Homosexuals and celibacy

[Joshua85]

Joshua, you stated that homosexuality is not a theological question.

No. I stated that the psychological genesis of homosexuality is not a theological question.

You’re right, the origins of homosexuality are in a sense “less” important. But note that the 1975 document does not begin to tell the story of acquired perspective on the Church’s part regarding better studies on the dynamics of sexual attraction & choice of behaviors.

Acquired perspectives, I assume, meaning an ex-gay perspective? If not, then what? If so, then on what grounds do you say that this is the Church’s perspective? Simply because certain segments of the Church (found primarily in North America) promote it?

Getting something from a priest or from EWTN, I think we all know, is not enough to make it “the Church’s perspective.” The Church’s perspective is offered to us from the magisterium, the bishops of the Church and the Pope as their head, so I look forward to you offering acquired perspectives, demonstrated through the exercise of the teaching authority of the college of bishops and/or the Holy Father.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I stated that the psychological genesis of homosexuality is not a theological question.

But that doesn’t make the full topic of homosexual behavior and attraction outside the bounds of Roman Catholic theology. The manifestations of it lie within the realm of moral theology, which the Church is fully entitled to discuss, and must do so in her teaching authority and mission. By extension, acquiring greater understanding of its origins is, broadly speaking, of interest to the Church, despite not ultimately impacting the core, unchangeable teaching of human sexuality as revealed in Sacred Scripture and tradition. It is also of interest in terms of compassion, spirituality, and pastoral counseling and formation.

I’m not buying the subtext of your argument, which seems to dismiss the Church as adding value, insight, and data to the discussion. (i.e., The Church’s realm is theology and nothing but.)

perspectives, I assume, meaning an ex-gay perspective? If not, then what? If so, then on what grounds do you say that this is the Church’s perspective? Simply because certain segments of the Church (found primarily in North America) promote it?

Well you seem to come with a predisposition against the Church as offering credible information in any area except the several branches of institutional theolgy.

Getting something from a priest or from EWTN, I think we all know, is not enough to make it “the Church’s perspective.” The Church’s perspective is offered to us from the magisterium, the bishops of the Church and the Pope as their head, so I look forward to you offering acquired perspectives, demonstrated through the exercise of the teaching authority of the college of bishops and/or the Holy Father.

The Church has many documents, sources, and appproved spokespeople to offer perspective. Like other bodies, it expands, explains, and even modifies teachings without contradicting its core teachings (such as on sexuality). New information sheds light on old, adds vocabulary, refines understanding, etc. EWTN is not in the habit of publishing heterodoxy.

 

[michelleds]

We are all still struggling. When we cease needing to struggle – in any area – we’re ready for heaven. It is only our society that has artificially placed sexual expression at the apex of human existence and human definition. Heterosexuals who are practicing Catholics, who live their whole lives chastely, discovering perhaps that the only individuals they have loved happen to be sexually inaccessible to them (divorced, already married, for some other reason unavailable), struggle every bit as much with unfulfilled attraction. The difference is that most heterosexuals don’t dramatize the suffering.

I couldn’t agree more with the above statement. I am converting to Catholicism and I am also SSA. The priest that I meet with on a semi-weekly basis concerning my studies has told me that SSA is a grace. I accept this (now, after much study, thought and prayer) and am grateful to God because “We know that all things work for good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose.” Rom 8:28 I have embraced my calling to celibacy and, at 43 years of age, I don’t see much point in wasting time, energy and money on trying to “cure” myself. It is sufficient, imho, to avoid both acting on the attractions as well as avoiding any near occasions of sin.

 

[jegow]

Since priests can’t be sexual, should their sexuality even matter? They can’t have sex with women so why worry if they’re hetero? They can’t have sex with other men so why worry if they’re homosexual? They can’t have sex with both so why worry if they’re bisexual? They’re no sexual men, period.

Lustful thoughts are always sinful. Our Lord tells us that to think about sex with a woman (and presumably a man!) is like committing adultery in reality so why are so many folks perfectly ok with dirty thoughts but not dirty acts? In this Catholic call to holiness, isn’t the way we think and feel part of that equation? Why are we so quick to say one can have dirty thoughts and desires as long as one doesn’t act on them? Doesn’t sound like Our Lord’s admonitions. Sounds legalistic?

Priests are not sexual like a husband and wife are, obviously. This doesn’t mean that his sexuality is worthless. A heterosexual male who is discerning the priesthood must also face whether he is being called to sacrifice a wife and a family, the homosexual male is not discerning that same sacrifice. For the heterosexual, his sacrifice is coming from a rightly ordered love, for the homosexual it is not. This is why Pope Benedict wrote on why homosexual men should not be accepted into seminary formation until that man has overcome same sex attraction or homosexual tendencies.

Heterosexual males who are priests are daily offering up that part of themselves that could have been joined to a spouse in Matrimony which then could have formed that union and new life it was meant to. For the homosexual there is no chance at an actual sacramental union to form between them and their partner as well as no chance at being able to naturally conceive and bring new life into the world. The heterosexual priest sacrifices the possibility of having a wife and a family, something a homosexual is incapable of.

Sorry if I got preachy but as a priest I can testify that the sacrifice and the love are real - real because they are goods that I offer up daily, not as things I can’t do, but things I choose to offer up for sake of something better.[bibledrb]Luke 18:29-30[/bibledrb]

 

[Hadrianus]

But that doesn’t make the full topic of homosexual behavior and attraction outside the bounds of Roman Catholic theology. The manifestations of it lie within the realm of moral theology, which the Church is fully entitled to discuss, and must do so in her teaching authority and mission. By extension, acquiring greater understanding of its origins is, broadly speaking, of interest to the Church, despite not ultimately impacting the core, unchangeable teaching of human sexuality as revealed in Sacred Scripture and tradition. It is also of interest in terms of compassion, spirituality, and pastoral counseling and formation.

I’m not buying the subtext of your argument, which seems to dismiss the Church as adding value, insight, and data to the discussion. (i.e., The Church’s realm is theology and nothing but.)

Well you seem to come with a predisposition against the Church as offering credible information in any area except the several branches of institutional theolgy.

The Church has many documents, sources, and appproved spokespeople to offer perspective. Like other bodies, it expands, explains, and even modifies teachings without contradicting its core teachings (such as on sexuality). New information sheds light on old, adds vocabulary, refines understanding, etc. EWTN is not in the habit of publishing heterodoxy.

There is a broad middle ground between what the Church teaches in her ordinary magisterium, ie Pope and Bishops united, the generally held conclusions of theologians as to what is Catholic doctrine, as well as the universal practice of the Church, all of which constitute what we can properly call “The Church” when we say that the Church has a particular doctrine or perspective, and on the other hand opinions of individuals, or even statements of episcopal conferences. The latter need not be heterodox, but at the same time they can only be called Catholic teaching if they are expressing a teaching of the Universal Church.

Elizabeth 502, you are talking about the opinions of some Catholics whose views must be evaluated by the evidence in support of those views. I have no idea whether those views are valid or not and I am all in favor of research, but nonetheless one cannot propose them as the teaching of the Church.

For myself I am the first to admit that I come at questions of moral theology from a scholastic perspective and hence will ask—perhaps annoyingly so?—for precision of language and clear definition of terms. If we wish to discuss ‘sexuality’ then we need a very clear definition of what that means. We need a definition of “core” too, even perhaps ‘person’. Nothing is as obvious as it may appear at first glance.

 

[larkin31]

There is a broad middle ground between what the Church teaches in her ordinary magisterium,… and on the other hand opinions of individuals, or even statements of episcopal conferences.

Seems like it is this way from an outsider’s point of view, also.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Elizabeth 502, you are talking about the opinions of some Catholics whose views must be evaluated by the evidence in support of those views. I have no idea whether those views are valid or not and I am all in favor of research, but nonetheless one cannot propose them as the teaching of the Church.

Please. I did not propose them strictly as The Teachings of the Church. But I do not buy, and will not buy, the premise that declarations have to be formalized in order to be taken into account as, broadly, ‘The Church’s thinking.’ Commentary from learned Catholics – whether those be professors, priests, theologians, psychologists – who take the trouble to acquaint themselves with the most current research on sexuality, is valuable for Catholics in reflecting on how to contextualize and understand the formal declarations and official body of teaching. It is a convenient trick to argue, as many Catholics do, that in any aspect of the moral realm (behavior) which has been tersely addressed by the magisterium, the teaching itself must be open, because of its terseness, to debate on its very accuracy, by the simple fact that the discussion by the magisterium has not been sufficiently “broad,” or detailed, or scientific, or exhaustive.

For myself I am the first to admit that I come at questions of moral theology from a scholastic perspective and hence will ask—perhaps annoyingly so?—for precision of language and clear definition of terms. If we wish to discuss ‘sexuality’ then we need a very clear definition of what that means. We need a definition of “core” too, even perhaps ‘person’. Nothing is as obvious as it may appear at first glance.

My thoroughly scholastic Catholic training can compete with anyone’s here, including yours. I never said anything so simplistic as that things would be ‘obvious at first glance.’ I come from a thick theoretical background. But if you’re suggesting that because the experience of sexuality and the core of personhood include elements of mystery (non-analytical elements) that therefore the Church can’t make definitive statements about those, in a moral context, the Church does not agree witih you. Nothing is so mysterious as God Himself, yet the Church speaks volumes about God.

 

[kentuckyliz]

Reparative therapists have ways of working with people who want to reorient their attractions and behavior. It has the same success rate in treatment as treatment for any other problem.

 

[BigE]

Reparative therapists have ways of working with people who want to reorient their attractions and behavior. It has the same success rate in treatment as treatment for any other problem.

There is no major medical or psychological association that agrees with this statement (that I am aware of…)

 

[InSearchofGrace]

There is no major medical or psychological association that agrees with this statement (that I am aware of…)

True, after the American Psychiatric Association bent to strong pressure by gay advocates, with the American Psychological Association following suit, much covered in other threads.

Not to go off topic, but just quickly saying here that there are many therapists who are in disagreement with APA (both psychiatrist and psychologist organizations) on the subject of reparative therapy.

Homosexuality and the Truth

Conclusion in the linked article, with which I agree:

We recognize that many are content to pursue their homosexual orientation and the related lifestyle. However, many other homosexually-oriented persons do not wish to have their lives defined or determined by this inclination.

We live in a nation famous for our premise of self-determination. Those who are unhappy with their homosexuality have the right to explore their clinically-valid option of impulse control and orientational change.
,

 

[BigE]

True, after the American Psychiatric Association bent to strong pressure by gay advocates, with the American Psychological Association following suit, much covered in other threads.

Not to go off topic, but just quickly saying here that there are many therapists who are in disagreement with APA (both psychiatrist and psychologist organizations) on the subject of reparative therapy.
,

That’s a bit of stretch don’t you think? This supposed pressure occurred 40 years ago in the early 70’s. You don’t think the objective data and opinions would have surfaced since then?

By my count the Academy of Pediatrics (1993), the American Psychological Association (1997), the American Phychiatric Association (1998), the American Psychoanalytic Association (2000) and the American Medical Association (2003) have all issued statements that “reparative” therapy at best doesn’t work and may indeed be harmful. That is an overwhelming consensus.

Is there even one credited association that has stated otherwise?

Of course there will always be the rag tag exceptions and a few that disagree, especially in the soft sciences. There are a few scientists that don’t believe alcoholism is a disease. There a few scientists that think the earth is only 10,000 years old. And on and on…

But to point these to either prove that reparative therapy works, or that there is much “doubt” in the prevailing declarations is misleading. When there is enough research and repeatable studies to change the consensus, or at least foster more vigorous discussion, then you might have a point.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

That’s a bit of stretch don’t you think? This supposed pressure occurred 40 years ago in the early 70’s. You don’t think the objective data and opinions would have surfaced since then?

By my count the Academy of Pediatrics (1993), the American Psychological Association (1997), the American Phychiatric Association (1998), the American Psychoanalytic Association (2000) and the American Medical Association (2003) have all issued statements that “reparative” therapy at best doesn’t work and may indeed be harmful. That is an overwhelming consensus.

Is there even one credited association that has stated otherwise?

Of course there will always be the rag tag exceptions and a few that disagree, especially in the soft sciences. There are a few scientists that don’t believe alcoholism is a disease. There a few scientists that think the earth is only 10,000 years old. And on and on…

But to point these to either prove that reparative therapy works, or that there is much “doubt” in the prevailing declarations is misleading. When there is enough research and repeatable studies to change the consensus, or at least foster more vigorous discussion, then you might have a point.

Supposed pressure and rag tag exceptions, you say?

As expressed in provided link in previous post:

Over seventy-five years of psychoanalytic knowledge underscoring homosexuality as a disorder was disregarded. Militant homosexual groups began disrupting numerous scientific programs and conferences in the early to mid seventies, including the APA and it’s meetings. Gay political groups especially targeted and disrupted national and local meetings in which the psychopathology and treatment of homosexuality were being debated. For a full discussion of these events, including documentation and sources, read ‘Hope for Homosexuality’, published by the Free Congress Foundation, 1988 (especially pp.46-55)

243 practitioners and members of the APA petitioned for a referendum to vote on a reversal of the ruling. That vote occurred in April 1974 in which 40% of the voters disagreed with the ruling, asserting that there were no legitimate scientific reasons for the APA’s change in fundamental psychiatric therapy. (Ibid., p.53)

In late 1977, 68% of American Medical Association psychiatrists responding to a poll still viewed homosexuality as a pathological adaptation as opposed to a normal variation. (Ibid.,p.53,footnotes)

Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, in the February 1989 issue of ‘The California Psychiatrist’, said, “Many members of our profession still privately express the opinion that homosexual development is not normal. The 1973 APA ruling did not resolve the issue- it simply silenced 80 years of psychoanalytic observation.”

And here’s a site on Healing Homosexuality

Peace,
,

 

[larkin31]

That’s a bit of stretch don’t you think? This supposed pressure occurred 40 years ago in the early 70’s. You don’t think the objective data and opinions would have surfaced since then?

By my count the Academy of Pediatrics (1993), the American Psychological Association (1997), the American Phychiatric Association (1998), the American Psychoanalytic Association (2000) and the American Medical Association (2003) have all issued statements that “reparative” therapy at best doesn’t work and may indeed be harmful. That is an overwhelming consensus.

Is there even one credited association that has stated otherwise?

This debate is long over in the professional field. Except for those who like NARTH stuff. But that is not a professional organization of the field.

 

[BigE]

Supposed pressure and rag tag exceptions, you say?

As expressed in provided link in previous post:
Over seventy-five years of psychoanalytic knowledge underscoring homosexuality as a disorder was disregarded. Militant homosexual groups began disrupting numerous scientific programs and conferences in the early to mid seventies, including the APA and it’s meetings. Gay political groups especially targeted and disrupted national and local meetings in which the psychopathology and treatment of homosexuality were being debated. For a full discussion of these events, including documentation and sources, read ‘Hope for Homosexuality’, published by the Free Congress Foundation, 1988 (especially pp.46-55)

243 practitioners and members of the APA petitioned for a referendum to vote on a reversal of the ruling. That vote occurred in April 1974 in which 40% of the voters disagreed with the ruling, asserting that there were no legitimate scientific reasons for the APA’s change in fundamental psychiatric therapy. (Ibid., p.53)

In late 1977, 68% of American Medical Association psychiatrists responding to a poll still viewed homosexuality as a pathological adaptation as opposed to a normal variation. (Ibid.,p.53,footnotes)

Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, in the February 1989 issue of ‘The California Psychiatrist’, said, “Many members of our profession still privately express the opinion that homosexual development is not normal. The 1973 APA ruling did not resolve the issue- it simply silenced 80 years of psychoanalytic observation.”
And here’s a site on Healing Homosexuality

Peace,
,

#1) I couldn’t find any of the source documents that you are citing here. I do know that the “Free Congress Foundation” is an extremely conservative right wing think tank - so I do question their objectivity. But I still would like to examine the source of their claims.

#2) All the supposed objections you are presenting here are over 30+ years old. Do you have anything more recent to buttress your claim of a significant portion of the medical community supporting reparitive therapy?

 

[larkin31]

#1) I couldn’t find any of the source documents that you are citing here. I do know that the “Free Congress Foundation” is an extremely conservative right wing think tank - so I do question their objectivity. But I still would like to examine the source of their claims.

#2) All the supposed objections you are presenting here are over 30+ years old. Do you have anything more recent to buttress your claim of a significant portion of the medical community supporting reparitive therapy?

No, he/she does not. We’ve been over this before.

 

[Joshua85]

. . . the full topic of homosexual behavior and attraction . . .

That is not one topic. Homosexual acts and homosexual attractions are two different topics, and if the Church is to preach the handed down faith without alienating homosexually attracted people, she must continue to very clearly distinguish between the two, as she does in the catechism. Conflating acts and attractions is the fatal downfall of evangelical approaches to homosexuality. Meaningful ministry to homosexuals most certainly will require separating them as far as possible, not treating them as one topic.

For the homosexual there is no chance at an actual sacramental union to form between them and their partner as well as no chance at being able to naturally conceive and bring new life into the world.

Father,
This assumes that a homosexual cannot marry and have sex with a person of the opposite sex. This does not seem to be the case. I know a number of gay men who are married to women, and have children.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

#1) I couldn’t find any of the source documents that you are citing here. I do know that the “Free Congress Foundation” is an extremely conservative right wing think tank - so I do question their objectivity. But I still would like to examine the source of their claims.

#2) All the supposed objections you are presenting here are over 30+ years old. Do you have anything more recent to buttress your claim of a significant portion of the medical community supporting reparitive therapy?

Please re-read what I posted in #109.

Homosexuality and the Truth by Sy Rogers and Alan Medinger.

The article is one of 14 under the Exodus Global Alliance site. Exodus Global Alliance is a world-wide Christian organization helping people affected by homosexuality and promoting the message that change from homosexuality is possible.

There is another article Has Science Proved Homosexuality Can Not Be Changed? which is also interesting.

My views are not confined to what academic and professional organizations espouse since they proved not to be independent and immune from politicization. You may not agree that the pendulum has swung too much in favor of gay advocates in academic and professional circles, but I do.

I don’t believe the article is 30+ years old, but it does refer to the controversial 1973 development within APA that lead to the removal of homosexuality as a mental disorder. I saw a copyright year of 2011 at the bottom of the article (which you can also check), but to satisfy your inquiry (and mine), I e-mailed the author. Will advise if / what I hear.

I realize you are on the side that reparative therapy does not work. What I would like to know is if you have objection to the conclusion at the end of the article by Mr. Rogers, which was in the same post (#109) and am hereby repeating, the underlined sentence in particular :

We recognize that many are content to pursue their homosexual orientation and the related lifestyle. However, many other homosexually-oriented persons do not wish to have their lives defined or determined by this inclination.

We live in a nation famous for our premise of self-determination. Those who are unhappy with their homosexuality have the right to explore their clinically-valid option of impulse control and orientational change.

By the way, as I am sure you are aware, the Church (to which you belong, as I note in your profile) endorses Courage, an apostolate that helps people with SSA who wish to turn to Jesus Christ and chastity, through prayer, the Sacraments, and fellowship. The group appreciates that therapy is not cheap and there are no guarantees that it will work in a given case. But as its founder Farther Harvey believes, those who want to seek a change in sexual tendency should be encouraged to turn to reparative therapy.

Peace,
,

 

[Elizabeth502]

That is not one topic. Homosexual acts and homosexual attractions are two different topics, and if the Church is to preach the handed down faith without alienating homosexually attracted people, she must continue to very clearly distinguish between the two, as she does in the catechism. Conflating acts and attractions is the fatal downfall of evangelical approaches to homosexuality. Meaningful ministry to homosexuals most certainly will require separating them as far as possible, not treating them as one topic.

I never have denied on this forum that attraction and activity are separate, just as they are for other attractions, temptations, tendencies, and proclivities that are considered by the Church disordered. I am merely reaffirming that the moral teaching on homosexual attraction and behavior is integrated within the entire frame of ordered sexuality. I am also reaffirming that modernist secular theories of sexuality and attraction will not change the fundamental moral principles which have been handed down and will continue to be. They may be academically interesting but they are not morally relevant. That is not an evangelical approach. It’s a Catholic approach.

And I will say that meaningful ministry is dependent somewhat on reciprocity, in that this unchanged teaching needs to be accepted on its own terms for those with SSA to be fully integrated into the Church’s life. Underlying all this is that the Church, like Christ her head, seeks not only, or even primarily, outward fidelity, but inward surrender, as well as true peace and happiness. This is no different than it is for those who do not have SSA: all of us are challenged to conquer our rather disordered tendencies, and we remain not at peace until we acknowledge that we have very much to conquer and that, as seekers, we do not write the rules, but that the boundaries are there for our spiritual benefit and ultimately emotional benefit as well. The core of our being is not our sexuality but our universally applicable identity as children of God. Many without SSA are wounded, impeded, and in turmoil about struggles that have nothing to do with sexuality, but in many cases are easily as pervasive, painful, and potentially alienating. I think the Church does indeed make efforts to reach out. I think it realizes also that it has further to go in that department, and seeks to do that. But core teaching is not a bargaining chip; there are many who believe or assume that secular assertions, and even political movements, will change that core teaching on sexuality, and unfortunately such an assumption is not realistic and cannot be the contingency on which people with SSA fully embrace Catholic practice.

You may or may not have been a party, or a lurker, to earlier discussions regarding ambiguous language in parishes, in that regard. To an extent, a great deal of ambiguity remains. What an LGBT group is in one parish, is quite different from what it is in another. That’s why on another thread I suggested that the proper way to introduce the existence of such groups in parishes is directly by the pastor, and no one else, to prevent such ambiguity and to signal normalcy of status as a ministry.

 

[Hadrianus]

Please. I did not propose them strictly as The Teachings of the Church. But I do not buy, and will not buy, the premise that declarations have to be formalized in order to be taken into account as, broadly, ‘The Church’s thinking.’ Commentary from learned Catholics – whether those be professors, priests, theologians, psychologists – who take the trouble to acquaint themselves with the most current research on sexuality, is valuable for Catholics in reflecting on how to contextualize and understand the formal declarations and official body of teaching. It is a convenient trick to argue, as many Catholics do, that in any aspect of the moral realm (behavior) which has been tersely addressed by the magisterium, the teaching itself must be open, because of its terseness, to debate on its very accuracy, by the simple fact that the discussion by the magisterium has not been sufficiently “broad,” or detailed, or scientific, or exhaustive.

My thoroughly scholastic Catholic training can compete with anyone’s here, including yours. I never said anything so simplistic as that things would be ‘obvious at first glance.’ I come from a thick theoretical background. But if you’re suggesting that because the experience of sexuality and the core of personhood include elements of mystery (non-analytical elements) that therefore the Church can’t make definitive statements about those, in a moral context, the Church does not agree witih you. Nothing is so mysterious as God Himself, yet the Church speaks volumes about God.

Firstly, I would say that the Magisterium of the Church addresses moral questions with precision and in so doing makes it quite clear that the teaching is not “open.”

That the Church can make definitive statements about personhood or human sexuality in a moral context is already a very clear Catholic teaching and nowhere disputed. Indeed I in no way desire to limit or reduce the authority of the Church’s Magisterium and if you read my post again you will see that I refer to several sources of authority, including the general view of theologians, as indicators of Catholic doctrine. What I reject is the notion that a few American laymen and maybe a priest or two, however learned, represent the Church’s thinking on what is simply not known. Maybe one day there will be some consensus on this question, but at present there isn’t, and it is unclear to me why anyone would insist on possessing facts they don’t have, let alone then presenting them as the authoritative opinion of the Church.

 

[Hadrianus]

PS Elizabeth502: I hope my last post didn’t sound unfriendly. I was writing as I think and so was formulating the thoughts, I just noticed when reading it, that the tone sounds a bit harsh. I didn’t mean for it to.