T
turboEDvo
Guest
Homosexuals need to not engage in sex, just as like alcoholics must stay away from alcohol. They may still like and want it, but they don’t have it. It’s all about how you deal with it.
Eamon
Eamon
i know all kinds of “homosexuals”. they come in all varieties. “most” don’t have sex with women prior to having sex with men. but i don’t know what “most” is. that is more common with women though. discussing “the homosexual problem” is a lot like discussing “the homeless problem”. people can sit and talk a whole a lot about causes and solutions, but meanwhile, there are still people dying on the street. trying to categorize what’s contributing to the messed up condition of society isn’t going to change the actions of people. the media devil, the entertainment devil, etc. don’t make a person have sex with someone. yes there are influences that we would do well to remove, but the situation is much more complicated than that. if you are asking if all these things ruin perfectly good “heterosexuals”, the answer is “no”.Just curious if you know how many “homosexuals” had sexual relationships with the opposite sex either before or during their homosexual days? My experience has been that most homosexuals were heterosexual or at least had normal heterosexual relationships with the opposite sex before deciding their ‘true nature’ was as homosexual…this being helped in no small part by a very strong homosexual lobby that has invaded the media, schools, and entertainment industry. IOW I think that some people feel very validated and rewarded by orienting toward the homosexual world, particularly if they felt marginalized or put upon. It may appear dangerous, glamorous, or exciting. Think about it, that’s what attracts people to other very dangerous behaviors including drugs, smoking, driving too fast.
a person need not “totally” identify with their sexual preference to make change difficult. men and women who march in parades, etc. are not the average. don’t let that skew your view. oversimplifying the idea of change makes change difficult or impossible. in the subjectivity of the people who have to do the changing, they are their behavior. convince them otherwise in a Christlike way, and you might be able to convince them of other things as well.I think too often, maybe because of the homosexual lobby, people so totally identify with their current genital practices that they see themselves as a homosexual first, thereby making it even harder to change. People are NOT their behavior. I wish we could make that point better but I know it’s too easy to call someone a homosexual or a drunk or a pedophile. I do it all the time without thinking about it.
well, if you say so. but you can’t tell by looking.Frankly with few exceptions, the people on these boards are not engaged in ‘bashing.’ However they do not back down when homosexuals try to defend their behavior, claim homosexuality is perfectly normal, claim homosexual relationships are equivalent to male/female sacramental marriage, or ignore the incredible damage inflicted by predatory homosexuals on the Church as well as on many individuals.
Indeed some people probably speak very strongly but I would say that is the exception. Please correct me with examples as you may consider statements “bashing” when my interpretation is that they are simply truthful and forthright.
A) Thanks for the info. on the Catechism. I need to buy the final copy.Not it doesn’t. CCC#2333 reads as follows:
Everyone, man and woman, should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity. Physical, moral, and spiritual *difference *and *complementarity *are oriented toward the goods of marriage and the flourishing of family life. The harmony of the couple and of society depends in part on the way in which the complementarity, needs, and mutual support between the sexes are lived out.
It doesn’t include anything like the sentence you quoted. But in the first non-definitive edition of the Catechism in #2358, the sentence you quoted was present. But this sentence was excised in the second, definitive edition and is replaced with this sentence:
“This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial.”
You can read all the changes made in the 2nd edition from the 1st edition here:
scborromeo.org/ccc/updates.htm
And be careful when looking at a website online to check that it is the 2nd edition and not the 1st. And be especially wary of www.christusrex.org as their online catechism mixes and matches the 2nd and 1st editions.
But they do choose it if by ignoring therapy that is viable they choose to remain in that state. Whether or not they initially chose to be in that emotionally disordered state, by disregarding therapy that works and isn’t costly, they would then be choosing to remain in it.
Right, and having this homosexual disorder can be an occasion of sin, in which case you are obliged to “avoid” it if feasible. Getting rid of it is a way to “avoid” it.
If one can get rid of these temptations and these temptations are an occasion of sin, then one has an obligation to get rid of the temptations if that is feasible. Saying that temptations are inevitable is no excuse since these particular temptations are not inevitable if there is indeed effective therapy that can get rid of them. If this effective therapy is not costly and one chooses to not use it then one is choosing to keep one’s self in an occasion of sin.
There’s no special rule. Same thing would apply to any condition that is a near occasion of sin.
You seem to be speculating here. Nicolosi and other researchers including Spitzer (the person who was the impetus behind declassifying homosexuality as a disorder in the DSM) have found that 30% of subjects undergoing reparative therapy are completely successful in reversing their sexual inclinations and another 30% or so are moderately successful. It seems to be a question of motivation - does the subject really want to change and if they do they have to work real hard because the sexual desire for a same-sex individual has probably been conditioned for many years. I’m a behavior analyst and know all too well the power of behavioral conditioning especially something as reinforcing as sexual desire.I think that testimonials by former male homosexuals saying, “I was a practicing homosexual! But, now I’m a happily married heterosexual!,” are self-delusion by mostly heterosexual bi-sexuals. They really aren’t good precedent for the concept that homosexual inclinations are changeable.
I think that homosexual inclinations are the product of substantially permanent imprinting, and that cultivation of social pressure upon homosexuals to subject themselves to “conversion therapy,” based on a philosophy that homosexuality is changeable, rather than on a philsophy that God requires only that they be celibate, is itself sinful.
It’s absolutely true that just because one is tempted that that doesn’t mean one has sinned. I agree 100% with that. But if one needlessly exposes one’s self to temptation, then that does mean one has sinned.B) I still don’t think their souls are in danger if they don’t seek therapy. The Church doesn’t say this and I doubt she will. A temptation is different than a sin. Just because one is tempted doesn’t mean one has sinned.
If they can effectively deal with it through those means, then I think it may still be a sin for different reasons. If the therapy works and is not costly then rejecting the therapy is rejecting the way God made you. It would be choosing to be an unhealthy person. That’s not what God wants. He wants us to be healthy – physically, emotionally, mentally and spiritually healthy.C) I’ve known people who have conquered it through continence, prayer, recourse to the Sacraments, and sacrificial living. Therapy may work, but it cannot be laid on people as a requirement for salvation.
Amen.C) I’ve known people who have conquered it through continence, prayer, recourse to the Sacraments, and sacrificial living. Therapy may work, but it cannot be laid on people as a requirement for salvation.
well, as long as it stays a sin. if they’re sinners for doing it, make 'em stop. when they stop, make 'em sinners again. don’t you worry, we got plenty of sins, no matter what!If they can effectively deal with it through those means, then I think it may still be a sin for different reasons. If the therapy works and is not costly then rejecting the therapy is rejecting the way God made you. It would be choosing to be an unhealthy person. That’s not what God wants. He wants us to be healthy – physically, emotionally, mentally and spiritually healthy.
And that’s great. 1/3 totally cured and 1/3 with a significantly diminished problem is pretty fantastic (if only we did that well with actual physial diseases). 1/3 not making any progress isn’t that bad statistically. But what we’re talking about is the final state of their souls. I don’t think we can say that the 1/3 who experience diminished problems (implying that they might still have some) or the 1/3 who experiences no relief are in danger of damnation unless they are acting out, ie, sodomy, solitary sin, etc. If they are (and I cannot help, but use this turn of phrase) carrying their cross and following Christ, praying for constant conversion, turning to Him in moments of temptation, and esp. rec. His Most Precious Body and Blood, I don’t think they’re lost, nor do I think the Church will ever say they are. We don’t send people to therapists as a condition for absolution and absolution is what forgives us (though God may choose to act outside His Sacraments). If reparative therapy works, great. Better for the world and all in it. I just think what is being suggested by some here is very bad theology.You seem to be speculating here. Nicolosi and other researchers including Spitzer (the person who was the impetus behind declassifying homosexuality as a disorder in the DSM) have found that 30% of subjects undergoing reparative therapy are completely successful in reversing their sexual inclinations and another 30% or so are moderately successful. It seems to be a question of motivation - does the subject really want to change and if they do they have to work real hard because the sexual desire for a same-sex individual has probably been conditioned for many years. I’m a behavior analyst and know all too well the power of behavioral conditioning especially something as reinforcing as sexual desire.
Neil Whitehead says that only 5% of people with same-sex attractions have biological pre-dispositions to become homosexual - the rest is caused by a constellation of environmental events.
Riley, I have long believed homosexuality is MUCH like drug or alcohol addiction. Having worked with several social sevices agencies I’ve seen the same thing, treatment works ONLY when the person is motivated to change. As long as the ‘reward’ of the abnormal behavior is perceived to be greater than the reward of sobriety, treatment will be relatively ineffective.You seem to be speculating here. Nicolosi and other researchers including Spitzer (the person who was the impetus behind declassifying homosexuality as a disorder in the DSM) have found that 30% of subjects undergoing reparative therapy are completely successful in reversing their sexual inclinations and another 30% or so are moderately successful. It seems to be a question of motivation - does the subject really want to change and if they do they have to work real hard because the sexual desire for a same-sex individual has probably been conditioned for many years. I’m a behavior analyst and know all too well the power of behavioral conditioning especially something as reinforcing as sexual desire.
Neil Whitehead says that only 5% of people with same-sex attractions have biological pre-dispositions to become homosexual - the rest is caused by a constellation of environmental events.
It’s absolutely true that just because one is tempted that that doesn’t mean one has sinned. I agree 100% with that. But if one needlessly exposes one’s self to temptation, then that does mean one has sinned.*** Only by an exterior act or by an interior act (thought) that is ENTERTAINED and ENCOURAGED.***
To not get therapy is not the same.
If they can effectively deal with it through those means, then I think it may still be a sin for different reasons. ***Then why use the word “effectively?” You have set a course that the Church has not set forth and I do not believe that She ever will.***QUOTE]
I quite simply disagree with this and I think the Church can be found to as well.
JKirkLVNV said:Only by an exterior act or by an interior act (thought) that is ENTERTAINED and ENCOURAGED.
To not get therapy is not the same.
Then why use the word “effectively?!?”
tuopaolo said:JKirkLVNV,
It looks like I maybe misunderstood what you meant by “conquered it …” I thought you were just speaking of being able to effectively resist temptations. Maybe you were instead speaking of getting rid of one’s homosexual inclination altogether. If so then I apologize. If someone finds an alternate way to get rid of one’s homosexual inclination then they would not, obviously, need to seek therapy to get rid of something that doesn’t anymore exist.
Not getting into the sin issue, but questioning your logic. Even if reparative treatment does not have a 100% success rate (nor do most treatments of physical illnesses FWIW) does that excuse not TRYING to obtain that diminishment of desire, if available? IOW if you go into therapy with sincere desire to change the inclination, even if you fail, at least you’ve tried. I see this as similar to repenting of another kind of sin, and while you might stumble along the way, a sincere effort has some value doesn’t it?I asked because of what you said several posts back, that even if they were dealing with it effectively, it would be a sin for other reasons! Dealing with it effectively would mean there wasn’t a problem! Yes, I’m aware of the sins of omission. I fail to see how not going to reparative therapy is one. I think the Church would fail to see it as well, esp.inasmuch as there is that 1/3 who experience a diminishment (again implying that they have some trouble) in reparative therapy and the 1/3 who experience no diminishment at all.
Lisa: That’s all I was addressing: the issue of culpability. I’ve no problem with the concept of reparative therapy, because I tend to lean toward the environmental origin, though I haven’t ruled anything out. Sort of the “sins of the fathers shall be visited on the children” thing, in my view, not in any juridicial way, but in a natural consequence kind of way. This can still mean they don’t choose the orientation, but may unfortunately choose the activity, by the way. And if people can control (diminish, deal with, etc.) or even eliminate completely the desire, either is good, as far as the soul’s state before God goes, IMHO. But even if it’s a struggle to their death bed, and they never give into it, but only faithfully suffer from it, offering up that struggle to the One Who died for us all, then I believe they are rec. by God in His Mercy. You spoke of sincere effort: the folks I spoke of are making that.Not getting into the sin issue, but questioning your logic. Even if reparative treatment does not have a 100% success rate (nor do most treatments of physical illnesses FWIW) does that excuse not TRYING to obtain that diminishment of desire, if available? IOW if you go into therapy with sincere desire to change the inclination, even if you fail, at least you’ve tried. I see this as similar to repenting of another kind of sin, and while you might stumble along the way, a sincere effort has some value doesn’t it?
Lisa N (not trying to split hairs just understand your point)
To the best of my knowledge, your experts’ perspectives are at war with one another.You seem to be speculating here. Nicolosi and other researchers including Spitzer (the person who was the impetus behind declassifying homosexuality as a disorder in the DSM) have found that 30% of subjects undergoing reparative therapy are completely successful in reversing their sexual inclinations and another 30% or so are moderately successful. It seems to be a question of motivation - does the subject really want to change and if they do they have to work real hard because the sexual desire for a same-sex individual has probably been conditioned for many years. I’m a behavior analyst and know all too well the power of behavioral conditioning especially something as reinforcing as sexual desire.
Neil Whitehead says that only 5% of people with same-sex attractions have biological pre-dispositions to become homosexual - the rest is caused by a constellation of environmental events.
Good heavens, identify a potential homosexual before age FOUR? Is this real? How in the world could you so identify a tiny child? Children are sexual beings but I hardly see them as having sexual orientation identified when barely out of diapers. What gives here?To the best of my knowledge, your experts’ perspectives are at war with one another.
As far as I know, Dr. Nicolosi is currently teaching my perspective, that male homosexual imprinting is permanent, and can’t be changed, but can only be averted if the prospective male homosexual is identified as such and his family subjected to appropriate conditioning if this is all done before imprinting occurs at around age 4.
Dr. Nicolosi’s work, though much despised and attacked by gay lobbies who resent being viewed as a “dysfunction,” appears promising.
Those here who think that homosexuals have a moral burden to attack their own imprinting, rather than merely be celibate, should beware of drifting into a rather “Nazi” anti-homosexual perspective.
Ah, that makes sense. I still draw the analogy between homosexual behavior and other addictive behaviors. I have never talked to an ex smoker who said he or she EVER completely lost the desire to smoke. My best friend is in her late 50s and smoked only a couple of years while in college. She says if she smells a cigarette she STILL gets that old craving some thirty plus years later. Similarly my father gave up alcohol in his 70s but still said "once an alcoholic always an alcoholic’ and he too always had that desire to engage in drinking although he was finally able to pass. Is reparative treatment similar to addiction treatment? It seems to this layperson to make sense that the same approach would work.Lisa: That’s all I was addressing: the issue of culpability. I’ve no problem with the concept of reparative therapy, because I tend to lean toward the environmental origin, though I haven’t ruled anything out. Sort of the “sins of the fathers shall be visited on the children” thing, in my view, not in any juridicial way, but in a natural consequence kind of way. This can still mean they don’t choose the orientation, but may unfortunately choose the activity, by the way. And if people can control (diminish, deal with, etc.) or even eliminate completely the desire, either is good, as far as the soul’s state before God goes, IMHO. But even if it’s a struggle to their death bed, and they never give into it, but only faithfully suffer from it, offering up that struggle to the One Who died for us all, then I believe they are rec. by God in His Mercy. You spoke of sincere effort: the folks I spoke of are making that.
A good way to avoid those actions is to get rid of as far as possible the inclination itself! I don’t understand why you don’t see that. If one try’s to get rid of the inclination but does not succeed despite one’s best reasonable efforts, then there’s no sin in the failure. But if one doesn’t try at all, then it is a sin.No, no, you were dead on. I don’t think one has to get rid of the inclination altogether or be damned, I think one has to avoid the actions/attitudes/, that the inclination has the potential to lead to or be damned.