Homosexuality - the facts

[Detales]

Regarding the OP: It is unfortunate when a clearly stated point of view is taken as the entirety of a consideration. It says at the begining of the web site refered to that “The Catholic Medical Association is dedicated to upholding the principles of the Catholic Faith as related to the practice of medicine and to promoting Catholic medical ethics to the medical profession, including mental health professionals, the clergy, and the general public.” (emphasis mine) This web site is avowedly about supporting Catholic doctrin, and is not about homosexuality from any inclusively acedemic standpoint. Those two are not congruent activities even if overlapping in some data. And the site is emphatically not what the OP purports, but a particular view from a particular standpoint. As such it is not “the” anything, but "some " from an agenda, and is therefore dubious in its overall factuallity, despite necessarily including points of value.

Frankly, if people have difficulty with their orientation because of Catholic doctrin, it would be useful to understand that whereas the Church purports to be the context of the world, honest examination will reveal that the world is the context of the Church. This is not to say that the points of consideration offered by the Church and especially the touted web site are necessarily unworthy of consideration, despites an astonishingly narrow view, but that homosexuality has also been studied simply as a phenomenon without a distinct result in mind at which the “research” and “reasoning” are aimed a priori. This agenda based posturing is neither honest science nor honest religion.

So the OP’s referent web site is about making homosexuals Catholic, not about understanding homosexuality in an actual medical, sociological, and psychological context, but in a dubious and limited religious context. This is very much in line with self verification as distinct from the healthy activity of teleology as applied to religion. As Schelling said on another subject, “The question is not how the phenomenon must be turned, twisted, narrowed, crippled, as to be explicable, at all costs, upon principle we have once and for all resolved not to go beyond. The question is: ‘To what point must we enlarge our thought so that it shall be in proportion to the phenomenon.’”

I have my own questions about aspects of gender orientation, but in this matter I am reminded of the Cardinal, I think it was, who refused to look through Galilaeo’s telescope to see for himself the moons of Jupiter. There is the general attitude of the Church exemplifed towards actual data, as it was in Columbus’ chopping off the hands of an entire people for being “heathens.” Other examples abound.

For my part, I have nothing but admiration for my Catholic homosexual friends who have divested themselves of the crippling attitudes that revive memories of the unfortunate Anita Bryant, and the sad posturings of men of the Church and other walks who have led lives of lies due to the uncharitable discomfort of people who may themselves have issues in this matter, issues which lead to the vilification of something they neither experientially understand, or by which they are emotionally and immaturely repulsed. In neither case is there a sound basis for either science nor for insightful religious pracitice.

It is as odious to me to see the posturings of Catholics in this matter as it seems to be repulsive to Catholics to see others attempting them to wake them up, despite whatever other good the Church may have to offer.

 

[Methodi]

Sorry but that is just wrong. Lots of kids get picked on, and most of the Gay men I know are more masculine then the average straight male. Generalizations and stereotypes are not very charitable.

You are so right about that, I was mixed in the gay community for years, & I never ceased to be amazed by some of the men I met who were gay, some of them looked like they would kill You if You looked at them wrong, people dont know it either unless You are involved with the gays, there are many many married men leading duals lives.also, Goofyjim is right, we are born this way, it is not something we chose, hard to imagine for some of you unless you have walked in our shoes

 

[tobinatorstark]

You are so right about that, I was mixed in the gay community for years, & I never ceased to be amazed by some of the men I met who were gay, some of them looked like they would kill You if You looked at them wrong, people dont know it either unless You are involved with the gays, there are many many married men leading duals lives.also, Goofyjim is right, we are born this way, it is not something we chose, hard to imagine for some of you unless you have walked in our shoes

Can you are someone else in this forum give me a link to a document that says the homosexuality is acceptable to the Church and its teaching. I would really love to see someone think there is such a document out there. Do you agree with any of the Church’s teachings?? We are Catholics and not Cafeteria Catholic. We can’t pick and choose what teaching of the Church we want to accept or don’t accept. You are very wrong. You were not born gay and you do choose you actions.

 

[Methodi]

Can you are someone else in this forum give me a link to a document that says the homosexuality is acceptable to the Church and its teaching. I would really love to see someone think there is such a document out there. Do you agree with any of the Church’s teachings?? We are Catholics and not Cafeteria Catholic. We can’t pick and choose what teaching of the Church we want to accept or don’t accept. You are very wrong. You were not born gay and you do choose you actions.

Look in the catechism, they are that way through no fault of their own. No one would choose to be gay, trust me

 

[aspawloski4th]

Can you are someone else in this forum give me a link to a document that says the homosexuality is acceptable to the Church and its teaching. I would really love to see someone think there is such a document out there. Do you agree with any of the Church’s teachings?? We are Catholics and not Cafeteria Catholic. We can’t pick and choose what teaching of the Church we want to accept or don’t accept. You are very wrong. You were not born gay and you do choose you actions.

The Catholic church once believed the Earth was the center of the universe too. What chapter of the Flat Earth society do you belong to?

 

[goofyjim]

Can you are someone else in this forum give me a link to a document that says the homosexuality is acceptable to the Church and its teaching. I would really love to see someone think there is such a document out there. Do you agree with any of the Church’s teachings?? We are Catholics and not Cafeteria Catholic. We can’t pick and choose what teaching of the Church we want to accept or don’t accept. You are very wrong. You were not born gay and you do choose you actions.

And Church teaching presently says that homosexual actions are wrong but not homosexuality per se. Now if they want to say the way we are born is wrong then I must disagree. I had no say in the matter. God ordained that I be homosexual and be happy about it, not miserable henceforth I define as gay. I’m not going to hang my head all day as though I am some terrible person for being homosexual. I’m not. As far as any other conditions like being sensitive or anything else they are the result of being homosexual, not the cause. I wish everyone would stop their psychoanalysis. I was born this way. And there is nothing wrong with it.

 

[ladybri77]

You are so right about that, I was mixed in the gay community for years, & I never ceased to be amazed by some of the men I met who were gay, some of them looked like they would kill You if You looked at them wrong, people dont know it either unless You are involved with the gays, there are many many married men leading duals lives.also, Goofyjim is right, we are born this way, it is not something we chose, hard to imagine for some of you unless you have walked in our shoes

I’m not saying there’s just one type of gay man, effiminate. I know there are many different types. What I’m saying is that I’ve heard of plenty of gay men who were picked on when they were kids which really messed them up and had a huge effect on their emotional growth and development. Since we all need a sense of support and nurturing and a peer group to grow emotionally, this has affected many men who maybe were sitting on the fence to believe that they actually were gay. Don’t take my word for it, many men have written about this, and say that this was a strong influence for them. Many men were hurt deeply and have broken male identities which lead them to look to the same sex to find their identity in another man. There are many different factors that play a role in how one develops homosexual feelings. You can’t rule any of them out.

Do you have any scientific “proof” you were born gay? There were many studies done as to biological and genetic causes, and none of them were ever definitive as to these causes.

 

[goofyjim]

Let’s lay this to rest real quick. Our Lord said there are those who were born incapable of heterosexual marriage. Read it in Matthew 19:12. This is our creator trying to tell us there are those who are born homosexual. Sow hy all the concern about finding some other cause as though it needs correction. It’s time to end the psychobabble and take Our Lord at his Word. If He says I was born this way then there can be no denying it. For all of you who are so fond of relying on what He says, why not do it now? Stop the analysis, stop trying to correct soemthing that doesn’t need correction.

 

[tobinatorstark]

The Catholic church once believed the Earth was the center of the universe too. What chapter of the Flat Earth society do you belong to?

that was never dogma

 

[tobinatorstark]

Let’s lay this to rest real quick. Our Lord said there are those who were born incapable of heterosexual marriage. Read it in Matthew 19:12. This is our creator trying to tell us there are those who are born homosexual. Sow hy all the concern about finding some other cause as though it needs correction. It’s time to end the psychobabble and take Our Lord at his Word. If He says I was born this way then there can be no denying it. For all of you who are so fond of relying on what He says, why not do it now? Stop the analysis, stop trying to correct soemthing that doesn’t need correction.

For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother’s womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it. from the Douay-Rheims

from the Haydock Bible Commentary

Ver. 12. And there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs, &c. It is not to be taken in the literal sense, but of such who have taken a firm and commendable resolution of leading a single life. — He that can receive it, let him receive it. Some think that to receive, in this and the foregoing verse, is to understand; and so will have the sense to be, he that can understand what I have said of different eunuchs, let him understand it; as when Christ said elsewhere, he that hath ears to hear, let him hear. But others expound it as an admonition to men and women, not to engage themselves in a vow of living a single life, unless, after a serious deliberation, they have good grounds to think they can duly comply with this vow, otherwise let them not make it. Thus St. Jerome on this place, and St. Chrysostom where they both expressly take notice, that this grace is granted to every one that asketh and beggeth for it by prayer. (Witham) — To the crown and glory of which state, let those aspire who feel themselves called by heaven.

problem solved

 

[aspawloski4th]

that was never dogma

It must have been important because it lead to Galleo going to prison. Anyway neither is anything about homesxuality, doctrine but not dogma.

 

[goofyjim]

For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother’s womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it. from the Douay-Rheims

from the Haydock Bible Commentary

Ver. 12. And there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs, &c. It is not to be taken in the literal sense, but of such who have taken a firm and commendable resolution of leading a single life. — He that can receive it, let him receive it. Some think that to receive, in this and the foregoing verse, is to understand; and so will have the sense to be, he that can understand what I have said of different eunuchs, let him understand it; as when Christ said elsewhere, he that hath ears to hear, let him hear. But others expound it as an admonition to men and women, not to engage themselves in a vow of living a single life, unless, after a serious deliberation, they have good grounds to think they can duly comply with this vow, otherwise let them not make it. Thus St. Jerome on this place, and St. Chrysostom where they both expressly take notice, that this grace is granted to every one that asketh and beggeth for it by prayer. (Witham) — To the crown and glory of which state, let those aspire who feel themselves called by heaven.

problem solved

No problem not solved. The word eunuch means incapable of sexual relations or in this case heterosexual relations since the topic being addressed was marriage. Jesus himself was saying there are those who are this way from birth. Homosexual people ar obviously incapable of heterosexual marriage from birth. Stop the psychological studies. Most of us are born this way. And we are okay.

 

[tobinatorstark]

No problem not solved. The word eunuch means incapable of sexual relations or in this case heterosexual relations since the topic being addressed was marriage. Jesus himself was saying there are those who are this way from birth. Homosexual people ar obviously incapable of heterosexual marriage from birth. Stop the psychological studies. Most of us are born this way. And we are okay.

then give a church document and cite your source where homosexuality is okay. In Levitcus 18:22 homosexuality was condemned

22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind, because it is an abomination.

Ver. 22. Abomination, punished so severely in the Sodomites, Genesis xix. Yet, even the philosophers of Greece were not at all ashamed of it. Bardesanes assures us, that the eastern nations punished it with death, and would not allow the guilty the honours of burial. Those beyond the Euphrates were so shocked at it, that they would kill themselves if they were only accused of such a crime. (Ap. Eusebius, præp. vi. 10.)

 

[ladybri77]

Let’s lay this to rest real quick. Our Lord said there are those who were born incapable of heterosexual marriage. Read it in Matthew 19:12. This is our creator trying to tell us there are those who are born homosexual. Sow hy all the concern about finding some other cause as though it needs correction. It’s time to end the psychobabble and take Our Lord at his Word. If He says I was born this way then there can be no denying it. For all of you who are so fond of relying on what He says, why not do it now? Stop the analysis, stop trying to correct soemthing that doesn’t need correction.

Yes, there are eunichs, but nowhere here does God say He created homosexuals, read the text again, it does not say that. Because you choose not to marry, that is your business. There are PLENTY of homosexuals who have married the opposite sex and have had children. So, that has no basis in this argument.

For a homosexual not to marry because they do not have heterosexual feelings, that is there choice. For a heterosexual not to choose to marry, that is their choice. This passage does not say anything about homosexuality, as some gays actually marry. And some former gays actually have developed heterosexual feelings either on their own or through the power of Jesus because they were unhappy with their homosexual feelings. There are plenty of women who were gay when they were young and are not now for whatever reason. But let’s not put God in a box and say He can’t work miracles or people cannot develop heterosexual feelings on their own. That’s just not true.

You mock God when you think that certain things are not possible with Him and go against scripture that says “All things are possible with God”! Let’s not twist the above scripture around to suit our needs.

Peace,
Ladybri

 

[ladybri77]

Eunuch - A castrated man… (Mirriam-Webster)

Eunuch’s are people that are not physically able to have sex because of castration.

 

[Detales]

Middle English eunuk, from Latin eunūchus, from Greek eunoukhos : eunē, bed + -okhos, keeping (from ekhein, to keep; see segh- in Indo-European roots).]
eu’nuch·ism n. It is akin to such words as: hectic; cachexia, cathexis, entelechy, Ophiuchus, those deriving from the same indo-european root.

“Word History: The word eunuch does not derive, as one might think, from the operation that produced a eunuch but rather from one of his functions. (emphasis mine) Eunuch goes back to the Greek word eunoukhos, “a castrated person employed to take charge of the women of a harem and act as chamberlain.” The Greek word is derived from eunē, “bed,” and ekhein, “to keep.” A eunuch, of course, was ideally suited to guard the bedchamber of women.”

Also:

“literally bed-keeper or chamberlain, and not necessarily in all cases one who was mutilated, although the practice of employing such mutilated persons in Oriental courts was common (2 Kings 9:32; Esther 2:3). The law of Moses excluded them from the congregation (Deut. 23:1). They were common also among the Greeks and Romans. It is said that even to-day there are some in Rome who are employed in singing soprano in the Sistine Chapel. Three classes of eunuchs are mentioned in Matt. 19:12.”

(Both from Dictionary.com, and from dictionary of indo-european roots)

In addition, if you wish to persue a scholasitc etymological study, you will find
well.com/user/aquarius/thesis.htm to be useful.

In any case, there is credible evidence that “eunuch” did not exclusively refer to a physiological condition. There is some evidence that it did mean “homosexual.” In any case, today’s use might be different than it was 2000 years ago, in the context of another culture. I mean we know that “camel” in the needle story actually means “rope” in the Aramaic. Similarly, the “ravens” that fed Elijah derive from a consonant group ~RBM~ which can be translated as “Arabim” (Arabs) “Orebim” inhabitants of the village of Oreb near the brook of Cherith where Elijah was hiding, or “orebim,” (ravens.) According to St. Jerome, “Orabim,” the inhabitants of Orab, not “ravens” was the accepted translation. Such examples, as well as God sponsoring everything from incest to rape to genocide, also abound in the Bible.* Being such a literalist, perhaps you might like being struck barren by God for reproaching your huband for exposing himself at a dance? (1 Samuel 18:27 & 2 Samuel 4:14, 20, 23) or you might throw your virgin daughters to a mob of angry men bent on homosexuality, or maybe you might enjoy being one of the ten wives having public sex with your son? etc, etc. each incident being in the Bible, useful for guidance in Godly behavior.

Anyway, what I’m trying to say here is that we really are ignorant of much of the translation of words, never mind the actual intent of ideas in the Bibile and ancient literature in general. Perhaps it might be useful to utilize the “77” in your handle, ladibri, and x it by 7 as recommended, to the number of time we ought to forgive. Use, perhaps, a large dose of that on yourself, and stop hiding behind scriptures by not using your own noodle to figure things out rather than piety and Bryantism.

Wonderful passages in the Bible that inspire Godly conduct:

Genesis 19: 30-36
Genesis 35:22
Exodus 6:22
(there are 15 other cases of incest in the Bible, of eight varieties)
2 Samuel 15:16, 16:21-23
2 Samuel 13:2, 14-18
Judges 19:16-26
Joshua 10:40

These are all wondrful God inspired acts put forth by the OT as a guidebook for accepted heterosexual behavior and genocide. Please keep us posted as to more of your insights on eunuchs, and perhaps we can accomodate you with more references such as the above.

BTW, I am not a homosexual. I am just fed up with ignorant christianist, muslim, jewish, whatever, bigots who propound a piously false or incomplete knowledge of scripture, its intent, or wish an interpretation based on human prejudice.

 

[Riley259]

To my brothers and sisters in Christ -

Too often, questions and answers on internet forums are too brief or not informative. I want you to know what the Catholic Medical Association has found out about homosexuality:

cathmed.org/publications/homosexuality.htm

Do not be confused. Be informed.

God bless,
Ed

I’ve read that about 75% of men with same-sex attraction exhibit symptoms that for lack of a better word are “stereotyped”. Common among these men are the lilting, somewhat feminine voice, the flamboyant and very feminine mannerisms and desire for more traditionally feminine interests or professions (ex., dance, theatre, designers, etc.). If it’s not genetic, then what accounts for these striking differences (from heterosexual males) in the majority of gay males? Are these just predispositions that are there from the beginning but can be changed if addressed earlier enough in life or are they a fixed genetic marker that almost always leads to same-sex attraction? Does anyone have any answers or empirically based studies on this narrow question?

 

[edwest2]

It must have been important because it lead to Galleo going to prison. Anyway neither is anything about homesxuality, doctrine but not dogma.

That is a false statement. A common false statement made by those who wish to attack the Church and as ‘proof’ that the Church is anti-science.

From the Library of this site:

catholic.com/library/Galileo_Controversy.asp

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

I’ve read that about 75% of men with same-sex attraction exhibit symptoms that for lack of a better word are “stereotyped”. Common among these men are the lilting, somewhat feminine voice, the flamboyant and very feminine mannerisms and desire for more traditionally feminine interests or professions (ex., dance, theatre, designers, etc.). If it’s not genetic, then what accounts for these striking differences (from heterosexual males) in the majority of gay males? Are these just predispositions that are there from the beginning but can be changed if addressed earlier enough in life or are they a fixed genetic marker that almost always leads to same-sex attraction? Does anyone have any answers or empirically based studies on this narrow question?

I recommend you read this:

narth.com/docs/soctribute2.html

narth.com/docs/freedom.html

Peace,
Ed

 

[goofyjim]

then give a church document and cite your source where homosexuality is okay. In Levitcus 18:22 homosexuality was condemned

22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind, because it is an abomination.

Ver. 22. Abomination, punished so severely in the Sodomites, Genesis xix. Yet, even the philosophers of Greece were not at all ashamed of it. Bardesanes assures us, that the eastern nations punished it with death, and would not allow the guilty the honours of burial. Those beyond the Euphrates were so shocked at it, that they would kill themselves if they were only accused of such a crime. (Ap. Eusebius, præp. vi. 10.)

Homosexual relations are wrong not homosexuality.