How can you change sexual orientation or lose it?

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Are you describing what I’ve seen termed a “covenantal friendship”?

Hi again!

Not knowing what that is or entails, I wouldn’t call it that. My first impression (and given the context of our discussion) is that it sounds a bit euphemistic–a way of being in a romantic relationship without calling it a romantic relationship–so it strikes me as part of a desire to hide something or explain something away rather than call it by its true name. But I don’t know.

My instinct, therefore, is to suggest that the description I’ve provided describes the hypothetical relationship accurately.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[michelleds]

Given that we know that we can tell a tree by its fruit, would it be reasonable of us to assume that the relationship so described should be destroyed if we discover that it is a homosexual relationship? If it is clear that the relationship in which our couple is participating is conducive to real human flourishing (that is, growth in virtue) in a way that is often quite unique to couples in romantic love, does it constitute virtue in us to desire or maintain that the catalyst of virtue in our hypothetical couple (their relationship) be dissolved?

You are calling this a homosexual relationship not because of the activities of either of the persons involved but because each person has a homosexual attraction to the other? I need to understand this before moving on to your other theorems. Also, please explain what you mean by “live out one’s sexual orientation”. thanks

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Grace & Peace!
…
Re: the word chaste, I’ll attempt an explanation shortly, but my use of it was more to evoke a quality of a romantic relationship–a quality which, say, the relationship of two catholic people who are clearly attracted to each other, are dating, in love, but are not sexually consummating their relationship might be said to have. I would, without hesitation, call such a relationship chaste.

I am using chaste here to refer to chastity in continence, such as two dating or engaged people are required to keep and observe. Chaste in my hypothetical couple also refers to the other-oriented nature of their specifically romantic love–passionately desiring each other, they refuse to appropriate each other to themselves, desiring instead to give themselves to each other however they can, seeking to bestow on each other and share with each other whatever Goods they are capable of sharing and bestowing. Again, all while remaining sexually continent.
…
Under the Mercy,
Mark

Hello Mark,

Just jumping in your exchange with Michelle.

Please extend or expound on your meaning of chastity with a homosexual pair who is past the dating stage, i.e., cohabiting and committed to each other. Does it mean to you faithful to each other in their sexual relations?

Thanks,

ISoG

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

You are calling this a homosexual relationship not because of the activities of either of the persons involved but because each person has a homosexual attraction to the other?

Yep!

Also, please explain what you mean by “live out one’s sexual orientation”. thanks

To accept and affirm one’s sexual orientation, integrating it within oneself as a positive aspect of one’s humanity, and recognizing that the desires to which it gives rise can be inappropriately expressed or indulged, but never denying the orientation is meant to be a means of virtue, and that those desires to which it gives rise do have an appropriate expression (such as within the context of the hypothetical relationship that I’ve described).

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Hello Mark,

Just jumping in your exchange with Michelle.

Please extend or expound on your meaning of chastity with a homosexual pair who is past the dating stage, i.e., cohabiting and committed to each other. Does it mean to you faithful to each other in their sexual relations?

Thanks,

ISoG

Hi, InSearch. I hope my response to Michelle above is helpful here, but just to clarify: sexual relations are not posited as part of the hypothetical.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Grace & Peace!

Hi, InSearch. I hope my response to Michelle above is helpful here, but just to clarify: sexual relations are not posited as part of the hypothetical.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Sorry for the lack of clarity. Question: if the hypothetical were to be extended to a homosexual couple past the dating stage, in the cohabiting phase, how would chastity apply or your meaning of it?

ISoG

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Sorry for the lack of clarity. Question: if the hypothetical were to be extended to a homosexual couple past the dating stage, in the cohabiting phase, how would chastity apply or your meaning of it?

ISoG

Hi again–I don’t know that we need to extend it for the purposes of discussion, but supposing we did, I don’t think the meaning or application would necessarily need to change. The possibility of the couple’s co-habitation is little more (but certainly no less) than a possibility that they would choose to share their lives more completely while still not engaging in sexual relations. But co-habitation is not a part of the scenario as given, so…

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[michelleds]

Grace & Peace!

Hi again–I don’t know that we need to extend it for the purposes of discussion, but supposing we did, I don’t think the meaning or application would necessarily need to change. The possibility of the couple’s co-habitation is little more (but certainly no less) than a possibility that they would choose to share their lives more completely while still not engaging in sexual relations. But co-habitation is not a part of the scenario as given, so…

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Mark, I sometimes feel so easily confused in dialoguing with you. my fault entirely, i’m sure.

Here’s my 2 cents, based on how I understand the hypothetical. these two people are not in a homosexual relationship, they are in a friendship. a homosexual orientation is disordered, and as such, is not to be integrated, embraced, celebrated, and/or affirmed.

I DO AGREE that homosexual orientation or attraction can definitely be source of virtue, as any cross is. 2 cor 12:7: “So to keep me from becoming conceited because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to harass me, to keep me from becoming conceited.”

I ALSO AGREE that friendship, such as the one in the hypothetical, can be a source of virtue and growth.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Michelle, your response is very illuminating, though, to be honest, frustrating!

Here’s my 2 cents, based on how I understand the hypothetical. these two people are not in a homosexual relationship, they are in a friendship.

Would you feel comfortable saying something analogous if the couple were heterosexual–that despite all appearance to the contrary that they were not in a romantic relationship, they were just friends?

a homosexual orientation is disordered, and as such, is not to be integrated, embraced, celebrated, and/or affirmed.

I understand this is the party line that needs to be affirmed, but it strikes me as a bit hollow–the hypothetical I mentioned is a kind of relationship I’ve seen in many homosexual couples. The clear evidence is that their relationship is productive of virtue, and that it is because they are homosexual and attracted to each other that these people are in this relationship to begin with. In order to affirm the party line, one either has to deny the clear evidence of virtue (which is to deny the good!), or must claim that the romantic nature of their relationship has nothing to do with the virtue in evidence, which amounts to a clear denial of the facts.

What I hear you saying is: some sources of virtue must never be recognized as such, not because they’re not actually sources of virtue, but because they cannot be admitted to be sources of virtue. We must first call them by another name in order to begin to recognize the virtues to which they give rise.

An analagous situation, it seems to me, would be if I were to deny the existence of black cats. Say, knowing my denial, you showed me a black cat. My response? “I acknowledge that what you’ve shown me is a darkly colored animal that looks like a cat. It may in fact be a cat–if it is, it’s not a black cat. Black cats don’t exits. This is a very deep navy blue cat.”

I DO AGREE that homosexual orientation or attraction can definitely be source of virtue, as any cross is.

If such a relationship as the hypothetical is possible (and I’ve seen it and know that it is), then a homosexual orientation can be a source of virtue in it’s living out (as I’ve described). In fact, if such a relationship is possible (and I know that it is), then denying the possibility of a homosexual orientation as a source of virtue in the orientation’s affirmation amounts to an actual oppression of the good and a hindrance to the work of grace in fostering that good.

It is odd to me that virtue and its springs can be so lightly regarded in favor of the party line.

We can affirm that we know a tree by its fruit, but it seems that sometimes, if a tree, against all expectation, produces good fruit, we have to judge the tree according to our expectation, not according to the fruit it produces. We can know a tree by its fruit…except in those instances in which we already suspect we know the sort of fruit a tree can produce, regardless of whether or not we’ve seen the tree produce any fruit at all. In such cases, it’s best to stick to knowing what we suspect rather than letting the tree show us. In fact, it’s probably best to uproot the tree altogether.

I ALSO AGREE that friendship, such as the one in the hypothetical, can be a source of virtue and growth.

Again, if the relationship in the hypothetical were a heterosexual one, would you be comfortable calling it just a friendship? Granted, friendship is a powerful thing, but however much I may acknowledge that my friends are attractive, I’m not interested in pursuing a relationship such as that described in the hypothetical with them, nor, however much I fiercely love them, do I generally love them with a romantic love. That would be quite awkward and intensely unfulfilling for all involved.

Thanks again for your response, Michelle! It lets me see ever-so-slightly more clearly where you’re coming from.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Elizabeth502]

I see that Deo Volente is back to his familiar story of truth, virtue, and goodness being defined subjectively. Won’t work, Mark… Catholicism is not going to reconstruct itself based on however you privately define your relationships and supposedly similar relationships which you want us to take your word for, because Catholicism’s definitions of truth, goodness, and virtue are not limited to experiential reflection. Or, as I believe I said in another thread long ago, Catholic phenomenology has its value, but not as the compass for discerning truth and goodness. Private experience, colored as it is with our convenient rationalizations and distortions, is not True North in Catholicism. It may be in your Anglican religious definitions, or in some private morality you have created, but none of that applies to Roman Catholicism.

And all this talk of “fruit”…
the part that is still your subjective coloration on it is your declaration that the eroticizing of a friendship with someone of the same sex is the aspect that transforms it beyond noble friendship to something categorically higher. In point of fact, it is quite the opposite in Catholicism: the sexualizing of that friendship compromises the goodness of it. No protestations about “fruit” can change that fact. It is merely your theory that an erotic friendship is spiritually elevated, by definition, above that of a non-erotic friendship, based on your insistence that Roman Catholicism accept a worldview of sexual relationships which our Church, based on an interconnected theology, opposes, and defines as disordered.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Good morning, Elizabeth! I’ll chalk up your continued mis-characterization of my position as a function of the early morning hour rather than a deliberate mischief on your part. But maybe I can clear things up for you?

I see that Deo Volente is back to his familiar story of truth, virtue, and goodness being defined subjectively.

You’ll notice that I didn’t once define any of those terms subjectively. If I recognize self-giving in one person, recognizing it another person, even in a person from which I do not expect such behavior, is not an act of subjectivity. What is subjectivity, however, is to refuse to recognize the self-giving in the one from whom I didn’t expect it simply because I didn’t expect it from him.

…Catholicism’s definitions of truth, goodness, and virtue are not limited to experiential reflection.

Nor should they be limited to experiential reflection, but certainly such reflection is included in Roman Catholicism’s understanding of the world. It’s only reasonable to assume such a thing. Moreover, a virtue that cannot be experienced might as well not exist. Surely that’s only reasonable. Is it your argument, against the majority of evidence, that Roman Catholicism is fundamentally unreasonable?

Private experience, colored as it is with our convenient rationalizations and distortions, is not True North in Catholicism.

Of course our subjective experience is not the sine qua non of truth, but certainly it figures quite significantly in our recognition of it? How can we recognize a truth we cannot know or experience?

And all this talk of “fruit”…

To be honest, I didn’t expect such a comment from you Elizabeth. It’s a bit disappointing, but certainly revelatory of your true position here.

the part that is still your subjective coloration on it is your declaration that the eroticizing of a friendship with someone of the same sex is the aspect that transforms it beyond noble friendship to something categorically higher.

I never made such a declaration. I am simply doing this: recognizing that different things are different. There is a qualitative difference between a friendship, however noble, and a romantic relationship. I am not saying that the one is better than the other–never have I said so. I have only ever argued that they are different, one from the other, in important ways.

Moreover, you seem to suggest that I believe that romantic relationships are formed when people decide amongst themselves: “hey, you know what’d be great? If we eroticize this friendship.” If you read my recent response to Michelle, you will discover that I do not believe this in the least. Surely I don’t need to tell you that most romantic relationships begin with two people discovering that they are attracted to each other and noticing a qualitative change in whatever relationship they may already have. Whether or not they pursue the romantic relationship is further determined by a number of other factors such as mutuality of feeling. But it goes without saying that pursuing such a relationship may not be the best course of action under every circumstance. It also goes without saying that in some circumstances, pursuing this course of action can allow us to flourish in ways that common friendships do not. Again, does that mean that a romantic relationship is a step above a common friendship? No. It just means this simple truth: they are qualitatively different.

the sexualizing of that friendship compromises the goodness of it.

It can, certainly (I say as much immediately above). I hope, be the way, that you impart this advice to every dating couple or every couple who might consider dating that you may come across.

[CONTINUED…]

 

[Deo_Volente]

…CONTINUED AND COMPLETED]

It is merely your theory that an erotic friendship is spiritually elevated, by definition, above that of a non-erotic friendship,

No, Elizabeth. That’s your continued mis-characterization of my position. A romantic relationship is not necessarily more spiritually elevated than a common friendship–in fact, it may be particularly debauched. But do you know how we can tell whether or not the romantic relationship is virtuous or debauched? Well, you won’t like the answer, but I’ll tell it to you anyway: we can tell a tree by its fruit. What fruit does the relationship produce? Does it produce love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control? Whether or not the relationship under consideration is a common friendship, an uncommon friendship, a noble friendship, or a romantic relationship, the production of these fruits will certainly indicate the relationship’s quality, as well as whether or not the relationship as it stands is capable of producing virtue. And if a homosexual romantic relationship produces such fruit, then are we not bound to conclude that such a relationship is capable of virtue?

Why don’t you consider looking at the hypothetical as presented above and elaborated upon in subsequent posts? Here are the salient features:

1–There is a couple.
2–The couple is in a chaste romantic relationship (see my explication of the word “chaste” in my post to Michelle above if it’s use here is confusing to you).
3–People notice that the couple is increasing in virtue by virtue of their relationship together.

I’ll restate my original questions as well so you don’t have to go hunting for them: would it be reasonable of us to assume that the relationship so described should be destroyed if we discover that it is a homosexual relationship? If it is clear that the relationship in which our couple is participating is conducive to real human flourishing (that is, growth in virtue) in a way that is often quite unique to couples in romantic love, does it constitute virtue in us to desire or maintain that the catalyst of virtue in our hypothetical couple (their relationship) be dissolved?

And here I would add an additional question: in order to actually recognize the virtue in the relationship, must we engage in a bit of subterfuge by not recognizing what it factually is (a chaste romantic relationship) and insist on calling it by some euphemistic name instead? Or must we insist, against all reason and evidence, that the presence of virtue in this chaste relationship is despite the romantic nature of the relationship?

I’m not, by the way, insisting that Roman Catholicism accept a worldview apart from its very own. Because I’m insisting that it recognize virtue when it sees it, even when it discovers it in a place it didn’t expect to find it. It is at least the difference between saying, “We know where the Spirit is working–but we would not dare to say where the Spirit is not working,” and saying, “Despite the evidence of virtue, there is no goodness at work here–I deny the work of the Spirit here.” The former is loving humility, the latter may very well be blasphemy.

It seems clear to me that denying the possibility that homosexual romantic relationships can produce virtue is part of claiming the safety of keeping to the purity of a moral party line. It seems that observing the letter but not the spirit of the law is the order of the day.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[michelleds]

Would you feel comfortable saying something analogous if the couple were heterosexual–that despite all appearance to the contrary that they were not in a romantic relationship, they were just friends?

The problem with this question is the underpinnings of your theory. The Catholic Church teaches that homosexuality is a disorder. Heterosexuality is the norm so to attempt to paint me into a corner by creating an analogy between homosexual and heterosexual relationships won’t work. It’s comparing an arm and a tree branch.

Homosexuality is cross to bear and as such can be a source of virtue; however, I sense that you want to leave out the first part of that equation. You just want homosexuality to be seen as a source of virtue without the burden, and it cannot be. From other posts and PMs that we’ve shared, I believe that you believe that being gay is special, even extra-special, and that God wants you to live out your gayness. That is diametrically opposed to the history of civilization, Natural Law, and the Catholic Church.

Your theory is that the romantic nature of their homosexual relationship is productive of virtue. My belief is that any virtue is in spite of the romantic nature. The ends do not justify the means. The Catechism teaches that you cannot perform an evil so that a good will result.

If I was approached by two friends such as you describe in the hypothetical, I would advise them to focus on Christ and seek holiness. Focusing on their sexual desires for one another is narcissistic and creating a near occasion of sin. I would advise them to seek a holy friendship, not one of frustration and sublimation—which is what you appear to be creating with this idea.

If you are referring to the “bed-death” relationships when you say that you know many homosexual couples in such a relationship as the hypothetical, then I would argue that those couples are not choosing to not act on their homosexual feelings out of respect for God but because their desire has ebbed. That’s a little different, isn’t it?

Let’s boil this down, shall we? You refuse to accept the Biblical teaching that active homosexuality is a sin. Period. All the rest is just lipstick on a pig.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Mark,
Through and through, what a person does with his life (daily behavior) affects the sum total of his virtue. This is a very, very scriptural concept and deeply rooted in Judaism and embraced by Jesus. As individuals we are whole people. The concept of Shalom – which is not just “peace” but peacefulness which has God at the center – is in Hebrew scripture tied in with a consistent and objectively harmonious wholeness. The Moral Law (something objective) was seen as an objective pathway to that wholeness, and (again) is something that Jesus was quite clear about in Matthew 5. If I compromise, toxify, disorder one aspect of my behavior or set of behaviors, I have restricted my ability to walk in virtue, and I am not “one” with God.

You use subjective perception to re-orient the moral universe based on impression and good feeling. There is no objective reference point for your statements. They are just relativism dressed up as absolutism. And we all suffer from this because of our susceptibility to clever manipulation by The Evil One. He is very skilled at masquerading evil as goodness, ugliness as beauty, unhealthiness as health. Our very isolation from sources outside ourselves has a tendency to magnify this. What makes the Devil uncomfortable is for us to rely on anyone but ourselves to verify or question our behavior.

We see this everywhere in the 20th and 21st centuries: Up is down and down is up. To rationalize any choice of behaviors (or any attractions), what is objectively an evil (situation or behavior), or even objectively less good, is couched in language that redefines it as superior to The Good. Thus, from the epidemic of broken homes in the United States and the objectively inferior circumstances of single motherhood, we were treated to all kinds of language which successfully transformed a compensation or adjustment into a preferred lifestyle. (Who needs men?) Single mothers, beyond being commended when they were/have been able to adjust with equanimity, have been lionized as The Norm in many quarters, with defensiveness and condemnation offered to anyone who dared suggest that the traditional nuclear family is, should be, still the preferential arrangement for the full development of the human person.

It has happened also with regard to prostitution and to illicit (recreational) drug use. Now, ‘the (supposedly) virtuous prostitute’ is both a Type (in art) and an observed phenomenon (externally and superficially). She may be kind, “have a heart of gold,” display any number of Christian and human virtues such as generosity, resilience, etc. But to call her “a virtuous person,” as if those characteristics radically transform her essential sinfulness, is to ignore The Elephant in the Room. And all kinds of “nice” people with ostensibly normal lives, while addicted to cocaine or other drugs, have also been held up as some kind of proof that drug use is “harmless,” is a “victimless” crime, etc. Except that The Victim, in both prostitution and drug use, is (at minimum) The Self. It doesn’t matter how many others weigh in on their {positive} “experience” with the prostitute and the drug user, their observed “virtue.” In both cases, these lives remain essentially, at their core, morally compromised.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

The problem with this question is the underpinnings of your theory. The Catholic Church teaches that homosexuality is a disorder.

Michelle, if it is true that it is a disorder, then we should be able to observe that it is incapable of producing or fostering virtue in any who accept or affirm it as part of themselves–indeed, we should be able to observe that such acceptance and affirmation is inevitably and always productive of vice. If we cannot make this observation, or if we honestly observe the opposite, then it is reasonable to conclude that our original judgment that homosexuality is disordered is flawed. Any other course of action would be unreasonable at the very least.

Any other response I may have to your post (including a response to your pig comment) would be a re-capitulation of my recent comments to Elizabeth. I refer you to them.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[michelleds]

Grace & Peace!

Michelle, if it is true that it is a disorder, then we should be able to observe that it is incapable of producing or fostering virtue in any who accept or affirm it as part of themselves–indeed, we should be able to observe that such acceptance and affirmation is inevitably and always productive of vice. If we cannot make this observation, or if we honestly observe the opposite, then it is reasonable to conclude that our original judgment that homosexuality is disordered is flawed. Any other course of action would be unreasonable at the very least.

Any other response I may have to your post (including a response to your pig comment) would be a re-capitulation of my recent comments to Elizabeth. I refer you to them.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

I believe that active homosexuality which would include accepting and embracing one’s homosexual orientation is NOT capable of producing or fostering virtue.

Please tell me how you can disprove such a belief. You are trying to say that because gay people have virtue(s) that they are therefore virtuous because of being gay. That is without reason or evidence. an alcoholic can be virtuous but the alcoholism does not produce the virtue. a child abuser could be have the virtue of charity outside the home, but that virtue is not produced or fostered by the sin.

You are drawing a correlation that does not exist.

 

[Catholic80]

I’ve been reading some of your debates, and so I felt compelled to throw in something a little different, and personal.

I too suffer from a homosexual attraction, yet have never engaged in any sexual activity, male or female.

I am convinced that my disordered desires are 100% environmental because I grew up in a dysfunctional family and have had issues since I was a small child.

My mother has borderline personality disorder (and possibly bi-polar). She was very controlling and manipulative growing up, and I idolized her.
She made me believe my dad was a horrible father. The minute he would come home, she would start screaming at him for something, he would try to hide, and she would chase him still screaming until he would loose his temper and push her or break something. My mom would then come to my sister and my room crying and say how abusive and terrible my dad was and how we had to pray for him.
I believed her for YEARS. And my father didn’t show us any different as he tried to stay at work as long as possible to avoid coming home, and he showed me almost no affection growing up.
My mother also sought out the affection she was missing in her marriage mainly from me and not my sister so much. I felt like my mom’s rescuer up until my early 20’s, and was often saving her from her dramas and giving her affection and comfort in these low points. In short, our relationship was disturbed and enmeshed. To give a concrete example, since I have “broken off” with my mom, she has tried numerous ways to get me back under her control. A few months ago, I got an email from her with one sentence, “Are we back in love again, my precious?” Talk about sick!

Anyway, I grew up hating my father and always feeling very uncomfortable around men. My father has a sexual addiction as well, so I don’t know if I could sense it or something as a child. I literally hated most men as a small child.
My mom used to also tell me that men easily tempted by women, and so it would be a huge sin if I were to dress immodestly and tempt a man. But I took this to the extreme as I used to dress very frumpy. I also wasn’t allowed to play dress up or makeup as a child because my mom thought that it would make me vain, nor was I allowed to look at fashion magazines.

Anyway, why am I sharing this? Because I too struggle with trying to understand now as an adult why I am attracted to women. And I realized it is not just any woman, but women who are of a nurturing, affectionate, mother-type. I actually will become aroused at the touch of someone who is nurturing, and my only conclusion is it is because I long so much for the mother I never had. And this is not to say I haven’t been attracted to men either. But I am so afraid of them, that my body becomes extremely tense around them and I start to panic when there is any attraction whatsoever.

So long story short, I did not “choose” to have these feelings, but I have chosen not to, and never to act on them, and yes, it is a HUGE suffering that no one can understand if you have not experienced it. Just like any phobia, fear, attraction or desire, one cannot force themselves to get rid of the feelings, and actually, from my experience, the more I try to force myself NOT to have them, the worse they get. My conclusion to this is because I am focusing on the sin, as St. Therese says, rather than on the good.

I do not blame God even though I wish things were different. And I often fall into the self-hating, self-harm modes when I want to be rid of it.

But from all of this, I have come to the conclusion that the only way out of my misery is to keep ALL of my focus on Christ. I hope this may have helped with understanding your friend a little better.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

You use subjective perception to re-orient the moral universe based on impression and good feeling. There is no objective reference point for your statements.

As I stated above, the criteria is the production of virtue, the fruits of the Spirit. That is my reference point. I never once mentioned good feeling. You will see that my posts have been consistent in this regard.

Are you saying that we can never actually recognize virtue, the fruits of the Spirit, when we experience them? Are you saying that we cannot actually tell the difference between gentleness and wrath, for instance, or joy and sorrow, love and apathy? That we actually have no capacity to observe or experience virtue as virtue if and when we observe or experience it? If that is indeed your point, then I would wonder if you have not chosen to come to the conclusion (against Catholic teaching, mind you) that the good is entirely alien to us and that we have no capacity whatsoever to apprehend it or receive it. This seems to me to be a moral application of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle which smacks more of a relativising tendency than the simple statement that we actually can know, receive, and recognize virtue–and that this ability is most certainly due to the grace of God does not mean that it is not we who are actually knowing, receiving and recognizing that virtue. Otherwise, grace is merely forensic and never actually truly reforming or sanctifying.

We see this everywhere in the 20th and 21st centuries:…]

I agree with much of your criticism of the times in which we live. I’ve written elsewhere that the liberalization of social values in the '60’s and the liberalization of the economy in the '70’s to which it led have decimated our common life together by evacuating any notion of a fundamental or enduring value from the socio-economic sphere. But that this situation should lead us to entrench ourselves in a party line which cannot admit a demonstration of goodness or virtue from any quarter from which it is not expected leads me to believe that even in those communities which claim to uphold the good, a real, living morality has been decimated in favor of a paper morality which ensures that we’re always “right” while denying our ability to recognize the good when it comes to us.

It has happened also with regard to prostitution and to illicit (recreational) drug use. Now, ‘the (supposedly) virtuous prostitute’ is both a Type (in art) and an observed phenomenon (externally and superficially). She may be kind, “have a heart of gold,” display any number of Christian and human virtues such as generosity, resilience, etc. But to call her “a virtuous person,” as if those characteristics radically transform her essential sinfulness, is to ignore The Elephant in the Room. And all kinds of “nice” people with ostensibly normal lives, while addicted to cocaine or other drugs, have also been held up as some kind of proof that drug use is “harmless,” is a “victimless” crime, etc. Except that The Victim, in both prostitution and drug use, is (at minimum) The Self. It doesn’t matter how many others weigh in on their {positive} “experience” with the prostitute and the drug user, their observed “virtue.” In both cases, these lives remain essentially, at their core, morally compromised.

The hooker with a heart of gold is an interesting example. Where it doesn’t hold up in its comparison to a homosexual orientation, however (which I feel is where you’re going with this), is that the orientation constitutes a homosexual’s sexuality and as such is an important part of who they are as human beings–it is wrapped up in the nature of their humanity. A prostitutes virtue is a function of their humanity, not their occupation, just as a banker’s virtue (insofar as they have any to speak of), is a function of their humanity, not their job. A homosexual’s sexual orientation is not their job, but a part of their humanity.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

I believe that active homosexuality which would include accepting and embracing one’s homosexual orientation is NOT capable of producing or fostering virtue.

Please tell me how you can disprove such a belief.

You can affirm or disprove such a belief by observing whether or not two homosexuals in a romantic relationship are increasing in virtue and are flourishing as human beings on account of the nature of the relationship. Are they demonstrably better human beings for being in relationship, or are they demonstrably much worse off? Very simple.

If a homosexual romantic relationship is incapable of producing or fostering virtue, it should be demonstrably clear that all who are in such a relationship are debauched and that the relationship represents a demonstrably clear obstacle to the expression of virtue. Two otherwise lovely people in such a relationship should be suffering in it (decrease in virtue, decrease in the fruits of the Spirit), and it should be demonstrably clear that they are suffering. Such suffering would be a clear indication that it is the nature of the relationship that is destroying the people in it. And it should be demonstrably clear that all such relationships produce identical results in order to maintain the belief that homosexuality is disordered.

It really is very simple.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Elizabeth502]

If a homosexual romantic relationship is incapable of producing or fostering virtue, it should be demonstrably clear that all who are in such a relationship are debauched and that the relationship represents a demonstrably clear obstacle to the expression of virtue.

Any disordered lifestyle (not limited only to homosexual bheavior) presents

a demonstrably clear obstacle to the expression of virtue.

…when considered comprehensively. The person is essentially compromised; their full expression of personhood is essentially compromised, regardless of appearances and what else is “demonstrable” about the person. I’ve explained earlier how integrated the notion of the human person is in Catholic thought (corresponding to the natural order). The dis-integrated person does not become integrated by the retroactive intellectual application of “virtue” to an essentially dis-ordered life.

Two otherwise lovely people in such a relationship should be suffering in it (decrease in virtue, decrease in the fruits of the Spirit), and it should be demonstrably clear that they are suffering.

Suffering, and certainly moral disease, are not “demonstrably clear” (necessarily) externally. Again, this is something that Jesus also affirmed, and something which the Roman Church has incorporated into its theology of dis-ease and the interior suffering which is invisible but real, and the fruit of a corrupted lifestyle (of any kind).

Such **[not always visible] **suffering -]would be/-] [is] a clear indication that it is the nature of the relationship that is destroying the people in it.

It really is very simple.

You bet.

You don’t have to accept all this, Mark, but you are not at liberty to reinterpret the teachings of the Roman Church according to your “personal experience” (which is subjective, not objective). No matter how many supposed witnesses you obtain to verify your “personal experience,” it remains a subjective worldview that is not consonant with Moral Law as abundantly explicated in scripture and through the lives and writings of the Saints. You keep saying you’re not trying to change the Catechism, but your words demonstrate quite the opposite.