Is homosexuality sinful?

[JKirkLVNV]

tuopaolo:

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.

And why would one not want to get rid of these perverse inclinations? Wanting to keep evil inclinations seems to me to be a sin. And you can’t go to Heaven and want to keep evil inclinations since there are no evil inclinations in Heaven. Do you see what I mean?

Yes, I do see. The point that the Church isn’t teaching this remotely, which is what makes it bad theology, at least from a Catholic theological viewpoint. She doesn’t say,“You can’t ever be assailed by a temptation, or a desire, or a thought, and if you are, you’re going to hell.” She doesn’t say,“You have to go to therapy.” She says,“You have to go to confession, do your penance, rec. the Sacraments, pray for conversion of heart, act with faith working in love, and trust in the Mercyand Grace of God in Christ Jesus.” She doesn’t say,“and trying means going to therapy,” anymore than She says,“and trying means going on retreat,” or “trying means standing on top of a pillar like St. Simeon Stylites.” She says that trying means the things I listed. And I still distinguish between “potential” and “actual.” “Potential” won’t keep you out of Heaven, “actual” will. Now if you’re talking Purgatory, you might have a point. I agree, people with any “inclination” to any evil have to be purified of that before they can see God face to Face. I respectfully disagree with you otherwise.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Lisa N:

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 N

I’m not sure, Lisa. I say whatever works to get the person out of the behavior. The issue I have is saying someone’s eternal salvation hinges on the removal of the inclination. I don’t believe it does and I don’t believe the Catholic Church does either.

 

[Riley259]

Lisa N:

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.

As a professional in this business, do you see the analogy between homosexual activity and drug/alcohol abuse?

Lisa N

Yes, very much so. I personally don’t work with substance abusers but I have colleagues who have and they say that the conditioning piece can be the most difficult to overcome - like the story of a recovering herion addict who was riding his bike one day and he noticed that one of his bike tires had run over a syringe that was on the road and as soon as he saw that, he began to get a high similar to the initial buzz he would get after shooting up. All major sexual fetishes are the result of simple behavior conditioning: the pairing of the fetish object with orgasm. The same principal can occur with homosexuality and like alcoholics, a minority have a predisposition to develop the disorder but only under certain environmental circumstances - it’s not inevitable by any stretch. A raging alcoholic doesn’t celebrate his self-destructive drinking or demand that we affirm his right to drink himself to death - of course not, this would be laughable. The same analogy fits for homosexuality - for them, the desire should be to “recover” or stay chaste.

 

[Riley259]

BibleReader:

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.

No, he just suggests that it’s alot easier to prevent homosexuality if the markers are caught early enough. It’s definitely tougher for an adult to reverse his same-sex inclinations because of the years of powerful conditioning that have taken place - it’s not impossible, though, as the many studies have shown. Fr. Harvey’s group, Courage, does not make any demands on the individual to undergo reparative therapy but does insist that they stay chaste through prayer, platonic friendship and support groups

 

[tuopaolo]

“You can’t ever be assailed by a temptation, or a desire, or a thought, and if you are, you’re going to hell.”

I believe she does say that desires can be a mortal sin:

***2302 *By recalling the commandment, “You shall not kill,” our Lord asked for peace of heart and denounced murderous anger and hatred as immoral. **

**Anger is a desire for revenge. “To desire vengeance in order to do evil to someone who should be punished is illicit,” but it is praiseworthy to impose restitution “to correct vices and maintain justice.” If anger reaches the point of a deliberate desire to kill or seriously wound a neighbor, it is gravely against charity; it is a mortal sin. The Lord says, “Everyone who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment.”

And I still distinguish between “potential” and “actual.” “Potential” won’t keep you out of Heaven, “actual” will.

But a desire to keep having perverse inclinations is an actual desire. Choosing to keep having perverse inclinations (instead of going to therapy) is an actual choice.

Now if you’re talking Purgatory, you might have a point. I agree, people with any “inclination” to any evil have to be purified of that before they can see God face to Face.

Now we are getting somewhere! So this homosexual inclination is something that prevents one from seeing God face to face – we are agreed on that. Now why would someone want to hang on to something that would keep him from seeing God face to face? Wouldn’t that be the same thing as not wanting to go to Heaven? And wouldn’t that be a sin against the virtue of hope?

Am I understanding you to be agreeing with me that it is at least a venial sin? If so then our disagreement is not that big. I think in some cases ignoring therapy may be a venial sin, in others a mortal sin, and in others not a sin at all if the therapy is judged to be ineffective or too costly or if it places other burdens on the person.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

tuopaolo:

But a desire to keep having perverse inclinations is an actual desire. Choosing to keep having perverse inclinations (instead of going to therapy) is an actual choice.*** People usually cannot help random thoughts that cross their minds. They can help to not nurture or entertain those thoughts, they can turn from those thoughts, they can make the decision not to act on those thoughts. Again, to require that they reach a place where they no longer have a particular thought (which, let’s face it, basically what temptation is, at least in the interior arena) and to hang everlasting salvation on that is not congruent with what the Church teaches in Her moral theology. We don’t do that with heterosexuals who battle lustful thoughts about people not their spouses, we don’t do it with alcoholics who are tempted to drink, we don’t do it with kleptomaniacs, we don’t do it with depressives (lots of saint went through profound periods of darkness, which modern psychologists would call depression), we don’t do it with any other class of sinner. If you’re talking about inviting or entertaining a temptation, that’s an act of the will and thus sinful. The Church still would not require therapy, only a change of action and a supernatural (grace) conversion of heart. ***

Now we are getting somewhere! So this homosexual inclination is something that prevents one from seeing God face to face – we are agreed on that. Now why would someone want to hang on to something that would keep him from seeing God face to face? Wouldn’t that be the same thing as not wanting to go to Heaven? And wouldn’t that be a sin against the virtue of hope? ***No, that might simply be regarded as a cross to be borne, a grievous trial, a sin visited upon them by sins of prior generations (see previous post where I said that the OT proclamation “I shall visit the sins of the fathers upon their children,” made sense, again not neccessarily in a juridicial way, but in a natural consequence way). Thus, the orientation may be said to be an effect of sin, not sin itself, until it is acted upon. ***

Am I understanding you to be agreeing with me that it is at least a venial sin? If so then our disagreement is not that big. I think in some cases ignoring therapy may be a venial sin, in others a mortal sin, and in others not a sin at all if the therapy is judged to be ineffective or too costly or if it places other burdens on the person.

I think it is a condition that can lead to sin. I don’t ever think a condition can be a mortal sin. I think even our “conditions” will be done away with in Purgatory. I don’t think anyone will be condemned for a condition, though they may be for acting on it. I can see your train of thought and I applaud your ability to get to a conclusion, but I still disagree that it is expressive of the mind of the Church.

 

[BibleReader]

Lisa N:

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?

Just my experience, I’ve seen homosexuals identify from age 20 to age 35, before that time, they were at least living outwardly as heterosexual. I’d like to know more about Dr Nicolosi’s work. I just think it would be hard to know anything about a child’s future sex life at such an early age.

Lisa N

Hi, Lisa.

It’s been more than a year since I read Dr. Nicolosi’s analysis, but my recollection is that he says that potential male homosexuals are the little boys who can’t stand being out of their daddy’s presence, who to develop properly have to “tool around” after a loving, demonstrative father figure during all of their developmental years, until they “imprint” at around age 4. Dr. Nicolosi argues that industrial society begets more male homosexuals because it tends to place dads in jobs where such needful boys can’t “tool around” after daddy, and also tends to beget dads who are undemonstrative “cold fish.” The needful little boy, with no available daddy to supply an “imprinting plan” to imitate, substitutes-in mommy, instead, and imprints her preferences, including mommy’s sexual preference for men.

 

[theTaxCollector]

BibleReader:

Hi, Lisa.

It’s been more than a year since I read Dr. Nicolosi’s analysis, but my recollection is that he says that potential male homosexuals are the little boys who can’t stand being out of their daddy’s presence, who to develop properly have to “tool around” after a loving, demonstrative father figure during all of their developmental years, until they “imprint” at around age 4. Dr. Nicolosi argues that industrial society begets more male homosexuals because it tends to place dads in jobs where such needful boys can’t “tool around” after daddy, and also tends to beget dads who are undemonstrative “cold fish.” The needful little boy, with no available daddy to supply an “imprinting plan” to imitate, substitutes-in mommy, instead, and imprints her preferences, including mommy’s sexual preference for men.

BibleReader -

While I tend to believe the idea that sexual preferences are set (chosen?) early on, I would have to disagree with the industrial nation theory. This is a gross generalization and even if the statistics show that there are more homosexuals in industrial nations, there could be literally hundreds of possible reasons.

Peace.

 

[Riley259]

BibleReader:

Hi, Lisa.

It’s been more than a year since I read Dr. Nicolosi’s analysis, but my recollection is that he says that potential male homosexuals are the little boys who can’t stand being out of their daddy’s presence, who to develop properly have to “tool around” after a loving, demonstrative father figure during all of their developmental years, until they “imprint” at around age 4. Dr. Nicolosi argues that industrial society begets more male homosexuals because it tends to place dads in jobs where such needful boys can’t “tool around” after daddy, and also tends to beget dads who are undemonstrative “cold fish.” The needful little boy, with no available daddy to supply an “imprinting plan” to imitate, substitutes-in mommy, instead, and imprints her preferences, including mommy’s sexual preference for men.

Nicolosi talks about young boys having the “kitchen window” syndrome which refers to vunerable boys who for one reason or another (ex., poorly coordinated, socially uncomfortable around same-sex peers, etc.) do not fit in with their peers. These may be the kids who get picked last when group sports teams are assigned, for example. The problem occurs when the boy doesn’t have a father figure to assist him in becoming more adept at male bonding at this early age. If it is not addressed, the boy begins to feel like an outsider with his same sex peers (thus the kitchen window reference) and eventually identifies his same-sex peers as the “other” - this same process happens with normal pre- adolescent, heterosexual boys who eventually identify girls as the mysterious “other” gender. During adolescence and perhaps even earlier the boy will eroticize his admiration for his same-sex peers and before long he has a full-blown same-sex attraction. Now there are a bunch of other factors that can often contribute to this process including sexual abuse and for a minority, gender nonconformity issues. The sad thing about this is that most of this process appears to be preventable and easily reversable if caught early enough in the child’s development. However, our current culture and the gay minority who often dictate it would be appalled at this fact and would be enraged at the suggestion that homosexuality is preventable. Predictable cries of bigotry and intolerance would inevitable ensue and researchers like Nicolosi will continue to do their work in virtual obscurity. By the way, a similar but not entirely the same process happens with females who become lesbians although the emotional aspects (versus the sexual aspects) of same-sex women relationships do play more of a factor than same-sex male relationships.

 

[Lisa_N]

Riley259:

Nicolosi talks about young boys having the “kitchen window” syndrome which refers to vunerable boys who for one reason or another (ex., poorly coordinated, socially uncomfortable around same-sex peers, etc.) do not fit in with their peers. These may be the kids who get picked last when group sports teams are assigned, for example. The problem occurs when the boy doesn’t have a father figure to assist him in becoming more adept at male bonding at this early age. If it is not addressed, the boy begins to feel like an outsider with his same sex peers (thus the kitchen window reference) and eventually identifies his same-sex peers as the “other” - this same process happens with normal pre- adolescent, heterosexual boys who eventually identify girls as the mysterious “other” gender. During adolescence and perhaps even earlier the boy will eroticize his admiration for his same-sex peers and before long he has a full-blown same-sex attraction. Now there are a bunch of other factors that can often contribute to this process including sexual abuse and for a minority, gender nonconformity issues. The sad thing about this is that most of this process appears to be preventable and easily reversable if caught early enough in the child’s development. However, our current culture and the gay minority who often dictate it would be appalled at this fact and would be enraged at the suggestion that homosexuality is preventable. Predictable cries of bigotry and intolerance would inevitable ensue and researchers like Nicolosi will continue to do their work in virtual obscurity. By the way, a similar but not entirely the same process happens with females who become lesbians although the emotional aspects (versus the sexual aspects) of same-sex women relationships do play more of a factor than same-sex male relationships.

Thank you for the information on Dr Nicolosi. I agree the man will be vilified by the homosexual lobby who insists that this behavior is something that should be celebrated, not prevented.

As I think of the male homosexual I grew up with, he was extremely slight of build, quite effete and grew up in a family with five sisters and a un-involved father. I think they created him frankly and it’s rather sickening to think he may never have had a chance to live normally. I saw him at our 30 year reunion and not only is he effete but he’s frankly a total Queen.

Another thought, aside from the industrial society is the prevalence of single mothers and non-existent fathers as far as involvement with the child. I wonder if there have been any studies of men who grow up without a father or male in the home to provide guidance and appropriate role modelling.

Lisa N

 

[JustSomeGuy]

Lisa N:

I wonder if there have been any studies of men who grow up without a father or male in the home to provide guidance and appropriate role modelling.

in a way, that study would be just the rest of society. the factors that are common to cases of same sex attractions or same sex sex are not present in all cases. there are plenty (the majority) who are exposed to the same conditions and never turn toward homosexuality.

it is all about reactions, and one wrong turn after another. some people have strong, loving, present fathers and still wind up wanting to be with men. the fact is that parents can take steps to help their children toward normalcy, but they can’t control it. some perfectly good fathers are not aware of what a child is dealing with inside. some don’t come up with an adequate response when they are. keep in mind that an overbearing family situation is just as bad. any extreme leads the kid to make possibly hazardous choices. the real point is how the person responds to difficult situations. some move in the right direction and some don’t. i think that the overall remedy is parenting every child openly, warmly and well.

there are people on this thread (and others) that don’t understand homosexuality at all. they have the attitude that “it’s bad, what else do i need to know?” my answer to that attitude is “nothing, if all you are interested in is condemning.” people will write back and say “hey that’s not all i’m interested in.” Jesus said “do not judge…” not in the sense of ‘do not observe, do not speak the truth’, He said it in the sense “do not condemn” like He said to the prostitute, “I do not condemn you.”

stop couching your bigotry in the truth. we all know what the Church teaches. stop trying to find ways of condemning people, whom you have deemed worthy, especially by re-interpreting teachings (which you have no right to do.) there are no hidden teachings. the Church didn’t forget to say 'hey mister, you are condemned if you have a desire for that guy." TUOPAOLO et al., you don’t even know what that means in the context of homosexuality. (don’t wirte back saying that you do, because your words prove otherwise.)

the Church condemns lust whether that lust is for men or women, from men or women. stop trying to create a special category of a sin that all are capable of. whether you realize it or not, all your efforts reveal your disposition to condemn because you’ve targeted these people as particularly deserving of it. that’s bigotry. there are variety of reasons a person may wind up in hell, but you seem to favor singling out this one. (don’t respond that you are equally willing to be equally condemning of others too. that just makes it worse.) professing the truth is a lot different than hurting someone with it.

one of the key points that i don’t think you understand, is that same sex attraction, homosexuality, etc. (however you want to signify it) is not the equivalent of lust. you are correct about much of what you are saying, if you say it about lust. you are in error once you say these things about homosexuality, because they are not the same. homosexuality is not short-hand for “a man’s lust, or raging genitalia for another man.” sexual activity between same sex persons and lust for a same sex person are the results of homosexual attraction, just as a man’s heterosexual attraction is not always a sex act or always lust. a sex act between a man and woman, or lust between them results from their attraction. this distinction is not present in what many of you have written so far.

as far as a “cure” goes, you can’t cure someone’s past. a man or woman who has homosexual sex will bear the weight of that forever, whether it is once or many times. this is because of memory or habit. this is another way that some of you show that you do not understand homosexuality. that sexual experience doesn’t come from a “pre-disposition” but a “disposition”. generalized attractions toward the same sex are not necessarily sexual. because of memory and habit, the attractiveness of the same sex doesn’t really go away, but the disposition to sexually objectify them, can, and does for some, go away. the ‘attraction’ covers a wide spectrum. only one aspect of that spectrum is sinful. that sin is lust.

now, i know you’ll write back in order to correct my ignorance with a vengance, and latch onto some distinction so you can go on to condemn anyone who is different than you. so what? if you’re not here to more fully understand, what’s the point? i don’t see how disposing yourself to condemn is going to keep you out of hell any easier than disposing yourself to having sex with someone that’s the same sex as you.

 

[luvthelight]

as catholics we must take care to not judge, “let he who is without sin be the first to throw a stone” but boy is that hard at times. in my (VERY small) town i can think of two families who have become recently divorced when the husband has come out, said he was gay, and entered into a homosexual relationship! one of them had a 17 yr old boy, a 11 year old girl and a 5 year old boy. imagine the tramatic effect on the children - and they were catholic too! i guess all one can do is pray for the family and pray for the former husband to return, and try their best not to judge

 

[Other_Eric]

Hi Guys!

If we are going to say that the underlying propensity to be attracted to members of one’s own gender is not a sin in itself, but that the decision not to seek therapy to remove the temptation would be a sin, what would logically follow from that?

Could a priest justly withhold full absolution in a confessional for a homosexual until he or she agrees to enter into therapy? Priests routinely withhold full absolution for people who confess murder until they turn themselves in. Not applying this same strict standard to the homosexual appears to be a case of granting them a special privilege based on their sexual identity. Am I going too far here?

 

[tuopaolo]

Other Eric:

Hi Guys!

If we are going to say that the underlying propensity to be attracted to members of one’s own gender is not a sin in itself, but that the decision not to seek therapy to remove the temptation would be a sin, what would logically follow from that?

Good question!

Could a priest justly withhold full absolution in a confessional for a homosexual until he or she agrees to enter into therapy?

I don’t know about that. The penitent might not be aware that it is a sin and so could still be absolved. And if in a particular case the sin is only venial, then the priest can still impart absolution as long as the penitent is sorry at least for all his mortal sins. In that case any venial sin he clings to wouldn’t be absolved, but his other sins would be absolved and he would be restored to the state of grace.

Priests routinely withhold full absolution for people who confess murder until they turn themselves in.

Are you sure about that? How do you know this? I would hope that priests wouldn’t do that. It is more important that the soul of a murderer be saved than for any public good of his being punished be served. If they do do that, then why stop at murder and not extend it to shoplifting, etc.? I’m pretty sure that priests don’t require shoplifters to turn themselves in.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Other Eric:

Hi Guys!

If we are going to say that the underlying propensity to be attracted to members of one’s own gender is not a sin in itself, but that the decision not to seek therapy to remove the temptation would be a sin, what would logically follow from that?

Could a priest justly withhold full absolution in a confessional for a homosexual until he or she agrees to enter into therapy? Priests routinely withhold full absolution for people who confess murder until they turn themselves in. Not applying this same strict standard to the homosexual appears to be a case of granting them a special privilege based on their sexual identity. Am I going too far here?

Yes, you are. Where do you get the idea that priests withold absolution until the murderer turns himself in?!? Can you provide proof of this? I’ve never heard the likes of this and don’t think it’s accurate. This, too, does not jive with Catholic moral theology.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

JustSomeGuy:

it is all about reactions, and one wrong turn after another. some people have strong, loving, present fathers and still wind up wanting to be with men. the fact is that parents can take steps to help their children toward normalcy, but they can’t control it. some perfectly good fathers are not aware of what a child is dealing with inside. some don’t come up with an adequate response when they are. keep in mind that an overbearing family situation is just as bad. any extreme leads the kid to make possibly hazardous choices. the real point is how the person responds to difficult situations. some move in the right direction and some don’t. i think that the overall remedy is parenting every child openly, warmly and well.

there are people on this thread (and others) that don’t understand homosexuality at all. they have the attitude that “it’s bad, what else do i need to know?” my answer to that attitude is “nothing, if all you are interested in is condemning.” people will write back and say “hey that’s not all i’m interested in.” Jesus said “do not judge…” not in the sense of ‘do not observe, do not speak the truth’, He said it in the sense “do not condemn” like He said to the prostitute, “I do not condemn you.”

stop couching your bigotry in the truth. we all know what the Church teaches. stop trying to find ways of condemning people, whom you have deemed worthy, especially by re-interpreting teachings (which you have no right to do.) there are no hidden teachings. the Church didn’t forget to say 'hey mister, you are condemned if you have a desire for that guy." TUOPAOLO et al., you don’t even know what that means in the context of homosexuality. (don’t wirte back saying that you do, because your words prove otherwise.)

the Church condemns lust whether that lust is for men or women, from men or women. stop trying to create a special category of a sin that all are capable of. whether you realize it or not, all your efforts reveal your disposition to condemn because you’ve targeted these people as particularly deserving of it. that’s bigotry. there are variety of reasons a person may wind up in hell, but you seem to favor singling out this one. (don’t respond that you are equally willing to be equally condemning of others too. that just makes it worse.) professing the truth is a lot different than hurting someone with it.

one of the key points that i don’t think you understand, is that same sex attraction, homosexuality, etc. (however you want to signify it) is not the equivalent of lust. you are correct about much of what you are saying, if you say it about lust. you are in error once you say these things about homosexuality, because they are not the same. homosexuality is not short-hand for “a man’s lust, or raging genitalia for another man.” sexual activity between same sex persons and lust for a same sex person are the results of homosexual attraction, just as a man’s heterosexual attraction is not always a sex act or always lust. a sex act between a man and woman, or lust between them results from their attraction. this distinction is not present in what many of you have written so far.

as far as a “cure” goes, you can’t cure someone’s past. a man or woman who has homosexual sex will bear the weight of that forever, whether it is once or many times. this is because of memory or habit. this is another way that some of you show that you do not understand homosexuality. that sexual experience doesn’t come from a “pre-disposition” but a “disposition”. generalized attractions toward the same sex are not necessarily sexual. because of memory and habit, the attractiveness of the same sex doesn’t really go away, but the disposition to sexually objectify them, can, and does for some, go away. the ‘attraction’ covers a wide spectrum. only one aspect of that spectrum is sinful. that sin is lust.

now, i know you’ll write back in order to correct my ignorance with a vengance, and latch onto some distinction so you can go on to condemn anyone who is different than you. so what? if you’re not here to more fully understand, what’s the point? i don’t see how disposing yourself to condemn is going to keep you out of hell any easier than disposing yourself to having sex with someone that’s the same sex as you.

I would not disassociate myself from your thoughts in your posting, except to say that I don’t feel that Tuopaulo is being overtly hostile to gay people. We should always avoid mockery and the depersonalization of any person as a violation of their innate human dignity (though I’m having trouble myself right now with Michael Schiavo). Name calling and disdain must surely grieve the Most Sacred Heart. Otherwise, I quite agree with most of what you said.