Help with Homosexualism and the Catholic Church

[djeter]

I was recently on a forum that pitted myself (the lone Catholic AKA Homophobe, if you know what I mean) and while I was presenting a Church related argument (George Weigel’s point that the priest abuse crisis was not pedophilia (which is a media code word) but homosexual assault (ouch must not say, no matter what the John Jay Report figures say).

I told my interlocutors at one point that there are some issues about the role of gays in the Church that concern Catholics but none that they would be familiar with. Well that came off as too haughty so I allowed myself to give them a problem. I pointed them to an essay about the embodied person by David L Schindler and spoke to them about how Homosexualism (a word I like that refers to those who promote the normalcy and goodness of homosexuality) contradicts Catholic values.

I got one serious response, a young fellow who used Benedict XVI and John Paul II’s words to show that homosexuality should be recognized by the Church.

I put it up here and asked for responses that I would pass along. No takers. So I thought maybe I had the wrong forum. More people willing to present Church dogma and teachings here perhaps.

The original posts are here; forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=530855

Do you think you could help me out. I think the young man is in his 30’s (just a guess) and he has made a decent try here but it is so left field for me I have trouble putting my head around it. Where to begin? I thought a half dozen reactions plus my own might give him the idea how bizarre his attempt at criticisizing the Church is.

Thanks in advance.

dj

 

[fermat]

From the Catechism Of the Catholic Church:

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms throughout the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on sacred Scripture, which present homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity [Gen. 19:1-29, Rom. 1:24-27, 1 Cor. 6:10, 1Tim. 1:10], tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered [Persona Humana 8]. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

I would be curious to know what your one serious poster meant by ‘recognize’ homosexuality. The church does recognize it and embraces those with deep-seated homosexual tendencies. The section above talks about how we should show compassion, respect and sensitivity to our brothers and sisters in Christ. This an example of love the sinner, hate the sin.

We are all sinners and we all need the love of Jesus and guidance of His church. All the church is doing is attempting to help us understand where we wrong Jesus and how to make it better again. It’s all about love.

 

[Dave_B]

I was recently on a forum that pitted myself (the lone Catholic AKA Homophobe, if you know what I mean)

“They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided”

 

[djeter]

From the Catechism Of the Catholic Church:

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms throughout the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on sacred Scripture, which present homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity [Gen. 19:1-29, Rom. 1:24-27, 1 Cor. 6:10, 1Tim. 1:10], tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered [Persona Humana 8]. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

I would be curious to know what your one serious poster meant by ‘recognize’ homosexuality. The church does recognize it and embraces those with deep-seated homosexual tendencies. The section above talks about how we should show compassion, respect and sensitivity to our brothers and sisters in Christ. This an example of love the sinner, hate the sin.

We are all sinners and we all need the love of Jesus and guidance of His church. All the church is doing is attempting to help us understand where we wrong Jesus and how to make it better again. It’s all about love.

Thanks fermat,

What about his opening argument: “Natural-born intersex individuals are a standing refutation of any anthropology which requires of necessity that all human beings are physically either male or female. The existence of these intersex persons, and those which psychology recognizes as suffering from gender dysphoria (including transsexuals) would also indicate that the connection between biological sex and psychological sex may not be a necessary one. To put it bluntly, the human race does not consist simply of persons who are straightforwardly either male or female, whether biologically, psychologically, or (by extension) spiritually.”

How is this not true? While it doesn’t resuscitate the gay gene argument (easy enough to bat down) it does seem to say that the existence of intersex individuals renders the male-female difference moot from a psychological and spiritual viewpoint. What’s the best Catholic reply you can think of?

dj

 

[djeter]

“They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided”

Not sure what your point is, but I distinguish between homosexuals and homosexualists – the latter may not be homosexuals but include those who believe homosexual acts are normal and should not be discouraged. I believe and strive to accept my gay brothers with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Hope I didn’t give an opposite impression.

dj

 

[djeter]

I was recently on a forum that pitted myself (the lone Catholic AKA Homophobe, if you know what I mean)
dj

A poorly written opening sentence. I meant to indicate that my opponents were Homosexualists who condemn the Roman Catholic Church and its doctrines as homophobic.

dj

 

[beafedor]

Have you heard of this Ministry: couragerc.net/

“Are you or a loved one experiencing homosexual attractions and looking for answers?
Courage, an apostolate of the Roman Catholic Church, ministers to those with same-sex attractions and their loved ones. We have been endorsed by the Pontifical Council for the Family and our beloved John Paul II said of this ministry, “COURAGE is doing the work of God!” We also have an outreach called Encourage which ministers to relatives and friends of persons with same-sex attractions.”

 

[djeter]

And my response to MyopicBookworm:

(A quote from him)

"Natural-born intersex individuals are a standing refutation of any anthropology which requires of necessity that all human beings are physically either male or female. The existence of these intersex persons, and those which psychology recognizes as suffering from gender dysphoria (including transsexuals) would also indicate that the connection between biological sex and psychological sex may not be a necessary one. To put it bluntly, the human race does not consist simply of persons who are straightforwardly either male or female, whether biologically, psychologically, or (by extension) spiritually.

This is despite the neatness of the arrangement, and its convenience for human mythologizing or philosophizing. Much persecution of homosexuals probably does not arise simply from emotional distaste for or moral disapproval of same-sex physical relations: even chaste homosexual people, in their non-“normal” desires and tendencies, disturb the patterns and symmetries by which human beings collectively rationalize their world. They transgress the religio-social categories with which people protect their accustomed ways of life and thought.

The male-female duality can therefore not be fundamentally and essentially bound up with the existence of the human person as an embodied soul…"

---

(my response to the selection above here)

Gender does not inherently correspond to biological sex. The Scriptural references you use “God created them male and female (Genesis 5:2)refers to the biological, upon which the Catholic Church and theology makes its case. You elide into gender issues from this Scriptural reference, equating gender to biological sex. I would call this your fundamental error as everything else you say later is based on acceptance or acknowledgement of this error as truth.

Gender is a 1955 creation, credited to sexologist John Money and could never become the basis of Catholic Teaching as it would rupture the unity with all that has come before (like changing the rules of baseball to use beach balls instead of the current ball). While biological differences influence gender identity formation, you are suggesting the cart before the horse where gender is influencing the biology – something patently false.

Dr. Schindler makes his presentation of John Paul II’s Theology of the Body that, thankfully, is not based upon gender studies (as your comments are). Here are the six principles he presents from the TOB:

1. The soul is “the principle of unity of the human being, whereby it exists as a whole — corpore et anima minus — as a person” ( Veritatis splendor, 48). “It is in the unity of body and soul that the person is the subject of his…acts” (VS, 48). “The human person cannot be reduced to a freedom which is self-designing (this is what MyopicBookworm has done with his gender based constructions and comments here), but entails a particular spiritual and bodily structure” (VS. 48).

These statements, first of all, affirm the unity of the human being as a dual, or differentiated, unity of body and soul. The soul as it were lends its spiritual meaning to the body as body, even as the body simultaneously contributes to what now becomes, in man, a distinct kind of spirit: a spirit whose nature it is to be embodied

1. This second point is complex. It begins with this dogma: “The likeness with God shows that the essence and existence of man are constitutively related to God in the most profound manner. This…relationship…is therefore not something that comes afterwards and is not added from the outside” {109, emphasis original; see CCC, 356, 358}. And further: “The relationship between God and man is reflected in the relational and social dimension of human nature. Man . . is not a solitary being but ‘a social being . . . “ {cf. Gs, 12j} and then explores six “elaborations” (which I will take up here A through F:

a. It establishes “constitutive relatedness among human beings” which implies that we are, in our original and deepest meanings, persons who are ordered toward God and others.

b. We bear a constitutive order toward generosity that always-anteriorly participates in the generosity we have received and are always-already receiving — from God and other creatures in God. Although sin weighs down and profoundly skews this constitutively generous order of being, sin can never destroy the integrity of this order as naturally given. What are marvelous statement: no matter to what depths of despair we sink in battling sin, God knows that we cannot be destroyed. Jesus will help us.

c. Man “is a being whose innermost dynamic is… directed toward the receiving and giving of love.” The relation to God, and to others in God (the constitutive relatedness among human beings), that establishes our individual substance in being is generous. The relation itself makes and lets us in our substantial being be.

d. The relationality of the human person introduced by love is first the relationality characteristic of the child as the one who is absolutely from the Other — God — and from other beings in God, even as he is thereby simultaneously also for the Other, and for other beings in God. It is for this reason that Pope Benedict XVI has stated that the child in the womb provides the basic figure for what it means to be a human being and why the Catholic Church wars against abortion.

Continued in next post

 

[djeter]

a continuation from previous post

e. “The account of Genesis 1 does not mention the problem of man’s original solitude: in fact, man is ‘male and female’ from the beginning. The Yahwist text of Genesis 2, by contrast, authorizes us in some way to think first only about man inasmuch as, through the body, he belongs to the visible world while going beyond it; it then lets us think about the same man, but through the duality of sex. Bodyliness and sexuality are not simply identical. Although in its normal constitution, the human body carries within itself the signs of sex and is by nature male or female, the fact that man is a ‘body’ belongs more deeply to the structure of the personal subject than the fact that in his somatic constitution he is also male or female. For this reason, the meaning of original solitude, which can be referred simply to ‘man,’ is substantially prior to the meaning of original unity; the latter is based on masculinity and femininity, which are, as it were, two different ‘incarnations,’ that is, two ways in which the same human being, created ‘in the image of God’ (Genesis 1:27), ‘is a body” (John Paul II, Man and Woman He Created Them, 157).

Original solitude, as understood by John Paul II, is the absolute priority of the whole man’s being ordered to God in a relation of prayer and adoration. It is in just this priority of the whole man as originally made for God alone that forms the priority of virginity (purity) already in the order of creation. f. As Genesis makes clear, the relationality is double in a sense: reference to other beings is begins with a relationality with another being who is fully human while at once embodying a different way of being human, that is either male or female. The sexual differentiation of mankind into man and woman is much more than a purely biological fact for the purpose of procreation. It is unconnected with what is truly human in mankind. In it there is accomplished that intrinsic relation of the human being to a Thou, which inherently constitutes him or her as human, the very basis of our personhood . . The likeness to God in sexuality is prior to sexuality, not identical with it.

It is accomplished by the person. The doctrine of the imago Dei is, in the first place, that man is capax Dei {vocab: a yearning for that which human nature cannot by itself attain}: it is the relation to God that originally constitutes each person, and this relation immediately expresses itself in and as relation also to others, which is realized in a privileged way through relation to another who is the same kind of being as myself, differently: through the relation of two beings who share a common humanity in the different ways termed male/masculine and female/feminine.

Thus there is in the structure of the human person a second dual unity latent within the person as he stands in his original “solitary” unity before God, and that is the one expressed in the ordering of each person toward a unity between persons, between a one and an other.

1. The body, always-already informed by soul or spirit and actualized by esse, thus exhibits an order of love. But what is crucial to see here is that this sign of the creature’s constitutive relation to God and others takes a new form qua body. The body, in other words, indicates a distinctive way of imaging God and love, in its very order as a body, as personal — creaturely flesh.
2. The human body, marked with the sign of masculinity or femininity, “contains ‘from the beginning’ the ‘spousal’ attribute, that is, the power to express love: precisely that love in which the human person becomes a gift and — through this gift — fulfills the very meaning of his being and his existence. In this, its own distinctive character, the body is the expression of the spirit…“Sexuality characterizes man and woman not only on the physical level, but also on the psychological and spiritual, making its mark on each of their expressions.” From this you extrapolated …“Sexual orientation (a gender issue) characterizes man and woman not only on the physical level, but also on the psychological and spiritual, making its mark on each of their expressions.”

You have PROFOUNDLY altered John Paul II’s message and thought. John Paul II’s theology of the body, in a word, is about God and being as love, and about the body and the sexual difference insofar as these are a sign and expression of this theologically ontologically-anthropologically prior love, even as the body precisely in its sexual difference provides a new and just so far enriched and deepened understanding of this prior love.

1. Man and woman each contain the whole meaning of the person, but in a different order. It is from within the substantial wholeness of each as human that the man and woman bear differently a dual reference from and toward others that is ordered differently in each.
2. In the human being, physics and biology become personalized, even as the person takes the shape of a body. Thus the human person — after Christ and in Christ — becomes the mediator (analogatum princeps) for the whole of creation. In and through the human being, the cosmos itself properly realizes its destined participation in worship of God and fruitful service to God and others.

What I was hoping in my posting this topic was an engagement by Homosexualists on these six principles. I wasn’t asking them to embrace them but to empathize with the Catholic Homosexual who believes in them and identifies to his core with John Paul II’s teachings in the TOB. On the other thread the very attempt was ridiculed or parodied and the Homosexualist assault on the Church as being homophobic continued hell-bent (pardon the pun). There were very few attempts to thoughtfully engage, I believe.

(Continued on next post)

If this is boring the hell out of you, I’m really sorry.

 

[djeter]

(continuation from previous post)

I do recognize MyopicBookworm’s serious attempt to engage but I doubt the Catholic Homosexual would find any solace in an answer that essentially rejects the teachings. While the answer is clever and ballsy to the extent he distorts the words of St. Paul, John Paul II and Benedict XVI, gender arguments are not to be confused with the theological. Anyone who reads the six principles that Dr. Schindler enumerates and I have summarized here should recognize in them the very essence of personalism that undergirds so much of western thought. Only an atheist could contest any of it and most Homosexualists are not atheists.

MyopicBookworm: “The theory/doctrine of the embodied soul is not so monumentally interconnected with everything that disputing any small element beings {sic brings?}the whole edifice of Catholic thelogy {sic} crashing down, and it does not depend on the precise view of sex propounded in the article.”

An illuminating comment. First of all there is no “precise view of sex” in the article . Nowhere does Dr. Schindler discuss anything related to sexual orientation or gender. Secondly the embodied soul is the basis of “the resurrection of the dead,” one of the tenets of the Creed. Dr. Schindler is discussing the embodied soul in the context of the comments made by Dr. Peter Kreeft whom I also cited in the OP.

Jesus would never have said “Repent the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand” had he not been speaking to the idea of resurrection for us all (and which he demonstrated). Take away the resurrection and you have taken away the whole point of Christianity. As Flannery O’Connor once said: “If all the resurrection is, is just a symbol, then I say the hell with it.” It doesn’t get off the ground without the very well thought out and crafted theological response called the “embodied soul.”

A long response (which didn’t touch on everything MyopicBookworm wrote but dealt with his core points) but I hope it shows why his answer is wanting. The beliefs presented may be fine but they are not Catholic and therefore cannot speak to the problems the Catholic Homosexual or the Catholic Homosexualist deal with (the latter for me remains a contradiction in terms, like “Catholic Pro Choice”, but simply shows someone who is still working on obedience to the Church.)

dj

PS At least no one can blame me for not taking the time to respond…

 

[djeter]

Have you heard of this Ministry: couragerc.net/

“Are you or a loved one experiencing homosexual attractions and looking for answers?
Courage, an apostolate of the Roman Catholic Church, ministers to those with same-sex attractions and their loved ones. We have been endorsed by the Pontifical Council for the Family and our beloved John Paul II said of this ministry, “COURAGE is doing the work of God!” We also have an outreach called Encourage which ministers to relatives and friends of persons with same-sex attractions.”

Thanks beafedor but the problem I’m responding to comes from Homosexualists not homosexuals. The former work to legitimize the homosexual lifestyle or to proselytize for its acceptance. Giving them a link to your website would provoke gales of laughter as well as the old myths that

1. 
   *]People are born gay.
   *]Sexual orientation can never change
   *]Efforts to change someone’s sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual are harmful and unethical.
   
   I guess you’ve never met these folks before. If you want, go to this site, become a member and meet the folks over at Religion Pro and Con.
   
   The site BTW is perfectly legitimate and is a great way to put your library online – a way for people to get to know you. The particular forum thread features a group of Catholic haters unlike others you may have ever met. They will not-so-gently “educate” you away from your faith. I throw a little blood in the water to reveal their true colors and defend the faith.
   
   dj

 

[LemonAndLime]

I was recently on a forum that pitted myself (the lone Catholic AKA Homophobe, if you know what I mean) and while I was presenting a Church related argument (George Weigel’s point that the priest abuse crisis was not pedophilia (which is a media code word) but homosexual assault (ouch must not say, no matter what the John Jay Report figures say).

Sounds like you think that the priest abuse scandal was not a problem with paedophiles, but homosexual behaviour. You do realise that girls were abused too? You do realise that there is a difference between men being attracted to other men and men attracted to children? If a man was attracted to women, he’s heterosexual. But if that man is attracted to female children, he’s a paedophile. In fact, many paedophiles do not care whether the child is male or female. I believe that those who try to say it was homosexual behaviour have perhaps an agenda behind suggesting so.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Homosexuality (attraction and/or behavior) is utterly different from the biological intersex phenomenon mentioned on this thread. Different dynamics, roots, and outcomes. Some transgendered individuals (who have undergone surgical correction of an ambiguous biological situation which was not of their choice, such as genital-hormone contradictions from birth or spontaneously after birth) have acted out, sexually, with the newly opposite gender; others have not, and remain chaste.

 

[LemonAndLime]

Thanks beafedor but the problem I’m responding to comes from Homosexualists not homosexuals. The former work to legitimize the homosexual lifestyle or to proselytize for its acceptance. Giving them a link to your website would provoke gales of laughter as well as the old myths that

1. 
   *]People are born gay.
   *]Sexual orientation can never change
   *]Efforts to change someone’s sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual are harmful and unethical.
   
   I guess you’ve never met these folks before. If you want, go to this site, become a member and meet the folks over at Religion Pro and Con.
   
   The site BTW is perfectly legitimate and is a great way to put your library online – a way for people to get to know you. The particular forum thread features a group of Catholic haters unlike others you may have ever met. They will not-so-gently “educate” you away from your faith. I throw a little blood in the water to reveal their true colors and defend the faith.
   
   dj

1. 
   First of all, there is more evidence to suggest that people are born gay than not. Including just plain logic. For example, if people chose to be gay - why would they if it would cause them suffering (e.g. a family which did not approve). Secondly, why is that people who are gay make up roughly 2% of the population all over the world? That means it can’t be culture as not everyone has the same upbringing or “exposure” to homosexuality. Thirdly - scientists have successfully shown a link between exposure to female hormones in the womb during pregnancy and homosexuality/“born in the wrong body” syndrome.
   
   Secondly, people’s sexual orientation cannot be changed. There is a huge amount of evidence that attempting to do so can lead to psychological damage and is doomed to failure. This is a fact recognised by the Catholic Church. If you have SSA, it shall be your cross to bear for life.
   
   Thirdly, yes it is unethical. This is something which is not recognised by the Catholic Church as something which is viable, ethical, and reliable. Your viewpoints are therefore going against Catholic teaching and you should revise them.

 

[Elizabeth502]

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

Nothing in there about:

people’s sexual orientation cannot be changed. There is a huge amount of evidence that attempting to do so can lead to psychological damage and is doomed to failure. This is a fact recognised by the Catholic Church

 

[Elizabeth502]

Thirdly, yes it is unethical. This is something which is not recognised by the Catholic Church as something which is viable, ethical, and reliable. Your viewpoints are therefore going against Catholic teaching and you should revise them.

No. You need to get current with Catholic thought, especially since you are converting. Your understanding of the Catholic position on this is in error. You can refer to the many, and recent, programs on EWTN TV regarding the Church’s position on the slow, painful process of disclosure to the self, through unforced but encouraging long-term therapy, as well as – on both EWTN TV and Radio – personal testimonies of individuals have indeed successfully renounced the lifestyle and through self-searching and professional help, have come to understood accurately that the lifestyle was a reaction to arbitrary categories of gender roles and popular misunderstandings of the sources of attraction.

 

[LemonAndLime]

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Nothing in there about:

I was not referring to the Catechism. In that, one is unlikely to find the CC’s response to a scientific argument that homosexuality can/can’t be cured. I have however read something somewhere about it, and am currently trying to find it.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I was not referring to the Catechism.

But you will not find anything authentically Catholic outside of the Catechism that itself directly refutes the Catechism. If it does so, it is suspect theology. The most egregious statement you made is that the Catholic Church disapproves, or would disapprove, of elective psychotherapy which has as an inevitable byproduct the reorientation of the individual to his or her natural sexuality.

 

[LemonAndLime]

No. You need to get current with Catholic thought, especially since you are converting. Your understanding of the Catholic position on this is in error. You can refer to the many, and recent, programs on EWTN TV regarding the Church’s position on the slow, painful process of disclosure to the self, through unforced but encouraging long-term therapy, as well as – on both EWTN TV and Radio – personal testimonies of individuals have indeed successfully renounced the lifestyle and through self-searching and professional help, have come to understood accurately that the lifestyle was a reaction to arbitrary categories of gender roles and popular misunderstandings of the sources of attraction.

I am going to be hugely skeptical of such “personal testimonies” when many Evangelicals also rely on the same evidence that some of their Pastors can cure people of cancer by laying their hands on them and saying a few words.

Also, it doesn’t sound like these “programs” remove SSA, but rather convince the sufferers that it is not natural and the reason behind these feelings are the ones you listed, and then end with telling them that they will still suffer from SSA. Tell me, do people going through these programs claim that they no longer feel SSA afterwards?

 

[LemonAndLime]

But you will not find anything authentically Catholic outside of the Catechism that itself directly refutes the Catechism. If it does so, it is suspect theology.

Is there anything in the Catechism which says either one way or the other whether homosexuality can be cured? If there is nothing said about it, then anyone making a statement about it would not be going against the Catechism.