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

[fix]

Other Eric:

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.

My point is whether the individual has an inclination, or not, he/she has free will. That free will may be compromised to a degree depending on many factors. I cannot judge individual culpability.

Your last paragraph can’t be defended by any citations from the Vatican. Please show us how you came to such a conclusion.

 

[Other_Eric]

fix:

My point is whether the individual has an inclination, or not, he/she has free will. That free will may be compromised to a degree depending on many factors. I cannot judge individual culpability.

Your last paragraph can’t be defended by any citations from the Vatican. Please show us how you came to such a conclusion.

On the contrary, it seems backed up the argument in my last paragraphhas:

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.

This means that the sexual act, when performed by a homosexual, is blameworthy even though compelled by a disordered psychology. The science of NARTH has indisputably revealed the compulsive nature of every same-sex sexual act that a homosexual might engage in. So, we have illustrated a picture of a man whose psychological constitution compels sin.

At this point, the question is how to resolve the apparent paradox of a man who has no choice but to sin. Unless we mean to overrule the Church and diminish culpability for the act based on psychology, then the loss of free will is the only answer to the question.

 

[fix]

Other Eric:

On the contrary, it seems the Vatican has backed up the argument in my last paragraph:This means that the sexual act, when performed by a homosexual, is blameworthy even though compelled by a disordered psychology. The science of NARTH has indisputably revealed the compulsive nature of every same-sex sexual act that a homosexual might engage in. So, we have illustrated a picture of a man whose psychological constitution compels sin.

At this point, the question is how to resolve the apparent paradox of a man who has no choice but to sin. Unless we mean to overrule the Church and diminish culpability for the act based on psychology, then the loss of free will is the only answer to the question.

The quote specfically uses the words always and totally meaning that we should not assume it in every case and for all persons. So, in some cases the behavior may be compulsive and lacking in full culpability, or that may not be the case. They are saying we cannot generalize.

 

[Other_Eric]

fix:

The quote specfically uses the words always and totally meaning that we should not assume it in every case and for all persons. So, in some cases the behavior may be compulsive and lacking in full culpability, or that may not be the case. They are saying we cannot generalize.

The fruits of not generalizing in this regard has resulted in the widespread sexual victimization of our youth by these “individuals” who were admitted to the priesthood. I, for one, cannot be so callous.

 

[BlindSheep]

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.

This means that the sexual act, when performed by a homosexual, is blameworthy even though compelled by a disordered psychology.

I think you are completely misinterpreting this statement. This does not say that a compulsive act is not inculpable, but rather that we cannot assume all homosexual acts are compulsive. Since they are not all compulsive, they are not all inculpable. If they were compulsive, according to Church teaching they would indeed be inculpable. Furthermore, the church does leave open the possiblity that some homosexual behavior is totally compulsive and inculpable.

The science of NARTH has indisputably revealed the compulsive nature of every same-sex sexual act that a homosexual might engage in. So, we have illustrated a picture of a man whose psychological constitution compels sin.

Frankly, it is impossible to scientifically prove that every same-sex sexual act is compulsive. Please give us a reference for this “science”, though I would bet my life it does not prove what you said it does, since it cannot be proven.
And again, if it is compulsive it is NOT sin. It is objectively evil and disordered, but not sin.
The Church teaches that sin must be deliberate.

 

[fix]

Other Eric:

The fruits of not generalizing in this regard has resulted in the widespread sexual victimization of our youth by these “individuals” who were admitted to the priesthood. I, for one, cannot be so callous.

Actually, the scandal you refer to is from not obeying the document we are speaking of. The general failure not to condemn homosexual acts and the failure to get these men authentic medical and spiritual help, in part, led to the scandal.

Even if some folks suffer from a compulsion that is no reason to not protect all involved.

 

[Other_Eric]

BlindSheep:

Frankly, it is impossible to scientifically prove that every same-sex sexual act is compulsive. Please give us a reference for this “science”, though I would bet my life it does not prove what you said it does, since it cannot be proven.
And again, if it is compulsive it is NOT sin. It is objectively evil and disordered, but not sin.
The Church teaches that sin must be deliberate.

Unfortunately, NARTH’s statistical analyses and peer-reviewed studies are not available for free online. I don’t have access to them right now to be able to quote authoritatively from their research, but you can purchase the relevant literature here.

Nevertheless, the literature available online definitely does point to the compulsion inherent in the homosexual condition. This word resurfaces again and again in their articles. So much, in fact, that I would have a hard time believing anyone who tried to say that sexual compulsion was not a major component of same-sex attraction itself. In the following brief samplings, you may be able to see my point.

In the personal account from a homosexual at the onset of the disorder detailing the urge involved and also its necessary relationship to a pride focused completely inward to the exclusion of all else, including the graces of the Holy Spirit:

He recalled that from age 16 when his full sexual focus became private masturbation to homosexual fantasies, he always felt a kind of depression about himself. Because of the conflict, the shame, and the incredible compulsion he was simultaneously experiencing, this aspect of his life became the total focus for the way he viewed himself.

In the self-testimony of a homosexual himself, ostensibly in a monogamous relationship:

One . . . suddenly sees a stranger in the street, their eyes meet, and they are off to bed at the stranger’s place. I would say that the cheating lover has had an irresistible experience of beauty in the person of the stranger, which time and circumstance allow him to indulge. He comes across a perfect exterior “type” and must have union with him. When it happens, a force is loosed in the cheating lover that he feels he must succumb to or perish. My advice to such a lover is to do it and forget it, never mention his lapse to his lover whom he really does love—and try not to let it happen too frequently. That experience of beauty, which is irresistible, by the way, is one of the most mysterious and awe-inspiring in the entire homosexual galaxy of experiences.

In the compulsion to have sex even in the face of death:

. . .professionals in various fields have pondered the fact that many gays engage in unsafe sex, knowing that it may cause them to become infected with the HIV virus. The phrase, “death wish,” has emerged in this connection, as psychologists question whether some gays have an unconscious wish to die.

In discussing homosexuality as a legitimate disorder:

The presence of a specific need, desire, compulsion, or other symptom formation may so circumscribe pathology, that a patient may appear to be functioning well in every other aspect of his life;

In the perversion of the reawakening of lust as a direct result of contact with the sacred:

In some cases church attendance can increase anxiety, which in turn can lead to increased sexual compulsion.

It may be that some will want to latch on to the words “some,” “many,” “may” or “can” as indicative of an aspect of the condition that cannot be applied universally to people who experience this disorder. I reply that the sheer variety of different contexts from which these examples are pulled strongly indicates a unanimous experience in the homosexual community. Also one might ascribe the very use of these non-committal words to the oppressive influence of political correctness.

It is obvious, at least to me, that NARTH has discovered sexual compulsion to be a cornerstone of the homosexual condition.

As far as the Church teaching that sin must be deliberate, with that I agree. This is why the initial choice for homosexuality, as outlined by Cameron, is so damning.

 

[Other_Eric]

fix:

Actually, the scandal you refer to is from not obeying the document we are speaking of. The general failure not to condemn homosexual acts and the failure to get these men authentic medical and spiritual help, in part, led to the scandal.

Even if some folks suffer from a compulsion that is no reason to not protect all involved.

The scandal I refer to is a direct result of not treating these men as the sexual compulsives they are. Authentic medical help in this regard involves keeping these people from the faithful. Anything less is an invitation to disaster.

 

[fix]

Other Eric:

The scandal I refer to is a direct result of not treating these men as the sexual compulsives they are. Authentic medical help in this regard involves keeping these people from the faithful. Anything less is an invitation to disaster.

I agree they should be kept from being unsupervised around children.

 

[Other_Eric]

fix:

I agree they should be kept from being unsupervised around children.

I believe not just children, but that all associations with such individuals should be closely monitored. Homosexuals, being practiced martyrs, are skilled at developing in others a misplaced sympathy for their condition or status. Indeed, even the ostensibly non-sexual friendships that they may develop constitute both an objective near occasion of sin and the potent possibility of serious scandal. This is why the Church’s Courage ministry is inherently flawed. A homosexual simply cannot be understood to have the same need of society as the rest of us.

 

[BlindSheep]

Other Eric:

Unfortunately, NARTH’s statistical analyses and peer-reviewed studies are not available for free online. I don’t have access to them right now to be able to quote authoritatively from their research, but you can purchase the relevant literature here.

Nevertheless, the literature available online definitely does point to the compulsion inherent in the homosexual condition. This word resurfaces again and again in their articles. So much, in fact, that I would have a hard time believing anyone who tried to say that sexual compulsion was not a major component of same-sex attraction itself. In the following brief samplings, you may be able to see my point.

In the personal account from a homosexual at the onset of the disorder detailing the urge involved and also its necessary relationship to a pride focused completely inward to the exclusion of all else, including the graces of the Holy Spirit:In the self-testimony of a homosexual himself, ostensibly in a monogamous relationship:In the compulsion to have sex even in the face of death:In discussing homosexuality as a legitimate disorder:In the perversion of the reawakening of lust as a direct result of contact with the sacred:It may be that some will want to latch on to the words “some,” “many,” “may” or “can” as indicative of an aspect of the condition that cannot be applied universally to people who experience this disorder. I reply that the sheer variety of different contexts from which these examples are pulled strongly indicates a unanimous experience in the homosexual community. Also one might ascribe the very use of these non-committal words to the oppressive influence of political correctness.

It is obvious, at least to me, that NARTH has discovered sexual compulsion to be a cornerstone of the homosexual condition.

As far as the Church teaching that sin must be deliberate, with that I agree. This is why the initial choice for homosexuality, as outlined by Cameron, is so damning.

A handful of anecdotes is hardly proof; especially considering the likelihood that these men were lying (after all, if it is compulsive they can’t be blamed, so of course they will have a motive to portray it that way).
You have also not responded to the fact that the catechism denies exactly the thing you are basing your argumants on: that all homosexual acts are compulsive.

 

[Riley259]

Other Eric:

I believe not just children, but that all associations with such individuals should be closely monitored. Homosexuals, being practiced martyrs, are skilled at developing in others a misplaced sympathy for their condition or status. Indeed, even the ostensibly non-sexual friendships that they may develop constitute both an objective near occasion of sin and the potent possibility of serious scandal. This is why the Church’s Courage ministry is inherently flawed. A homosexual simply cannot be understood to have the same need of society as the rest of us.

Please read David Morrison’s Beyond Gay to see why your premise above is flawed. John Harvey, the founder of Courage, has also stated the success he’s had with homosexuals remaining chaste and having healthy non-sexual friendships with other males. Although difficult, it can be done and is not impossible. Lust and desires can be controlled with a strong will, prayful heart, and strong support network. We are not just simply animals with instinctual, uncontrollable passions but human beings, who are all capable of self-mastery, given the right help and support.

 

[Other_Eric]

BlindSheep:

A handful of anecdotes is hardly proof; especially considering the likelihood that these men were lying (after all, if it is compulsive they can’t be blamed, so of course they will have a motive to portray it that way).
You have also not responded to the fact that the catechism denies exactly the thing you are basing your argumants on: that all homosexual acts are compulsive.

I looked over the Catechism again to figure out where it might expressly deny anything I have written thus far. As best I can discover you must be referring to the following:

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.

However, this paragraph must be interpreted , which says of the condition2357:

Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained.

The problem is that NARTH has found the genesis of the condition. That, along with the supporting documentation about the effects the condition has upon a man, must therefore inform the omissions of the Catechism.

The Catechism, moreover, is not an infallible or legal document.

By presenting the material as it does, the Catechism presents the faith in a “flattened” manner that puts each teaching on an equal level of authority, which isn’t the case. (E.g., some of the material in the social doctrine section is not on the same level as, say, the Trinity and transubstantiation are).

In other words, each paragraph takes its authority from whatever document is used to support it. Paragraph 2359 has no citations, so its authority is an open question. In any event, it certainly does not have the character of something that is to be definitively held by the faithful.

I have supported my arguments with citations from Doctors of the Church, the Code of Cannon Law, the Catechism and other documents promulgated by the Holy See as well as the scientifically based commentary provided by the Family Research Institute and NARTH. In each case I have provided links back to my source material. As yet, I have not seen anyone else here refer to anything more authoritative than “I think” and “I feel,” neither of which are appropriate bases for forming theological opinions.

 

[fix]

Other Eric:

I looked over the Catechism …

However, the Catholic moral viewpoint is founded on human reason illumined by faith and is consciously motivated by the desire to do the will of God our Father. The Church is thus in a position to learn from scientific discovery but also to transcend the horizons of science and to be confident that her more global vision does greater justice to the rich reality of the human person in his spiritual and physical dimensions, created by God and heir, by grace, to eternal life.

Explicit treatment of the problem was given in this Congregation’s “Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics” of December 29, 1975. That document stressed the duty of trying to understand the homosexual condition and noted that culpability for homosexual acts should only be judged with prudence. At the same time the Congregation took note of the distinction commonly drawn between the homosexual condition or tendency and individual homosexual actions. These were described as deprived of their essential and indispensable finality, as being “intrinsically disordered”, and able in no case to be approved of (cf. n. 8, $4)…

In the discussion which followed the publication of the Declaration, however, an overly benign interpretation was given to the homosexual condition itself, some going so far as to call it neutral, or even good. Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder…

As in every moral disorder, homosexual activity prevents one’s own fulfillment and happiness by acting contrary to the creative wisdom of God. The Church, in rejecting erroneous opinions regarding homosexuality, does not limit but rather defends personal freedom and dignity realistically and authentically understood…

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.

1. What, then, are homosexual persons to do who seek to follow the Lord? Fundamentally, they are called to enact the will of God in their life by joining whatever sufferings and difficulties they experience in virtue of their condition to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross. That Cross, for the believer, is a fruitful sacrifice since from that death come life and redemption. While any call to carry the cross or to understand a Christian’s suffering in this way will predictably be met with bitter ridicule by some, it should be remembered that this is the way to eternal life for all who follow Christ.
   
   vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html

 

[BlindSheep]

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 do you say to this, Other Eric? It would appear that the Church says your position is “unfounded and demeaning”.

 

[Other_Eric]

BlindSheep:

What do you say to this, Other Eric? It would appear that the Church says your position is “unfounded and demeaning”.

I say exactly what I said before about this passage. What is “unfounded and demeaning” is the suggestion that the act is inculpable, not that it is compulsive. That qualifier at the end of that quote is not there as a decoration.

 

[Other_Eric]

fix:

. . . 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. . .

The Church expressly denies in the Catechism that the act should be judged inculpable. That is the manner of the prudence to which she refers. The scandal of homosexuals in the priesthood has exposed the folly of speaking “against generalizations in judging individual cases.” The fact is, that if all Catholics were on the same page and were able to agree on this useless exercise of preaching to and attempting to befriend the effectively damned, our children would never have been exposed to such perversion. Happily, the Church may be coming back to her own tradition in this regard, as in 1992 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith said:

[Homosexuals’ human rights] can be legitimately limited for objectively disordered external conduct. This is sometimes not only licit but obligatory.

Since both NARTH and the priesthood scandal have demonstrated that to have these temptations is to act upon them and that the “chaste homosexual” is just another fairy-tale creature, we have to interpret this compulsive activity in the face of the Church’s clear command not to diminish culpability. Thus, the homosexual is forever lost to salvation and will never see the face of God.

 

[goofyjim]

Other Eric:

The Church expressly denies in the Catechism that the act should be judged inculpable. That is the manner of the prudence to which she refers. The scandal of homosexuals in the priesthood has exposed the folly of speaking “against generalizations in judging individual cases.” The fact is, that if all Catholics were on the same page and were able to agree on this useless exercise of preaching to and attempting to befriend the effectively damned, our children would never have been exposed to such perversion. Happily, the Church may be coming back to her own tradition in this regard, as in 1992 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith said:Since both NARTH and the priesthood scandal have demonstrated that to have these temptations is to act upon them and that the “chaste homosexual” is just another fairy-tale creature, we have to interpret this compulsive activity in the face of the Church’s clear command not to diminish culpability. Thus, the homosexual is forever lost to salvation and will never see the face of God.

I would define chastity in terms of behavior. The homosexual person, if practicing abstinence, is still chaste. I doubt whether one will be denied eternal salvation for the temptation of same sex attraction. That is too heavy a demand for the human condition and if that is what all this new teaching is about it may be taking us in the wrong direction. Thoughts may only be venial sins whereby they can be removed by reception of the eucharist.

 

[fix]

Other Eric:

The Church expressly denies in the Catechism that the act should be judged inculpable. That is the manner of the prudence to which she refers. The scandal of homosexuals in the priesthood has exposed the folly of speaking “against generalizations in judging individual cases.” The fact is, that if all Catholics were on the same page and were able to agree on this useless exercise of preaching to and attempting to befriend the effectively damned, our children would never have been exposed to such perversion. Happily, the Church may be coming back to her own tradition in this regard, as in 1992 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith said:Since both NARTH and the priesthood scandal have demonstrated that to have these temptations is to act upon them and that the “chaste homosexual” is just another fairy-tale creature, we have to interpret this compulsive activity in the face of the Church’s clear command not to diminish culpability. Thus, the homosexual is forever lost to salvation and will never see the face of God.

It seems you want to attribute a teaching to the Church She does not teach? We all can read Her documents and your conclusions. They do not match.

 

[Other_Eric]

fix:

It seems you want to attribute a teaching to the Church She does not teach? We all can read Her documents and your conclusions. They do not match.

I don’t think anything that I have written or suggested is out of line with anything in Scriptural condemnations of homosexuality, nor the Church teachings on the unquenchable lust and self-serving pride that must form the basis for same-sex attraction.

Novation draws an analogy between the homosexual and the unclean animals that God forbade from the Hebrews. Nowhere is the suggestion made that a pig can be made into something clean. Just as swine is unclean before God as an intrinsic component of its identity, so has the homosexual become:

“[God forbade the Jews to eat certain foods for symbolic reasons:] For that in fishes the roughness of scales is regarded as constituting their cleanness; rough, and rugged, and unpolished, and substantial, and grave manners are approved in men; while those that are without scales are unclean, because trifling, and fickle, and faithless, and effeminate manners are disapproved. Moreover, what does the law mean when it . . . forbids the swine to be taken for food? It assuredly reproves a life filthy and dirty, and delighting in the garbage of vice. . . . Or when it forbids the hare? It rebukes men deformed into women” (The Jewish Foods 3 [A.D. 250]).

Tertullian banishes those vices and, by extension, those who have become irrevocably enslaved to them even from the Church:

“[A]ll other frenzies of the lusts which exceed the laws of nature, and are impious toward both [human] bodies and the sexes, we banish, not only from the threshold but also from all shelter of the Church, for they are not sins so much as monstrosities” (Modesty 4 [A.D. 220]).

St. John Vianney buttresses my argument through his dissertation on lust:

NO SINS, my children, ruin and destroy a soul so quickly as this shameful sin; it snatches us out of the hands of the good God and hurls us like a stone into an abyss of mire and corruption. Once plunged in this mire, we cannot get out, we make a deeper hole in it every day, we sink lower and lower. Then we lose the faith, we laugh at the truths of religion, we no longer see Heaven, we do not fear Hell. O my children! How much are they to be pitied who give way to this passion! How wretched they are! Their soul, which was so beautiful, which attracted the eyes of the good God, over which He leant as one leans over a perfumed rose, has become like a rotten carcass, of which the pestilential door rises even to His throne.

So, it is seen that the concept of a man becoming so depraved with pride and, as a result, the symptoms of homosexuality and willful ignorance that he forfeits his own humanity is not one that is alien to the Church. I say again, these people are damned as a result of their own freely chosen obstinacy in sin, a condition which, by its very nature, eternally bars them from paradise.