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

[tqualey]

Hi, Kolbe300,

I have honestly tried to understand and be intellecutally honest with my responses. The very concept of a ‘knee-jerk’ is an impulse that that does not go directly to the brain, but to the spinal column, where a reflex moves the muscles. Now, ‘knee-jerk’ is usually a pejorative term - but, we all have this power - and the reason for this is to protect the body for injury. Hang onto that thought for a minute…

I have a heterosexual orientation and while I think it may only impact on certain things - it runs much deeper than this. When temptations comes, I am required to maintain my chastity in the married state - and this is the requirement of following Christ. So, the temptation is dismissed by working with the Grace of God and I get back to whatever it was I was doing at the time. Now, there must be some common experiences with various orientations - overlap, if you will, on the way to plumbing a deeper understanding. If what I provided from my experiences has some similarities with your experience - neither of which involve behaviors - then I guess we a closer to an understanding than we were before. If not, then that is what the next post is about.

But, one thing must be made clear. The poplular media has had a lot to do with the use of various meanings concerning ‘orientation’ - and, as I have previously described, this is simply a code name for license. This is true, weather you agree with it or not - and will probably go a long way to explaining the problems you are communication problems you have been complaining about

I suggest that maybe if you spoke about what BEHAVIORS you are addressing (I previously mentioned sublimation as a process for channeling energies) as you cooperate with the Grace of God while following the teachings of the Catholic Church - you would cut through a lot of what is passing for ambiguity.

Effective communications is difficult at best - under even the best conditions. Relax. If you lament talking to us - frustrating as it is - you will have greatly reduced the number of people who genuinely care about you.

God bless

This is exactly why the forum doesn’t work and it points to a trend I’ve commented on before. For some reason, it is physically impossible for some people to see or discuss homosexuality as anything other than a behavior. It doesn’t matter what I say or how I say it. Tqualey, I challenge you to find anywhere in this thread or on this entire forum where I have ever denied the sinfulness of homosexual behavior. It is utterly stunning to me, after what I have posted, that anyone would think I am pro-homosexual behavior. I apologize if what I have written has confused you, but I am incapable of explaining it any more clearly. I even said that chastity for me means celibacy. I said it in this thread, a thread debating whether homosexual persons can change their orientation (NOT THEIR BEHAVIOR).

Tqualey, your response to my post is the exact knee-jerk response I’m talking about. Homosexuality simply cannot be discussed here because it cannot be seen as anything other than a behavior. If I say that I believe “my homosexual orientation is ordered towards an expression of love through service”(which is exactly what I believe), that will be translated (every time) by someone as “my homosexual orientation is ordered towards homosexual behavior. And I condone that sinful behavior.” Now, why that is, I have absolutely no idea. But boy is it frustrating.

 

[Elizabeth502]

When my best friend’s son was conceived, I don’t believe God said, “I’m going to create a mental disablility in this child.” Yet, when that child was born, he had a mental disability. You’re right, God does not create our disorders. But some of our disorders are* a part of our creation*. And our disorders don’t have to be a bad thing. In fact, they can be just the opposite in the light of redeptive suffering.

You are confusing what Catholic philosophy calls “objective (and in this case, static) evil”, with personal behavior.

In terms of accidents of birth, that is a different matter. What distinguishes sexuality from accidents of birth – such as Trisomy 21 – is that no credible, degreed clinical psychologist believes that sexuality is determined from or at birth. Sexuality is complex: many factors are involved – some genetic, but many are environmental, and ultimately they are fluid, because unlike passive genetic mutations which control for a disease or condition, sexuality is dynamic. It isn’t a “given,” it is woven in with self-concept, perception of the world and of significant others in one’s world, temperament, invitation, need, experiment, response, and much else. Our sexual inclinations are not formed at birth but take shape over time. This is not “my” theory; any well-read psychologist understands this. This makes sense, however, since our very self-concept develops over time. If it were “fixed” at birth, we would all have rather undeveloped and immature personalities, limited in their flexibility and potential to grow.

Elizabeth, I have appreciated our conversations (now and in the past), but I don’t think we will ever agree on this topic.

Then you misunderstand what I say/said, because when you said

my homosexual orientation is ordered towards an expression of love through service

that is precisely what I was referring to in my previous post when I said

What you are describing is a transforming re-ordering of your sexuality. (Sounds like it, to me.)

And I can’t find what I thought was your other quote I wanted to refer to, when you described this as (your personal) redemptive suffering. That is in fact the Church’s theology on this, and what I just restated here.

The Church’s theology on priestly celibacy is not terribly different from that. In the case of celibacy, it is formally speaking a consecration, but the response in both cases is essentially the same, in that it is a choice to respond to grace to transform that attachment to one of service. Any of us who have known priests, personally, very well (long-term Platonic friendships with such priests), have seen this first-hand. Similarly any single heterosexual person who lives temporarily or permanently without a mate, has probably also experienced this transformative grace.

 

[Kolbe300]

Hi there, I understand you…

What you have written in perfectly clear English is readily comprehensible to me. If others cannot understand you, you can hardly be blamed for their deficiencies.

Well thank goodness! I was really starting to wonder!

Greetings, Kolbe. It has been a long time since we exchanged posts in threads way back, as you may remember.

I do rememeber! And it’s good to see you again.

Since homosexuality is regarded as a disorder and any sexual expression thereof is not in accordance with God’s law and Church teaching, it is not surprising that the disorder label, translating to brokenness, is hard to accept.

Agreed. But what if, if only for a moment, we were able to not focus on the sexual expression of homosexuality? That is something I’ve come to believe is not possible on this forum.

…or if one acknowledges attraction to only the same sex but actively avoids committing homosexual sins, how does rejecting the condition as a disorder and calling the type of sexuality beautiful help in maintaining a state of grace?

You ask a great question. And then you do an even better job of answering it:

In turning the defect to something noble, in service to others who may be suffering, you are in effect making a most exquisite offering to our Lord. You are one of those that Jesus spoke of as having a poverty in spirit.

If a defect has become noble, can it not also be beautiful? The service work I do and feel called to is partly a result of my sexuality. My sexuality, disordered or not, is a part of who I am. My sexuality, disordered or not, can be lived in a beautiful way. A gift God has given me is the ability to see that. As I said, my prayer is that God would make me exactly the man I am meant to be. If this is the man I meant to be, I will embrace it happily and thankfully.

It was good to hear from you again ISoG.

You are confusing what Catholic philosophy calls “objective (and in this case, static) evil”, with personal behavior.

Again, I’m not talking about behavior. I haven’t been talking about behavior in this thread at all.

Sexuality is complex: many factors are involved – some genetic, but many are environmental, and ultimately they are fluid, because unlike passive genetic mutations which control for a disease or condition, sexuality is dynamic. It isn’t a “given,”…

I don’t disagree with this. But I think the fact that the overwhelmingly vast majority of people experience one sexual orientation their entire lives points to this complex part of humanity being about as close to a “given” as it could be without actually being a given. This is the area, Elizabeth, that I don’t think we’ll ever agree on.

Also, I had meant to respond to your comment: “What you are describing is a transforming re-ordering of your sexuality. (Sounds like it, to me.)”

I actually could agree with that, if by re-ordering we mean expression of love through service rather than sex. I can’t, however, say my sexuality has transformed into heterosexuality, because that isn’t true. And I would be a little less apt to say it’s really been re-ordered. Rather, I see it more as being lived the way it has always been ordered, a way that is pleasing to God.

Peace.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Again, I’m not talking about behavior. I haven’t been talking about behavior in this thread at all.

You were talking about response (to what you perceive your sexuality to be). And response is in the category of behavior. (Behavior doesn’t have to be sin; behavior is a decision, as the Church explains often. ) And I was also talking about response (with regard to myself).

I don’t disagree with this. But I think the fact that the overwhelmingly vast majority of people experience one sexual orientation their entire lives points to this complex part of humanity being about as close to a “given” as it could be without actually being a given. This is the area, Elizabeth, that I don’t think we’ll ever agree on.

Well, if you had read any of my posts on previous threads about this, you would see that I have affirmed that individuals do not necessarily “know” (let alone consciously control) how their sexuality developed, particularly because (as I explained in my recent post), that sexuality is complex and involves both conscious and unconscious factors, not to mention factors that preceded the individual’s long-term memory. But the fact is, there is no “gay gene” that has ever been discovered. I might agree with you that individuals perceive that they were “born” with “a sexuality,” but that is actually very different, clinically speaking, from stating that sexuality is deterministic from birth. That I do not agree with, and I haven’t read any psychologist who is respected in his or her field that would agree with that. Psychologists document several experimental periods in every individual’s life. Circumstances and influences may “line up” with greater predictability for some than for all, but sexuality is nevertheless characterized as fluid rather than fixed from birth.

Also, I had meant to respond to your comment: “What you are describing is a transforming re-ordering of your sexuality. (Sounds like it, to me.)” I actually could agree with that, if by re-ordering we mean expression of love through service rather than sex.

Yes, that’s what I mean.

I can’t, however, say my sexuality has transformed into heterosexuality, because that isn’t true.

I never said nor implied that. And I think it would help if there weren’t always this assumption.

And I would be a little less apt to say it’s really been re-ordered. Rather, I see it more as being lived the way it has always been ordered, a way that is pleasing to God.

Whatever terminology you choose to use is not something that I think is worth arguing over! As long as that terminology conforms to Truth, which in this case it seems that it does.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Kolbe300,

Allow me to offer a response…

Let me try this a different way. When my best friend’s son was conceived, I don’t believe God said, “I’m going to create a mental disablility in this child.” Yet, when that child was born, he had a mental disability. You’re right, God does not create our disorders. But some of our disorders are* a part of our creation*. And our disorders don’t have to be a bad thing. In fact, they can be just the opposite in the light of redeptive suffering. Elizabeth, I have appreciated our conversations (now and in the past), but I don’t think we will ever agree on this topic.

God has created each of us in His Own Image - and, we have his word on that (Gen 1:26). In our developing knowledge of God we have come to realize that God has both an active and a passive will. God has actively decided to create each and every one of us - none of us ‘got by’ when He blinked… He loves each and every one of us more than we will ever know - and, that is something we must never forget.

Defects and disorders entered the world - not because God created them - but because man sinned - and sin then entered the world and all of cration is groaning because of this tremendous insult to God’s creation. Your friend’s chid has a recognized defect or disorder - and I think most people would not delay in classifying as ‘…a bad thing…’ - in the sense that it is not …a good thing or, even an indifferent thing… This child’s full human potential is at serious risk for not being achieved - and this usually brings about sadness in parents.

The take home message is God passively allowed this little child to be born with certain deficits - and, we are not to question God’s will. Recall, the Apostles wanted to know about the relationship of personal sin and birth defects… and Christ gives them a truly profound answer in John 9:2 - here is the link so you can read this for yourself: usccb.org/bible/john/9

No one can explain why one person is ‘oriented’ one way and another is different. But, that does not change the fact that we are all made in His Image - and this fact alone requires that we believe and act in a particular way. Ultimately, we are just not ‘thinkers’ we must express our beliefs in action. And, we are not just ‘actors’ we must understand what it is that we are doing. We combine and integrate thought and deed into our personality as we follow Christ.

In my opinion, the arguments with Elizabeth502 have been over symantics. If you know what the Church teaches about impure thoughts and words and deeds and you say you are abiding by the Church’s teachings - just what difference does your ‘orientation’ make in the long run. The story of the man born blind is Christ’s response to this - and it must the response we are willing to accept in our own lives with the deficits and deformities and disorders we find in our selves.

God bless

gotquestions.org/birth-defects.html

 

[Kolbe300]

I might agree with you that individuals perceive that they were “born” with “a sexuality,” but that is actually very different, clinically speaking, from stating that sexuality is deterministic from birth. That I do not agree with, and I haven’t read any psychologist who is respected in his or her field that would agree with that. Psychologists document several experimental periods in every individual’s life. Circumstances and influences may “line up” with greater predictability for some than for all, but sexuality is nevertheless characterized as fluid rather than fixed from birth.

I don’t disagree with you when it comes to the scientific understanding of human sexuality. Genetics and evironment play a role. Where I think we may disagree (and may not) is on just how fluid sexuality actually is and when it is fluid. I tend to believe it isn’t very fluid. I imagine if fluidity exists, it’s probably when one is very young. This is 100% my opinion, obviously. And I base that on the experience of people I know. One thing I’ve noticed is that a lot of people who argue for the fluidity of sexuality also make arguments that the percentage of homosexual persons in the population are much lower than often times reported. I’ve always found that peculiar. If our sexuality were more fluid than fixed, you’d think there would be a much larger percentage of different sexualities, especially considering the vast differences in environments. But this is all besides the point. I won’t argue with what science says. I just think the FACT that most people experience one sexual orientation their entire lives (and that it’s usually heterosexual) speaks very, very loudly.

I never said nor implied that. And I think it would help if there weren’t always this assumption.

We suffered a little bit there from forum-itis. I didn’t assume what you meant there. That’s why I gave the two options I figured you may be speaking of. You said it was the first option which makes the second option null and void rather than implied.

Peace.

 

[MrJaundicedEye]

I don’t think people should seek counseling from strangers on the internet in the first place.

The Church says that the genesis of homosexuality is largely unknown.

In the specific sense, yes, in the same way that many, many aspects of individual human characteristics arise mysteriously. In the general, the Church has always been very clear about the genesis of all imperfection in creation, which is original sin. Plenty of threads about the Fall and original sin on here, no need to rehash all of that, but the point is that the Church does not allow the necessary wiggle room to start using some of the terminology that you use below.

Science says the same thing. Yet it seems that so many of those who haven’t experienced their entire lives as one with a homosexual orientation are certain (theologically and scientifically) that God would never “make” someone like that. They say God didn’t make me like that, he wouldn’t make me like that.

Well, they’re right, but you’re (I think willfully) leaving out the Catholic narrative about “the beginning of the world and how all this stuff went wrong in the first place”. You’re forming a false syllogism:

“I am gay”
“God made me”
“therefore, God made gay and God can’t make evil”
“therefore, gay (the orientation) is not evil”

(You appear to add the addendum “therefore gay is beautiful”, but whatever)

This is a false syllogism, it presumes that all aspects of our human person were directly willed by God. Not so. It would more accurately go:

“I am gay”
“God ensouled me”
“My sexual orientation is an aspect of my body, which is part of the fallen world and came into being as part of the natural processes of this fallen world, that is, imprefectly”
“therefore, God really had nothing to do with it, other than declining to preserve me from it”

Can you see what that says? God made you good but you’ve become bad. Oh, but don’t worry, it’s not your fault you’re bad. Now imagine being in grade-school, middle-school, and high-school believing that. I’ve mentioned it before and I’ll do it again. During my teen years I spent more hours than I will ever be able to count begging for God to change me and to forgive me (when I had done NOTHING WRONG).

You held some screwed up theology as a kid too? Welcome to the club. Think that makes you special? It doesn’t. I thought I was going to Hell because I didn’t feel a burning in my bosom. I prayed and prayed…whatever. You’re describing youth. Adults always fail at giving their kids anything like religious perspective and we all carry the scars our whole life. We’re all screwed up. Welcome to the party, here have a beer, you’re not a beautiful and unique snowflake. You’re pretty much like everyone else who spent their adolescence hating themselves and wondering if there was anything good in them.

The greatest thing I ever did as I grew closer to God was to stop that prayer. My prayer is that God make me exactly the man He wants me to be. Do you see the massive difference in that prayer?

Gee, like everyone else who enjoys spiritual maturity does. Seriously, you are not that special.

So far that man happens to have a homosexual orientation, the same one he’s always had. And guess what? I embrace that fact. I am not ashamed of my sexuality, regardless of the things I continously read on this forum.

Your use of language is so loose, it’s difficult for people to keep your objections straight. For someone who demands such precision from others, you are not very precise. I can “embrace” any aspect of myself, but that doesn’t mean anything. Most Catholics are pretty ashamed of their fallen human nature, feel free to join them. Everyone’s fallen nature manifests in a unique way, we can all collectively be quite ashamed of being part of the fallen human race, and that’s a pretty good posture to approach the Church in.

I know I am beating my head against a wall here but I’ve always hoped people could see things differently. Instead of jumping straight to “God didn’t make you like that”, “seek therapy”, “repent”, “be celibate”, “why would you ever call yourself homosexual if you’re not having sex?” etc., we could move to “how do we live our sexuality in a beautiful way?”

Yeah, I might disagree with one or more of the statements you quote above, but at least I can parse them. “living our sexuality in a beautiful way” is pretty much meaningless. I remember one time being asked by an entering seminarian who had just come back from a Chris West lecture “how do I live out my sexuality as a celibate man!?!”. Oy, vey. Well, son, you sort of don’t. That’s sort of the sacrificial aspect of celibacy.

continued…

 

[MrJaundicedEye]

Both the homosexual person and the heterosexual person can live their sexuality in a way that is beautiful for God. At the heart of any person’s sexuality is the desire to love and be loved. God is calling me to love and my sexuality is a mysterious part of that. The love I believe He calls me to is to be lived in service rather than the bedroom. The love I am called to may have nothing to do with sex, but it’s no less intimate and no less beautiful.

Do you remember “Mad libs”, those books you filled out at parties which produced funny nonsense stories? This reminds me of one. Why not just say “I’ve decided to put my human energy into service instead of beating myself up about the insoluble nature of my sexual issues”. Lots of people throw their energy into good activity partially to preserve themselves from what they know is useless and perhaps sinful worry.

If young gay people today weren’t smothered in all the reasons they are broken, bad, sinful, and not the way God made them, we might actually be able to help them realize that they are beautiful, every part of them is beautiful.

Give them all a box with a mirror in the bottom and write “Something wonderful inside” on the lid. Oh, right, they already do that in kindergartens…because every kid is in danger of self-esteem problems. Like every adult. You are not special. However tough your childhood was, I’m sure there was a kid in a wheelchair or a kid without an ear or a kid with a club foot or a kid whose dad raped them or a kid who was the smartest kid on the short bus who had it worse. So? All of this self-pity accomplishes nothing and we all know it’s the flavor of the week, history of sociologically speaking. Why not wear a syphillis ribbon? It has killed more than AIDS. Oh right, we’re not interested in heterosexual diseases and those have no sense of virtue at this moment.

Fact is, if you want to analyze this according to Catholic principles, every part of us is not beautiful. This is something you have made up, it has nothing to do with Catholicism, and you ought to take your show somewhere else instead of a Catholic venue if you insist on it this way.

If they only knew that God doesn’t love them in spite of anything. If they only knew that God doesn’t have to look past their sexuality to love them. Maybe then they could stop being ashamed of being created.

Yeah, no other teenagers have ever felt that way. Oh, wait, most of them do.

 

[MrJaundicedEye]

Oh, and lest you think I’m only piling on to you, I’ll critique your antagonists as well. Their false syllogism is:

God created this person.
Gay (the orientation) is evil.
God cannot create evil.
Therefore, this person is not really (permanently) gay.

Same mistake, not understanding active and passive will, not understanding the role of nature, etc.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Where I think we may disagree (and may not) is on just how fluid sexuality actually is and when it is fluid. I tend to believe it isn’t very fluid. I imagine if fluidity exists, it’s probably when one is very young. This is 100% my opinion, obviously.

Well, none of us should develop our theology based on an opinion, of course.

In any case, psychologists hold that there is more than just the “very young” period when sexuality is fluid.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Oh, and lest you think I’m only piling on to you, I’ll critique your antagonists as well. Their false syllogism is:

God created this person.
Gay (the orientation) is evil.
God cannot create evil.
Therefore, this person is not really (permanently) gay.

Same mistake, not understanding active and passive will, not understanding the role of nature, etc.

I’m not sure of whom you are speaking when you say “antagonists,” but you could not mean myself, since I did not argue the above.

 

[MrJaundicedEye]

See thread title…

 

[Elizabeth502]

See thread title…

Fine. I never argued “change in orientation,” so, again, I cannot be accused of the recent syllogism you suggested.

 

[MrJaundicedEye]

Sure. That’s fine.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, MJE,

Tell me, what significance do you see with ‘orientation’ in respect to living a chaste life?

Looking forward to hearing from you.

God bless

Sure. That’s fine.

 

[MrJaundicedEye]

Tell me, what significance do you see with ‘orientation’ in respect to living a chaste life?

What significance? Well, it would be significant (i.e. important, meaningful) to the person attempting to live a chaste life to recognize what types of temptations they should avoid. E.g., since I am aware that I (to use the absolutely AWFUL terminology imposed on us by our society) am of the heterosexual “oreintation”, I should be careful to avoid strip clubs. A person who suffers from same-sex-attraction should, rather, avoid gay nightclubs and Franciscan monasteries.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, MJE,

Sounds reasonable to me.

Ah… you could have gone all day without the comment about Franciscans … besides St. Francis is the patron saint of animals and the environment … and our world needs all the help it can get!

God bless

What significance? Well, it would be significant (i.e. important, meaningful) to the person attempting to live a chaste life to recognize what types of temptations they should avoid. E.g., since I am aware that I (to use the absolutely AWFUL terminology imposed on us by our society) am of the heterosexual “oreintation”, I should be careful to avoid strip clubs. A person who suffers from same-sex-attraction should, rather, avoid gay nightclubs and Franciscan monasteries.

 

[MrJaundicedEye]

… and our world needs all the help it can get!

The world appears to be in pretty average shape to me. The Franciscan order, on the other hand, appears to be at a historical low.

 

[Elizabeth502]

The world appears to be in pretty average shape to me. The Franciscan order, on the other hand, appears to be at a historical low.

What is that supposed to mean?

 

[MrJaundicedEye]

It means that the Franciscans are having a terribly string of decades lately…but I’m surprised that’s news to any Catholic. If you want to know more, start a thread about it, see how many people you can get banned, but that’s not the topic of this thread.