep seated SSA… I tried to change it for two whole years and attractions just became even stronger. Some people can change… But not all… Making blanket promises about “freedom” or “leaving” same-sex attractions behind is complicating matters. Like I said a minority of people with “transitory” attractions can change. Some people with SSA can experience lessoned attractions with therapy. But overall you just don’t become “free” from SSA just because you discover whatever the heck caused it.

Truth be told the Church admits it doesn’t know what causes SSA/homosexuality. Science and religious groups don’t know. There’s the genetic theory. There’s the poor socialization theory. There’s the sexual abuse theory. The list goes on. We don’t know what causes SSA. It is generally very hard to determine the origins of something so complex.

 

[mrld20]

“Counselling can be a valuable tool for struggling youth, who may experience a crisis as they
grow increasingly aware of homosexual feelings. Young people, particularly adolescents and young
men, may be tempted to commit suicide once they can no longer deny or ignore their deep-seated
same-sex inclinations. Everyone must be alert to offer hope and assistance to these young people
lest despair obscure their judgment.
Ensure that professional counsellors or psychologists who see young people are distinguished
by their sound human and spiritual maturity. They must be committed to the Christian vision of
the human person and sexuality, as well as the Church’s teaching on homosexuality and chastity.
Their interventions can help your child discern the meaning of a same-sex attraction in a way that
leads to greater clarity about sexual identity and the inherent dignity of all children of God.”

-Ministry to young people with SSA

Sounds to me like they’re saying counseling for mental health issues and accepting SSA!

 

[Mudgely]

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.)

Do you have any credible evidence whatsoever for that claim?

 

[Elizabeth502]

If you would read either of those documents especially the Canadian one; you will see that therapy is recommended for mental health issues…

And general long-term therapy (not necessarily specifically sexually-“themed” therapy) is what is recommended for those with SSA. It is strongly recommended by those who work in the Courage apostolate, who have first-hand experience with the positive effects of that therapy, which sometimes (not always) result in a cessation of SSA, even if not a “conversion” to DSA.

And you just don’t walk away from SSA dude… I’ve got deep seated SSA… I tried to change it for two whole years and attractions just became even stronger.

Straw man. Never said that, and The Church doesn’t say that.

Some people can change… But not all…

The Roman Church always focuses on the “some,” because she stands for hope and believes in the transformative power of grace. She does not focus on the negativity of “not all.” (And the despair that that signifies.)

Making blanket promises about “freedom” or “leaving” same-sex attractions behind is complicating matters.

I didn’t “make blanket promises.” The Church doesn’t “make blanket promises.” You’re arguing with a figment of your imagination.

Like I said a minority of people with “transitory” attractions can change.

The Church doesn’t care about pigeonholing people before effort is made and openness is offered. Whether deep-seated, lifelong, or transitory, she only cares about being a beacon of possiblity, not results or promises. Again, she focuses on the “can,” not the “cannot.” “Cannot” is not a form of love or hope.

Truth be told the Church admits it doesn’t know what causes SSA/homosexuality. Science and religious groups don’t know. There’s the genetic theory. There’s the poor socialization theory.

That’s why she is open about working with such people, as opposed to closing doors just because not everything is rational. Here’s what the Church has discovered after decades of patient work with homosexuals:

**What is virtually not possible is changing such a sexual lifestyle without the addition of grace. ** That means prayer, the sacraments, spiritual and (often) social support in the effort to move from disorder to order. Funny how the APA cannot offer that but the Church founded by Christ can and does.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Do you have any credible evidence whatsoever for that claim?

I do, but the poster who has done more research on this is InSearchofGrace. Actually applying diligence to researching her many posts on this subject will turn up plenty of evidence.

 

[mrld20]

Your really snapping out at people calm down it’s just a post…

 

[Hadrianus]

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.

I agree that terms must be carefully defined, and that some usages of “orientation” are incompatible with Catholic doctrine. This does not, however, mean that the Church condemns the term, properly understood. I agree with much of what you say above, apart from your opinion that the possibility of a biological cause for homosexual inclinations ( am taking the liberty of thinking that your use of ‘genetic’ also includes biology) is somehow contrary to Roman Catholic moral theology. As long ago as the 1930’s the idea was already being considered by moral theologians, and the authoritative Dictonary of Catholic Moral Theology, published under the auspices of Cardinal Palazzini in the reign of Pius XII considers it possible. I can cite it if you would like.

The idea, almost exclusively North American, that a disordered sexuality could not be inborn stems ultimately from a Pelagian conception of Original Sin. The orthodox Catholic position is that concupiscence, or disordered sexual desire, is one of the consequences of the Fall and is present in all people in different degrees and forms. A sexual attraction to members of the same sex is merely one form of this. Without the aid of sanctifying grace it is not possible to bring the disordered human passions under the control of right reason. Furthermore, in the present state of fallen humanity the vast majority of individuals are morally incapable of following or recognizing all of the precepts of the Natural Law without the aid of Revelation (cf Catholic Encyclopedia, article Natural Law, as well as the Catechism of the Council of Trent).

Thus the primary necessity of guiding all sinners to truth is to bring about their conversion to the Catholic Faith. Arguments about the etiology of homosexuality or debates concerning terminology are of academic interest but are secondary.

By all means if some individuals with SSA wish to try therapy as a means to help them with their condition they should be free to do so, but the Roman Catholic Church nowhere
requires this, whatever individuals may say to the contrary. Some fundamentalist groups give a distorted enough presentation of the demands of Christianity as things stand, we needn’t add to this.

 

[Hadrianus]

PS I completely agree that it is virtually impossible for those engaged in a homosexual lifestyle to change from it without the aid of grace, but the same can be said of all those who engage in mortally sinful behavior. Hence the need first and foremost of a religious conversion.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Wait, in the 1930s they were considering the possibility that homosexuality (SSA) had a biological cause? If I did understand you correctly could you please cite it? Also where can I get one of these Dictionary of Catholic Moral Theology tomes? Would probably make great bed time reading material.

I’ve personally always found the concept that people with SSA are uniquely unable to be helped by the medicines of the Church as rather theologically absurd.

 

[Elizabeth502]

By all means if some individuals with SSA wish to try therapy as a means to help them with their condition they should be free to do so, but the Roman Catholic Church nowhere requires this, whatever individuals may say to the contrary.

Straw man. (One of the many on this thread already. ) The Church recommends (already said repeatedly). And she strongly recommends healing of all legitimate varieties when it comes to any type of disorder. The Church approves of the healings available in the natural order, such as psychology, psychiatry, well-guided support groups, recovery programs which are based on sound medicine and psychology. The Church urges healing of all kind in the natural realm, but understands that much of our healing, including that which is psychological, is ultimately partly dependent on grace, or certainly very much aided by it.

Lots of people argue that because something is not explicitly stated in the Catechism that “therefore” the Church does not “recommend” it. False. The Catechism is an essential teaching summary of doctrine, but is not a pastoral document. The pastoral care of the flock is reserved not for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which authors the Catechism, but to the ministerial priesthood, the laity associated with them and in communion with Rome, and all of them directed by their bishops, collectively and individually.

 

[Elizabeth502]

PS I completely agree that it is virtually impossible for those engaged in a homosexual lifestyle to change from it without the aid of grace, but the same can be said of all those who engage in mortally sinful behavior. Hence the need first and foremost of a religious conversion.

Additional emphasis mine! (Not detracting from the rest of it!)

 

[havana1]

I’m still waiting for Catholic Answers speaker bureau to feature an “ex-gay” speaker, and still waiting for Patrick Coffin to feature an “ex-gay” on the radio show. Why hasn’t that happened yet? **Behaviors can be changed (choosing not to do something), but the actual disorientation can’t be changed.
** So much evidence, so much proof, that there’s such a thing as “ex-gay,” and a prominent Catholic apostolate hasn’t even featured it? What does that tell you?

 

[Elizabeth502]

I’m still waiting for Catholic Answers speaker bureau to feature an “ex-gay” speaker, and still waiting for Patrick Coffin to feature an “ex-gay” on the radio show. Why hasn’t that happened yet? **Behaviors can be changed (choosing not to do something), but the actual disorientation can’t be changed.
** So much evidence, so much proof, that there’s such a thing as “ex-gay,” and a prominent Catholic apostolate hasn’t even featured it? What does that tell you?

You mean why “hasn’t” EWTN Radio and TV, other than specifically the *Catholic Answers Live *program, featured those who have renounced the lifestyle? Like Melinda Selmys who has appeared on Women of Grace, The Abundant Life, and Life on the Rock? Like the man who was a guest on Marcus Grodi’s program Deep in Scripture (I believe it was that program; I heard the whole thing; it was about a year ago or so)?

(Best to do your research before embarrassing yourself. )

 

[havana1]

You mean why “hasn’t” EWTN Radio and TV, other than specifically the *Catholic Answers Live *program, featured those who have renounced the lifestyle? Like Melinda Selmys who has appeared on Women of Grace, The Abundant Life, and Life on the Rock? Like the man who was a guest on Marcus Grodi’s program Deep in Scripture (I believe it was that program; I heard the whole thing; it was about a year ago or so)?

(Best to do your research before embarrassing yourself. )

No embarrassment here. This is a Catholic Answers message board, affiliated with Catholic Answers radio show. Given how there are so many proponents of the whole SSA and “ex-gay” thing here - specifically on CAF - it would stand to reason that the staff and show producers of CAL would agree with the whole “ex-gay” thing. Since my research is accordingly pertinent to Catholic Answers, was there a day I missed hearing an “ex-gay” guest? Respectfully asking, thanks.

Also, simply “renouncing the lifestyle” is NOT the same thing as not being gay anymore. It simply means a celibate gay or celibate lesbian. I notice the testimonials I’m hearing are about “renouncing the lifestyle” and not being “ex-gay” (or ex-SSA, whatever) per se. And the Catechism is very specific that it’s a “disorientation,” not a “lifestyle.” **What a relief it must be for those guests that they were never gay to begin with–! **

 

[Elizabeth502]

No embarrassment here. This is a Catholic Answers message board, affiliated with Catholic Answers radio show. Given how there are so many proponents of the whole SSA and “ex-gay” thing here - specifically on CAF - it would stand to reason that the staff and show producers of CAL would agree with the whole “ex-gay” thing. Since my research is accordingly pertinent to Catholic Answers, was there a day I missed hearing an “ex-gay” guest? Respectfully asking, thanks.

So it’s your position, that just because the specific program called Catholic Answers Live has possibly not featured what you call “ex-gay” testimony, that therefore there is no such phenomenon? That radio show has its own reasons for choosing guests. It is mainly an apologetics show, not mainly social issues, although there have been guests who discuss those. The vast majority of guests, since I’ve been listening to the show, are those who are prepared to discuss apologetics. There are a lot of “insiders” who are guests – “regulars” such as staff members of this website (Jimmy Akin, etc.), and authors featured on this C.A. website (Tim Staples, Mark Shea, many others). That’s because those guests discuss two things which that program features especially: Catholic apologetics and evangelization. In fact, I would say that (again, since I have been listening), the evangelization theme is as much as 40% of the emphasis of the program. In some weeks, more than once a week there is featured a full hour or even two hours, in which only non-Catholics are invited to call in and discuss their objections to Catholicism, their questions, etc.

Sometimes CAL does feature contemporary moral/social issues, but not as often as, for example, the 3 programs I name in a row above.

In both secular and religious media, shows have a particular emphasis for the most part; they are not simply free-for-all, random call-in shows. Even secular radio hosts have their “fave” topics. Because a host doesn’t happen to feature a particular topic does not mean that the host is afraid to approach it, that there is no credibility to the (station’s/ Church’s) position on an issue, etc.

 

[havana1]

So it’s your position, that just because the specific program called Catholic Answers Live has possibly not featured what you call “ex-gay” testimony, that therefore there is no such phenomenon? That radio show has its own reasons for choosing guests. It is mainly an apologetics show, not mainly social issues, although there have been guests who discuss those. The vast majority of guests, since I’ve been listening to the show, are those who are prepared to discuss apologetics. There are a lot of “insiders” who are guests – “regulars” such as staff members of this website (Jimmy Akin, etc.), and authors featured on this C.A. website (Tim Staples, Mark Shea, many others). That’s because those guests discuss two things which that program features especially: Catholic apologetics and evangelization. In fact, I would say that (again, since I have been listening), the evangelization theme is as much as 40% of the emphasis of the program. In some weeks, more than once a week there is featured a full hour or even two hours, in which only non-Catholics are invited to call in and discuss their objections to Catholicism, their questions, etc.

Sometimes CAL does feature contemporary moral/social issues, but not as often as, for example, the 3 programs I name in a row above.

In both secular and religious media, shows have a particular emphasis for the most part; they are not simply free-for-all, random call-in shows. Even secular radio hosts have their “fave” topics. Because a host doesn’t happen to feature a particular topic does not mean that the host is afraid to approach it, that there is no credibility to the (station’s/ Church’s) position on an issue, etc.

Actually, the “phenomenon” is of never-gay-to-begin-with heteros “renouncing the gay lifestyle.” If someone was never homosexual to begin with, then, yeah, of course they can renounce the behaviors. Cold turkey. “SSA” is an apologetics term, so that would be in line with CAL programming and policies.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

You mean why “hasn’t” EWTN Radio and TV, other than specifically the *Catholic Answers Live *program, featured those who have renounced the lifestyle? Like Melinda Selmys who has appeared on Women of Grace, The Abundant Life, and Life on the Rock? Like the man who was a guest on Marcus Grodi’s program Deep in Scripture (I believe it was that program; I heard the whole thing; it was about a year ago or so)?

(Best to do your research before embarrassing yourself. )

renouncing the “gay lifestyle” is simply “ex-gay lifestyle”. Stopping homosexual acts does not magically make the attractions go away. Therapy could probably help people who didn’t have attractions before they engaged in the acts, people who did it on a dare or perhaps prison, or maybe they simply tried it, but then they found they “liked it”.

 

[Elizabeth502]

renouncing the “gay lifestyle” is simply “ex-gay lifestyle”. Stopping homosexual acts does not magically make the attractions go away. Therapy could probably help people who didn’t have attractions before they engaged in the acts, people who did it on a dare or perhaps prison, or maybe they simply tried it, but then they found they “liked it”.

Dakota, it’s an important aspect of respect for the human person (which we should strive for as Catholic Christians) to regard personal testimony as honest, unless the person in question reveals it to have been a lie, or the person is discovered to be promoting a blatant falsehood for commercial, political, or other personal reasons. The same respect is demanded of us when someone releases themselves from the chains of any disordered behavior – including drugs, alcoholism, pornography use, gambling, overeating, etc.

One of the persistent behaviors of the Gay Lobby in this country is to unilaterally validate those who publicly “come out” as wonderful and true, and to invalidate all those who reverse their lifestyle and embrace a heterosexual one. Implied in such skepticism is the notion that homosexuality is somehow more persuasive, more real, more “permanent” than heterosexuality is.

People adopt behaviors for all kinds of reasons. And you’re right: sometimes they have artificially (not genuinely) adopted a lifestyle for adaptive reasons, not for reasons of conviction or genuine pleasure & integration. But it is also true that there are a minority of people who developed what in the broadest terms can be called an “attraction,” but in reality was the indicated logical option, as opposed to a passion. While they were in that lifestyle they were not – no – actually attracted to heterosexuals. Rather, at some point after leaving that lifestyle (or in the process of thinking about leaving) they developed an attraction for a particular person of the opposite sex and discovered a new context for heterosexuality that had never presented itself previously.

Others have not ceased the attraction (as you know), but have merely ceased the activity, and are using spiritual and other tools to that end.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Dakota, it’s an important aspect of respect for the human person (which we should strive for as Catholic Christians) to regard personal testimony as honest, unless the person in question reveals it to have been a lie, or the person is discovered to be promoting a blatant falsehood for commercial, political, or other personal reasons. The same respect is demanded of us when someone releases themselves from the chains of any disordered behavior – including drugs, alcoholism, pornography use, gambling, overeating, etc.

One of the persistent behaviors of the Gay Lobby in this country is to unilaterally validate those who publicly “come out” as wonderful and true, and to invalidate all those who reverse their lifestyle and embrace a heterosexual one. Implied in such skepticism is the notion that homosexuality is somehow more persuasive, more real, more “permanent” than heterosexuality is.

People adopt behaviors for all kinds of reasons. And you’re right: sometimes they have artificially (not genuinely) adopted a lifestyle for adaptive reasons, not for reasons of conviction or genuine pleasure & integration. But it is also true that there are a minority of people who developed what in the broadest terms can be called an “attraction,” but in reality was the indicated logical option, as opposed to a passion. While they were in that lifestyle they were not – no – actually attracted to heterosexuals. Rather, at some point after leaving that lifestyle (or in the process of thinking about leaving) they developed an attraction for a particular person of the opposite sex and discovered a new context for heterosexuality that had never presented itself previously.

Others have not ceased the attraction (as you know), but have merely ceased the activity, and are using spiritual and other tools to that end.

I didn’t claim anyone was being dishonest

I’m confused.