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

[francisca]

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.)

Yup.

Moreover, the problem with “honesty” is, it depends on what we confess. If we confess the truth, then we are honest. On the opposite, if we confess non-truth, we can’t be honest.

So the question comeback “what’s the truth?”

If I thought SSA/ homosexuality is the truth but it turns out not, then

Those who confess God’s truth are called righteous (righteousness include honesty in it), those who deny God’s truth are not righteous. But may be this is too much religious/ philosophical for many people.

So based on science/ common-sense we ask them, what’s your criterion?

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

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.

We haven’t argued those points, with two we are saying it could be biological (not necessarily genetic) and with six it has been argued that sexuality in general isn’t part of human nature.

With compasses sometimes exterior things can influence them and the housing itself can influence them.

I think you are reading between the lines too deeply

I think such analogy “compass without north, money, guns” and so on are very suggestive. Subtle, polished, and suggestive.

We were discussing the word orientation so naturally as an avid hiker the first thing that came to mind was a compass. I have not made an attempt at making those things.

 

[Hadrianus]

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 SS 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.)

If the Church considered those with SSA to be “in grave need of healing” she would say so. The expression by the way is “a hospital for sinners”, Now the Church is very much concerned about sin, and in her official teaching is clear that those with SSA are called to chastity. And, of course, if some people are helped upon the road to chastity by therapy, then the Church would be in favor of that. If some people benefit from it, then obviously Catholics can recommend it, but the evidence that it can succeed in changing sexual attraction from homosexual to heterosexual is too slight and anecdotal to warrant any conclusive judgement. Nor am I aware that Courage considers such treatment necessary.

You and Francisca have consistently presented your personal opinion that those with SSA must undergo therapy as the position of the Church without citing a single magisterial document in your favor. When challenged you resort to accusing others of not understanding how the Church functions. In fact, in most of the world so-called reparative therapy doesn’t exist and the Catholic Church has shown little if any interest in promoting it.

I am not questioning your good intentions, but it is always dangerous to present personal opinion as the position of the Church.

 

[Hadrianus]

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.

I am somewhat confused. i don’t know that I have used the term ex-gay at all. And I certainly wouldn’t limit divine grace, far from it. As to the term SSA, I use it with some reluctance as it is not the generally accepted term, but as far as I can see SSA and homosexual are interchangeable in practice.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

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.

You’ve been changed by God not reparative therapy

If the Church considered those with SSA to be “in grave need of healing” she would say so. The expression by the way is “a hospital for sinners”, Now the Church is very much concerned about sin, and in her official teaching is clear that those with SSA are called to chastity. And, of course, if some people are helped upon the road to chastity by therapy, then the Church would be in favor of that. If some people benefit from it, then obviously Catholics can recommend it, but the evidence that it can succeed in changing sexual attraction from homosexual to heterosexual is too slight and anecdotal to warrant any conclusive judgement. Nor am I aware that Courage considers such treatment necessary.

You and Francisca have consistently presented your personal opinion that those with SSA must undergo therapy as the position of the Church without citing a single magisterial document in your favor. When challenged you resort to accusing others of not understanding how the Church functions. In fact, in most of the world so-called reparative therapy doesn’t exist and the Catholic Church has shown little if any interest in promoting it.

I am not questioning your good intentions, but it is always dangerous to present personal opinion as the position of the Church.

Courage focuses on the twelve steps which helps those who are trapped in the lifestyle, but trying to escape it or those who have washed out of it. While it is good to pull someone out of the abyss is it not infinitely greater to prevent someone from falling in? It fails those who are desperately trying to find something to cling too, it fails those who’ve fallen in love and struggle, in short Courage seems to fail at helping people who haven’t screwed up, those who have been faithful handmaidens and pages of the Lord.

I’m curious, Hadrianus what is your level of education in theology? Likewise francisca and Elizabeth.

 

[Hadrianus]

Hadrianus, could I please get the citation? gratias tibi ago

P. 901 of the Dictionary of Moral Theology, under the topic “Perversion, Sexual” which treats of homosexuality among other things, we find the statement that “it is probable, without excluding the will as a factor, that. …forms of perversion stem from a pathological basis, perhaps of a phrenasthenic nature” Phrenasthenic is a now out dated term for a congenital abnormality of the brain. With specific reference to homosexuality the same article suggests that one factor could be “hermaphroditic structures”

In mentioning this it is important to remember that the Dictionary may not be accurate in its analysis when speaking of medical matters, as this was written 60 years ago; the significance lies in the fact that it demonstrates that the catholic position was not aprioristically opposed to biological factors in the genesis of homosexuality.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

P. 901 of the Dictionary of Moral Theology, under the topic “Perversion, Sexual” which treats of homosexuality among other things, we find the statement that “it is probable, without excluding the will as a factor, that. …forms of perversion stem from a pathological basis, perhaps of a phrenasthenic nature” Phrenasthenic is a now out dated term for a congenital abnormality of the brain. With specific reference to homosexuality the same article suggests that one factor could be “hermaphroditic structures”

In mentioning this it is important to remember that the Dictionary may not be accurate in its analysis when speaking of medical matters, as this was written 60 years ago; the significance lies in the fact that it demonstrates that the catholic position was not aprioristically opposed to biological factors in the genesis of homosexuality.

Actually I’m amused by how close it is, in a number of studies it has been found that the brain of homosexual males tends to more resemble the brain of heterosexual females than heterosexual males whereas for homosexual females they more resembled heterosexual males than females. Indeed the similarities crop up in areas of the brain not associated with reproduction like in gay men (surprise surprise) the emotional centre of the brain, the amygdala. These differences would be cause by the neonatal environment so it appears to nail it on the counts of congenital abnormality of the brain and hermaphroditic structures.

 

[francisca]

P. 901 of the Dictionary of Moral Theology, under the topic “Perversion, Sexual” which treats of homosexuality among other things, we find the statement that “it is probable, without excluding the will as a factor, that. …forms of perversion stem from a pathological basis, perhaps of a phrenasthenic nature” Phrenasthenic is a now out dated term for a congenital abnormality of the brain. **With specific reference to homosexuality the same article suggests that one factor could be “hermaphroditic structures” **

lol.

Since when there is “hemaphroditic structures” in human ?

In mentioning this it is important to remember that the Dictionary may not be accurate

It MAY not be accurate!

lol lol lol

in its analysis when speaking of medical matters, as this was written 60 years ago;

Are you sure it’s 60 years old, and not way way older than that? I believe we have known that we humans are not snails even since before Darwin.

That article may try to suggest that we “could be” snails !

the significance lies in the fact that it demonstrates that the catholic position was not aprioristically opposed to biological factors in the genesis of homosexuality.

I don’t know what to write anymore.

 

[francisca]

Actually I’m amused by how close it is, in a number of studies it has been found that the brain of homosexual males tends to more resemble the brain of heterosexual females than heterosexual males whereas for homosexual females they more resembled heterosexual males than females. Indeed the similarities crop up in areas of the brain not associated with reproduction like in gay men (surprise surprise) the emotional centre of the brain, the amygdala.

And this “similarity” is compared by… what? Is it by their “look” or “smell” or “color” or what?

You guys may try to lie about many things, it takes a lot to lie about God’s creation.

These differences would be cause by the neonatal environment so it appears to nail it on the counts of congenital abnormality of the brain and hermaphroditic structures.

Humans sexuality has never been hermaphroditic.
Your post shows that homosexuality includes false testimony about God’s creation.

 

[francisca]

By the way, I miss Havana1.

By now I think Havana1 is very very busy

1. trying to formulate a set of criterion that will decide whether a gay is really “genuine homosexual”,

or

1. may be Havana1 have just realized that there are too many lies to deal with in order to find any “genuinity” at all

 

[francisca]

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.

Let’s talk about honesty.

Science can’t formulate homosexuality other than “a behavior”. A mere behavior can’t be called “sexuality” unless it shows capability to perform sex which follow reproduction scenario as demanded by nature.

Homosexuality is not equivalent as heterosexuality.

Heterosexuality is a sexuality because it is real in body and it reproduce. The essence of sexuality is reproduction. You may check this fenomenon in all creatures.

Homosexuality does not have any “body”. It is only “a concept of sexuality” that is derived from “perversion of heterosexuality”. The perversed concept produce perversed behavior. This “sexual behavior” disregard hormonal system, physiological system of a human body, it doesn’t follow reproduction scenario of human reproduction system. Thus homosexuality is more like “a discontinued” sexual behavior. We can’t call such as “a form of sexuality” because it doesn’t follow ANY reproductive scenario whatsoever, it is completely “outside” the scenario. Thus homosexuality is not really a sexuality.

Now if homosexuality doesn’t have any SUBSTANCE to be called sexuality, then that’s why we do not need to “confess it” as if it is the truth. We do not need to confess something that has no substantiality in truth.

If somebody experience “same sex attraction”, this fact doesn’t really change his body into different gender for example. Thus his sexuality remains the same, eventhough his imagination tempt him. In other words, homosexuality is not really there, until one confess it as his truth. Otherwise it remains as “a temptation”. People are tempted to commit all kinds of immoral behavior all the time. But these temptations are not their identity until they accept/ succumb to it.

Are we being “dishonest” when we REFUSE to confess something that basically has no substantial truth in it? NO. On the opposite, it’s honesty.

To experience SSA doesn’t automatically change a person into a homosexual. This is the truth. This is being honest : to confess the truth, and to renounce lies.

 

[Hadrianus]

lol.

Since when there is “hemaphroditic structures” in human ?

It MAY not be accurate!

lol lol lol

Are you sure it’s 60 years old, and not way way older than that? I believe we have known that we humans are not snails even since before Darwin.

That article may try to suggest that we “could be” snails !

I don’t know what to write anymore.

Actually, the Dictionary was published first in Italian in 1957 under the direction of Cardinal Roberti, Prefect of the Apostolic Segnatura and edited by Pietro Palazzini, later Cardinal and one of the better known Italian thinkers on matters of Moral theology. I cited it not to prove the correctness of medical terminology, but rather to show the complete openness of real theologians to the possibility that homosexuals may be influenced by biological factors. I can also cite the Theologia Moralis of Genicot, in a 1930 edition which says something similar. I cited these points at the request of Dakota Roberts, as Francisca you have more than adequately demonstrated your refusal to recognize any opinion than your own.

 

[Hadrianus]

You’ve been changed by God not reparative therapy

Courage focuses on the twelve steps which helps those who are trapped in the lifestyle, but trying to escape it or those who have washed out of it. While it is good to pull someone out of the abyss is it not infinitely greater to prevent someone from falling in? It fails those who are desperately trying to find something to cling too, it fails those who’ve fallen in love and struggle, in short Courage seems to fail at helping people who haven’t screwed up, those who have been faithful handmaidens and pages of the Lord.

I’m curious, Hadrianus what is your level of education in theology? Likewise francisca and Elizabeth.

In answer to your query I hold an STB from a Catholic university.

 

[Hadrianus]

And this “similarity” is compared by… what? Is it by their “look” or “smell” or “color” or what?

You guys may try to lie about many things, it takes a lot to lie about God’s creation.

Humans sexuality has never been hermaphroditic.
Your post shows that homosexuality includes false testimony about God’s creation.

I feel I must respond to these sarcastic accusations. Anyone with an orthodox Catholic understanding of original sin and its consequences need have no difficulty in considering the possibility that homosexuals could be “born that way” e.g. have been affected by hormonal or other biological factors during fetal development, perhaps also with some genetic predisposition. Anyone interested in the scientific studies done in this area can find them on the internet Sadly, there are also people born with true hermaphroditism, now usual referred to as “intersex”.

Throughout history when people have insisted upon a conflict between the Church and the natural sciences, it has invariably been as a result of a misunderstanding of Catholic theology. When, however, it reaches the point of accusing good Catholics of lying about “God’s creation”, then, obviously, a response is necessary.

 

[francisca]

there are also people born with true hermaphroditism, now usual referred to as “intersex”.

Humans are biologically IMPOSSIBLE to become hemaphrodite in reproduction.

A person maybe a transvestite but not a hermaprodite.

 

[francisca]

Actually, the Dictionary was published first in Italian in 1957 under the direction of Cardinal Roberti, Prefect of the Apostolic Segnatura and edited by Pietro Palazzini, later Cardinal and one of the better known Italian thinkers on matters of Moral theology. I cited it not to prove the correctness of medical terminology, but rather to show the complete openness of real theologians to the possibility that homosexuals may be influenced by biological factors. I can also cite the Theologia Moralis of Genicot, in a 1930 edition which says something similar. I cited these points at the request of Dakota Roberts, as Francisca you have more than adequately demonstrated your refusal to recognize any opinion than your own.

Have you cross checked it with “official” church documents ?

After your trying to manipulate “official church teachings”, I would not count what you say without any evidence. Sorry.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

And this “similarity” is compared by… what? Is it by their “look” or “smell” or “color” or what?

You guys may try to lie about many things, it takes a lot to lie about God’s creation.

Humans sexuality has never been hermaphroditic.
Your post shows that homosexuality includes false testimony about God’s creation.

The similarity compared by density of nerves,

hermaphrodite: a person or animal having both male and female sex organs or other sexual characteristics, either abnormally or (in the case of some organisms) as the natural condition.
The brain is sexually dimorphic, thus the term hermaphroditic can be used.

My dear, why are you are you so accusatory? Where are we lying about God’s creation? Please stop trying to attack our honesty and integrity, it is extremely insulting.

What makes you think that those sources are theologically worthless?

 

[Hadrianus]

Have you cross checked it with “official” church documents ?

After your trying to manipulate “official church teachings”, I would not count what you say without any evidence. Sorry.

The work in question was published in Rome by a Cardinal who was a close collaborator of Pius XII and as head of the Segnatura often dealt with marriage law and thus questions of sexuality. It is about as ‘official’ an authority as was avaiable at the time. Later Paul VI promulgated a document specifically on the treatment of Homosexual persons which in now way contradicts the earlier work. Neither does the CCC. Roman statements rarely contradict one another, and neither do they do more than summarize the findings of other disciplines.

If you wish to accuse me of manipulating official texts of the Church, please cite an example where I have done this.

 

[Hadrianus]

PS the document of Paul VI was called Persona Humana, and was published in 1975. Section VIII, para 2 is especially relevant to my point.

A later publication of 1986 is also a valuable resource, and yes in that it does advise bishops to consult psychologists, sociologists and the medical profession. But it refrains from requiring those with a Homosexual orientation–a term it uses–to undergo therapy generally speaking. It is one thing to wish to consult experts in scientific fields, but quite another to insist upon the theories of one or two, especially in an area in which there is no consensus.

Personally, I find it bizarre that those of us who uphold and defend the Catholic position on homosexuality are constantly accused of dishonesty or disloyalty to the Church, on the sole grounds that we express reservations about one particular from of therapy which has itself not been endorsed by the Church. Obviously, individual Catholics may endorse it if they wish, as the Church allows for a great deal of freedom in areas such as this; but to accuse those who express reservations as thereby being bad Catholics, or of dishonesty is shameful.

 

[Brent87st]

Not sure what your point is?
Celibacy is celibacy.
Society is obsessed with sex issues; let us not get infected with this disease.
http://www.cuinsurance.org/mating1.jpg
http://www.cuinsurance.org/mating2.jpg
http://www.cuinsurance.org/mating3.jpg