Hot off the Press..A new look at homosexuality and Catholic Teaching?

[Other_Eric]

BlindSheep:

Other Eric is promoting heresy. Rome has spoken; homosexuals can be chaste, and it is not their impulses but rather their actions which are sins. Mortal sin has to be deliberate; other Eric’s insistence that SSA is deliberate has no basis in science or church teaching. It is my impression that this self-proclaimed “lapsed Catholic” is seeking to rationalize his own distaste for people who suffer from SSA; he dehumanizes them, tells untruths about them (it is possible for them to be chaste, I think we all know examples of people who disprove his assertion), and mocks their struggle against sin. Such an attitude is unworthy of a Christian, and the Church rightly denounces it.

It is true Rome has spoken on this issue. It is true that she has denied that “sexual behaviour of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive” but the important qualifier that is almost universally ignored is that is that this condition cannot be used to reduce culpability. In other words, the sexual act may indeed be compulsive for the homosexual but this does not diminish his responsibility for it at all. I also note that in the definitive English version of the Catechism the Church removed the notion that the condition was not chosen. It is not unreasonable to assume that Rome supports my argument that the condition is chosen and it is this initial choice that renders every subsequent compulsive sex act blameworthy.

As far as anecdotal evidence is concerned regarding the supposed chastity of those afflicted with same-sex attraction, I can only note that homosexuality and pathological dishonesty seem to go together like peas and carrots. If one searches hard enough one can find stories attesting to things such as the joy of “intergenerational sex,” the “freedom won by women in the name of abortion” and the “liberty of being out from under the imposing yoke of a totalitarian Church.” Clearly the truth is no obstacle for those who simply wish to tell others good things about themselves.

 

[fix]

Other Eric:

In other words, the sexual act may indeed be compulsive for the homosexual but this does not diminish his responsibility for it at all. I also note that in the definitive English version of the Catechism the Church removed the notion that the condition was not chosen. It is not unreasonable to assume that Rome supports my argument that the condition is chosen and it is this initial choice that renders every subsequent compulsive sex act blameworthy.

That would depend on the individual. In some cases what you write may well apply and in others it may not apply.

 

[Other_Eric]

fix:

That would depend on the individual. In some cases what you write may well apply and in others it may not apply.

In what sort of individual would it not apply? The literature from NARTH is rife with stories of all manner of sexual incontinence in the gay community. Stories of temperance in this regard are, well, stories. In the end, the chaste homosexual is a creature whose proper place is beside unicorns and dragons in a child’s book of fairy tales.

 

[fix]

Other Eric:

In what sort of individual would it not apply? The literature from NARTH is rife with stories of all manner of sexual incontinence in the gay community. Stories of temperance in this regard are, well, stories. In the end, the chaste homosexual is a creature whose proper place is beside unicorns and dragons in a child’s book of fairy tales.

I am unsure of your point? Were you not arguing that the Church claims those with SSA choose it and are therefore are culpable?

I was pointing out that Cameron’s work may apply to some with SSA and it does not conflict with Church teaching.

 

[Other_Eric]

fix:

I am unsure of your point? Were you not arguing that the Church claims those with SSA choose it and are therefore are culpable?

I was pointing out that Cameron’s work may apply to some with SSA and it does not conflict with Church teaching.

I was indeed arguing that SSA is chosen and therefore culpable. I dislike claims that this nature applies only to “some.” To me that sounds dangerously like an attempt to minimize the condition or apply exceptions to certain individuals.

 

[fix]

Other Eric:

I was indeed arguing that SSA is chosen and therefore culpable. I dislike claims that this nature applies only to “some.” To me that sounds dangerously like an attempt to minimize the condition or apply exceptions to certain individuals.

Why does it have to be that the etiology is the same in ever single case? There are many factors to consider and that is not unique to SSA?

 

[Other_Eric]

fix:

Why does it have to be that the etiology is the same in ever single case? There are many factors to consider and that is not unique to SSA?

The conditions under which the free choice for or against homosexuality may vary from individual to individual. In no case should it be assumed that the decision is compelled. There may be circumstances in which one choice is more likely to be made than the other but every time the choice is made it is a fully culpable act of free will.

Once the choice for homosexuality is made, free will and individuality are no longer part of the nature of the homosexual. This is why I find it is not proper to refer to individual cases in an attempt mitigate culpability. The homosexual’s humanity has died within him, having been completely subsumed by the same-sex attraction disorder.

 

[fix]

Other Eric:

The conditions under which the free choice for or against homosexuality may vary from individual to individual. In no case should it be assumed that the decision is compelled. There may be circumstances in which one choice is more likely to be made than the other but every time the choice is made it is a fully culpable act of free will.

Once the choice for homosexuality is made, free will and individuality are no longer part of the nature of the homosexual. This is why I find it is not proper to refer to individual cases in an attempt mitigate culpability. The homosexual’s humanity has died within him, having been completely subsumed by the same-sex attraction disorder.

It is a very strange theory and I cannot see how you arrive at this conclusion.

If we are talking of the inclination, or passion, toward SSA is it unreasonable to conclude that in certain instances that may come from abuse as one example? If one is abused from an early age one may have a distorted development that would leave one with such an inclination. The person is not guilty of the inclination in such a circumstance? If they act out on it they may or may not be culpable depending on certain factors.

 

[BlindSheep]

If SSA were a chosen condition, I would be a lesbian. In my high school lesbians were considered “cool”. I tried, but just could not force myself to be attracted to women.
And now, try as I might, I can’t stop being attracted to men, either.
Sexual attraction is never a deliberate choice. Who here has ever “chosen” to be attracted to someone? We choose whether to entertain sexual thoughts, whether to act on them; not whether to be attracted in the first place.

 

[fix]

BlindSheep:

If SSA were a chosen condition, I would be a lesbian. In my high school lesbians were considered “cool”. I tried, but just could not force myself to be attracted to women.
And now, try as I might, I can’t stop being attracted to men, either.
Sexual attraction is never a deliberate choice. Who here has ever “chosen” to be attracted to someone? We choose whether to entertain sexual thoughts, whether to act on them; not whether to be attracted in the first place.

This issue is in regard to the work of Cameron. He makes certain claims that the inclination can be developed in some through various avenues. I assume he is likening it to developing a taste for something.

I pointed out that may be possible in some cases. I can’t see how that is so unreasonable. Many folks try smoking as one example. Does that mean they were born with an inclination to smoke? They may have actively sought out smoking for various reasons.

He is not using the term inclination in a philosophical sense.

 

[BlindSheep]

Other Eric:

It is true Rome has spoken on this issue. It is true that she has denied that “sexual behaviour of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive” but the important qualifier that is almost universally ignored is that is that this condition cannot be used to reduce culpability. In other words, the sexual act may indeed be compulsive for the homosexual but this does not diminish his responsibility for it at all.

Only according to your theory that the condition itself is chosen.

I also note that in the definitive English version of the Catechism the Church removed the notion that the condition was not chosen. It is not unreasonable to assume that Rome supports my argument that the condition is chosen and it is this initial choice that renders every subsequent compulsive sex act blameworthy.

The Catechism says:
2358 *The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. *
If the condition were chosen as you say, how could it be considered a trial? How could the difficulties that result be a sacrifice? If they could simply choose to stop experiencing same-sex attraction, there would be no trial involved.

As far as anecdotal evidence is concerned regarding the supposed chastity of those afflicted with same-sex attraction, I can only note that homosexuality and pathological dishonesty seem to go together like peas and carrots. If one searches hard enough one can find stories attesting to things such as the joy of “intergenerational sex,” the “freedom won by women in the name of abortion” and the “liberty of being out from under the imposing yoke of a totalitarian Church.” Clearly the truth is no obstacle for those who simply wish to tell others good things about themselves.

How easy if is for you to imply that everyone with SSA who claims to be chaste is lying; however, when you accuse someone of lying the burden of proof falls to you, and I doubt you have incriminating photographs or such for every homosexual claiming to be chaste. Remember, just ONE chaste homosexual disproves your position. Also note that the Catechism says:
**2359 **Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
Homosexual persons…can gradually approach Christian perfection. It does not say that to do so requires that they cease to be “homosexual persons”; that is, to no longer experience SSA. If this were the case, the statement would be false; it would be necessary to say “formerly homosexual persons …can approach Christian perfection”.
On a personal note, if I were saying that a group’s humanity was dead, I would be concerned for the state of my own soul.

 

[BlindSheep]

fix:

This issue is in regard to the work of Cameron. He makes certain claims that the inclination can be developed in some through various avenues. I assume he is likening it to developing a taste for something.

I pointed out that may be possible in some cases. I can’t see how that is so unreasonable. Many folks try smoking as one example. Does that mean they were born with an inclination to smoke? They may have actively sought out smoking for various reasons.

He is not using the term inclination in a philosophical sense.

I see a flaw in the smoking analogy. No non-smoker experiences the physical craving for a cigarette that a smoker does. They choose to smoke for other reasons, but only after they become addicted do they physically crave cigarettes whether they intellectually choose to smoke or not. However, with sex one need not first have sex to experience a physical desire for it contrary to conscious choice or reasoning.

 

[fix]

BlindSheep:

I see a flaw in the smoking analogy. No non-smoker experiences the physical craving for a cigarette that a smoker does. They choose to smoke for other reasons, but only after they become addicted do they physically crave cigarettes whether they intellectually choose to smoke or not. However, with sex one need not first have sex to experience a physical desire for it contrary to conscious choice or reasoning.

I am not defending Cameron’s position, only exploring it to see if it has merit.

In your above example I would say some are *curious *about smoking, want to be accepted, start to do it, then really enjoy it. The initial smoke was not an inclination, but a conscious desire to do it, then the taste developed. Reasonable?

 

[BlindSheep]

fix:

I am not defending Cameron’s position, only exploring it to see if it has merit.

In your above example I would say some are *curious *about smoking, want to be accepted, start to do it, then really enjoy it. The initial smoke was not an inclination, but a conscious desire to do it, then the taste developed. Reasonable?

Yes, and I see how this *could *occur, though I still think with sex the usual pattern is inclination first, then action, rather than a taste which develops with experience. However, this opinion is derived from my own (heterosexual) experience and from the words of people with SSA who describe it this way. I see no reason, however, to doubt it.
Furthermore, even if the condition originated with a choice, if the individual later changes his mind but cannot change the inclination, the result is the same; a struggle of the will & reason vs. the body & emotions. If the will is not strong enough to overcome the compulsion, but has become compleely opposed to it, wouldn’t the person not be culpable, assuming they repented and confessed the original choice which caused the condition?

 

[fix]

BlindSheep:

Furthermore, even if the condition originated with a choice, if the individual later changes his mind but cannot change the inclination, the result is the same; a struggle of the will & reason vs. the body & emotions. If the will is not strong enough to overcome the compulsion, but has become compleely opposed to it, wouldn’t the person not be culpable, assuming they repented and confessed the original choice which caused the condition?

Well, sure if the person repented and was absolved. Who can say what individual culpability is when they are overcome with a compulsion? The problem, as a Vatican document has pointed out, is we may mistakenly assume chronic behavior like we are talking about is inculpable when it may not be the case.

Here is what I refer to:

1. It has been argued that the homosexual orientation in certain cases is not the result of deliberate choice; and so the homosexual person would then have no choice but to behave in a homosexual fashion. Lacking freedom, such a person, even if engaged in homosexual activity, would not be culpable.

Here, the Church’s wise moral tradition is necessary since it warns against generalizations in judging individual cases. In fact, circumstances may exist, or may have existed in the past, which would reduce or remove the culpability of the individual in a given instance; or other circumstances may increase it. What is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behaviour of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable. What is essential is that the fundamental liberty which characterizes the human person and gives him his dignity be recognized as belonging to the homosexual person as well. As in every conversion from evil, the abandonment of homosexual activity will require a profound collaboration of the individual with God’s liberating grace.
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html

 

[Riley259]

BlindSheep:

If SSA were a chosen condition, I would be a lesbian. In my high school lesbians were considered “cool”. I tried, but just could not force myself to be attracted to women.
And now, try as I might, I can’t stop being attracted to men, either.
Sexual attraction is never a deliberate choice. Who here has ever “chosen” to be attracted to someone? We choose whether to entertain sexual thoughts, whether to act on them; not whether to be attracted in the first place.

I think in most cases homosexuality is not chosen but that doesn’t mean that it is strictly biological either. The work of Nicolosi suggests that the attraction can develop very early on in life but still not be a result of biological factors. His “kitchen window” theory of homosexual development has alot of merit (particularly with male homosexuals) when examined closely. There’s some evidence that some biological factors may play a role in predisposing (not causing) individuals towards same-sex attractions, particularly with obvious cases of gender nonconformity. I’m a behavior analyst and know from my clinical experience that once something is say eroticised (as proposed by Nicolosi when “kitchen window syndrome” boys become teens and start to look at admired same-sex peers in a more sexualized way) and this is reinforced (via sexual stimulation of some kind) then the conditioning that takes place can be extremely powerful and difficult to reverse - Pornography addictions result in a similar fashion. I’ve read recently that experimenting with homosexuality is becoming an “in” thing in an almost faddish way with some teenagers. If this is true then this is perhaps a minority example of someone choosing to be gay because that “choice” might be behaviorally reinforced over repeated exposures. I’ve known women who were married and following a divorce decided to be intimate with a woman, not necessarily because of sexual attraction but because they felt that women were more in tune with their emotions and feelings than the men that they had previously had relationships with - would this example also be classified as a choice. I’m not proposing that I know the answer to these questions but they are provocative and worth discussing in the context of this topic.

 

[fix]

Riley259:

I’ve known women who were married and following a divorce decided to be intimate with a woman, not just because of sexual attraction but because they felt that women were more in tune with their emotions and feelings - would this example also be classified as a choice. I’m not proposing that I know the answer to these questions but they are provocative and worth discussing in the context of this topic.

That is exactly the example I was thinking about. Of course, I have no way to prove this, but it would seem reasonable to most people that cases like that show that it is a choice.

When folks from gay groups claim the “straights” are scared the “gays” will recruit them as intending the straights are simple minded I think in many ways in this culture that is very much what is happening.

 

[Other_Eric]

fix:

It is a very strange theory and I cannot see how you arrive at this conclusion.

If we are talking of the inclination, or passion, toward SSA is it unreasonable to conclude that in certain instances that may come from abuse as one example? If one is abused from an early age one may have a distorted development that would leave one with such an inclination. The person is not guilty of the inclination in such a circumstance? If they act out on it they may or may not be culpable depending on certain factors.

It sounds to me as though you are looking for a way in which only one answer to the choice presented is possible for the individual involved.
It may be that severe abuse from an early age would prompt an individual in the direction of homosexuality but we know that it is not created as a result of the abuse. The vast majority of children so abused still turn out to be heterosexual in nature. The individual always retains this inviolable choice. In fact, given that the playgrounds of America still ring with the word “gay” being used as an epithet the choice for homosexuality in one so young is a particularly obnoxious rebellion.

Once the choice is made, the sexual act has the character of an obsessive compulsion. The will deteriorates into one completely turned inward. There can be no redemption because the individual, at a very basic level of his own psychology, obstinately refuses to ask for or accept it. Thus his eternal fate is sealed.

 

[BlindSheep]

fix:

That is exactly the example I was thinking about. Of course, I have no way to prove this, but it would seem reasonable to most people that cases like that show that it is a choice.

When folks from gay groups claim the “straights” are scared the “gays” will recruit them as intending the straights are simple minded I think in many ways in this culture that is very much what is happening.

The existence of a handful of people who choose to engage in homosexual activity without previously being attracted to their own sex does not prove that this is always, or even usually, the case. For most heterosexuals, the very idea of homosexual activity is repulsive, even if there is encouragement from the culture or other factors. Why insist that it is strictly biology or strictly choice? Biology sets the boundaries of what is possible and creates the original sexual impulses, choice determines which of these possibilities will be realised and which impulses will be indulged. Choice can lead to addiction, but addiction in itself is biological. In other words, choice can influence biology. This does not mean, however, that the will cannot overcome addiction; but there may be instances where it cannot, at least without outside help. It would then be a choice to request this help. The Church tells us that we should assume chastity is possible for homosexuals, contrary to what OtherEric is saying. If chastity required an absence of SSA, they could not be described as homosexuals.

 

[fix]

BlindSheep:

The existence of a handful of people who choose to engage in homosexual activity without previously being attracted to their own sex does not prove that this is always, or even usually, the case. For most heterosexuals, the very idea of homosexual activity is repulsive, even if there is encouragement from the culture or other factors. Why insist that it is strictly biology or strictly choice? Biology sets the boundaries of what is possible and creates the original sexual impulses, choice determines which of these possibilities will be realised and which impulses will be indulged. Choice can lead to addiction, but addiction in itself is biological. In other words, choice can influence biology. This does not mean, however, that the will cannot overcome addiction; but there may be instances where it cannot, at least without outside help. It would then be a choice to request this help. The Church tells us that we should assume chastity is possible for homosexuals, contrary to what OtherEric is saying. If chastity required an absence of SSA, they could not be described as homosexuals.

I agree in general. I was specfically speaking about a subset of people. I think there are several variables that differ from case to case. This argument is important because many are claiming it is absolutely a genetic trait like having brown eyes.