That’s correct. The Church teaches that homosexual acts are inherently disordered. There is fundamentally no difference between people with SSA, hetrosexuals with overly-strong sex drivesl, persons with violent tempers, persons attracted to drugs or alcohol. We don’t know what causes these things, and the Church does not condem the status of the person, only his acts – if he acts on his drives.
honestly, thankyou so much for giving me a straight unbiased answer on this (and blessed too). I’ve takena real battering over this a few times and it’s a massive weight off my shoulders to know that there is a realistic path and not some impossible and unrealistic process.
Apropo of the discussion the meaning of “chastity” – note the bolded section.
Goofyjim, may I say one thing? I don’t think you are goofy…in fact, thank you for being open and honest about how you deal with SSA. Putting your faith in the Eucharist, in the other Sacraments available to us…that is the only way any of us will over come sin or struggles of any kind.
When in doubt, always look to the Cathechism. You will find in it the unbiased answers you seek. God bless you!
I don’t think it is. The Catechism encourages people with same-sex attractions to gradually and resolutely pursue Christian perfection. (1) That is what reparative therapy does. If you instead preach that only those with same-sex attraction ought to despair of achieving a normal sexuality and that, only for those with same-sex attraction, chastity is the equal of sexual suppression, then you are preaching heresy. Chastity is not sexual suppression and nowhere have you managed to demonstrate that it is. The cross individuals with same-sex attraction must bear is the journey back to the heterosexuality that they have lost through sin. (2) It must be, else the inclination cannot, logically, be disordered. I urge you to cite any orthodox material that says otherwise.
AMEN
I encourage you to read the citation back to the infallible scripture that identifies the sin of idolatry as the genesis for same-sex attraction. Of course, I suppose, like others with same-sex attraction, you could choose to ignore the scripture that does not support your worldview. Indeed, I tend to automatically discount, as should any orthodox Christian, any sort of “experience” which flies in the face of Divine Revelation or Church teaching.
okay eric, you’ve no clue what my world view is, you’ve no idea on the views I have over SSA, the only thing you know about me is that I have SSA but live single and that is enough for you to be prejudice and disregard the alue of any experience I may have had
The Church’s teaching is clear on the subject and has been posted here. The Chuch is the final interpreter of scripture, and as Catholics it is our duty to accept it.
Rather that posting isolated quotes out of context, let’s look at the entire entry in the Catechism regarding homosexuality.
Somehow, from this passage, you extrapolate this?
This is not taught by the Church. Do not keep stating that it is necessary in order to live chastely.
I don’t PREACH anything. Just quoting the Catechism. You, on the other hand, are adding opinions. For example, where in the Catechism does it even mention this thing you call “sexual suppression”? This term has no meaning. What the Catechism does say is:
If you are trying to say that homosexuals can undergo reparative therapy so that they may HAVE a way to express their sexuality, then I would say, YES! Certainly if someone with SSA is compelled to attempt a therapuetic course then they should absolutely be encouraged. But you insist it is a mandatory teaching of the Church. It is not.
No, that is not the cross of those living with SSA. By your logic, someone who is alcoholic must somehow journey back to an “ordered” state, whereby they are no longer alcoholic. By your logic, it is not enough for a recovering alcoholic to simply abstain from drinking. They must somehow become un-alcoholic. Yet we know alcoholism is not curable. And like homosexuality, we can’t know if a person is born an alcoholic, becomes one, or chooses to drink excessively. We also realize it doesn’t matter because the issue is THE BEHAVIOR. Call it alcohol supression, continence, temperance, whatever you wish. We all have the disorder of Original Sin. Our obligation to Our Lord is to steer clear of the tempation to act on our disorder.
I’ve cited the Cathechism enough times for you on this thread. I hope the others reading it get the message.
Here is the Church authentically interpreting the scripture in question:
Rome has spoken. You must either submit, or lapse into heresy.
That homosexuals are to be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity and that every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided, I have no quarrel with. It is that very respect, compassion and sensitivity that motivates me to point out to these individuals that by the Church’s own definition of chastity, which I have also quoted from the Catechism, that virtue is simply unattainable in the presence of same-sex attractions.
This is the authoritative definition to which all must submit if they are to accord to the Church the respect due her. You cannot successfully integrate a same-sex attracted sexuality and therefore cannot live up to the chastity required until the sexuality is healed. Unless, you wish to make a special exception for those with same-sex attraction.
Since same-sex attractions are a disorder of the sexuality that “affects all aspects of the human person,” it cannot rationally be equated with a disordered thirst for alcohol, as that is an appetite that can be eradicated entirely without any damage to human dignity. To imagine that chastity can equate to a crude program of continence by default rather than by positive choice is to blaspheme the virginity of those who choose to forsake family life, denigrate the sexuality and, by extension, show contempt for one’s body. I repeat, as I have pointed out in a previous post, this is the heresy of Manicheanism. (3)
Alcoholics do not cease being alcoholics once they stop drinking. They are still alcoholics. Any AA member will tell you this. They struggle with it for the rest of their lives.
Why does your profile say “Lapsed Catholic”?
Um…really? Is it ex cathedra? Was this particular definition intended to be formally defined? Was the Catechism the result of a dogmatic conciliar proclamation, intended to bind all the faithful for all time? It may very well be a “sure guide” (taken as a whole), but it’s certainly not dogmatic at the line-by-line level you’re claiming. No one claims that this is the case - that’s why it’s been revised (several times) since its original promulgation.
There are many physical evils we have no obligation to cure. If a man is born deaf, he has no obligation to spend all his money on a ground-breaking and not-typically-successful procedure to correct it. The loss of one sense affects the whole person just as surely as sexual desires. The Magisterium does not require the faithful to undertake extraordinary forms of therapy (in fact quite the opposite), despite the effect on the unity between body and soul.
You have strung together several cherry-picked quotes from several documents (and one priest who - though holy - is not formally a member of the Magisterium) to produce a requirement the Magisterium has never officially proclaimed.
Has anyone on this thread been advocating the position that homosexual acts are good?
Rome has indeed spoken – you have had the relevant passages of the Catechism posted here so you may read them. You must either submit, or lapse into heresy.
Indeed. I have quoted from all the relevant paragraphs of the Catechism in each one of my posts. I submit to them and neither you nor anyone else on this thread has managed to demonstrate that I do not. I will not take on a rose-colored view of the Catechism just to make things easier for those with same-sex attraction. The respect, compassion and sensitivity we are commanded to give to those with same-sex attractions means that we must never hold them to a lower standard than the rest of us.
You can slice it, you can dice it, and you can throw it up against the wall. But I think this exchange sums up your position very well.