Lost the cultural debate on homosexuality

[RyanL]

…since we continue to sharply disagree about what it is that the Church requires for those with same-sex attractions who seek to live in chastity…%between%

OE,

What, specifically, does the Church require?

Most of the posters on this thread have agreed to the following:

1. Homosexual acts are sinful. We are called to chastity; for those who suffer from SSA this means celibacy.
2. SSA is a disordered condition - it is not how we were intended to be, but it is not itself sinful. You will not be damned simply for having SSA.
3. We should strive to be perfect, as our heavenly Father is perfect. We should never despair, but should continue to work out our salvation with fear and trembling.

You seem to be going beyond what the Church claims and saying that there’s a particular means specified by the Church as to how to accomplish #3. Unfortunately for you, the Church says no such thing - if it did, you would have provided the statement already.

We are not required to undertake EVERY possible form of therapy to cure whatever evil which afflicts us (or even ANY particular form), only that we undertake some form; prayer alone may be sufficient.

Rather than sending everyone off to whatever counselor you can dig up, how about recommending some of the following:

1. Frequent prayer - repeat as necessary. Invoke the assistance of the angels and saints to assist you in your struggle. That’s part of their job description, and they’re happy to help.
2. Spend time before the Blessed Sacrament to increase efficacy of your prayers and assist your sanctification.
3. Avail yourself of the Eucharist and Reconciliation frequently, as they are direct avenues of grace no earthly counselor could ever hope to achieve.

In reviewing your posts, I don’t see any of these being advocated. I could pull documents and cite them, but I don’t think you need it (please correct me if I’m wrong).

Why are the sacraments and prayer not good enough for you? Why are you so hard bent on counseling? Does it have to do with being a “Lapsed Catholic” and disparaging the sacraments as particular channels of God’s grace? Is that why you seem to be embracing the things which the secular world offers, requiring *them *instead of the things of God?

Again, I invite you to stop being “Lapsed” at any time - the sooner the better.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Rebecca_New]

I have to say that as a nurse, the body takes on it’s purpose-to be the temple of the Holy Spirit. I think God is letting us try, and before we fail, He will step in. So, I am not afraid nor worried about all this. I am just making sure that I live a chaste life according to my station, and praying for those who may not be. I truly love some people in my immediate family who are living by today’s standards- these standards have been shriviling for a number of years. No law is going to reverse today’s misguided “openness”, but through God, all things are possible.

 

[Other_Eric]

OE,

What, specifically, does the Church require?

Most of the posters on this thread have agreed to the following:

1. Homosexual acts are sinful. We are called to chastity; for those who suffer from SSA this means celibacy.
2. SSA is a disordered condition - it is not how we were intended to be, but it is not itself sinful. You will not be damned simply for having SSA.
3. We should strive to be perfect, as our heavenly Father is perfect. We should never despair, but should continue to work out our salvation with fear and trembling.

You seem to be going beyond what the Church claims and saying that there’s a particular means specified by the Church as to how to accomplish #3. Unfortunately for you, the Church says no such thing - if it did, you would have provided the statement already.

We are not required to undertake EVERY possible form of therapy to cure whatever evil which afflicts us (or even ANY particular form), only that we undertake some form; prayer alone may be sufficient.

Rather than sending everyone off to whatever counselor you can dig up, how about recommending some of the following:

1. Frequent prayer - repeat as necessary. Invoke the assistance of the angels and saints to assist you in your struggle. That’s part of their job description, and they’re happy to help.
2. Spend time before the Blessed Sacrament to increase efficacy of your prayers and assist your sanctification.
3. Avail yourself of the Eucharist and Reconciliation frequently, as they are direct avenues of grace no earthly counselor could ever hope to achieve.

In reviewing your posts, I don’t see any of these being advocated. I could pull documents and cite them, but I don’t think you need it (please correct me if I’m wrong).

Why are the sacraments and prayer not good enough for you? Why are you so hard bent on counseling? Does it have to do with being a “Lapsed Catholic” and disparaging the sacraments as particular channels of God’s grace? Is that why you seem to be embracing the things which the secular world offers, requiring *them *instead of the things of God?

Again, I invite you to stop being “Lapsed” at any time - the sooner the better.

God Bless,
RyanL

You have said that you have looked over all my posts on this forum and yet come to the conclusion that I deny that there are other methods available other than reparative therapy for those who wish to heal their sexuality. You must not have looked very closely; otherwise, you would have noticed post #199.

As for your argument from silence that I must disparage the Sacraments because I urge those with same-sex attraction to seek psychological assistance, I assure you that this is not the case. As you’ve reviewed all of my posts on this thread, you ought to know that nowhere have I advocated an either/or approach to this issue. I prefer a both/and. The Sacraments, while indispensable, are not meant to be a complete substitute for the mundane. One does not forgo all food and attempt to subsist off of just the Eucharist and prayer. Similarly, an individual with same-sex attractions would be foolish to forgo psychological or psychiatric intervention simply because he is making use of prayer, Reconciliation and the Eucharist.

Nowhere have I said that the homosexual condition is, itself, sinful. Of course, neither is an aborted fetus itself sinful but, like the homosexual condition, it could not exist but for the presence of sin. Therefore, I can maintain both that the condition of same-sex attraction is not itself sinful and that it is a gravely disordered state that jeopardizes the salvation of those so afflicted and should be eliminated by whatever means is most efficacious.

 

[Other_Eric]

Wow! Where to start!

Where to start, indeed.

You have again decided to reply to me with a long list of your own cherry-picked quotations from the documents I have referenced with little or no substantive commentary from you on what it is you believe the document to be saying. I quoted Cardinal Ratzinger’s document to illustrate that you were incorrect and that the Church does envision psychological and other medical intervention be employed in any appropriate form of pastoral care for people with same-sex attractions. It is significant that the phrase used by Ratzinger is not “may include” but “would include” in referring to the appropriate pastoral program for these individuals.

I agree that the condition is not itself a sin. Nevertheless, this is fundamentally different from saying that there is no obligation to correct the disorder. The latter involves a definite act of the will to remain in a state that is opposed to God’s will and the Natural Law.

As far as the inability of those with same-sex attraction to love, there is ample evidence in the psychological literature that this is the case. Now this is readily misread as an absolute handicap but I do not believe that to be the case. Rather, to the extent that one experiences same-sex attraction, one is hindered in his ability to love, to be self-giving and to effectively participate in the Christian Communion. This is what makes it so urgent that the condition be cured as soon as possible.

I apologize for my lack of citations, however I am currently traveling on business and simply do not have the time at the moment to do a more thorough job. I trust the citations I have already provided in this thread will be enough for your rebuttal.

 

[blessedtoo]

You have again decided to reply to me with a long list of your own cherry-picked quotations from the documents I have referenced with little or no substantive commentary from you on what it is you believe the document to be saying. I quoted Cardinal Ratzinger’s document to illustrate that you were incorrect and that the Church does envision psychological and other medical intervention be employed in any appropriate form of pastoral care for people with same-sex attractions. It is significant that the phrase used by Ratzinger is not “may include” but “would include” in referring to the appropriate pastoral program for these individuals.

Okay, let’s call a “cease-fire” on documentation because I can see we have reached a stalemate. You think I “cherry-pick”. I know you do. I did, in fact, include commentary on my citations but perhaps I wasn’t clear enough. You are correct that Cardinal Ratzinger’s document said “would include”. I tried to address that in the above post by stating that this suggestion was one among many he states “would” be included. And in fact, he did not state that it must be included, which was the point I was trying to make.

Nevertheless, this is fundamentally different from saying that there is no obligation to correct the disorder.

The Church’s position is the the disorder itself may be corrected by right behavior, which, after a time, will confer graces necessary to achieve a level of Christian perfection. The Church says that a person who lives a chaste, or in the case of an SSA individual, celibate life, who receives the Sacraments, especially Confession, practices devotions and prays, should expect to reap the benefits of joy, peace, and communion with Christ’s will. As far as I am concerned, and the Church as well, that would be a “healing”.

The latter involves a definite act of the will to remain in a state that is opposed to God’s will and the Natural Law.

No. The latter involves turning over one’s will to God’s care and grace by making full use of all the Church’s gifts of healing. As another poster commented, your faith in the field of psychology is really astounding. Perhaps you have never had to avail yourself of therapy. Perhaps all you know of it is what you have read. Those of us who have interacted with the psychiatric professionals have far less confidence in them then we do in the great healing powers of God. More importantly, as I have said repeatedly, those who struggle with SSA, or feel compelled to attempt a reversal of this condition, should be encouraged to do so. Those who are striving toward this same goal by taking the path of all repentent sinners should not be made to feel they are falling short.

As far as the inability of those with same-sex attraction to love, there is ample evidence in the psychological literature that this is the case.

Well, the only “evidence” you cited was the completely inapplicable document on requirements for priestly ordination.

Now this is readily misread as an absolute handicap but I do not believe that to be the case. **Rather, to the extent that one experiences same-sex attraction, **one is hindered in his ability to love, to be self-giving and to effectively participate in the Christian Communion. This is what makes it so urgent that the condition be cured as soon as possible.

If by the bolded portion above you are referring to SSA folks who are actively pursuing a homosexual lifestyle, then I would say the narcissism of this activity may compromise one’s understanding of love. If you’re trying to make the case that those with SSA who are living in accordance with Church teaching are incapable of participation in the Christain communion, I strongly disagree. I think folks who are carrying a cross this burdensome with grace and who are powered by the Holy Spirit have a very profound understanding of love.

 

[Exalt]

More importantly, as I have said repeatedly, those who struggle with SSA, or feel compelled to attempt a reversal of this condition, should be encouraged to do so.

I admit that it is true that some highly motivated induviduals can achieve change in thier sexual orientation. But they also should be notified that change is extremely rare. They shouldn’t get their hopes up too high. Odds are, they won’t be ‘cured.’

Dr. Robert Spitzer created a study that said certian highly-motivated induviduals could change thier sexual orientation. It’s often quoted by Focus on the Family, NARTH, and other organizations. It’s probably been referenced many times in this forum already. but in his interview with TruthWinsOut.org, he said: “As far as the gay person who wishes to be changed… Studies suggest that it is possible, but is pretty rare. The likelyhood of success is probably quite small. And of course Focus on the Family doesn’t want to say that.”

Here’s the link to the interview:
youtube.com/watch?v=ZwE6_dLweYo

 

[RyanL]

First you say this…
Other Eric:

As for your argument from silence…

Then you say this…

One does not forgo all food and attempt to subsist off of just the Eucharist and prayer. Similarly, an individual with same-sex attractions would be foolish to forgo psychological or psychiatric intervention simply because he is making use of prayer, Reconciliation and the Eucharist.

If you’re going to attack me for logical fallacies, it would be helpful if you didn’t engage in them yourself.

Man does not live by bread alone. We need food to live. We don’t need psychotherapy to survive. Bad analogy.

You did the same thing in post #199, which you kindly directed my attention to:

It would be foolish to refuse antibiotics in the treatment of an infection on the grounds that the Holy See has not infallibly approved this medication or this particular course of treatment.

Infections can kill you. I’m unaware of anyone who has died from being attracted to members of their own sex. Again, bad analogy.

(You also fib in #199 when you say, “My point is that it does not matter how one heals one’s sexuality but it does matter that one heals it.” – Your point all along is that it DOES matter how one heals one’s sexuality…namely with therapy, imposing therapy as a normative moral requirement on all SSA sufferers. Please don’t fib.)

Nowhere have I said that the homosexual condition is, itself, sinful. Of course, neither is an aborted fetus itself sinful but, like the homosexual condition, it could not exist but for the presence of sin.

An aborted fetus comes about through mortal sin. How does SSA come about? Is it through mortal sin? If not, bad analogy.

If you want to claim that SSA comes about through concupiscence, however, I can go there, too. You see, concupiscence has it’s effects:

And this arises from the fact that the power of love is implanted in man lured by concupiscence: in human subjects love does battle with threefold concupiscence (2), in particular with the concupiscence of the flesh which distorts the truth of the “language of the body.” And therefore love too is not able to be realized in the truth of the “language of the body” except through overcoming concupiscence. (1)

Therefore, we must overcome concupiscence if we are to realize the truth of the “language of the body” - already cited by you as integral to our whole person.
According to the teaching embodied in 1013 of the Code of Canon Law of 1917 (3), one of the ends of marriage is the remedy of concupiscence. According to St. Thomas:

Further, Augustine says that “matrimony affords a remedy to the sick.”(5) But it is not a remedy except in so far as it has some efficacy. Therefore it has some efficacy for the repression of concupiscence. Now concupiscence is not repressed except by grace.(4)

So there you have it. Everyone is required to marry. No one is called to celibacy.

Isn’t this precisely the same logic you have been employing? And yet we find our Savior saying the following:

Matt 19:12
For there are some…[who] are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it."

You see, it’s not that hard to lay new (and wrongheaded) requirements based on selective proof-texting and novel interpretation.

This is what you have been doing. Please stop. The Church does not require what you say.

Therefore, I can maintain both that the condition of same-sex attraction is not itself sinful and that it is a gravely disordered state that jeopardizes the salvation of those so afflicted and should be eliminated by whatever means is most efficacious.

You can maintain it, sure, but you’re going well beyond what the Church has asked of her faithful. You’re also engaging in the judging of others’ salvation, a thing which can be dangerous for you.(6) Finally, you are claiming to know that psychotherapy is more efficacious than the sacraments in remedying SSA - do you have anything to support this conclusion? If not, I think it is accurate to describe it as baseless.

God Bless,
RyanL

(1) Para 4, The Power of Love is Given to Man and Woman as a share of God’s Love, General Audience of October 10, 1984
(2) cf. 1 Jn 2:16
(3) Code of Canon Law of 1917, Sec. 1013
(4) Question 42, Article 3, Summa Theologica
(5) De Bono Viduit. viii; Gen. ad lit. ix, 7
(6) Luke 6:37.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

…Nowhere have I said that the homosexual condition is, itself, sinful…

Wait a second here

…Of course, neither is an aborted fetus itself sinful but, like the homosexual condition, it could not exist but for the presence of sin. …

Sounds extreme no?

…Therefore, I can maintain both that the condition of same-sex attraction is not itself sinful and that it ***is a gravely disordered state that jeopardizes the salvation ***…

There it is, for which we wait. Who says “is a gravely disordered state that jeopardizes the salvation” not the church. The church says the “acts” not the SSA, so what is the obsession you have with the SSA?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Our compassion for Other Eric is our compassion for man, we all have imperfections, we all sin, we all strive to improve. We can improve our habits, works, and practices. We can not improve our height, attractions, and desires.

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

Our compassion for Other Eric is our compassion for man, we all have imperfections, we all sin, we all strive to improve. We can improve our habits, works, and practices. We can not improve our height, attractions, and desires.

We can absolutely improve our attractions and desires, through mortification, fasting and prayer we can with grace absolutely conquer sinful temptations and be free from them. Your statement flies in the face of Christianity and Christ’s admonition for us to strive for perfection. If it was immutable such an admonition would be futile. Who gave birth to this idea that disordered desires are immutable. It seems heretical as it implies that we are unable to achieve virtue.

Disordered desires are somehow immutable? We are not angels who make one eternal choice. The whole Gospel is repent and follow Him.

 

[blessedtoo]

I can’t believe that you, and the other folks here, even bother to argue with Other Eric. His values are horrific.

That’s a pretty strong word. This debate is for others on this thread who strive to overcome disordered desires, who live in accordance with the Church’s teaching on chastity, and who are confused by OtherEric’s insistence that this can only be achieved through a certain therapeutic treatment process.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Our compassion for Other Eric is our compassion for man, we all have imperfections, we all sin, we all strive to improve. We can improve our habits, works, and practices. We can not improve our height, attractions, and desires.

We can absolutely improve our attractions and desires, through mortification, fasting and prayer we can with grace absolutely conquer sinful temptations and be free from them. Your statement flies in the face of Christianity and Christ’s admonition for us to strive for perfection. If it was immutable such an admonition would be futile. Who gave birth to this idea that disordered desires are immutable. It seems heretical as it implies that we are unable to achieve virtue.

Disordered desires are somehow immutable? We are not angels who make one eternal choice. The whole Gospel is repent and follow Him.

Have you ever heard the saying " Where ever you go; there you are"? It is true. Reparative theory is intelligential bullying. One can use faith to prevent these temptations from manifesting. One can not use faith to eliminate such. Similarly it is unwise to determine on your own that these are God’s reprobates, and/or you are free to judge them.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

I am quite capable of Christian love and do not need your judgement.

Perhaps using Pope Benedict’s recent encyclical will help us. When we talk about love, are we all talking about the same thing? I used to say that there are too many definitions of love to count, (I love my car, I love beef steak, I love a wonderful sunset, I love God my creator, I love my best friend, I love my parents, I love my grandparents, I love my wife (in many ways), I love my brothers and my sisters, and I love my children. However, I love each differently.

Pope Benedict describes three important and separate types of interpersonal love. Each is dramatically different from the other. If we are not clear in our definitions of love, then we should not be surprised that we appear to disagree. All persons are capable of some types of love. All are also incapable of other types of love. I don’t think my wife could love a car like I do. I talk to my car, we have a good relationship. I probably could not love Soduku as my wife does. Each of us is incapale of some form of love, of the hundreds or thousands that exist. Does this mean we are incapable of all love? No, obviously not.

Dan

 

[Exalt]

Except, it’s really not about choosing to be gay, is it? With the availability of reparative therapy, it’s more about the choice to remain

that way. As for coming out of the closet, any turmoil that one goes through is brought upon oneself. There is no need to confide in anyone this struggle outside of the confessional or the therapist’s office. If one has the sense to keep a secret this disorder, one need not fear being the victim of any so-called “hate crime.”
*

READ THIS, PLEASE. I’ve stated it earlier in this arguement, but it got ignored. Remember those studies that people cite as evidence that change is possible? Well, the doctor who put on those studies SAID HIMSELF that change, even for the etremely highly motivated, is highly unlikely.

I admit that it is true that some highly motivated induviduals can achieve change in thier sexual orientation. But they also should be notified that change is extremely rare. They shouldn’t get their hopes up too high. Odds are, they won’t be ‘cured.’

Dr. Robert Spitzer created a study that said certian highly-motivated induviduals could change thier sexual orientation. It’s often quoted by Focus on the Family, NARTH, and other organizations. It’s probably been referenced many times in this forum already. but in his interview with TruthWinsOut.org, he said: “As far as the gay person who wishes to be changed… Studies suggest that it is possible, but is pretty rare. The likelyhood of success is probably quite small. And of course Focus on the Family doesn’t want to say that.”

Here’s the link to the interview:
youtube.com/watch?v=ZwE6_dLweYo

If change is highly unlikely, then you CANNOT hold someone morally acountable in any way, shape, or form for NOT BEING ABLE TO CHANGE.

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

Have you ever heard the saying " Where ever you go; there you are"? It is true. Reparative theory is intelligential bullying. One can use faith to prevent these temptations from manifesting. One can not use faith to eliminate such. Similarly it is unwise to determine on your own that these are God’s reprobates, and/or you are free to judge them.

Okay, I have been bullied and slandered enough.

/finis

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

Have you ever heard the saying " Where ever you go; there you are"? It is true. Reparative theory is intelligential bullying. One can use faith to prevent these temptations from manifesting. One can not use faith to eliminate such. Similarly it is unwise to determine on your own that these are God’s reprobates, and/or you are free to judge them.

“One can not use faith to eliminate such.” It appears you are referring to same sex ‘temptations’? Please confirm.

“Our father, who art in heaven… and lead us not into temptation…”

Does faith in God and use of the prayer the Lord gave us really work? Or was he just pulling our leg, and prayer and faith in God will not save us from our temptations?

Dan

 

[Other_Eric]

First you say this…

It seems your style of argument has all the consistency of a roulette ball. One hardly knows where it will land next. I point out that your argument of silence has no merit and rather than respond to that, you are off on some new tangent, this time accusing me of making bad analogies. Unsatisfied with merely questioning my faith, you have added to your rhetorical arsenal a question about my integrity. One can only imagine what type of response you will see fit to deliver next. Let us first look at these “bad analogies” that you believe me to be making.

In the first analogy, I attempted to illustrate the foolishness of forgoing therapy in favor of Reconciliation by comparing it to an attempt to forgo normal food in an attempt to subsist solely off the Eucharist. As you were kind enough to remind us all, the idea that the Sacraments are meant to be substitutes for normal life might be supported by Christ when he quotes Deuteronomy to the effect that man *cannot *live off bread alone. (1) We do not expect the Eucharist to allay hunger because that is not what the Sacrament is for. Similarly, people with psychological issues may attend the Sacrament of Reconciliation, but to attempt to use the Sacrament as in order to achieve therapeutic healing is misguided in the same way, since that is not what the Sacrament of Reconciliation is for. The purpose of the Sacrament is reconciliation with God, not therapy. (2) There is no bad analogy here, since in both cases there is an attempt to use the sacrament for something other than what its purpose is. The Eucharist alone does not sustain the physical body in the same way that Reconciliation alone does not achieve psychic healing. Therefore, your point that food nourishes the body as opposed to therapy, which does not, merely illustrates that the two sacraments in question are different, not that the analogy is bad.

In the second analogy, I point out that the Church does not, in any instance, authoritatively validate any form of medical or therapeutic treatment. You seem to think you have a point since I use the example of an infection, which may be physically life-threatening, as compared to a mental disorder, which is not. I seem to think this makes my point. If the Church were to pronounce on any course of medical treatment, one would assume that she would first pronounce upon those that threaten the physical well being of her children. That she does not do this, even for the most extreme life-threatening illnesses, tends to support the view that she will also never do this or any one course of therapeutic intervention for those with same-sex attractions.

My third analogy, about an aborted fetus and homosexuality both coming about through sin is, as I have pointed out twice now in this thread, supported by Scripture. The condition of homosexuality is identified by Paul as the result of idolatry. (3) Since the sin leading to the existence of the aborted fetus is objectively obvious and the sin leading to the condition of homosexuality is infallibly declared, there is no bad analogy.

A further not about the use of analogies, they are generally misread if they are held to be absolute. None are. You might just as easily point out that as God is not a sexual being and that the Divine love is infinitely beyond human love and generation, that the spousal analogies used in Scripture and throughout the Tradition of the Church are also “bad analogies” and simply dispense with nearly two thousand years of theology and Christian argument, if not the entire religion. Instead of applying this sort of shallow reasoning, it is good to remember that

[a]nalogies always indicate, at the same time, both similarity and substantial (in this case, very substantial) dissimilarity. (4)

Parenthesis in original. Teasing just one dissimilarity out of an analogy does not refute it. As I have shown here, none of the dissimilarities you have pointed out, contradict the illustrations those analogies are meant to serve.

(continued below . . .)

 

[Other_Eric]

(. . . continued from above)

I maintain my original point that it does not matter how one heals their sexuality, only that they heal it. Lacking any type of substantive response to this, you have accused me of “fibbing” because I have strongly advocated reparative therapy on this thread. I advocate for that therapy because there is systematic documentation behind it that shows it works. (5) I simply do not exclude the possibility of other avenues towards healing. Indeed, even among therapists associated with NARTH there appear to be as many methods of treating the disorder as there are therapists. I merely advocate for a system that has already displayed tangible and verifiable results.

It is interesting that you attempt to use the 1917 Code of Canon Law to illustrate Church teaching. Besides being superceded by the new code in 1983, a first-year canonist would be able to tell you that the Code was never meant to be a teaching document, only a system of establishing norms. Canon Law must submit itself, in every case, to the Teaching of the Church. This, of course, leaves unanswered your point about the nature of marriage. As I understand it, you look to marriage as a remedy of concupiscence. It is true that

[a]fter the fall, marriage helps to overcome self-absorption, egoism, pursuit of one’s own pleasure, and to open oneself to the other, to mutual aid and to self-giving. (6)

Since, you argue, we are all bound to overcome concupiscence, (7) marriage ought to be obligatory. It is interesting that you cite Aquinas in your argument, but fail to notice his reply to this in the very same article you cite:

This argument would hold if no more efficacious remedy could be employed against the disease of concupiscence; but a yet more powerful remedy is found in spiritual works and mortification of the flesh by those who make no use of matrimony. (8)

Further, sin is not mitigated simply because one is using one’s spouse as a thing to relieve one’s sexual tension. (9) Your attempted argument is directly and specifically refuted by the Church. Mine is not.

Lastly, you attempt to accuse me of rendering judgment merely because I call homosexuality for what it is: a condition that jeopardizes the salvation of those afflicted with it. As a species of concupiscence, this is surely the case. Being that it is a “strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil,” (10) it cannot help but jeopardize the salvation of people who are tempted by it. My calling the condition for what it is does not equal “judgment,” lest the mere recognition of sin is a judgment and nearly every document I cite here an example of such sin.

(continued below . . .)

 

[Other_Eric]

(. . . continued from above)

All are called to chastity. Chastity, in order to be practiced, requires a sexuality that is ordered to its proper end, which means that there can be no same-sex attractions present in order to live the virtue. How one rids themselves of these attractions is irrelevant, though reparative therapy offers documented success to those who are sufficiently motivated.

It is a blasphemy to look upon the sacraments as magic talismans to affect therapeutic or medical healing. Though Baptism frees us from sin, (11) it does not remove concupiscence. Though Confirmation is “the full outpouring of the Holy Spirit as once granted to the apostles on the day of Pentecost,” (12) it does not necessarily grant to us a flawless understanding of the faith. Though the Anointing of the Sick “meant to lead the sick person to healing of the soul, but also of the body if such is God’s will,” (13) it does not necessarily ward off terminal illness. Similarly, while necessary for spiritual well-being, neither the Eucharist nor Reconciliation are meant as a substitution for normative methods of therapeutic intervention.

That we are having this argument at all tends to bear out the idea that we have lost the cultural debate on homosexuality. How can we win this debate when we have among us so many errant ideologies and permissive views? The Gospel is today being preached by those who have no understanding of it.

(1) New American Bible. Washington D.C.: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2002. Matt 4:4. Available online at: usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew4.htm

(2) Catechism of the Catholic Church. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1993. ¶ 1468. Available online at: vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P4F.HTM

(3) New American Bible. Rom 1:22-27. Available online at: usccb.org/nab/bible/romans/romans1.htm

(4) West, Christopher. Theology of the Body for Beginners: A Basic Introduction to Pope John Paul II’s Sexual Revolution. West Chester, PA: Ascension Press, 2004. p. 11

(5) Soccarides, Charles W. Homosexuality: A Consideration of Factors Relevant to the Success/Failure in the Psychoanalytic Treatment of Overt Obligatory Male Homosexuality. NARTH 2000 Conference Papers, 2000. pp. 11-14. Available online at: narth.com/docs/030207Socarides.pdf

(6) Catechism of the Catholic Church. ¶ 1609. Available online at: vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P51.HTM

(7) John Paul II. The Theology of the Body: Human Love in the Divine Plan. Boston, MA: Pauline Books and Media, 1997. p. 407.

(8) Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica. 1920. New Advent. Trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province. Online Edition, 2006. Supplementum Tertiæ Partis, Q. 42, Art. 3. Available online at: newadvent.org/summa/5042.htm

(9) West, Christopher. Good News About Sex & Marriage: Answers to Your Honest Questions about Catholic Teaching. Cincinnati, OH: St. Anthony Messenger Press, 1997. p. 104.

(10) Ratzinger, Joseph. Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons. Rome: Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, October 1, 1986. §3. Available online at: vatican.va/roman_curia/co…ersons_en.html

(11) Catechism of the Catholic Church. ¶ 1213. Available online at: vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P3G.HTM

(12) Ibid., ¶ 1302. Available online at: vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P3S.HTM

(13) Ibid., ¶ 1520. Available online at: vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P4N.HTM

 

[Other_Eric]

Okay, let’s call a “cease-fire” on documentation because I can see we have reached a stalemate.

Since you have called a cease-fire on the use of document citation, I will attempt to refrain from using them in my response to you.

In the first place, let’s not diminish the sacrifice of the celibate, who gives up the goods of family, to one with same-sex attraction desperately trying to suppress one’s sexuality. The same-sex attracted, having no attraction to family in any normative sense, cannot legitimately give up that good. There is no sacrifice for him and so, whatever it is that he may be doing, it is certainly not celibacy.

To use psychological or psychiatric tools in order to advance in Christian perfection does not contradict the power of God. This is merely an example of using all of the gifts that God has made available to us. Many of these therapies use a specifically Christian and prayer-filled method in order to achieve the end of reorientation. Whether or not I have ever availed myself of therapy is not the point. The point is that there are real therapists out there presiding over real orientation change in real individuals.

Every sinner is going to be motivated, to a greater or lesser extant, given the strength of his repentance, to some outward manifestation in order to effect conformity with the will of God. Sometimes these things will be general in nature, as a repentant thief returning stolen goods or specific, as in a murderer turning himself in to the authorities. In the case of those with same-sex attractions, I have already pointed out in numerous posts that they cannot separate themselves from their sexuality and that sexual acts need not always involve the genitals. A genuine desire to conform oneself to God’s will, in the face of same-sex attractions, will therefore mandate the healing of the sexuality.

I say again that how the sexuality is healed is irrelevant. As I have pointed out above, I advocate for reparative therapy because it has produced verifiable results. To go off by one’s self and attempt to heal oneself on one’s own, using the Sacraments both blasphemes them by using them as magic talismans and lends itself to a perverse individualism that is at odds with the Christian communion.

As for the love that those with same-sex attraction are able to express, I answer that in this behavior is irrelevant. Like it or not, the ban on admitting those with same-sex attractions to the seminary is not arbitrary. It is founded upon characteristics intrinsic to those who have the disorder regardless of how they deal with it. These deficiencies remain in those people and because the Church chose to make that particular document public, it is obvious that she wished the lay faithful to recognize those deficiencies and incorporate them into their prudential judgments regarding individuals with same-sex attractions.

Same-sex attraction, whether or not it is accompanied by genital expression, distorts the ways in which individuals with the disorder interact with everyone. In this, every relationship becomes tainted and the decision not to pursue tangible healing particularly grave and narcissistic in itself. In the end, there is no reason for those with same-sex attractions not to pursue therapeutic healing that does not boil down to being either self-centered, cowardly or both.