H
havana1
Guest
That’s correct. There’s no such as “ex-gay.”
For those who believe homosexuals can change their orientation....
- Status
H
havana1
Guest
Me, too. Well, I will say I think it’s dishonest for those who believe “homosexuals can change their orientation” to turn around and say, “Oh no, we’re not talking about homosexuality-! We’re talking about SSA-!” I think that’s terribly dishonest and uncharitable.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
When any Person A states that he or she doubts the authenticity of Person B who describes having previously been attracted to the same sex, but now is no longer, as supposedly not “really” being previously SSA, Person A is doubting the truthfulness of Person B.I didn’t claim anyone was being dishonest
I’m confused.
It’s very simple. There’s nothing confusing about it. I give much more credit to individual experience than that, and to the human race in general. It would be very arrogant of any of us to “decide” that we would “know” what the real sexual experience and feelings are of Person A, based on something political, polemic, or some biased reading. Sexual perception and experience is entirely personal and subjective; it cannot be “verified” or “discredited” by outsiders.
Anyone who doubts it is possible to stop actually feeling a sexual attraction has not read widely enough, does not have enough life experience, or has an agenda. There is not a fourth option.
Not only have I read more widely than that, not only are there references to such real-life stories right here on CAF, I know two people personally who once felt attracted and now are no longer. Now, if you want to say that they didn’t realize that they might be able to develop an attraction for the opposite sex (because they lacked the opportunity, whatever), and therefore chose the S-S path, that’s another matter. But the facts are they actually felt attracted previously (for whatever reason), and now are only attracted to the opposite sex. And they are not bisexual, either. They were not suppressing their supposedly “real” sexual urges (while actually being attracted to the opposite sex), in order to play out some temporary sexual fantasy. Because that’s what you said in your earlier post — that they were just actually heterosexual all along. Not as they experienced, they weren’t. And they would know; you wouldn’t.
H
havana1
Guest
When any Person A states that he or she doubts the authenticity of Person B who describes being previously homosexual, but that Person B is no longer homosexual, it is reasonable for Person A to expect that Person B is talking about homosexuality and not substituting made-up words and concepts like “SSA.” If people stuck to the word “homosexual,” that would clear up considerable confusion.
D
Dakota_Roberts
Guest
I am saying if the person first experienced the acts then developed the feelings that they can change because it is not an innate part of them (innate≠intrinsic). If they developed the feelings after the experienced and enjoying it then it is actually a product of their actions and not in fact part of who they are.
H
Hadrianus
Guest
Yes, Elizabeth, I think we agree. The Church desires the salvation of souls. I am in no way opposed to the theory that some people with SSA can be helped by therapy; at the same time I think it is very important to be clear on this point that the Church has no opinion about any kind of “cure” for those who have SSA. The Church seeks only the salvation of souls
Additional emphasis mine! (Not detracting from the rest of it!)
D
Dakota_Roberts
Guest
Hadrianus, could I please get the citation? gratias tibi ago
M
michelleds
Guest
Hadrianus, you have claimed in several threads now that there is no such thing as ex-gay. now you claim that it’s because ppl are using made up terms like SSA. I have previously challenged you on this theory of yours that there is no such thing as ex-gay by asking if Paul never changed or if Peter could never get past denying Christ. There are plenty of other examples from the Bible, not to mention real life. There’s the former Soviet secret police officer who was assigned to hunt down Christians, make them stop practicing Christianity using whatever violent methods he wanted, who has since been transformed and is now a witnessing Christian.
Are those stories valid? If so, why are those stories truthful and the ones pertaining to homosexuality not? Do you believe in the Grace of God?
I will admit that there are folks out there testifying about being former homosexuals whose stories are less than compelling, perhaps because of the age or amount of time spent in the homosexual lifestyle. However, that is a different critique than that of a blanket denial of ex-gay.
Let me ask you this: I’m 43 years old and female. I “came out” when I was 18. I was actively, vehemently, “in the life” until about 18 months ago when I came back to Christ and converted to Catholicism. THRU THE GRACE OF GOD, I no longer suffer with homosexual feelings or attractions. THRU THE GRACE OF GOD, I find men attractive. Because of the sins of lust, etc, I do not focus on those feelings nor is there any one individual man.
Am I ex-gay enough for you?
Please, please, everyone: pay attention to those bolded words above. everyone keeps talking about therapy and willpower and the mind. We are not delivered from our sinful natures through therapy. therapy might be a tool, but it is the GRACE OF GOD that delivers us. Stop acting like secularists.
Are those stories valid? If so, why are those stories truthful and the ones pertaining to homosexuality not? Do you believe in the Grace of God?
I will admit that there are folks out there testifying about being former homosexuals whose stories are less than compelling, perhaps because of the age or amount of time spent in the homosexual lifestyle. However, that is a different critique than that of a blanket denial of ex-gay.
Let me ask you this: I’m 43 years old and female. I “came out” when I was 18. I was actively, vehemently, “in the life” until about 18 months ago when I came back to Christ and converted to Catholicism. THRU THE GRACE OF GOD, I no longer suffer with homosexual feelings or attractions. THRU THE GRACE OF GOD, I find men attractive. Because of the sins of lust, etc, I do not focus on those feelings nor is there any one individual man.
Am I ex-gay enough for you?
Please, please, everyone: pay attention to those bolded words above. everyone keeps talking about therapy and willpower and the mind. We are not delivered from our sinful natures through therapy. therapy might be a tool, but it is the GRACE OF GOD that delivers us. Stop acting like secularists.
I
ivebeenshown
Guest
Thank you Michelle…
So many people think in secular terms when it comes to God… it’s like: well, if you are going to say that God can’t heal my disorder, then do you deny that the Saints were able to be purified in their earthly course of life? Do you deny that God can help a person to not be so angry, when like sexuality, it’s disposition reflected by chemicals in the brain? Do you deny that God can help a person not to steal, when such a compulsion is also a disorder?
But they will acknowledge God’s ability to heal these things, except for sexual issues.
H
havana1
Guest
I agree with Hadranius. SSA does seem to be a “made-up” concept, compared to the word “homosexuality.” There’s no teaching in the Magisterium about “ex-gay.” What has sufficiently been demonstrated is that people who were never gay to begin with can “renounce the gay lifestyle.” What hasn’t been demonstrated, and per the thread title, is that the underlying disorientation can be changed. That still hasn’t been shown.
M
michelleds
Guest
did you even read my post?
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Wrong! I’m going to call you on this, and call out any other person who continues to misrepresent the position of the Church on this issue.
The Roman Catholic Church’s “business” goes far beyond the limited definition of “salvation” which many assume is its narrow concern. The Church has often been described as a hospital for those in need of healing. How irresponsible it would be of a hospital staff to have an atittude and practice of resignation about a semi-paralyzed individual, a patient in need of physical rehab, a patient in need of drug rehab, etc. The hospital, if it dared to consider itself professional, would recommend a course of treatment for that patient (or several options), even if it had not the resources itself to administer that treatment. That’s what healers do: they heal, and they recommend healing.
The Church considers anyone with any disorder to be in grave need of healing. It does not throw up its hands and “say” (in practice): ‘Hey, not our problem.’ Now, if the patient is not ready to seek healing, chooses to reject healing resources in the community and outside the community (spiritual and/or practical), that’s the choice that a Church (or a hospital) must respect. Ditto for if/when the Church member seeks healing unsuccessfully, or seeks it and becomes discouraged, and so stops seeking. The Church will still continue to offer what it can, professionally (on the spiritual-counsel and sacramental end). But it will never close off options and recommendations to such persons. There are many heterosexual priests who work with homosexual members of their parishes or communities in a role that is not narrowly “spiritual.” And they do so for a reason, not to pass their time.
The porn addict who comes to confession weekly because he needs it, and continues to fall, is offered resources such as support groups for such men. He can choose to reject those resources, and in which case the sacraments are still available to him as long as he is able to approach those sincerely, but his spiritual growth will be constricted until he seeks a more thorough approach to his healing.
There are all kinds of ills and disorders in the psychological and sexual realm that spill over into the spiritual realm. These are obstacles in the spiritual life, and the Church cares about all obstacles to the spiritual life. So, regardless of the fact that there’s not an “arm” or annex in the Church for addressing SSA from a clinical perspective, it is not because it’s not a “concern” of the Church. The Church also doesn’t have a professional marriage counseling department per se, but she understands perfectly well that marriages in trouble are breeding grounds for spiritual sickness, and that without addressing marital problems, the individual partners will be stalled in their spiritual progress. Therefore, she vigorously recommends all kinds of programs to resolve these problems, both those sponsored specifically by the Church, and those of a secular nature as along as they do not conflict with Church teaching. (Which is why she approves of the apostolate Courage but not the advocacy group Dignity, for example.)
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Doubtful that it was read with the trust and respect it deserved. Because, you see, people who have made up their minds that sexual attraction is as absolute and unchangeable as the earth’s rotation on its axis, will never consider the actual personal experience of a person who has been afflicted with SSA. (And yes, it’s an affliction; the Roman Church considers it an affliction.)
How obnoxious, on a scale of 1 to 10, would it be if any of us were to state to any person that we knew better than him or her, what his or her true feelings were? That is exactly what such posters are doing: they are invalidating the personal feelings and experiences of others, with zero authority and credibility to do so.
(Answer: It would be a 12.)
H
havana1
Guest
Your posts are ostensibly “shell games” where you keep changing the terminology. The issue at hand - the thread title - is “for those who believe homosexuals can change their orientation.” Anytime I and others have asked for evidence, for proof, that the disorientation homosexuality can be changed, you keep changing and flip-flopping to *“Oh, no-! We’re not talking about homosexuality-! We’re talking about SSA-! And if you don’t believe in SSA and that someone who might never have been gay to begin with can renounce the gay lifestyle, you’re just being mean and uncharitable-!” *
So, please - keep the confusing and made-up concept of “SSA” out of the dialogue for at least one post - and show us how homosexuals can change their orientation from homosexuality to heterosexuality - without the “SSA” verbal gymnastics.
H
havana1
Guest
You’re right, I won’t consider actual personal experience because that’s not scientific data, and quote, unquote, “SSA” is not a medical term or a scientific term. The affliction described in the Catechism is homosexuality, not “SSA.” There’s scientific evidence of homosexuality. There’s no scientific evidence of “SSA,” which by your own admission, is a personal experience. “SSA” is a term of Catholic apologetics that really isn’t utilized by anyone outside of CAF and NARTH. “Homosexuality” is the proper, and more easily understood, term. Not SSA. Homosexuality.
M
michelleds
Guest
For your convenience and that of others, I have quoted verbatim my post #240, which is the one I asked if you had read. please note that I do not use the term SSA in this post at all.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
All you’re saying is that in your subjective view the attraction (“SSA”) cannot be separated from the behavior (“homosexuality”), which is not the experience of some of those who have indeed left the behavior. So what you’re still doing is arrogating to yourself, through terminology, the right to edit and invalidate the experiences of others.
Personal experiences are not dependent on terminology – either those of the scientific community or of reliigous institutions. People who have been homosexual in both attraction and behavior are capable of releasing themselves from that, with the help of grace (and perhaps in some cases other kinds of help). It is not for you to deny that. You wouldn’t know what their experiences have and have not been, including whether or not their personal experiences have been recorded in the annals of science.
F
francisca
Guest
What if I say that all homosexuals who has no hormonal imbalance, chromosome problem, or any other health problem that causes sexual problem-- what if I say that all of these people are not genuine homosexuals, based on the criteria that their normal biological body function just like any other heterosexual normal body function?
If you disagree with my criteria above, then why don’t you begin to tell us what the criteria of "a genuine homosexual’ are?
If you do have such criteria then, like in Elizabeth post, gay culture must not “celebrate too quickly” when somebody announce their homosexuality, because they-- unless being checked throughly according to “the criteria of a genuine homosexual”-- they might be “impostors” according to you !
If you do not have any criteria, then all of your posts are word games:
- If somebody used to be attracted to the same sex, but not anymore, but he/ she has never attracted to the opposite sex either, you would say “he/ she has never stopped being gay, because he/ she has never attracted to the oppostite sex, so he/ she is NOT an ex-gay”
- If somebody used to be a homosexual but then later he/ she marry the opposite sex, you would say “oh he/ she has NEVER been a gay to begin with”.
F
francisca
Guest
I think such analogy “compass without north, money, guns” and so on are very suggestive. Subtle, polished, and suggestive.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Except, francisca, that the Gay Lobby validates publicly anyone who goes from heterosexuality to homosexuality, knighting them “courageous,” “honest,” etc, providing them with the gay equivalent of the Congressional Medal of Honor. This is opposed to the treatment of those who go from homosexual to heterosexual, who are condemned as being “phony,” “liars,” and “impostors.” There is no intellectually or morally honest criterion applied.
Alternatively, the message is (as I and several others have noted elsewhere on CAF, and as some independent writers have also observed): Homosexuality is the new norm. (Simply because they have declared it so.)
- Status