Gay lobby fighting reparative therapy at the expense of our youth

[Joie_de_Vivre]

One of the only Catholic ministries addressing homosexual issues does not endorse “reparative therapy” at all. Quite the contrary:

*Q. Is Courage an Ex-Gay Ministry?

A. Courage does not consider itself an Ex-Gay ministry for the following reason: Many Courage members have never labelled themselves “gay” prior to coming to Courage. This does not mean that they were unaware of their experience of same-sex attractions - it simply means that they had never chosen to label themselves “gay” in the first place, either because of a dislike of the reductionist nature of the term “gay”, or because they kept their same-sex attractions private. Courage prefers to think of itself as a “Pro-Chastity” ministry.*

and

*Q. What is the Courage Reparational Group? Does it have anything to do with “Reparative” Therapy?

The Courage Reparational Group consists of men and women who desire to unite themselves with Our Lord particularly in their weakness while praying for the conversion and healing of those who struggle with same-sex desires. This is NOT a group that seeks conversion to heterosexual desires; rather we join in prayer that we, and all who live with same-sex atractions, may come closer to Our Lord as His beloved children.*
Source: couragerc.net/FAQs.html

Accordingly, based upon the good work this Catholic group Courage is doing, it’s entirely possibly (likely, even) that even if these harmful “reparative therapy” programs are rightfully banned from practice in all 50 states, **the gay lobby will still lose. **

Actually that is the only official approved ministry

You rarely answer direct questions and try to disqualify a report you haven’t even read.

Please ask them, and if I ask for clarification for what integral words in them mean such as “normal” I’m asking because that question has multiple possible meaning without clarification

Nobody here has made disparaging remarks about people suffering from non biological SSA.

:ehh:.

With all due respect I find it difficult to take comments very seriously that make false claims about the Catechism and the Bible. I know what they say and have posted it. Anyone who claims otherwise only reveals their subjectivity regarding this matter. Paz.

And Pentecostals “know” what the Bible says, so do Lutherans, Methodists, Calvinists and Baptists, doesn’t make them correct.

With all due respect my friend there are numerous examples that people who had deep seated SSA have changed.

Therefore, it is only correct to assume that we cannot state that deep seated SSA cannot change.

I expect a large part of the issue is that in countries where the gay lobby has such presence people that have deep seated SSA are bombarded daily to believe their condition cannot change. On the contrary, in many Spanish speaking countries where the gay lobby’s presence has not been felt there are constant stories in Catholic and Christian news where people have left this life behind to get married normally.

What we are seeing in the US and Europe is a stranglehold by the diabolic gay lobby teamed up with the equally diabolic entertainment industry, news corp and secular governments that censure information or do it by proxy.

There have been quite a few cases of those with deep seated “SSA” getting married and then getting caught with male prostitutes or something that makes their claim to be “better” extremely dubious.

Getting married≠no SSA
Some gay people marry out of obligation to family, some to convince everyone including themselves they aren’t gay anymore (and then twenty years down the load they break down and cheat on their spouse with someone of the same sex ruining the marriage), some do it because they want kids and some marry because they genuinely like the person though not sexually (seems to be where many lesbian/bisexual women who marry men fall).

Does this “diabolic gay lobby” work together with or has it replaced the diabolical heterosexual lobby that has made fornication commonplace and normal?

I have quoted the Catholic Catechism and the Bible. I have the right in believing what they say.

I would ask you to contemplate the real consequences of telling a person that God made them homosexual and that their only hope is to “tough it” and be celibate. The reality is this is a heavy cross that people are placing on the should of our youths. Per Jesus’ comments, He is not impressed, on the contrary.

As far as the “damage” of telling a confused person they were not born to have SSA there is none if they understand we ALL have desires God does not want and ALL are forgiven on a repeated basis if we ask for forgiveness.

Finally, will you answer my question or not? Do you desire for the CC to accept homosexuality as normal, yes or no?

Why shouldn’t we encourage them to be celibate instead of married? The latter is not better than the former.

 

[randomuser]

Actually that is the only official approved ministry

Which is why I’m a little perplexed as to why Courage’s good work isn’t held in the same regard as (predominantly) Protestant and other non-Catholic “ex-gay” groups. Courage Roman Catholic Apostolate is pretty much the gold standard against which other ministries should be evaluated: faithful to the Magisterium and friendly to science. The “gay lobby” is powerless against the truth.

 

[frobert]

The concern I have is that some folks have found certain types of that therapy useful. To suggest it can NEVER work out sounds really unscientific, and I wouldn’t be too eager to trust “professional associations” that sway with political convenience.

I don’t think a person who has genuine, deep-seeded same-sex attraction can change in therapy, but what a lot of people miss the ball on is that there’s a lot of gray areas for folks on this too and they should not be denied the opportunity for something that may benefit them.

You are right I should not have said “never” check my other posts where I used the term rarely.

Don’t trust professional organizations, trust non-approved therapies and ill-trained therapists. If I wanted to be sarcastic I would say “they keep people like me in business cleaning up the messes they create,” but the problems created by them are too tragic to joke about.

BTW how would you choose a therapist in general for a venerable youth? Would you check out their credentials? Schools they went to? Degrees they have? Experience? Who supervises them? What would you look for? By what they religious beliefs? How would you know they are not child abusers or worse?

I think on another thread you said you were an engineer, I may be wrong but if you are, who holds your credentials?

As Joie de Vivre correctly questioned:

Why shouldn’t we encourage them (gay youth) to be celibate instead of married? The latter is not better than the former.

I would add after married: “or mentally abused”

 

[frobert]

Which is why I’m a little perplexed as to why Courage’s good work isn’t held in the same regard as (predominantly) Protestant and other non-Catholic “ex-gay” groups. Courage Roman Catholic Apostolate is pretty much the gold standard against which other ministries should be evaluated: faithful to the Magisterium and friendly to science. The “gay lobby” is powerless against the truth.

Good post, One quibble:

The gay lobby fights for gay rights, as far as I know there are no gay groups that are anti-Courage. Self survival demands that gays fight (legally) against extremists and those who discriminate or press for anti gay legislation or that segment of the political spectrum that plays on the fears and prejudices of others.

 

[Cavaradossi]

With all due respect I am not interested in Orthodox dogma.

I base my comments on the Catechism of the CC and the Catholic Bible. Paz.

I have made no appeals to “Orthodox dogma” (otherwise I would be quoting Orthodox dogmatic manuals), and last I checked, both St. John Chrysostom and St. Gregory of Nyssa were considered saints in the Roman Church, with St. John Chrysostom even being considered a doctor. I frankly do not think that your belief that sexual desire and pangs in birth are proper to prelapsarian man is in line with the perennial teaching of the Church, which is why I have challenged your interpretation of scripture and of the Catechism with the teachings of the fathers.

 

[Catolico65]

Would I like to see the CC accept homosexuality as normal? It is a normal condition of mankind. The CC pretty much accepts that and as such they do not condemn homosexuality as evil only homosexual sexual behavior is condemned. I have no need for the CC to change their position.

As I said earlier you are on your own. Your interpretations of the teachings appear to be grossly misinformed and are not in accordance with most of the others posters. You can not say the CC made me do it when today’s CC is neutral on the origins of homosexuality.

As far as quoting I have quoted relevant teachings from several legitimate catholic sources which you have repeatedly ignored. Whatever your agenda it is wrong and, thank God, it is not being well received.

In case you overlooked it on a prior post:

How does a homosexual tendency originate? There are theories aplenty, each with its partisans. (The Catholic Church has no position on this matter. As Cardinal Ratzinger said in reference to the revised Catechism, “We have left room for all the hypotheses on the origin of homosexual tendency - whether it is innate or developed under certain circumstances.”)
Source: Catholic News Agency

Do you deny the words or authority of Pope Benedict XVI?

I believe you are a good person and mean well but my consolation is that you are not, or least I hope you are not, in a position to influence any gay youth.
My prayers are with you.

I have merely quoted the Catechism and the Bible so if people are uncomfortable with that so be it.

Regarding Cardinal Ratszinger’s comments, of course the CC will give deference to science but one need to know that at that point in time there were a lot of suggestive studies that homosexuality could be genetic. Now we know it is not. This is also a perfect example of why lay persons in the sciences in threads such as this one shouldn’t get excited about “suggestive studies”. At any rate the positive is that the Catholic Chrurch in the near future will no doubt accept the more more definitive findings the origins of SSA.

Regarding helping those with SSA, since I have suffered from the same I believe I am in a position to speak with authority that it can be removed with the help o Jesus Christ. In fact there are millions of us in existence, something the gay lobby doesn’t want you to know.

 

[Catolico65]

Which is why I’m a little perplexed as to why Courage’s good work isn’t held in the same regard as (predominantly) Protestant and other non-Catholic “ex-gay” groups. Courage Roman Catholic Apostolate is pretty much the gold standard against which other ministries should be evaluated: faithful to the Magisterium and friendly to science. The “gay lobby” is powerless against the truth.

 

[Catolico65]

Good post, One quibble:

The gay lobby fights for gay rights, as far as I know there are no gay groups that are anti-Courage. Self survival demands that gays fight (legally) against extremists and those who discriminate or press for anti gay legislation or that segment of the political spectrum that plays on the fears and prejudices of others.

With all due respect the “survival” of homosexuality is not dependent on the gay lobby as it has been in existence for at least a few thousand years.

What you should recognize as a Catholic is that the gay lobby is evil, as Pope Francis noted. you do accept the words of our blessed Pope I hope. Paz.

 

[Catolico65]

I have made no appeals to “Orthodox dogma” (otherwise I would be quoting Orthodox dogmatic manuals), and last I checked, both St. John Chrysostom and St. Gregory of Nyssa were considered saints in the Roman Church, with St. John Chrysostom even being considered a doctor. I frankly do not think that your belief that sexual desire and pangs in birth are proper to prelapsarian man is in line with the perennial teaching of the Church, which is why I have challenged your interpretation of scripture and of the Catechism with the teachings of the fathers.

You are confused. There are many Catholics with many opinions, dogma is different.

 

[Cavaradossi]

You are confused. There are many Catholics with many opinions, dogma is different.

Hardly a reasoned rebuttal. In this thread, you’ve argued that pains in childbirth and sexual desire are characteristics natural to the prelapsarian state of man, opinions which are rather clearly opposed to the Fathers’ interpretation of Genesis. The teachings of the Fathers are far from being mere opinions which can be cast aside in favor of one’s own interpretation of scripture, as the consensus patrem reflects the perennial teaching of the Church. I can understand insisting that people with homosexual desires should live chastely, but to go further and insist, against all patristic teachings on anthropology, that sexual desire for the opposite sex (rather than celibacy and the extinguishing of sexual desire) is the prelapsarian ideal that those with homosexual desires should strive for is ridiculous.

Chastity is the calling for all (whether it be maintained in the context of marriage or of celibacy), and there is certainly nothing sinful or inferior about counseling those with homosexual desires to maintain their chastity through celibacy. For some, marriage may indeed be an option (especially if they already experience an attraction to the opposite sex). But for others it is far more prudent to encourage celibacy, which is an exalted and time-tested tradition of the Church. In the case of one who exhibits little or no sexual attraction to the opposite sex why should one ever resort to these modern “reparative therapies” which are neither exalted nor time-tested Christian traditions, when the Church already has at her disposal a solution which dates back to the very beginning of Christianity itself?

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

You are confused. There are many Catholics with many opinions, dogma is different.

I would like to point out that both St. Augustine and St. Jerome agree with what he is saying and are of the four original Doctors of the Catholic Church. St. John Chrysostom is another Doctor of the Church and Gregory of Nyssa is a Doctor of the Church in at least one of the Eastern Catholic Churches.

Can you think of any statements by the Catholic Church that explicitly disagree?

 

[SMGS127]

You are confused. There are many Catholics with many opinions, dogma is different.

Actually, a unanimous opinion by the Church Fathers IS dogma.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Actually, a unanimous opinion by the Church Fathers IS dogma.

Actually it isn’t technically a dogma nor a doctrine, but is still far more than “just an opinion”

 

[SMGS127]

Actually it isn’t technically a dogma nor a doctrine, but is still far more than “just an opinion”

In my graduate-level theology course last semester, they taught that the Church considers unanimous opinions by Church Fathers to be doctrine. I’d be interested to know why you don’t think it is.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

In my graduate-level theology course last semester, they taught that the Church considers unanimous opinions by Church Fathers to be doctrine. I’d be interested to know why you don’t think it is.

I thought it required Ecclesiae declaratio that it was formally revealed in Scripture or Tradition either by Council or papal pronouncement.

 

[SMGS127]

I thought it required Ecclesiae declaratio that it was formally revealed in Scripture or Tradition either by Council or papal pronouncement.

Anything further revealed at this point does. But unanimous consent of the Fathers carries infallibility.

 

[A_Augustinus]

Were the fathers truly unanimous in teaching that man would never have experienced sexual desire if there was no fall? I find that hard to believe. It also appears to contradict some aspects of John Paul II’s theology of the body. I haven’t read the original text, but I’ve always understood that JP II taught that sexual desire was broken by the fall. That’s a much different idea than saying that sexual desire in itself is a result of the fall.

 

[SMGS127]

Were the fathers truly unanimous in teaching that man would never have experienced sexual desire if there was no fall? I find that hard to believe. It also appears to contradict some aspects of John Paul II’s theology of the body. I haven’t read the original text, but I’ve always understood that JP II taught that sexual desire was broken by the fall. That’s a much different idea than saying that sexual desire in itself is a result of the fall.

Oh I’m not taking a stance on whether they were unanimous on the issue or not. I was merely responding to Catolico’s comment that their opinions were just opinions and didn’t carry any doctrinal weight. And that’s not true, since unanimous consent of the Fathers does, in fact, carry doctrinal weight.

 

[A_Augustinus]

In fact, the majority of persons that suffer from SSA gravitate to heterosexual in the lifetime. There are in fact more ex homosexuals than homosexuals in existence.

Catolico65, you’ve made this claim a few times in this thread, but I haven’t seen any link to the source of this information. I looked at the article linked in the OP, but I didn’t see it there (I could have missed it). That’s a pretty controversial statement to make without any corroborating evidence.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Catolico65, you’ve made this claim a few times in this thread, but I haven’t seen any link to the source of this information. I looked at the article linked in the OP, but I didn’t see it there (I could have missed it). That’s a pretty controversial statement to make without any corroborating evidence.

This is the site in question.

Now, math quiz, given the prevalence of LGB is 2% and the claim

Most teenagers will change from SSA. In fact, in the 16 to 17 year age group, 98% will move from homosexuality and bisexuality towards heterosexuality.

solve for what percent of people were originally LGB if 2% is 1/50 of the original amount.

Note, 2% is actually an underestimate simply to make the math easy and the more accurate numbers (3-5%) just make the result even more hilarious.

Also make sure to count the number of studies cited either via in-text citation or at the bottom.