Homo sexuality: Nature or nurture?

[Other_Eric]

Celibacy simply means not being married. A celibate gives up the good of marriage as a sacrifice. Any unmarried person, heterosexual or homosexual, must remain chaste. As the Church teaches us, “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.”

To answer the question, there is no convincing evidence that homosexuality has a genetic cause. The bulk of the evidence shows that environment is the key, but not necessarily determining, factor. Since sexual orientation can be warped by environmental factors beyond the control of the person affected, it is not appropriate to talk about a homosexual orientation as being a choice.

Regardless of the cause (which need not be an either-or situation as the OP’s question implies), homosexual activity, indeed any sexual activity outside the bonds of a marriage between one man and his one wife, is immoral.

– Mark L. Chance.

– Mark L. Chance.

The Catechism constantly refers to the celibate way of life as a positive choice made by the one for the sake of the kingdom. It is not a state of life into which he must be either dragged, kicking and screaming, or accept by default. We do not say, for instance, that respect for life is merely the state of refraining from murder in order to accommodate psychopaths.

The celibate vocation means the sacrifice of marriage for the kingdom of God. To Sacrifice something implies that there exists a licit choice between two options. For those with same-sex attractions, this is simply not the case. They have neither a valid nor licit option in marriage, so they cannot, as the Catechism says in paragraph 1579, accept “with a joyous heart” to renounce something to which they have no real attraction.

Celibacy is a vocation that is held in high esteem by the Church. We should not dumb down its meaning merely to accommodate those with disordered sexualities. For those with same-sex attraction, they have nothing good to sacrifice, therefore there is no valid vocation to celibacy. Like with same-sex “marriage” there is only a crude parody of a life in Christ.

 

[mlchance]

The celibate vocation means the sacrifice of marriage for the kingdom of God. To Sacrifice something implies that there exists a licit choice between two options. For those with same-sex attractions, this is simply not the case. They have neither a valid nor licit option in marriage…

Nonsense. For example, a homosexual man has the same valid and licit option for marriage as a heterosexual man: He can marry a woman or choose not to marry a woman.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Other_Eric]

Nonsense. For example, a homosexual man has the same valid and licit option for marriage as a heterosexual man: He can marry a woman or choose not to marry a woman.

– Mark L. Chance.

Incorrect. The condition of same-sex attraction experienced in whatever degree is recognized as a psychological disorder so severe that it constitutes an annullable impediment to marriage in the Church. Outside of some crude morally relativistic scheme or a theology based on nothing more than biological possibility, same-sex attraction is a de facto sign that the requisite consent to make a gift of oneself to another is not present.

 

[setter]

Incorrect. The condition of same-sex attraction experienced in whatever degree is recognized as a psychological disorder so severe that it constitutes an annullable impediment to marriage in the Church.

Please cite the source document for this assertion of yours.

 

[setter]

Celibacy is a vocation that is held in high esteem by the Church. We should not dumb down its meaning merely to accommodate those with disordered sexualities. For those with same-sex attraction, they have nothing good to sacrifice, therefore there is no valid vocation to celibacy. Like with same-sex “marriage” there is only a crude parody of a life in Christ.

You seem to struggle with seperating the dignity of the person made in the image and likeness of God, and for the person resding in Christ, with the features of the disorder that they are afflicted with.

 

[Other_Eric]

Please cite the source document for this assertion of yours.

You would like a source document but, I admit, I have none to give. I am relying on conversations I have had with members of my own local tribunal describing not only the theory behind such annulments but what the tribunal has done in practice. Such marriages are typically annulled under canon 1095, 2° and 3°. Take this or leave it, but it seems my view has pretty firm footing in both theology and the practical application of canon law. If you still desire a citation, I suppose I could research it but it will take some time. Perhaps you should make an inquiry of an official from your own tribunal.

As far as whether or not I struggle with separating the dignity of people afflicted with this disorder from the features of the disorder, I have to ask what it is you mean. Do you mean that we ought to rely on some blindly optimistic scheme relying heavily on buzzwords such as “dignity,” “respect,” “tolerance” and whatever other vocabulary happens to be in the latest HRC publication?

I have my own buzzword for you: prudence. That is, we simply cannot ignore the grave nature of the effects this disorder has, not only those afflicted by it, but on those who associate with people like this. This is particularly relevant when speaking of marriage and the rearing of children by a man or women who is at a markedly higher risk for sexual predation. Nothing but contemptible indifference or disdain for human dignity could justify ignoring this reality.

Respecting human dignity does not mean a failure to treat people with this disorder with prudence. Alcoholics do not tend bar, pedophiles do not run daycare centers, hydrophobes are not made into lifeguards and those with same-sex attractions are similarly unsuitable for either marriage or celibacy.

 

[setter]

You would like a source document but, I admit, I have none to give.
Nuff’ said.

As far as whether or not I struggle with separating the dignity of people afflicted with this disorder from the features of the disorder, I have to ask what it is you mean. Do you mean that we ought to rely on some blindly optimistic scheme relying heavily on buzzwords such as “dignity,” “respect,” “tolerance” and whatever other vocabulary happens to be in the latest HRC publication?

experienced **in whatever degree **is recognized as a psychological disorder so severe that it constitutes an annullable impediment to marriage in the Church.

I strongly recommend this book to you for a more comprehensive, sophisticated, and compassionate understanding of the psychological phenomenon of SSA and hope for healing: Coming Out Straight: Understanding and Healing Homosexuality by Richard A. Cohen (available at amazon.com).

 

[Other_Eric]

Nuff’ said.

You portrayal of “reality” is akin to an infectious disease, and that anyone around SSA afflicted individuals may “catch” the ill effects of their contagion. Instead of upholding the dignity of the SSA afflicted person, you malign and fail to distinguish, seperate and love the person from the disorder.

I detect an underlying contempt in your post for anyone who is afflicted with the psychological disorder of SSA, whether they are living a chaste, sanctified, holy walk with the Lord of not. I am reminded of the psychological adage that “we disdain and disown that which we most have not, or feel cannot, reconcile within ourselves”.

You persist in widely categorizing SSA in an either/or, all or nothing, presence or absence of, assignment of SSA. This is too simplistic and fails to receognize the individuality of each person, the course of the affliction, and God’s grace at work in the person. There are degrees of SSA afflicition, struggle, growth in virue to manage, and often in process of change to heal and reorient.

Note your blatant self contradiction in you below comment, as you press on in your apparent agenda to distort the reality of SSA disroder:

I strongly recommend this book to you for a more comprehensive, sophisticated, and compassionate understanding of the psychological phenomenon of SSA and hope for healing: Coming Out Straight: Understanding and Healing Homosexuality by Richard A. Cohen (available at amazon.com).

I thank you for the reference to Cohen’s book. I, in turn, will recommend to you the works of Charles Soccarides, Paul Cameron, Elizabeth Moberly, Gerald Van Den Aardweg and Joseph Nicholosi.

Say what you will about my position, but at least I am thinking with the mind of the Church. Irrespective of what your own personal preferences may be, the tribunals routinely invalidate marriages for causes of same-sex attraction, *even when not acted *upon. That is a matter of record. I also recommend that you review the comments of Monsignor Tony Anatrella, who had a hand in writing the recent instruction regarding the ordination of those with same-sex attractions. Of the disorder he said “*t can be referred to as a destabilizing reality for persons and society” and that “homosexuality is contrary to conjugal life, family life and priestly life in the name of arguments that are mainly anthropological, confirmed by reason based on Christian faith.”

According to the Instruction Anatrella helped to author, prudence demanded that the condition be taken into account in ordination irrespective of whether or not it had been acted upon. Even without the genital expression, “uch persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women.” As such, it was explained to me, the prudential considerations that go into choosing a priest are no less important when choosing a spouse.

Ignoring the negative consequences of allowing such individuals unencumbered into these vocations in the name of “humanity,” “compassion” or “sophistication” is a recipe for disaster. The priesthood has come under fire and scandal and the sacrament of marriage is on the ropes thanks to such “enlightened” thinking.

The fact is that there is much research out there testifying to the extreme self-destructive behaviors, psychological impairments and susceptibility to disease that these people are exposed to. I might add that much of this Richard Cohen has confirmed in various articles. Ignoring this in the name of compassion and understanding is not a kindness to those with same-sex attractions but a callous disregard for their welfare and the welfare of the people around them. Compassion and understanding have their place. We do not exercise them at the expense of good, prudential judgment or the safety of the vulnerable.*

 

[setter]

I thank you for the reference to Cohen’s book. I, in turn, will recommend to you the works of Charles Soccarides, Paul Cameron, Elizabeth Moberly, Gerald Van Den Aardweg and Joseph Nicholosi.

Say what you will about my position, but at least I am thinking with the mind of the Church. Irrespective of what your own personal preferences may be, the tribunals routinely invalidate marriages for causes of same-sex attraction, *even when not acted *upon. That is a matter of record.

Really. Do you happen to have any sources to back up this assertion of yours? Nuff’ said?

I also recommend that you review the comments of Monsignor Tony Anatrella, who had a hand in writing the recent instruction regarding the ordination of those with same-sex attractions. Of the disorder he said “*t can be referred to as a destabilizing reality for persons and society” and that “homosexuality is contrary to conjugal life, family life and priestly life in the name of arguments that are mainly anthropological, confirmed by reason based on Christian faith.”

According to the Instruction* Anatrella helped to author, prudence demanded that the condition be taken into account in ordination irrespective of whether or not it had been acted upon. Even without the genital expression, “uch persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women.” As such, it was explained to me, the prudential considerations that go into choosing a priest are no less important when choosing a spouse.

Ignoring the negative consequences of allowing such individuals unencumbered into these vocations in the name of “humanity,” “compassion” or “sophistication” is a recipe for disaster. The priesthood has come under fire and scandal and the sacrament of marriage is on the ropes thanks to such “enlightened” thinking.

The fact is that there is much research out there testifying to the extreme self-destructive behaviors, psychological impairments and susceptibility to disease that these people are exposed to. I might add that much of this Richard Cohen has confirmed in various articles. Ignoring this in the name of compassion and understanding is not a kindness to those with same-sex attractions but a callous disregard for their welfare and the welfare of the people around them. Compassion and understanding have their place. We do not exercise them at the expense of good, prudential judgment or the safety of the vulnerable.
This instruction was meant only for those candidates for seminary formation for the priesthood.

You appear to be on a bit of a stretch here as you attempt to extrapolate to all those individuals afflicted with SSA regardless of individual degree, course, history, life state, phase of life, personal sanctity and holiness.

 

[dapper]

It doesn’t matter whether or not the condition is the result of either nature or nurture. St. Paul records that the condition is divine punishment for the sin of idolatry. That should be enough for any of us. What is important is that the condition is disordered and its only possible expression is one of intrinsic evil.

I have never heard of it put this way - “divine punishment for the sin of idolatry…” What scripture passages do you have to support that?

 

[Odell]

I think of it this way do people who molest chickens are they physicaly atracted to chickens? Now we would all admit to something being wrong with this person. And they may have been born messed up. Just like some people who murder there children they may have been born messed up obviosuly somthing is wrong or functioning wrong in there brain but I dont think God instilled the urge to kill or that they were born with the urge. Maybe some people are just born with a cross they have to bare. But they can bare it. I even believe normal people have a cross to bare normal people have to pick up there cross everyday in the culture of death. Things mentaly handicap people dont have to deal with as much.

 

[Robert_Bay]

Thread closed

Wrong forum, this is a news forum.