Homosexuals and celibacy

[chrysostim83]

There’s one paragraph from the second link, Anti-Gay?! NARTH President Addresses Misperceptions about NARTH, which speaks volumes about why it is difficult to trust anything NARTH says:

Although the APA Task Force reported that their review of the possibility for harm was inconclusive, there are in fact research studies which conclude that this type of therapy is not harmful. For example, the Spitzer (2003) study found no harm, the Jones and Yarhouse (2007) study on ministry groups found no harm, and the Karten (2010) study found no harm.

Taking the studies in turn:
Spitzer (2003) recruited subjects who claimed to have been helped by sexual conversion therapy. This was appropriate for Spitzer’s research question, “Has even one homosexual person changed his or her sexual orientation through therapy?”, but absolutely nothing can be inferred about the harm this kind of therapy can do among the full population of persons who are currently trying it. It is true that Spitzer himself noted there were no signs of negative iatrogenic effects among the subjects he studied, but ultimately all that that means is that people who report having been helped by sexual conversion therapy are less likely to report having been harmed by it.

Jones and Yarhouse (2007) had a miserable retention rate: those who were harmed by their efforts to change (if anyone was) were likely to be among the dropouts, so Jones and Yarhouse can’t tell us anything about them.

Karten (2010) tells us nothing about harm (or the possibility of change for that matter) for the same reason as Spitzer (2003): the way the study was designed does not permit this kind of inference to be made. To find out more, read Throckmorton’s post here.

 

[larkin31]

You guys are being very responsible and thoughtful. NARTH doesn’t deserve this from you (their biases and lack of unbiased studies are well known). But you are being thorough posters, and I commend your patience and effort.

Even the CC has distanced themselves from NARTH (who does not in any way speak for the CC). But some posters here like to allude to NARTH or make references to studies that ultimately are sourced (three links back) by NARTH.

 

[Elizabeth502]

No. From a genuine Christian and Catholic point of view, this is not sufficiently responsible and thoughtful, as well-meaning as I’m sure it is.

Again, this is all very interesting if one is intellectually invested for or against a narrow style of therapy to address a long-standing behavior, compensation, or attraction. The Church does not state that only, or especially, a particular therapeutic approach is indicated. The Church’s role is to communicate truth, love, and hope. Truth does not compromise merely because truth is often painful (to all of us), and change almost always involves pain. The greater the need for change, and the longer change has been postponed, the greater that pain. Love embraces those who suffer but also understands that no less than persistence and patient commitment to their healing is what is required of those who truly love. Hope does not abandon the struggle but commits to companionship during that struggle, and seeks better solutions for healing. Hope is always joined with persistence.

I truly often think that secular medical professionals exhibit both the theological virtues and the cardinal virtues better than many Catholics do, in addressing the difficult physiological and psychological ailments of our day. (And indirectly, they are also therefore more committed to the Cross, unconsciously even, than many if not most Catholics are.)

At the very least, any behavior which has become integrated with a self-concept requires the dis-integration of the two in order to re-integrate the person. I have no doubt that if approached too hastily, too superficially, or without sufficient rescue, the disintegrative phase produces harm. I also have no doubt that any toxic behavior to human wholeness is difficult to undo without spiritual support in this process. What do secular recovery programs often have as a key element? Appeal to faith in the divine. Overeaters Anonymous, AA, recovery from pornography addiction, many other programs depend for their ongoing efficacy on commitment of the members to prayer, trust, faith, even when these programs are not officially affiliated with any sectarian religion. The most powerful stories of such healings are invariably accompanied by testimony about essential reliance on spiritual assistance, permanently, in this process.

Look at the NT: many of the suffering who approached Jesus had sought alternative “cures” before abandoning those and agreeing to complete surrender to faith and trust in Him. It was that radical surrender and willingness to let go of dependency on mere human effort that resulted in healing. The healings that were especially “extreme” (complete and/or dramatic) were those that were featured in the gospel stories, but we don’t know how many “first step” healings were also accomplished – undoubtedly many. Certainly all of the spiritual healings & invitations were incomplete: Peter answered the call but he and the others continued to sin, etc.

We owe it to all of our morally suffering brothers and sisters, and to our suffering selves, to commit to the long process of healing. Our impatient inclinations in a fast-and-faster paced world, and the comforting rationalizations of the secular world by which we medicate our emotional pain with validating terminology, are enemies of genuine healing.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

I could not agree more with everything that Elizabeth has stated in her post. ^^

In addition, let me say:

SSA people should be free to consider what NARTH and the therapists associated with it have to offer, versus APA connected therapists who are under the thumb of gay advocates and resent that there are therapists out there who dissent and would like to consider a patient’s belief system.

What heart does not go out to young people who are vulnerable? So many are confused. It is deplorable that there is a strong faction among professionals who promise happiness if one’s SSA is left to full expression and cultivation. That is what is irresponsible.

From what I have read, there is no therapist now even asserting each case would lead to sexual re-orientation. Therapists who are not aligned with APA do not promise resolution, especially to SSA people with deep-seated homosexual tendencies, those who are older, already deep into the lifestyle and accepting of secular society’s preaching that a same sex attracted person is better off living a homophilia-affirming life.

Peace
,

 

[chrysostim83]

We owe it to all of our morally suffering brothers and sisters, and to our suffering selves, to commit to the long process of healing. Our impatient inclinations in a fast-and-faster paced world, and the comforting rationalizations of the secular world by which we medicate our emotional pain with validating terminology, are enemies of genuine healing.

True, but charity also compels us to discourage our brothers and sisters from using snake oil to cure whatever it is that ails them.

 

[Elizabeth502]

True, but charity also compels us to discourage our brothers and sisters from using snake oil to cure whatever it is that ails them.

I don’t personally know of any representative of the Church who currently states or implies that any such journey would be simple, let alone rely on “snake oil.” Again, change is painful, can be devastating even, and requires support – mentally and spiritually – for the person in question, if that change is going to be permanently effective and transformational.

That’s why we all need continual conversion, because many of our attempts at spiritual improvement are temporary efforts. Sustained conversion requires an entirely different level of discipline, prayer, and a degree of reliance on God that, as 21st century people, we are less used to relying on than we rely on our software applications and our instant news, popular definitions, and assumptions of happiness, particularly the illusion that we can create our own happiness with ersatz relationships which exclude God.

 

[chrysostim83]

I don’t personally know of any representative of the Church who currently states or implies that any such journey would be simple, let alone rely on “snake oil.” Again, change is painful, can be devastating even, and requires support – mentally and spiritually – for the person in question, if that change is going to be permanently effective and transformational.

You’ve been extraordinarily patient with me so far, so I hope you won’t mind if I say this strikes me as a “blame the victim” approach to explaining the harm reported by some of the people who have tried the kind of therapy at issue. The next step would be to claim that the reason they were “harmed” is because they terminated the therapy early. If they had stuck around, they would still be on the road to wholeness and heterosexuality. Well, that’s an interesting theory, but I doubt there’s much evidence to back it up, and I know there are a lot of other explanations out there as well. How ever that may be, it seems to me that the young people out there who are dissatisfied with their sexual orientation would be well advised to steer clear of efforts to “change” when the efforts will be painful or even devastating, and the change very unlikely to occur.

Let me add, though, that all of that could be based on a misunderstanding. The trouble is, since you keep deploring shallow, quick-fix efforts to change sexual orientation, I really have no idea what kind of therapy you’re talking about. I asked you once, but I guess somehow you overlooked the question: who exactly practices and defends the kind of therapy of which you approve, and where is the evidence that it’s effective?

That’s why we all need continual conversion, because many of our attempts at spiritual improvement are temporary efforts. Sustained conversion requires an entirely different level of discipline, prayer, and a degree of reliance on God that, as 21st century people, we are less used to relying on than we rely on our software applications and our instant news, popular definitions, and assumptions of happiness, particularly the illusion that we can create our own happiness with ersatz relationships which exclude God.

True again, but you wouldn’t expose someone to the sort of harm sexual conversion therapies can cause unless you knew the therapy would work.

 

[Elizabeth502]

You’ve been extraordinarily patient with me so far, so I hope you won’t mind if I say this strikes me as a “blame the victim” approach to explaining the harm reported by some of the people who have tried the kind of therapy at issue.

I mind very much your saying that. That is a complete mischaracterization of what I said. I “blame” those who pretend that quick-fix psychotherapy is currently recommended by the Roman Catholic Church as a whole as a stand-alone “solution” to this complex problem.

Let me add, though, that all of that could be based on a misunderstanding. The trouble is, since you keep deploring shallow, quick-fix efforts to change sexual orientation, I really have no idea what kind of therapy you’re talking about.

Please do a search on CAF. I answered this several weeks ago.

I asked you once, but I guess somehow you overlooked the question: who exactly practices and defends the kind of therapy of which you approve, and where is the evidence that it’s effective?

Competent psychiatrists and psychologists practice comprehensive therapy, not focused on simply sexual attraction as a post-facto condition already established by adolescence. All non-shallow practitioners examine the make-up of the entire psyche, of which sexuality is one component of an organic whole. Also, compassionate practitioners (by definition, non-shallow, and by definition, possessing courage and communicating courage) seek to unmask masks and to unbandage wounds. The average person of any orientation is a wounded person. This is also fundamental to the Catholic faith, but by no means limited to Catholicism. The entire field of psychology recognizes the frequent phenomenon of dis-integration and/or weakened, compromised integration, and seeks to restore wholeness to the individual, a process – if thorough – which is slow and usually involves a considerable amount of pain at some point or frequently.

True again, but you wouldn’t expose someone to the sort of harm sexual conversion therapies can cause unless you knew the therapy would work.

Already addressed.

 

[larkin31]

Conversion therapy is a dubious approach. This is well-known in the field. Sure, people should be free to try it of they want, but please read the warning label on the box (side effects and contra-indications)!

 

[InSearchofGrace]

For those following this thread, here is a worthwhile link to read:

Homosexuality and Hope

This is a review submitted by the Catholic Medical Association, which 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.

“Homosexuality and Hope” is the result of a two-year study by a special task force of The Catholic Medical Association (CMA). Based on current scientific facts and the practical experience of task force members, “Homosexuality and Hope” outlines a positive program of providing help, support and hope for those homosexual persons who wish to live in union with the Catholic Church

No issue has raised more concern in the past decade than that of homosexuality and therefore the CMA offers the following summary and review of the status of the question. This summary relies extensively on the conclusions of various studies and points out the consistency of the teachings of the Church with these studies. It is hoped that this review will also serve as an educational and reference tool for Catholic clergy, physicians, mental health professionals, educators, parents and the general public.

CONTENTS

I CONSIDERATIONS

Introduction

1. Not born that way
2. Same sex attraction as a symptom
3. Same-sex attraction is preventable
4. At-risk, not predestined
   **5) Therapy
5. Goal of therapy **

II RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Ministry to individuals experiencing same-sex attraction
2. The role of the priest
3. Catholic medical professionals
4. Teachers in Catholic institutions
5. Catholic families
6. The Catholic community
7. Bishops
8. Hope

[bolding added]

Under Part I – Considerations, you will note Sections 5 (Therapy) and 6 (Goal of Therapy), which should make clear to posters, especially those who are curious, how the Church views the subjects brought up in this thread, NOT what agnostic posters here may say what the Church views are, or what Catholics already led astray by their individual studies and/or have come to believe, stemming from their strong but misguided sympathies for our brothers and sisters who suffer SSA.

Note the extensive list of sources and studies at the end, which include Dr. Robert Spitzer (from NARTH) and W. Throckmorton, who have been mentioned upthread.

The review is comprehensive, so it is a worthwhile read for both persuaded and un-persuaded as to the value of therapy to those seeking a change from their same sex attraction.

[Con’t]

 

[InSearchofGrace]

[con’t]

Good part of referenced study to read:

1. Goals of therapy

Those who claim that change of sexual orientation is impossible, usually define change as total and permanent freedom from all homosexual behavior, fantasy, or attraction in a person who had previously been homosexual in behavior and attraction. (Tripp 1971) Even when change is defined in this extreme manner the claim is untrue. Numerous studies report cases of total change. (Goetz 1997)

Those who deny the possibility of total change admit that change of behavior is possible (Coleman 1978: Herron 1982) and that persons who have been sexually involved with both sexes appear more able to change.(Acosta 1975) A careful reading of the articles opposing therapy for change reveals that the authors who see therapy for change as unethical (Davison 1982: Gittings 1973) do so because they view the such therapy as oppressive to those who do not want to change (Begelman 1975: 1977: Murphy 1992: Sleek 1997: Smith 1988) and view those persons with same-sex attraction who express a desire to change as victims of societal or religious oppression. (Begelman 1977: Silverstein 1972)

It should be noted that almost without exception, those who regard therapy as unethical, also reject abstinence from non-marital sexual activity as a minimal goal (Barrett 1996) and among the therapists who accept homosexual acts as normal many find nothing wrong with infidelity in committed relationships (Nelson 1982), anonymous sexual encounters, general promiscuity, auto-eroticism (Saghir 1973), sado-masochism, and various paraphilias. Some even support a lessening of restrictions on sex between adults and minors (Mirkin 1999) or deny the negative psychological impact of sexual child abuse. (Rind 1998; Smith 1988)

Some of those who consider therapy unethical also challenge established theories of child development. (Davison 1982: Menvielle 1998) These tend to place blame for the undeniable problems suffered by homosexually active adolescents and adults on societal oppression. All research conclusions must be evaluated in light of the biases which the researchers bring to the project. When research is infused with an acknowledged political agenda, its value is seriously diminished.

It should be pointed out that Catholics cannot support forms of therapy which encourage the patients to replace one form of sexual sin with another. (Schwartz 1984) Some therapists, for example, do not consider a patient “cured” until he can comfortably engage in sexual activity with the other sex, even if the patient is not married. (Masters 1979) Others encouraged patients to masturbate using other-sex imagery. (Blitch 1972; Conrad 1976)

For a Catholic with same sex attraction, the goal of therapy should be freedom to live chastely according to one’s state in life. Some of those who have struggled with same-sex attractions believe that they are called to a celibate life. They should not be made to feel that they have failed to achieve freedom, because they do not experience desires for the other sex . Others wish to marry and have children. There is every reason to hope that many will be able, in time, to achieve this goal. They should not, however, be encouraged to rush into marriage, since there is ample evidence that marriage is not a cure for same-sex attractions. With the power of grace, the sacraments, support from the community, and an experienced therapist, a determined individual should be able to achieve the inner freedom promised by Christ.

Experienced therapists can help individuals uncover and understand the root causes of the emotional trauma which gave rise to their same sex attractions and then work in therapy to resolve this pain. Men experiencing same-sex attractions often discover how their masculine identify was negatively effected by feelings of rejection from father or peers or from a poor body image which result in sadness, anger and insecurity. As this emotional pain is healed in therapy, the masculine identity is strengthened and same sex attractions diminish.

Women with same sex attractions can come to see how conflicts with fathers or other significant males led them to mistrust of male love or how lack of maternal affection led to a deep longing for female love. Insight into causes of anger and sadness will hopefully lead to forgiveness and freedom. All this takes time. In this respect individuals suffering from same-sex attraction are no different than the many other men and women who have emotional pain and need to learn how to forgive.

Catholic therapists working with Catholic individuals should feel free to use the wealth of Catholic spirituality in this healing process. Those with father wounds can be encouraged to develop their relationship with God as a loving father. Those who were rejected or ridiculed by peers as youngsters can meditate upon the Jesus as brother, friend, and protector. Those who feel unmothered can turn to Mary for comfort.

There is every reason for hope that with time those who seek freedom will find it, but we must recognize when we encourage hope, there are some who will not achieve their goals. We may find ourselves in the same position as a pediatric oncologist who spoke of how when he first began his practice, there was almost no hope for children stricken with cancer and the physician’s duty was to help the parents accept the inevitable and not waste their resources chasing a “cure.” Today almost 70% of the children recover, but each death leaves the medical team with terrible feeling of failure. As the prevention and treatment of same-sex attraction improves, the individuals who still struggle will, more than ever, need compassionate and sensitive support.

[Italics added]

 

[Yopperpo]

Homosexuality is not a sin. Homosexuals acts are sins.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Not the least, the last section of the CMA study referred above:

1. Hope

Jeffrey Satinover, MD and Ph.D., has written of his extensive experience with patients experiencing same-sex attraction:

“I have been extraordinarily fortunate to have met many people who have emerged from the gay life. When I see the personal difficulties they have squarely faced, the sheer courage they have displayed not only in facing these difficulties but also in confronting a culture that uses every possible means to deny the validity of their values, goals, and experiences, I truly stand back in wonder… It is these people — former homosexuals and those who are still struggling, all across America and aboard — who stand for me as a model of everything good and possible in a world that takes the human heart, and the God of that heart, seriously. In my various explorations within the worlds of psychoanalysis, psychotherapy, and psychiatry, I have simply never before seen such profound healing.” (Satinover 1996)

Those who wish to be free from same-sex attractions frequently turn first to the Church. CMA wants to be sure that they find the help and hope they are seeking. There is every reason to hope that every person experiencing same-sex attraction who seeks help from the Church can find freedom from homosexual behavior and many will find much more, but they will come only if they see love in our words and deeds.
…
The Catholic Medical Association recognizes that health care professionals have a special duty in this area and hopes that this statement will help them to caring out that duty according to the principles of the Catholic Faith.

The research referenced in this report is drawn from a wide variety of sources. In most cases, numerous other sources could have been cited. For those desiring to make an in-depth study of the issues raised, a comprehensive bibliography can be obtained (74747.2241@compuserve.com) along with reviews of the relevant literature.

It should also be pointed out that many of the authors cited do not accept the Church’s teaching on the intrinsically disordered nature of homosexual acts. No effort has been made to distinguish between those who do and those who don’t, since those who favor prevention and treatment and those who support gay-affirming therapy present essentially consistent statistical evidence and case material, differing on the interpretation and relevance of the evidence.

[italics added]
,

 

[Hadrianus]

True, but charity also compels us to discourage our brothers and sisters from using snake oil to cure whatever it is that ails them.

Having read all this over I must say that I am left with this impression too. When one cuts through all the verbiage all that is being said is that those with strong homosexual tendencies (what in common parlance would be called homosexuals) do not show a change in orientation, but that those who have had experience with both sexes (who are usually called bisexual) can develop the ability to respond heterosexually.

In other words, what commonsense would suggest.

In saying this I don’t mean that no benefit could be gained by therapy because there are often many other issues associated with a homosexual orientation which may benefit from treatment. Nor do I mean to say that those with compulsive sexual behavior may not benefit from therapy. But this being said, I don’t think it is prudent to suggest that at the present time there is a therapy which can actually change those with a homosexual orientation into heterosexuals. The evidence just isn’t there for this claim.

It is worth underscoring, however, that the Roman Catholic Church neither recommends nor condemns these therapies. The Church simply has no opinion on this, and individuals are free to conclude what they consider probable based upon the existing research.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I don’t think it is prudent to suggest that at the present time there is a therapy which can actually change those with a homosexual orientation into heterosexuals. The evidence just isn’t there for this claim.

And I don’t think it is either prudent or charitable (at large) to suggest that there can be no, has been no, comprehensive therapy which has as a byproduct a change in sexual orientation, among many by-products. Not all therapy results make it into research. A very key element of psychotherapy is the relationships we form with others, as well as the relationships we reject. All of those relationships reflect a self-concept, and affect a self-concept, and thus are crucial to the goal of genuine integration as opposed to compensation. To proclaim on CAF that anyone who has merely read “evidence” of so-called reparative therapy knows the universe of outcomes for therapy not so-called, is misleading this readership and the general pubic.

It is worth underscoring, however, that the Roman Catholic Church neither recommends nor condemns these therapies. The Church simply has no opinion on this, and individuals are free to conclude what they consider probable based upon the existing research.

But charity requires interest in relieving the expressed pain of our brothers and sisters, and by extension, then, interest in solutions. It also requires an active interest in the possible restoration to a naturally ordered wholeness, which in the teachings of the Roman Church, homosexual attraction does not represent. The Church is not indifferent to the suffering of its members, the misguidance of its members, and the sin of its members.

 

[BigE]

Chrysostim83: “Let me add, though, that all of that could be based on a misunderstanding. The trouble is, since you keep deploring shallow, quick-fix efforts to change sexual orientation, I really have no idea what kind of therapy you’re talking about.”

Elizabeth502: Please do a search on CAF. I answered this several weeks ago.

I’d like to see that too.

Can you tell me which thread E? I tried to search, but you’ve participated in a lot of threads on homosexuality.

Unless I’m missing an easy way to find that response.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Well, BigE, since I’m not the one interested in arguing with myself , I’m not going to assist in a search. Again, I answered this some time ago, but a precis of that is in post 187, above.

But since you invited yourself back into the fray, here , I’d like to explore more what you meant by your previous post when you said that your position on the Church’s teaching on homosexuality is for you “a matter of conscience.”

At least six options are possible:

(1) You do not view homosexual activity as an objective evil (intrinsically disordered)
(2) You do not view nonmarital sexual relationships as immoral
(3) You view nonmarital sexual relationships as permissible providing that “genuine love” is present. (Morality shifts depending on the quality of the love, subjectively assessed.)

I purposely added (3) because consistency is important here. If a genuine love relationship changes the morality of the sexual act, then surely genuinely loving fornicating heterosexuals are not in a state of sin, either.

(4) The morality of sexual acts is dependent on the boundaries of civil and religious approval of the bond. Thus, those seeking to marry but forbidden to, are in a different moral category with regard to sexual behavior.
(5) SSA is “biologically” (or in some other way) “determined,” “fixed,” “permanent,” never changeable. Although all humans are sexual, people with SSA should uniquely be allowed to express their attractions physically, as opposed to all other Catholics who are bound to chastity, and whose sexual attractions must also be never changeable. This folds in with (1), being a variant and “justification” for it.
(6) Allowing people with SSA unique freedom from chastity is justified compensation for general lack of charity toward them in the wider public and within the church.

 

[larkin31]

Having read all this over I must say that I am left with this impression too. When one cuts through all the verbiage all that is being said is that those with strong homosexual tendencies (what in common parlance would be called homosexuals) do not show a change in orientation, but that those who have had experience with both sexes (who are usually called bisexual) can develop the ability to respond heterosexually.

In other words, what commonsense would suggest. …

Indeed.

Furthermore, the problem is when the therapy carries with it the suggestion that homosexual orientation is somehow a broken condition that needs fixing (change to another orientation) and that a subsequent failure to re-orient is a failure of the individual and an indication of worse sin and/or the addition of despair or neurosis.

 

[BigE]

Well, BigE, since I’m not the one interested in arguing with myself , I’m not going to assist in a search. Again, I answered this some time ago, but a precis of that is in post 187, above.

But since you invited yourself back into the fray, here , I’d like to explore more what you meant by your previous post when you said that your position on the Church’s teaching on homosexuality is for you “a matter of conscience.”

At least six options are possible:

(1) You do not view homosexual activity as an objective evil (intrinsically disordered)
(2) You do not view nonmarital sexual relationships as immoral
(3) You view nonmarital sexual relationships as permissible providing that “genuine love” is present. (Morality shifts depending on the quality of the love, subjectively assessed.)

I purposely added (3) because consistency is important here. If a genuine love relationship changes the morality of the sexual act, then surely genuinely loving fornicating heterosexuals are not in a state of sin, either.

(4) The morality of sexual acts is dependent on the boundaries of civil and religious approval of the bond. Thus, those seeking to marry but forbidden to, are in a different moral category with regard to sexual behavior.
(5) SSA is “biologically” (or in some other way) “determined,” “fixed,” “permanent,” never changeable. Although all humans are sexual, people with SSA should uniquely be allowed to express their attractions physically, as opposed to all other Catholics who are bound to chastity, and whose sexual attractions must also be never changeable. This folds in with (1), being a variant and “justification” for it.
(6) Allowing people with SSA unique freedom from chastity is justified compensation for general lack of charity toward them in the wider public and within the church.

#1 and #5:

but my caveats to #5 are…

a) people with SSA should be allowed to express their attraction physically only in a monogamous committed relationship.

b) I do not believe ALL homosexuals are biologically “fixed” in their state. But I believe MOST are. I believe the current data that says less than 1% can change their SSA nature. And of course, 1% means not all. I also believe people with SSA can learn to modify their behavoir while never really changing their SSA nature (which is what I believe most NARTH “success” data really supports).

 

[Elizabeth502]

Thanks for replying, BigE. I appreciate your honesty.
I find your agreement with #1 very tough to align with NL and thus with Church teaching, but I can understand why, if you hold that, you would also conclude that a physically monogamous sexual relationship between them would be morally acceptable.

But the #1 is a significant hurdle that personally I find no support for, and thus cannot in conscience support the ‘morality’ of even monogamous homosexual relationships from a Catholic perspective.

I appreciate your comments on #5, and is a point that you and I agreed to earlier as well.

I think it’s important, as I and at least two other posters said, to provide a welcoming path for those with SSA seeking to stay in communion with orthodox Catholicism, but that of course would prohibit #1. And there’s the problem: The Church and those who identify with her need to be clear on a unified message: otherwise some will receive the message that active homosexuality is perfectly in keeping with Catholic morality, while others will receive a very different message.

And if homosexual activity should be morally acceptable in the eyes of the Church, why cannot monogamous fornication, or monogamous technical adultery be acceptable (for example, such as for a divorced person whose annulment was denied)? This was the point of my developing the options. It seems to me we have to be careful of directly or indirectly assuming exceptions to morality based on (a) subjective classifications of relationships, (b) denial of marital status for any reason.

It seems to me that your affirmation of #1 would also imply (perhaps?) disagreement with the concept of limitations on sexual practices. Again, then, the problem becomes: where does one draw the line? Incest? Bestiality? Because if suddenly sodomy is acceptable, lots of other practices should logically be acceptable as well, including for heterosexual relationships, despite alternative behavior not being acceptable heterosexually. The Church does try to be consistent in the moral code.