off shoot from Catholic and Homosexual thread

[michelleds]

Deo Volente said:

{snip}
In a general sense, our sexuality is fundamental to our capacity to form relationships, fundamental to our desire to move beyond ourselves and into communion with others, on all sorts of levels. It is fundamental to our relationship with God.
{snip}
And God is not a sadist. God does not assign us burdens either willy nilly or “for our own good.” But we are born into a fallen world and into the various social and cultural contexts of that world and in those contexts, sometimes the good gifts which God has given us are seen by others as disgusting or wrong. That perception is a burden. But God suffers with us when we suffer, he mourns with us when we mourn, and he is our joy when we are happy. God wants nothing more and nothing less than to be our joy.
{snip}

Try to discover some of the hidden gifts of being homosexual. Being gay myself, I have always felt outside the mainstream, and I have learned that this is a precious gift. It allows me to see things, hidden things, often things that are consigned to the margins of culture or society, that others quickly overlook or refuse to notice. It allows me to see my world a bit more critically. But more importantly, I’ve discovered that it encourages me to be more compassionate–because I, too, know what rejection and marginalization are about. And I would not give up any of these things.{snip}

Mark, I’ve tried not to take anything out of context although I was liberal with my snipping.

My first question to you regards this belief that our sexuality is fundamental to our relationship to God. Would you please explain?

Second, you are stating in paragraph 2 that homosexuality is actually a good gift from God and that everyone else’s perceptions are wrong. You are advocating that homosexuality is God’s gift. Jomoco in another thread has stated that homosexuality is God’s gift as well. What exactly is your evidence for this theory?

Third, in paragraph 3, you move from homosexuality being a gift to the hidden gifts of being a homosexual.

These thoughts of gifts, in my opinion, separates homosexuality and homosexuals into a subset of “you are so unique and special”. This subset mentality then allows for things such as, “the main group just doesn’t understand”, “we’re special, we need special rules”, “those regular folks should do that, but we don’t have to”.

 

[jomoco]

Deo Volente said:

Mark, I’ve tried not to take anything out of context although I was liberal with my snipping.

My first question to you regards this belief that our sexuality is fundamental to our relationship to God. Would you please explain?

Second, you are stating in paragraph 2 that homosexuality is actually a good gift from God and that everyone else’s perceptions are wrong. You are advocating that homosexuality is God’s gift. Jomoco in another thread has stated that homosexuality is God’s gift as well. What exactly is your evidence for this theory?

Third, in paragraph 3, you move from homosexuality being a gift to the hidden gifts of being a homosexual.

These thoughts of gifts, in my opinion, separates homosexuality and homosexuals into a subset of “you are so unique and special”. This subset mentality then allows for things such as, “the main group just doesn’t understand”, “we’re special, we need special rules”, “those regular folks should do that, but we don’t have to”.

I believe this may be the pertinent “clause” of mine you’re seeking…

That you deny God made homosexuals as a barometer of our ability to love, and not hate our fellow man, flawed, and in sore need of God’s grace and forgiveness.

[End Quote]

Just a humble opinion of mine, nothing more…

jomoco

 

[michelleds]

I believe this may be the pertinent “clause” of mine you’re seeking…

That you deny God made homosexuals as a barometer of our ability to love, and not hate our fellow man, flawed, and in sore need of God’s grace and forgiveness.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Hi Michelle. Thanks for taking this discussion to another thread.

My first question to you regards this belief that our sexuality is fundamental to our relationship to God. Would you please explain?

It’s my understanding, and this understanding is (ironically?) informed by the Roman catechism, that our sexuality is fundamental to our ability to form relationships on every level (not merely or only sexual or romantic relationships). And our relationship with God is not the special provenance of a different part of our souls and/or bodies, particularly given that God says that whatever we do to the least of his brethren, we do to him and, in the summary of the law, associates love of God and love of neighbor as intimately and intricately linked.

Second, you are stating in paragraph 2 that homosexuality is actually a good gift from God and that everyone else’s perceptions are wrong. You are advocating that homosexuality is God’s gift. Jomoco in another thread has stated that homosexuality is God’s gift as well. What exactly is your evidence for this theory?

The options, I think, are these:

1–homosexuality represents the *absence *of a good gift.
2–homosexuality is a curse (or a disease, or what have you).
3–homosexuality is nothing special.
4–homosexuality is a gift.

I believe that our humanity, who and what we are, is fundamentally a gift. Our sexuality is integral to human wholeness. If we happen to be homosexual, we are not lacking in human wholeness or in any good gift that is not also given to heterosexuals by virtue of their humanity. Homosexuality does not appear to be an absence of anything then. Nor do I believe it is a curse or a disease, otherwise it would be possible, given how fundamental our sexuality is to our ability to form relationships, that *any or all *of a homosexual’s relationships would cursed or diseased or somehow *wrong–*including his or her relationship with God. And that would be indicative to me, of a kind of awful predestination to misery. If homosexuality is nothing special, it seems like a very significant nothing special…but then I don’t think that anything about the gift of being human is simply nothing special. But it seems to me that homosexuality, like heterosexuality and the rest of what it means to be on the human adventure, is a gift which entails it’s own particular responsibilities analogous to those entailed by the heterosexual gift.

Third, in paragraph 3, you move from homosexuality being a gift to the hidden gifts of being a homosexual.

These thoughts of gifts, in my opinion, separates homosexuality and homosexuals into a subset of “you are so unique and special”. This subset mentality then allows for things such as, “the main group just doesn’t understand”, “we’re special, we need special rules”, “those regular folks should do that, but we don’t have to”.

Oh no! This isn’t an appeal to specialness, only to a kind of uniqueness in which everyone (by virtue of being a unique creature of God), I believe, shares. Sometimes that uniqueness is elided by the dominant or normative culture. Sometimes that uniqueness is hard to elide: being left-handed in a right-handed world, being Asian in a predominantly African American neighborhood, being a woman in a male-dominated business world, being Roman Catholic amidst a majority of Protestants. All these things can put one outside the mainstream and open up the possibility of receiving a variety of gifts. It’s not “us v. them” or “look how special I am or we are.” We are all one family, and are all special, beautiful children in God’s sight. It’s more about how we use adversity or difference, or uniqueness, or what have you to the benefit of others. We all have gifts, and all of them are needed and needful.

I hope all that made sense, Michelle, and I thank you for giving me the opportunity to clarify things.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[michelleds]

I believe that our humanity, who and what we are, is fundamentally a gift. Our sexuality is integral to human wholeness. If we happen to be homosexual, we are not lacking in human wholeness or in any good gift that is not also given to heterosexuals by virtue of their humanity. Homosexuality does not appear to be an absence of anything then. Nor do I believe it is a curse or a disease, otherwise it would be possible, given how fundamental our sexuality is to our ability to form relationships, that *any or all *of a homosexual’s relationships would cursed or diseased or somehow *wrong–*including his or her relationship with God. And that would be indicative to me, of a kind of awful predestination to misery. If homosexuality is nothing special, it seems like a very significant nothing special…but then I don’t think that anything about the gift of being human is simply nothing special. But it seems to me that homosexuality, like heterosexuality and the rest of what it means to be on the human adventure, is a gift which entails it’s own particular responsibilities analogous to those entailed by the heterosexual gift.

Unfortunately, Mark, you seem to make a huge leap (well, several, but I’m only taking up this one for now) by stating that homosexuality is part and parcel of human wholeness. By taking that stance, of course, you lay the foundation for every justification that follows. You apparently believe that God created homosexuals and/or homosexuality in exactly the same way He created heterosexuality. however, there is no evidence of such a thing. our fallen nature accounts for homosexuality. if it were otherwise, don’t you think there would’ve been at least ONE gay couple in the bible? and I don’t mean the favorites of gay activists and revisionists (David and Jonathan or Naomi and Ruth), I mean there are examples of good behavior by prostitutes, pagans, idol worshippers, adulterers, homicidal maniacs, great persecutors, converts, etc. seriously, not ONE single example of a favorable gay man or woman?

in another thread, I quoted all of the various and well-known bible verses concerning homosexuality and asked how one could be both intellectually honest and deny that God considers homosexuality an abomination. homosexuality is not on a par with heterosexuality; it is on a par with other forms of immorality–masturbation, fornication, adultery, etc ad nauseum. Can you explain?

Your posts paint you as a very bright man, but entrenched in your own homosexuality. What I don’t understand is why you hang out here in CAF Moral Theology? I’m guessing that you feel this is some sort of “mission” for you–to present the calmer, cooler head of pro-gay-ness to those posters who come to CAF and state that they are gay or bisexual?

 

[DianaCC]

If we happen to be homosexual, we are not lacking in human wholeness or in any good gift that is not also given to heterosexuals by virtue of their humanity. … Nor do I believe it is a curse or a disease, otherwise it would be possible, given how fundamental our sexuality is to our ability to form relationships, that *any or all *of a homosexual’s relationships would cursed or diseased or somehow *wrong–*including his or her relationship with God. And that would be indicative to me, of a kind of awful predestination to misery. … But it seems to me that homosexuality, like heterosexuality and the rest of what it means to be on the human adventure, is a gift which entails it’s own particular responsibilities analogous to those entailed by the heterosexual gift.

I totally disagree, for several reasons.

First, all homosexuals I have ever known have also been emotionally immature. So I have to insist that homosexuality falls short of human wholeness.

Second, emotional immaturity influences all aspects of a person’s life, especially relationships with other people. I have seen emotional immaturity bear the sort of fruit one would expect from any affective disorder, and from what I can tell one’s relationship with God is also influenced. It is a predestination to misery to the degree the individual neglects his own growth.

Third, in no sense is homosexuality a gift, except perhaps ironically. A gay friend of mine often jokes that straight men are jealous of him because he gets all the hot women. Positive assessments of homosexuality gloss over what it is in itself, an inclination toward an intrinsic moral evil.

Fourth, the responsibilities entailed by heterosexuality include restricting the use of the sexual faculty to legitimate circumstances. But sodomy can never be legitimized. Hence the responsible practice of homosexuality is … to not do it at all, ever. So the responsibilities are not analogous.

 

[John21652]

Try to discover some of the hidden gifts of being homosexual. Being gay myself, I have always felt outside the mainstream, and I have learned that this is a precious gift.c It allows me to see my world a bit more critically. But more importantly, I’ve discovered that it encourages me to be more compassionate–because I, too, know what rejection and marginalization are about.

This quote is a statement made by Deo Volente to a young 20 year old male who was having trouble with his SSA, who had obviously come to CAF seeking some help and guidance from fellow Catholics. And what did he get from Deo Volente? He got some of the most narcissistic, self serving clap trap I have ever seen dished up.

For Deo Volente to tell a young man of 20 years of age to “Try to discover the hidden gifts of homosexuality” reeks totally of hubris. I have deliberately linked to the wikipedia article on hubris. Take note of the first paragraph.

According to Deo Volente, the human attributes of compassion and insight are the “precious gifts” of being homosexual and caused by “being outside the mainstream”. Doe Volente’s post is a blatant attempt to make homosexuality appear as special and conferring special gifts upon anyone so afflicted.

He is merely prosletyzing.

In the process he is giving fraudulent advice to others and particularly so when the ‘others’ happens to include a young Catholic seeking advice and assistance from his peers.

The fraud is compounded because Deo Volente is attempting to attribute to homosexuality attributes that are common to the rest of humanity in varying degrees. The fraud is then made worse by the suggestion that his homosexuality makes him able to discern what others quickly overlook or refuse to notice because he knows what rejection and marginalization are.

From a reading of that one could be forgiving that anyone who does charity work because they discern what goes on at the edges of society and all those who devote their lives to helping others are somehow able to do so because they are homosexual, or homosexualy inclined. It would seem Mother Theresa herself, with her special insights and attitudes to the poor and marginalised, could be considered gay!

Deo Volente forgets that many heterosexuals, both male and female, also experience rejection and marginalisation. Unfortunately, many do not develop any special traits of compassion and insight and not a few develop pathological traits as a result. There is no link between marginalisation, rejection and the so called 'special traits" he attributes to homosexuality. Conversely, many of the most insightful and compassionate people in the world today, and amongst the most insightful and compassionate people the world has ever seen, are not homosexual either, so there are no link between those traits and homosexuality. Deo Volente, however, using his own experience, would have us beleive there are such linkages.

The short answer to his assertions is “piffle”.

The long answer is “get over yourself”.

 

[mariafransisca2]

I believe we can fall in love with the members of the same sex without having to be a homosexual!

Mother Mary is the world’s first love, according to fulton sheen.

Yes I am in love with Mother Mary. She is my first love.

Why are there many homosexual thread in this section Shouldn’t we be talking about Jesus’ love?

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Well. Lots to respond to. And while I’m a bit bemused by some of the vitriol, I’m grateful for the challenges passionately expressed, and for the opportunities to clarify my position. I’ll try to respond to posts in order. I may not be able to tackle them all in one go, so I hope you’ll be patient with me.

Before we go further, let me point out that I have used the term “homosexuality” to refer to same-sex attraction, not to homosexual acts. If I am talking about homosexual acts, I will use the phrases “homosexual acts” or “homosexual behavior” or will use the word “sex.” I hoped this would have been clear from the contexts of my posts. But let’s move on…

Unfortunately, Mark, you seem to make a huge leap (well, several, but I’m only taking up this one for now) by stating that homosexuality is part and parcel of human wholeness.

I believe it can be, yes–a person who is a homosexual can, indeed, be a whole person, meaning that their homosexual desire is fully integrated into their humanity in chastity.

What is the alternative? That homosexuals, insofar as they actually are homosexuals (that is, conscious of their desire for romantic or sexual intimacy with the same gender) cannot experience human wholeness. If we are all called to chastity, and if chastity (whether within or without sacramental marriage and all that that means) is the end to which sexuality is ordered, is a chaste homosexual’s chastity less a fulfillment of their sexuality than a chaste heterosexual’s chastity? While a heterosexual’s chastity is part of the fulfillment of their sexuality and of their wholeness, is a homosexual’s chastity something entirely alien to their sexuality and their wholeness? I would say it is not. Is a homosexual, unlike a heterosexual, chaste in spite of their sexuality? I would say no. I would say, in short, that it is possible for a homosexual to be a whole, integrated person. Are you saying the opposite, Michelle? Because it sounds like you are.

You apparently believe that God created homosexuals and/or homosexuality in exactly the same way He created heterosexuality.

Perhaps not exactly the same way… My belief is merely this: that homosexuality is a non-pathological minority variant of human sexuality, that human sexuality naturally admits the possibility of homosexual attraction.

Let’s look at the alternative, which, I imagine, is your position Michelle. Let’s assume that homosexuality is, in fact, a disorder of a human sexuality that is naturally heterosexually ordered. If this is the case, should there not be consistent and reliable evidence which unequivocally demonstrates that a supermajority of homosexuals can have their sexuality permanently and non-coercively restored to heterosexuality? And instead of counseling “disinterested friendship” for a homosexual, would it not behoove the magisterium to make sure that the catechism include a statement on the necessity of reparative therapy?

But this evidence does not exist. And the catechism, moreover, contains no such statement.

But. Okay. So. Let’s continue to assume that it is a disorder despite a lack of evidence and despite the lack of encouragment for a cure from the magisterium. Let’s just strongly assert that a homosexual has an intrinsically disordered sexuality. And there’s nothing he or she can do about it. It’s just plain broken. What does that get us?

Well, given the centrality of sexuality to our ability to form relationships, to desire relationships rightly, it is not unreasonable to suppose that homosexuals simply cannot be in right relationship to anything. There will always be something wrong about their relationships, including their relationship with God. In fact, because the disorder is intrinsic to their sexuality, it would be manifestly impossible for a homosexual to desire any sort of relationship rightly. They are, in short, doomed. Which realtes to the fact that human wholeness is impossible for them, because how can something so disordered, something so intrinsically broken, be integrated into a whole human being? It can’t.

Nonetheless, let us insist that homosexuals be chaste. But if chastity is essential to human wholeness, and human wholeness is impossible for a homosexual, what does this chastity actually do, or of what does it signify? Perhaps a permanent state of contrition for being so broken, but a contrition that has no end or fulfillment in forgiveness. Because healing of the disease, reparation of the disorder, is impossible—there’s certainly no widespread evidence for it; it’s not a reality that most homosexuals with “deep-seated” homosexual tendencies will ever experience–they haven’t yet.

Needless to say, this puts the homosexual into a very curious relationship with grace. In short, the last thing we should be able to find is an actually chaste homosexual couple from whose relationship any good can come. After all, we know a tree by its fruits. The tree of loving homosexual relationships should be devoid of all virtue and of human flourishing.

But I can tell you from experience, Michelle, that such things can be found in homosexual relationships by the grace of God. And you may deny that such a thing is possible all you like, but I have seen it, I have experienced it, I have known it, not just in my own relationship, but in others I have been privileged to watch grow in grace.

I’ve little doubt that you’ll protest all of this. I also have little doubt that you will actually respond to the points I’ve made. I hope you do respond. I’ll be surprised if you do. But I’ve a feeling you’ll find a way not to.

[CONTINUED…]

 

[Deo_Volente]

…CONTINUED & COMPLETED]

don’t you think there would’ve been at least ONE gay couple in the bible?

Why should it? The whole idea of sexuality as we understand it arose in the 19th century. Certainly the awkward compound Greek and Latin word “homosexual” would have been absolutely foreign to the writers of both the Old and the New Testaments. Moreover, the writers of the Bible seemed largely more concerned with the contexts within which people behaved toward each other and not so much the orientation of people’s sexuality–this is the fundamental reason why the catechism makes a distinction between orientation and act…because the idea of sexual orientation as we understand it just doesn’t exist in the Bible. I wouldn’t expect to find a gay couple in the Bible any more than I’d expect to find a description of someone reading a novel in the book of Exodus. To get to the place where gay couples qua gay couples are even possible requires a variety of small, slow changes in social, economic, and political structures over a large period of time.

Which is not to say that homosexual desire is anything new (one look at the Symposium or the Phaedrus would prove as much). It’s just that it was not understood in the way we understand it.

Moreover, whether or not David and Jonathan were gay is immaterial, really. Here are two men who fiercely loved each other, who kissed each other, who had a very intense relationship. You could hardly call theirs a “disinterested friendship” particularly given their covenant together, and even given Saul’s criticism of Jonathan as being the son of a perverse mother and as having chosen David to his own confusion and to the confusion of his mother’s nakedness. There’s a lot going on there. Would I call them gay? No. Why? Because they wouldn’t. And ultimately, it doesn’t matter if they actually were.

Would I call the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts gay? Or the centurion whose beloved pais was healed? No. Whether or not they were gay in our understanding of the word, it doesn’t matter–it would be dishonest to call them gay.

At the end of the day, though, Michelle…what’s your point?

in another thread, I quoted all of the various and well-known bible verses concerning homosexuality and asked how one could be both intellectually honest and deny that God considers homosexuality an abomination. homosexuality is not on a par with heterosexuality; it is on a par with other forms of immorality–masturbation, fornication, adultery, etc ad nauseum. Can you explain?

I’ve dealt with these in other threads, Michelle. I can recapitulate the specifics if you like, but much of it comes down to context, both textual and cultural.

But I hope (given my caveat regarding my use of the word “homosexual” above) that you’re not saying that a homosexual orientation is an abomination (in the sense of utterly sinful). The catechism doesn’t even go that far.

Your posts paint you as …] entrenched in your own homosexuality.

In what way am I entrenched in my homosexuality? While I’m not necessarily the most interesting person around, I can guarantee you that the small fact of my homosexuality is one of the least interesting things about me. Perhaps you think it more important to me than it is because we encounter each other talking about it so much?

What I don’t understand is why you hang out here in CAF Moral Theology? I’m guessing that you feel this is some sort of “mission” for you–to present the calmer, cooler head of pro-gay-ness to those posters who come to CAF and state that they are gay or bisexual?

I wrote on another thread that I’m trying to understand both my dissent towards RCC teachings in this area as well as other people’s beliefs which allow them to give the assent that I cannot. I respond in these threads sometimes because I think the conversation would be more fun if people were actually articulating why they believe what they believe as opposed to just affirming their disapproval or quoting one thing or another as if cutting and pasting something were a suitable substitute for either thought or conscience.

I’m not here to present the calmer, cooler head of anything–these conversations often make me incredibly angry, bitter and depressed about a variety of things. That’s my fault, my failing. But ultimately, I’m not interested in visiting that anger or bitterness on anyone, nor am I interested in being insulting, or allowing how sad someone’s point of view makes me to lead me to think or write of that person in a way unbefitting their dignity–I don’t think those things would get any of us anywhere. So if I come across as calm, or cool-headed, I’ll chalk that up to grace, not to my own nature.

Thanks for the conversation, Michelle.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Elizabeth502]

I believe we can fall in love with the members of the same sex without having to be a homosexual!

This is an excellent point, and there’s a lot of truth to that in the psychological literature, which is often mirrored in fictional (artistic) literature.

There are varieties of love. The excitement we feel in anticipating the return of a close friend after a long trip does not have to have a single erotic (genital) element in it; yet it is not inaccurate to say, I think, that there is attraction involved. If we did not experience all kinds of mutual attractions in our lives, we would not develop and sustain friendships. There can even be an undercurrent of (hetero)sexual attraction in the choice of employers to hire one person and not another equally qualified person – not with the subconscious intent to harrass the employee sexually, or eventually to date off the job – but merely because attraction is a valid dynamic even in business associations. I do feel that, as an employee in various jobs, I have experienced this myself: that I was hired not only (and mainly) for my abilities, but that there was also a low-level ‘magnetism’ involved. (An accident; nothing contrived; and also nothing to take credit for; just a random effect.)

In this overly eroticized culture we live in, it has become automatic for too many to equate closeness (including with the same sex) with sexual expression. However, having lots of same-sex Platonic relationships is ego-strenghtening, helping the person actually to become a more independent, self-directed person, which reinforces any pre-existing heterosexual orientation rather than diluting that. In the Courage apostolate, and the group experiences among males connected with that, one of the revelations has been the newness of genuine male-to-male bonding that Courage has provided in its activities.

My very first solo roommate was, at the time, my best girlfriend. She and I were perfect complements, personality wise, and also considered each other intimate soul-mates. We commented, during this very mature but young-in-age relationship, that perhaps this experience was preparing us for our eventual marriages to our husbands. Looking back on it, I can definitely say that was true. It was safe intimacy without sexuality; it enabled trust, and by that trust, respectful, liberating communication – which as we all know is the most crucial ingredient for a healthy marriage. (At least among all the couples I know.)

Mother Mary is the world’s first love, according to fulton sheen.

Another excellent point, and perceptive of you to remember such a quote from him.

Yes I am in love with Mother Mary. She is my first love.

I will agree on my own part that I have an intense intimacy with her; I see no reason to deny that as ‘falling in love’ as well.

Why are there many homosexual thread in this section Shouldn’t we be talking about Jesus’ love?

Well we should certainly, in moral theology, be focusing on decision-making (moral behavior), and morality (the commandment of love within the framework of truth and justice) is far more than sexuality. Decision-making is a matter of the will, in Catholic theology, of which genital expression is only one realm of personal choice. Can’t disagree with you there, as well.

 

[michelleds]

Mark, I do hope to respond fully to your points though not without some considerable thought. As I think about your posts today, I need a point of clarification. The below quote as well as an opening statement cause me to wonder if we are on the same page, term-wise.

I have not been using the word “homosexual” to refer to the attraction, but to the acts. furthermore, I was not addressing my comments to anyone with ssa who was living in a chaste relationship.

i wholeheartedly agree with you that SSA is not the sin and is not immoral.

Thanks,
michelle

Needless to say, this puts the homosexual into a very curious relationship with grace. In short, the last thing we should be able to find is an actually chaste homosexual couple from whose relationship any good can come. After all, we know a tree by its fruits. The tree of loving homosexual relationships should be devoid of all virtue and of human flourishing.

But I can tell you from experience, Michelle, that such things can be found in homosexual relationships by the grace of God. And you may deny that such a thing is possible all you like, but I have seen it, I have experienced it, I have known it, not just in my own relationship, but in others I have been privileged to watch grow in grace.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Mark, I am not trying to assume michelle’s role, but I must respond to some of your statements. I’ll start with these:

…the idea of sexual orientation as we understand it just doesn’t exist in the Bible. …

“As we understand it” (and I would not universalize that “we”)
It just doesn’t exist (as an “understanding”) in far more than just the Bible, but I submit throughout most of human history. You see, there is the assumption (we all have this bias without being conscious of it), that history = progress (in all respects, in all arenas of human experience, and the expression of that experience). The illusion is that the march of time provides continuously advancing and comprehensive illumination. No it doesn’t. It brings it with claims to understand ourselves and our past better. Any good historian knows this. I’m surprised that with your seemingly fine education, you are not being (I think) as intellectually honest as you could be about this. (That’s not an insult; it’s an assumption of your ability.)

As a discipline, history, and its subdivisions (history of psychology, of art, etc.) is affected by the lens of the era. It is not possible to be a “completely objective” historian. The ones who do the best job of being reasonably “objective” for us are those whose personalities are less ‘impassioned,’ who have a gift of approaching the past with more detachment than the rest of us, but they bring their cultural biases with them, inserting them even into the degree of interest with which they study certain facets. Thus, history texts from some eras are heavily weighted toward descriptions of global military conquests, others toward political intrigue; more modern historians have focused on culture and the interplay between culture and national identity; contemporary history tends to focus inordinately on the cult of personality. Etc.

Moreover, whether or not David and Jonathan were gay

:banghead:

[See below]

And ultimately, it doesn’t matter if they actually were.

Then why introduce such innuendo? Especially since the message being pounded home in sacred scripture is not a compendium of sexuality – let alone an ahistorical application of modern theories of sexuality-- but a compendium of God’s continual, persistent love affair with humankind, and how that love permeated --inserted itself-- into human interrelationships, just as is still true today.

The language of scripture cannot be understood adequately from a modern linguistic perspective, because language is imbedded in culture, and vice-versa. Additionally, one has the problem of translating ancient languages --with their original contexts – into a modern language with its essentially different contexts (semantics). This is why Jewish scholars with advanced training in ancient Hebrew, and Christian scholars with similar training, are better prepared to interpret that this phrase

two men who fiercely loved each other, who kissed each other, who had a very intense relationship.

was not an ancient prototype of a 21st century gay love affair, but a culturally common and normative depiction of ancient Near Eastern friendship without any implication of erotic overtones…just as “the disciple whom Jesus loved” does not mean his gay lover, regardless of how often marginal “interpreters” keep repeating this lie. Embracing, kissing, reclining: these were all part of the anthropology of the time and place which admitted of public intensity in physical expression, including within the same sex – expression which much more modern culture has detached from because of its artificial (I would argue) equation of all physical expression with erotic expression, except that between relatives.

This is why my older daughter’s public expressions of affection toward me raise eyebrows: I’ve always looked young; she looks womanly. Our oversexualized culture sees two women kissing, holding hands while walking down the street, and they assume, “Lesbians.” I’ve seen people snicker & point & look shocked.

Back to ancient texts: A believer does not regard sacred scripture as a clinical history of sexuality, with the starting point being (this is important) modern ‘theories of sexuaity’ (19th century and forward). Because to approach scripture that way is first of all (as I have shown) ahistorical and thus nonfactual. A believer understands three things about those ancient texts: they are highly self-reflective ‘history’ with an emphasis on message as opposed to 'objective facts"; they are artistic expression; and they are holy, in-Spirited (inspired) message. This is why, among other reasons, the Jewish practice of Midrash is illuminating: it approaches texts with the faith of the believer combined with the understanding of the linguist and the appreciation of the literary analyst who is sensitive to allusion. To regard even individual episodes narrated in the Bible as some kind of mini-encyclopedia of divinely approved sexual behavior is an illegitimate approach to scripture.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…
My belief is merely this: that homosexuality is a non-pathological minority variant of human sexuality, that human sexuality naturally admits the possibility of homosexual attraction.

… Let’s assume that homosexuality is, in fact, a disorder of a human sexuality that is naturally heterosexually ordered. If this is the case, should there not be consistent and reliable evidence which unequivocally demonstrates that a supermajority of homosexuals can have their sexuality permanently and non-coercively restored to heterosexuality? And instead of counseling “disinterested friendship” for a homosexual, would it not behoove the magisterium to make sure that the catechism include a statement on the necessity of reparative therapy?

But this evidence does not exist. And the catechism, moreover, contains no such statement.
,

Let me just address the above portion of your two-part post.

Why does the Magisterium not have the Catechism include a statement on the necessity of reparative therapy? I’m surprised you even pose the question.

You skip the fact that the Church DOES propose integration of self with psychotherapy and spiritual healing, because the brokenness is both of the body/mind and the spirit. The Church respects science but she is a spiritual teacher, remember, in the business of saving souls? The Church is wise not to drive a bigger wedge between mental health professionals and the Church.

I’m sure we would disagree on what the APA gay psychiatrists and activists did in 1973 and after, to force the homosexual agenda. ‘Mainstream’ psychiatrists and psychologists have ordered all therapists that reparative therapy is harmful to patients. Never mind that there are hordes of people with UNWANTED homosexuality and same-sex attractions, right? Thankfully, there are therapists who had and continue to have the courage to buck the APA.

Since you brought it up, let’s recap what happened after the APA removed homosexuality as a mental disorder in the DSM in 1973. The psychiatrists gave the green light, “go ahead with what you’re doing, just learn to live with it. It’s okay to be gay.” As a compromise to the objecting mental health professionals, a new diagnosis – ego dystonic homosexuality – was adopted that simply stated a persistent lack of normal arousal that interferes with heterosexual relationships the person wants and emotional distress caused by unwanted homosexual arousal. Still, that was not acceptable to the activists. So the diagnosis was removed altogether, leaving a faint vestige of it under “Sexual Disorder Not Otherwise Specified.”

Whether homosexuals like to hear this part of history or not, the AIDS epidemic burst in the scene some years later, in the early 80’s.With the transmission of the disease to the heterosexual population, the liberal minded would have the world forget that AIDS crisis had its beginning in the gay population. The liberal minded would have people believe now that the problem is merely a lack of safe sex methods, not the immorality of sexual behavior! And just so you don’t think I’m giving heterosexuals a pass, they did and still do their part in contributing to the decadence of the culture we have now.

To go back to the subject of reparative therapy, the APA warned therapists not to suggest that homosexuality is a mental disorder or to recommend reparative therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation. In dealing with gay clients from conservative faiths, therapists were told to be “very cautious” about suggesting treatment to alter SSA, that SSA should be accepted, supported in the exploration of identity and development without imposing a specific identity outcome. The starting point became homosexuality is a normal variant of human sexuality.

Practicing and promoting homosexuals find it easier to have this as a starting point, and look at theology and Scripture in a way that aligns with this starting point. Just as what you are doing, Mark.

As in a number of mental illnesses, there are degrees in the homosexual condition from the deep seated type (usually manifesting in adult homosexuals who are past experimentation, already in the lifestyle) to a fluid sexual orientation stage as a result of started habit (with porn and masturbation), false education, a lack of normal sexual development, bad example, etc. This kind is transitory in many cases. Even if many mental health professionals do not consider homosexuality as a mental illness, they agree that homosexual orientation is not necessarily a fixed point.

I hope you understand why the statements you made to the young CAF member struggling with SSA in the other thread do not sit well with us on this side of the debate. Michelle appropriately called you to task in presenting the calmer, cooler head of pro-gay-ness to those posters who come to CAF and state they are struggling with SSA. Elizabeth is right to call to task your not too subtle introduction of innuendos from revisionist interpretation of biblical text. I think you did an artful, honey-tongued proselytizing myself, positioning yourself in CAF to lead others, in effect, to your unbelief of RCC teaching on homosexuality.
,

 

[mariafransisca2]

This is an excellent point, and there’s a lot of truth to that in the psychological literature, which is often mirrored in fictional (artistic) literature.

Thanks elizabeth for the reply.

For the current, I am in love with my friend who is also a woman, with a chaste love. It is actually Jesus’ will. I have noticed improvement in my relationship with others as a result of the friendship I have with this woman. She’s my best friend.

I am also in love with Jesus and Mary.

Chastity, that’s the boundary.

Jesus commands us to love one another as he has loved us. We need to love one another as he has loved us

But I am not or I do not consider myself to be homosexual or bisexual. Homosexuality is a sin. A mortal sin. It includes lust. Love on the other hand, is a commandment from Jesus. To love one another as he has loved us.

 

[Elizabeth502]

IWell, given the centrality of sexuality to our ability to form relationships, to desire relationships rightly, it is not unreasonable to suppose that homosexuals simply cannot be in right relationship to anything.

On what basis you do assert that sexuality is central to our ability to form relationships? Even psychologists say that the ability to emphathize, to have a referent other than Self, is the essential ingredient to relationship. This is why sociopaths, and people with certain Personality Disorders (such as NPD, such as full-blown Borderline Personality Disorder) are incapable of genuine love. It is not related to anything sexual whatsoever, but entirely to their psyches apart from erotic impulses. Their diseases sometimes have erotic outlets, but they do not begin there.

There will always be something wrong about their relationships, including their relationship with God.

That’s a statement I would attribute only to psychotics, referring to what I just said above. Those who are intrinsically psychotic (genetically, or chemically, for example, or through some trauma that causes a true psychotic break with reality) – such individuals would find it challenging, to say the least, to maintain a progressively responsive relationship with God. Not impossible, but difficult, hampered. We are also taught that they will be looked upon mercifully by God, relative to their limitations and lack of self-control. (Versus those not burdened by true clinical disorders)

But if chastity is essential to human wholeness, and human wholeness is impossible for a homosexual

I don’t buy it. Just as I don’t buy that a frustrated heterosexual male or female, whose lifelong goal is marriage & procreation within a Catholic context, is “less whole” than someone who has been fortunate enough to attain that same goal. Nor do I buy that celibate priests or consecrated religious are “less whole” for the donation of their sexuality to God, for the purpose of universal, disinterested love for the whole human race.

what does this chastity actually do, or of what does it signify?

It signifies loving obedience to God’s commands, a “dying to Self” which is the heart of Christian spirituality.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

As I think about your posts today, I need a point of clarification. The below quote as well as an opening statement cause me to wonder if we are on the same page, term-wise.

I don’t know if we’re on the same page, either, term-wise, though I hope we can et there! I try to be consistent with my use of terms. Naturally, I fail sometimes in that. And when I feel that what I’m saying isn’t being understood because of a misunderstanding with regard to terminology, I try to address it.

Re: the bit of my post that you quoted, it seems to me that if something like homosexuality is as disordered as it is claimed to be, and that, moreover, there is no remedy for it (i.e., a homosexual, whether chaste or not, will remain going through life with a homosexua/disorderedl sexuality), that all of the fruit of a loving homosexual relationship (whether chaste or not) would be disordered. That is, we should not expect to find either virtue or human flourishing in such a relationship (whether chaste or not) because the disorder remains disordered, and the relationship which arises from the disorder can only be said to be disordered at best, if not a blatant manifestation of sin (as a pursuit of the relationship would be a pursuit of disorder and therefore sinful). But, as I wrote, my own experience does that bear that out, suggesting that at the very least there must be *something *about homosexuality that is ordered toward the good and which is not, therefore, disordered at all. Again, we know a tree by its fruits.

I’m going to try to respond to DianaCC shortly. Then John. Then Elizabeth.

Thanks again, Michelle.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Thanks for you (name removed by moderator)ut, Diana.

First, all homosexuals I have ever known have also been emotionally immature. So I have to insist that homosexuality falls short of human wholeness.

I can’t make that statement, Diana. Some homosexuals I know are emotionally immature. Some heterosexuals I know are emotionally immature. Acknowledging all of that leads me to believe that emotional maturity is not necessarily a function of sexuality, though it certainly can affect how that sexuality is expressed, modeled, or understood.

Granted, a lot of what passes for “the gay culture” is focused on an idolization of youth–an idolization which is not unique to “gay culture” but which is found all over the world and throughout history. It is predicated, of course, on the association of youth with beauty. And I think a lot of “gay culture” gets stuck there with a youth obsession–an entire “culture” regularly if not perpetually exhibiting all of the symptoms of a classic mid-life crisis.

Apropos of that, some have observed that, given the (at least once common) conflict between homosexual desire and social disapproval, it has been relatively common for many homosexual people to repress their sexuality through their youth, only to release it in their adulthood, the social effect being that it looks like they’re living they’re adolescence in their thirties, forties, what have you. And some, of course, don’t seem to want to leave that “second” adolescence once they discover that they’re in the midst of it. Certainly, that’s a form of emotional immaturity, and it seems analogous, to me, to the fifty-year old man divorcing his wife, dating a nineteen year old, and buying a yellow corvette. The problem, however, is that “gay culture” does not often discourage such immature behavior. Mainstream culture is only marginally better at that discouragement. But such immaturity is not insurmountable, and once it has been surmounted, the homosexual remains a homosexual.

Some gay folks I know play into an image of immaturity because they feel it’s a role they need to play–like the very popular “gay clown” characters who pop up with ever-increasing and unnerving frequency in pop culture. Which is to say that this is how “being gay” has been modeled to them, so this is how they behave. Roles like the rake and the libertine or the perpetual child are all examples of a similar immaturity.

But I do wonder, Diana, if what you’re calling emotional immaturity couldn’t be something else…and I ask this with trepidation, anticipating your ire…could it be that your labeling all homosexuals as emotionally immature is just a way of saying, “Oh why don’t all you boys and girls grow up, stop fiddling with each other, and become heterosexuals like real men and women?” I only mention it because I know folks who feel that way. I’m sure you can see, at least from my perspective, that this isn’t necessarily the most accurate way of seeing homosexuals. (And please keep in mind that that was in fact a question–I was not imputing that viewpoint to you, just wondering if you had considered whether or not you held it.)

Third, in no sense is homosexuality a gift, except perhaps ironically.

Obviously I disagree, and I’ve given my reasons why. Would you share with me why you believe that it is impossible for homosexuality to be seen as a gift in any way but an ironic way?

Fourth, the responsibilities entailed by heterosexuality include restricting the use of the sexual faculty to legitimate circumstances. But sodomy can never be legitimized. Hence the responsible practice of homosexuality is … to not do it at all, ever. So the responsibilities are not analogous.

There is some truth to this, Diana. I’ve commented on this in other threads before when discussing the very common, “just like heterosexual people, homosexual people have to refrain from sex, unless they’re married, and homosexuals can’t marry. But God’s not asking any more of the homosexual than of the heterosexual.” You’re absolutely right to point out that what is required of a homosexual is different (if only slightly, it nonetheless has real–and big–consequences) from what is required of a heterosexual.

However, because I do not view homosexuality as a disorder, I don’t see that the responsibilities of a homosexual and a heterosexual regarding their sexuality are all that different. They’re not the same, certainly. But I feel they are analogous.

Thank you again, Diana.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[michelleds]

I’m pretty simple so I’m going to just take this discussion slowly, Mark. Besides, it appears that you have plenty of challengers to respond to so I doubt you’ll be twiddling your thumbs waiting for my responses.

Re: the bit of my post that you quoted, it seems to me that if something like homosexuality is as disordered as it is claimed to be, and that, moreover, there is no remedy for it (i.e., a homosexual, whether chaste or not, will remain going through life with a homosexua/disorderedl sexuality),

There are things lurking under the surface here.

1. “as disordered as it is claimed to be” implies that there are levels of disorder. there are not. there’s just “disordered”. For instance, if I say “as salty as it is claimed to be” then I’m clearly implying that it is very salty compared to other things which are less salty. Granted I’m new at this Catechism thing but I have not yet found a meter, guage, pie chart, or weighting factor.
2. I’m not going to concede that there is no remedy. I think that this is going to have to be part of our base line argument. I believe there are remedies, to-wit: sublimation, reparation, God’s grace.

In short, sublimation would be someone choosing to accept the inclination as contrary to God and then proceeding with their lives accordingly. This would include both a solitary life as well as a chaste lifelong friendship. Reparation would be any means by which someone became attracted to the opposite sex. this might be someone who finds that one and only one person of the opposite sex that they eventually marry. God’s Grace obviously covers the other two but might also provide just situations as someone finding themselves no longer attracted to the same sex after a conversion experience.

that all of the fruit of a loving homosexual relationship (whether chaste or not) would be disordered.

I do not accept this premise. If you do a search in the Catechism for the word “disordered”, you will find 12 uses. {I did it for you: http://ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=disordered&s=SS}

Only 3 of those deal with the homosexual inclination. for instance, “2520 Baptism confers on its recipient the grace of purification from all sins. But the baptized must continue to struggle against concupiscence of the flesh and **disordered **desires. With God’s grace he will prevail”.

If the baptized (aka everyone) continues to struggle with disordered desires, then no good could come from anyone ever. right? that’s what follows from your premise.

Therefore, we all struggle with disordered desires/inclinations and that does not make all the fruit rotten (to twist the analogy).

 

[chrysostim83]

It’s pretty difficult to find anything at fault in quoted paragraphs by Mark in the OP. Just consider the first paragraph:

In a general sense, our sexuality is fundamental to our capacity to form relationships, fundamental to our desire to move beyond ourselves and into communion with others, on all sorts of levels. It is fundamental to our relationship with God.

Isn’t that about right? If it were wrong, it would be difficult to understand why Tradition connects chastity with both human and divine friendship (CCC 2347) and why, again, it warns us that sins against chastity actually kill one’s relationship with God. As these facts show, sexuality and how well it is controlled play very important roles in the most important relationships in this life.

As for the second paragraph, look at it again:

And God is not a sadist. God does not assign us burdens either willy nilly or “for our own good.” But we are born into a fallen world and into the various social and cultural contexts of that world and in those contexts, sometimes the good gifts which God has given us are seen by others as disgusting or wrong. That perception is a burden. But God suffers with us when we suffer, he mourns with us when we mourn, and he is our joy when we are happy. God wants nothing more and nothing less than to be our joy.

Perhaps it lacks a certain amount of precision, but there’s really nothing bad here. God isn’t a sadist, and He does not work evil to bring about good. While the next sentence seems to downplay the role of Original Sin in human life, it does at least bring out some concrete ways in which that Sin is manifested. And it is perfectly true that some talents and gifts have been misconstrued: the fact that, historically, actors have been treated as outcasts springs to mind.

The main offense probably comes from the last quoted paragraph:

Try to discover some of the hidden gifts of being homosexual. Being gay myself, I have always felt outside the mainstream, and I have learned that this is a precious gift. It allows me to see things, hidden things, often things that are consigned to the margins of culture or society, that others quickly overlook or refuse to notice. It allows me to see my world a bit more critically. But more importantly, I’ve discovered that it encourages me to be more compassionate–because I, too, know what rejection and marginalization are about. And I would not give up any of these things.

While, on the surface, this conflicts with the Church’s teaching that the homosexual inclination is a disorder, what exactly should be made of it depends critically on how homosexuality is understood. For example, if you think that being gay is nothing more than having a homosexual inclination, then you won’t be able to accept what Mark was saying here. Or if you think homosexuality is a mental illness, then, again, you won’t see much merit in the idea that it’s a gift. But there are other accounts of homosexuality out there. A common one among people who complete the coming out process is that homosexuality is really about the people you fall in love with and not so much about the attractions that go along with that. From that perspective, there’s no contradiction between Mark’s statement and Catholic teaching. (My own understanding of homosexuality is that the sexual attractions that usually go along with it are a side effect of some characteristic that can absolutely be considered a gift. Thus, what Mark said seems all right to me.)

From this point, my question would be, has the Church actually chosen one of these accounts? If so, which one, and if not, then is Mark necessarily wrong?