Gay sibling hurt by my choice to join the Catholic Church

[NekoNecro]

Your position is that it does not make sense for a group to “allow for the existence” of some predisposition, and yet forbid a person from acting on this predisposition.

A question for you, then: what is your attitude toward people sexually predisposed toward children?

(And please don’t accuse me of conflating pedophilia with homosexuality. I’m quite aware of how different they are. I am merely interested in your attitude toward predispositions, of whatever type.)

I’ve really got no attitude towards it, since as of writing Psychiatry has more or less definitively stated that Pedophilia is something that develops later in life, and that none are predisposed to it.

If anything ever occurs to make me rethink this I’ll consider it, but as of now it seems a bit like asking me “what do I think about this purple elephant”?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I’ve really got no attitude towards it, since as of writing Psychiatry has more or less definitively stated that Pedophilia is something that develops later in life, and that none are predisposed to it.

Can you please cite your sources on this?

I mean, at one level, saying that “pedophilia develops later in life” is true by definition, since a 13-year-old attracted to other 13-year-olds would surely not be a pedophile (or hebephile, or ephebophile, or whatever the proper term is), nor would a 16-year-old, but a 20-year-old would. So a desire to have sex with a 13-year-old *couldn’t *be seen as a problematic disposition until a person is older.

But that hardly proves that the predisposition itself develops later in life.

 

[millstreet]

An alcoholic only develops his reliance upon the bottle after imbibing upon the contents multiple times, prior to that point he feels no inclination or need for it whatsoever. If it were false, we would see more cases of eight year olds robbing off-licenses to take alcohol.

Homosexuals on the other hand can pop up anytime, anywhere. And unlike alcoholics, often develop their urges without any outside provocation. Indeed, thanks to how society reacts to them they quite often go out of their way to suppress them (at first).

Just because it takes an “outside provocation” doesn’t mean it’s any less of an urge once it is there. I would argue with your uncertainty about genetic predisposition to addiction, since I believe the science is pretty solid on this. Regardless, that is one example. Some people are born with a genetic predisposition to gain weight. Do we urge these folks to eat a lot, because they were simply “born that way”?

You used the key word, “urge”. Urges can be controlled, by definition. A person’s sexuality does not (should not) define them. You can think this is an urge that SHOULD be controlled, or you can think it doesn’t need to be. But you simply cannot deny that while someone may be predisposed to homosexual urges, he/she CAN control what he/she does about it. Nothing in life is easy.

 

[millstreet]

Can you please cite your sources on this?

I mean, at one level, saying that “pedophilia develops later in life” is true by definition, since a 13-year-old attracted to other 13-year-olds would surely not be a pedophile (or hebephile, or ephebophile, or whatever the proper term is), nor would a 16-year-old, but a 20-year-old would. So a desire to have sex with a 13-year-old *couldn’t *be seen as a problematic disposition until a person is older.

But that hardly proves that the predisposition itself develops later in life.

Similarly, 9yo homosexuals do not have an innate desire to have sex with other 9yo boys. The urge to act on homosexuality also develops later in life. And this poster makes a solid point, by definition pedophilia can only happen when one gets old enough. But that would not change whether or not a person has a predisposition to be attracted to children.

 

[SecretCatholic]

I’m afraid this is a terribly weak argument to link per-dispositions to drug use (if they even do exist, I’m personally doubtful) to homosexuality.

No, it’s not. The poster was making a point about how people are often born with some predisposition or condition that is not healthy, but it is the individual’s choice what to do with that. It’s what we understand as “bearing a cross”. No, the predisposition or condition is not the person’s fault, but that doesn’t automatically make it good! And as long as they have the ability to choose it doesn’t justify a bad choice, even though it might be understandable.

I agree that homosexual relationships are not always “good to do”, but neither do I think a heterosexual relationship always are either. Both can be productive and useful to society in different ways.

I personally tend to see romantic relationships of any kind and the love they create to be a very grey area. It can be good and supportive for individuals and societies, or entirely destructive in both situations.

There is a difference in how we see the world and human nature. We believe that human desires are designed to have natural and ordered functions. The function of the sexual desire, among others, is procreation of the species. But if that natural sexual desire is ordered towards a member of the same sex, we say that it is disordered, since it cannot naturally lead to the completion of its function. So a sexual relationship between members of the same sex is not equivalent to a sexual relationship between members of the opposite sex and can never be “good to do” because of its disordered nature.

Obviously, there are many dysfunctional heterosexual relationships, but heterosexual relationships in basis are ordered and have the potential to be healthy, unlike homosexual relationships. Like any powerful thing love can be the most constructive force in the universe, or distorted, a most devastating one.

I’ve really got no attitude towards it, since as of writing Psychiatry has more or less definitively stated that Pedophilia is something that develops later in life, and that none are predisposed to it.

If anything ever occurs to make me rethink this I’ll consider it, but as of now it seems a bit like asking me “what do I think about this purple elephant”?

Let me fill you in on the connection: They are both abnormal and disordered sexual behaviors. No one here is claiming that homosexuals are pedophiles or would act in such a sexually criminal fashion. But to miss the connection is just to deny the obvious and clealry displays your own bias.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Let me fill you in on the connection: They are both abnormal and disordered sexual behaviors. No one here is claiming that homosexuals are pedophiles or would act in such a sexually criminal fashion. But to miss the connection is just to deny the obvious and clealry displays your own bias.

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Slow down.

I brought up the pedophilia example, not in order to prove to Neko that gay sex is wrong, but in order to prove to him that the idea of separating attraction from action is something that he does too – something that all rational people do, since we obviously want people with certain predispositions (e.g. pedophilia) not to act on them.

So I have absolutely no idea why you feel this is the time to claim that homosexuality is abnormal and disordered.

(Nor is it clear, scientifically, that homosexuality is abnormal or disordered. The key point is that it is morally disordered, not biologically disordered.)

 

[SecretCatholic]

So I have absolutely no idea why you feel this is the time to claim that homosexuality is abnormal and disordered.

Are you not Catholic? Being “gay” is not a sin, but any temptation to sin by its very nature is disordered!

(Nor is it clear, scientifically, that homosexuality is abnormal or disordered. The key point is that it is morally disordered, not biologically disordered.)

Clearly sexual attraction, biologically and morally is meant to be between the two sexes. Our natural biological desires are good. Disordered desires are a distortion of those natural desires.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Are you not Catholic? Being “gay” is not a sin, but any temptation to sin by its very nature is disordered!

You’re completely misunderstanding me. I am making a point about how to conduct a conversation with a non-Catholic. By simply asserting that both pedophilia and homosexuality are “abnormal and disordered” – and thereby implicitly comparing the two – you unnecessarily include an objectionable comparison.

I mean, suppose I were to be trying to explain why contraception is wrong, and I were to – in the midst of the explanation – include the sentence “And so you see that both cannibalism and contraception are abnormal and disordered”. The sentence is potentially alienating, and it accomplishes nothing in the conversation – except to hint that the desire to contracept is not entirely dissimilar from the desire to eat people! Moreover, when I was making the point about attraction to children, my point was about the Catholic position on homosexuality being coherent, not about it being true.

Of course, I myself think it *is *true, and I think that every temptation to sin is *morally *disordered. But I don’t expect to convince NekoNecro that homosexuality is wrong quite yet, especially since NekoNecro isn’t convinced that the Catholic position is even coherent.

Apologetics is about strategy, not just about truth. If the truth were convincing in and of itself, apologetics would be unnecessary.

Clearly sexual attraction, biologically and morally is meant to be between the two sexes. Our natural biological desires are good. Disordered desires are a distortion of those natural desires.

I don’t know whether all natural biological desires are good. Notice, by the way, that you and NekoNecro agree that all natural biological desires are good – your disagreement is about whether homosexual attraction is a natural biological desire.

I disagree with both of you about the claim that “all natural biological desires are good”. It seems to me, for example, that males are naturally more inclined to promiscuity/polygamy than women are. But that natural inclination does not justify promiscuity.

Christianity teaches that we are fallen. Why should we expect fallen natural desires to be morally good? Is the idea that our concupiscence shows up after birth? What theological justification is there for such a position?

 

[RedFox0456]

I’m going to have to agree that not all natural desires are good. I define a natural desire here as something that emerges from a biological trait versus psychological conditioning. Look at the animal kingdom and you will see many traits which would not be proper to emulate as people. I think this is the best definition to use because it leaves less room for ambiguity, which isn’t to say there still won’t be some debate over what is mental versus physical.

 

[manualman]

Part of the problem is the devolution of vocabulary in our society.

Natural properly means “in accordance with its nature.” That’s what catholic theological language means when the word natural is used.

Common usage of the word tends to mean something more like “what the monkeys do” instead. Thus, the common man on the street seriously misunderstands what catholics mean when we refer to Natural Law and things that are natural.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Part of the problem is the devolution of vocabulary in our society.

Natural properly means “in accordance with its nature.” That’s what catholic theological language means when the word natural is used.

Common usage of the word tends to mean something more like “what the monkeys do” instead. Thus, the common man on the street seriously misunderstands what catholics mean when we refer to Natural Law and things that are natural.

You’re right, but I hardly think this is a modern problem. “It’s only natural” has been an excuse of sinners since time immemorial.

“Natural” in terms of “natural law” is probably best understood through an Aristotelian framework, where human beings have an objective telos. One’s nature, then, is that which allows them to achieve their telos.

 

[manualman]

And if you refer to teleology in general conversation there is about a 99% chance that you’ll receive either a blank stare in return or some variant of a wedgie! (Figuratively, of course if you aren’t a teenager…)

 

[Prodigal_Son]

And if you refer to teleology in general conversation there is about a 99% chance that you’ll receive either a blank stare in return or some variant of a wedgie! (Figuratively, of course if you aren’t a teenager…)

Yeah, I know, it’s a shame. Once we strip teleology from ethics, however, ethics either becomes just a set of irrational biases or a silly game of “we-shouldn’t-hurt-each-other-but-we’ll-define-“hurt”-however-we-like”.

 

[EasterJoy]

Nor is it clear, scientifically, that homosexuality is abnormal or disordered. The key point is that it is morally disordered, not biologically disordered.

I am not sure what you mean by this. If you mean that a greater vulnerability to some sin or other does not imply that one’s overall psychological or physical make-up is wrong, I can agree with that.

Let us say that you have an ebullient temperament that leaves you more vulnerable to express your anger rashly, in a way that a more melancholic person is unlikely to do. If you are saying that this vulnerability does not mean that ebullience is a bad thing, per se, then I agree with you. Would we lose the ebullient among us, in order to eradicate the sins they are particularly prone to commit? Heaven forbid!

For instance, many men, having more testosterone than women, have moral vulnerabilities because of how that hormone affects their bodies and brains. They are more likely to commit violent acts. That does not make testosterone bad, and it doesn’t mean the world would be a better place if every man could just learn to act like a woman!

I think it is likely that homosexual inclinations are a vulnerability that are only part (but also an inseparable parcel) of a valuable overall neurological make-up that is fully intended by God. Just as a man would not wish God had made him a woman because he struggles with the effects of a high testosterone level, just so a person with homosexual inclinations might not wish to have been made differently in order to evade the trial of same-sex attraction.

Rather, everyone needs to master the difficulties presented by his or her DNA, brain chemistry, training (or lack of it), past, and other aspects of themselves so that they may be made the unique instruments in the hand of God they were made to be.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I am not sure what you mean by this. If you mean that a greater vulnerability to some sin or other does not imply that one’s overall psychological or physical make-up is wrong, I can agree with that.

Well, that’s one thing that I mean. And to be clear, I’m agnostic about this, I’m not trying to claim that I know homosexuality isn’t a psychological disorder. I have no doubt that homosexuality is *associated *with psychological disorders, because homosexual kids deal with a lot of ****, which isn’t amenable to psychological health. But the attraction itself, in my estimation, is at least sometimes the consequence of a normal uterine deficiency or a genetic predisposition.

Or rather, SSA is a symptom, and it probably has many different causes. Some of them may be psychological or experiential, but not all of them. And I do think that it is possible to be psychologically healthy and homosexual.

Let us say that you have an ebullient temperament that leaves you more vulnerable to express your anger rashly, in a way that a more melancholic person is unlikely to do. If you are saying that this vulnerability does not mean that ebullience is a bad thing, per se, then I agree with you. Would we lose the ebullient among us, in order to eradicate the sins they are particularly prone to commit? Heaven forbid!

For instance, many men, having more testosterone than women, have moral vulnerabilities because of how that hormone affects their bodies and brains. They are more likely to commit violent acts. That does not make testosterone bad, and it doesn’t mean the world would be a better place if every man could just learn to act like a woman!

You ought to tell the press this, because nowadays we expect every man to act like a woman, both in terms of sexual expression and in terms of physical aggressiveness.

I think it is likely that homosexual inclinations are a vulnerability that are only part (but also an inseparable parcel) of a valuable overall neurological make-up that is fully intended by God. Just as a man would not wish God had made him a woman because he struggles with the effects of a high testosterone level, just so a person with homosexual inclinations might not wish to have been made differently in order to evade the trial of same-sex attraction.

Maybe. Personally, I can’t imagine not finding men attractive, and it seems bizarre to me that other men don’t find men attractive. But I don’t feel like this attraction is bound up in other parts of my personality. It could be, though.

Did Michaelangelo’s attraction to men benefit the world? Maybe. I want to think so. But then again, I wonder if that is just me trying to rationalize why my sinful inclination is a good thing.

Rather, everyone needs to master the difficulties presented by his or her DNA, brain chemistry, training (or lack of it), past, and other aspects of themselves so that they may be made the unique instruments in the hand of God they were made to be.

Amen!

 

[PaulGH]

There was a thread that posted this video earlier today. I don’t have the thread up here, but I do have the page open in another tab. You can give it a watch and see if it might help you relate to your brother, and help him relate to your faith. I personally found it very compelling and it opened my eyes to a lot of the internal struggle that some people experience.

vimeo.com/93079367

Thanks for the link! I have been looking forward to this video since I first heard about it in the planning stages over a year ago, but I had not heard that it was completed yet. I have posted this video on my blog (link below).

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

vimeo.com/93079367

Show him this video. “The Third Way”

We must do everything possible to ignore this video. It must not get out that gays are human beings. That they suffer. That they are the victims of extreme violence. That must be kept secret. That they, too, need fellowship. That they need compassion. No, we must never admit that. Please, no one watch this video.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

We must do everything possible to ignore this video. It must not get out that gays are human beings. That they suffer. That they are the victims of extreme violence. That must be kept secret. That they, too, need fellowship. That they need compassion. No, we must never admit that. Please, no one watch this video.

 

[SuperLuigi]

=CathConvert2013;11942629]What should I do? I feel like I’m hurting my sibling who is gay. He has made mention of same sex marriage not being allowed in the RC church and although he is trying to get a laugh I can tell that he is upset about the church’s teaching on this issue.

Unless you feel you can really change his mind on the issue, I don’t see how you’d have any moral obligation to discuss this.

I have no desire to protest gay marriage or gay adoption anywhere in public or on Facebook by “liking” any obvious cause.

You should be able to like/dislike whatever you want without worrying about what people think.

These gay “marriage”: causes are really damaging free speech.

I still love my brother and would love any of his gay friends or boyfriends. On Easter I made sure to ask him about a friend of his’ upcoming same-sex wedding and told him to have a good time.

I’d be a little more careful about endorsing such things.

I think he was upset greatly last year when Chick FA the restaurant ended up having a record day in sales and lines (my other hetero brother posted photos of the himself in line on FB, and I chose not to support CFA that day, although we do continue to eat there and I love shopping and eating at other Christian places, I’m not anti-Islam or anti-anything else).

It sure is sad that people feel they have to come out and say that. :sad_yes:

I think the CEO had made mention of same sex marriage not being “right” and my gay brother takes that to mean that the CEO is homophobic.

How dare someone have a different view!

Now I’m certainly not homophobic but I do believe in traditional marriage.

Opposing so-called gay “marriage” is not homophobic. Gay “marriage” activists love to pull that card (1) in order to silence the opposition because (2) they don’t have the necessary facts on their side to justify this.

How do I support trad marriage without offending my brother? Can I say congrats or looks like a fun party on photos from a same-sex wedding on FB? How can I explain the reasons behind the Church’s position if he puts me on the spot?

Defending the Church will usually put you on the spot, even with others who consider themselves Catholic.

I would even look at some of the secular arguments. You can debate Faith and boil arguments down to “cause the Bible/Church says so”, but these really are not as successful.

It comes with the territory of knowing the Truth and being persecuted over it by selfish interests, even when those who are selfish market themselves as victims.

 

[MacQ]

What should I do? I feel like I’m hurting my sibling who is gay. He has made mention of same sex marriage not being allowed in the RC church and although he is trying to get a laugh I can tell that he is upset about the church’s teaching on this issue. I have no desire to protest gay marriage or gay adoption anywhere in public or on Facebook by “liking” any obvious cause. I still love my brother and would love any of his gay friends or boyfriends. On Easter I made sure to ask him about a friend of his’ upcoming same-sex wedding and told him to have a good time. I think he was upset greatly last year when Chick FA the restaurant ended up having a record day in sales and lines (my other hetero brother posted photos of the himself in line on FB, and I chose not to support CFA that day, although we do continue to eat there and I love shopping and eating at other Christian places, I’m not anti-Islam or anti-anything else). I think the CEO had made mention of same sex marriage not being “right” and my gay brother takes that to mean that the CEO is homophobic. Now I’m certainly not homophobic but I do believe in traditional marriage.

How do I support trad marriage without offending my brother? Can I say congrats or looks like a fun party on photos from a same-sex wedding on FB? How can I explain the reasons behind the Church’s position if he puts me on the spot?

Please excuse the run-on sentences: it’s a bad habit.

I have found it’s not that hard.
Love him, treat him with respect.
Topics like religion, politics and sex are easy enough to avoid in conversation if people are truly interested in the other person. I have straight friends and relatives I don’t discuss those things with either.