off shoot from Catholic and Homosexual thread

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

I objected to sexuality being fundamental to form relationships with others on ALL sorts of levels, connecting this to our fundamental relationship with God, as Mark indicated, because he seemed to be making this conclusion to justify his embrace of homosexuality.

Let me quote once more from the “Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders.” We have this with regard to people with “deep-seated homosexual tendencies:”
Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women.
That statement clearly indicates that sexuality is fundamental to all of our relationships, at least initially insofar as we are in relationship with anything that’s a man or a woman. Furthermore, if whatever we do to the least of our brethren we do to God, then it seems pretty clear to me that our relationships with others and our relationship with God are intimately intertwined. Therefore it seems relatively obvious that our sexuality is fundamental to all of our relationships.

Mark is using a non-standard definition of chastity with which you seem to be in consonance. His post listing the “fruits” of homosexual relations mentioned self-control. It is deducible that he is in effect asserting that there can be chastity in a homosexual relationship, equivalent to the chastity within a marriage of a man and a woman.

My definition of chastity is the integration of sexuality into the whole human person. How does this disagree with the catechism?

I am, in fact, asserting that a homosexual person can be chaste. But more than that, yes, I assert that there can be chastity in a homosexual relationship.

How is chastity possible in a homosexual relationship when chastity as the ordered gift of self excludes homosexuality?

And here we are. The catechism calls homosexuals to chastity as if it is a real possibility, a possibility which I would argue that the language of disorder nullifies. Here you state that chastity must exclude homosexual affectivity. My argument has been that the catechism makes chastity and human wholeness for the homosexual an impossible ideal that will always be beyond him or her. Here, you have affirmed my reading completely. And yet you disagree with how I’m interpreting the catechism?

Alison does a great job explicating Catholic doctrine regarding Original Sin and Grace. If nature is wounded, not destroyed, then grace can start with who we are and *where we are now *and lead us into being precisely who God knows us to be in grace. The classical reformation position was that we are intrinsically evil, that there is no connection at all between who we are now and what we will be–that the two are profoundly discontinuous. The new man is entirely grace, the old is entirely us and our depravity. But that’s the reformation. Not Catholic teaching.

I’ll quote Alison again with regard to the language of disorder:
for the prohibition of the acts to correspond to the true being of the person, the inclination has to be characterised as something objectively disordered. However, since the inclination doesn’t alter, unlike desires which are recognisably vicious, the gay or lesbian person would have a desire which is, in fact, intrinsically evil, an element of radical depravity in their desire. And we would have stepped outside Catholic anthropology.
Find the whole thing here in an article tellingly titled “Good-faith learning and the fear of God.” jamesalison.co.uk/texts/eng17.html

It is Alison’s contention that the pain in which homosexual’s find themselves with regard to Rome’s teaching on homosexuality is that it is impossible for the homosexual to see themselves as the starting place of God’s grace–they cannot be faithful to the teachings on grace and sin and also be faithful to it’s teachings on homosexuality because they each present a radically different understanding of the human person.

This is, to me, a real problem which no one here seems willing to look at or investigate. How does one reconcile these two understandings?

I know that the initial impulse of many here will just be to say, “No, you’re wrong. It doesn’t do that. It doesn’t say that. You’re manipulating things.” But I’m really not. And I would argue that that impulse to deny that there is a problem is one of the factors contributing to the ongoing suffering of homosexual Roman Catholics and their brothers and sisters of other denominations. And I would further argue that that impulse to deny is integral to the continuing perception of homosexuals outside the church who feel that Catholicism and Christianity generally have no good news for them, however much they hunger for it. And they do hunger for it.

And what do they get instead? Disorder.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Elizabeth502]

Which merely confirms my earlier statement: you do not accept the catechism’s explanation of the moral order as valid. You want to invent your own moral order and/or your own own interpretation for that moral order. But Roman Catholics are bound to accept the magisterium’s role in that interpretation, even if you are not.

I’ve a feeling that any interpretation that differs from your own amounts to manipulation, let’s be honest.

 

[Elizabeth502]

cont’d:

What I would like you to do, Elizabeth, is to explain to me how the anguish and alienation of homosexuals who are struggling to understand themselves and their affections in the light of the gospel are to find grace in being told that they are disordered. I would like for you to explain to me how their anguish is a fitting ornament to that gospel, how their pain accomplishes the purposes of the Kingdom of God. Explain that to me, Elizabeth, and I’ll be good to go.

Even the Catechism refers to the disorder in terms that classify it more as a mystery than anything else. The hierarchy does not pretend to understand suffering, of individuals or of whole groups. How to understand and comfort the person who is born disabled, or the person who acquires a disease or disorder? How does any institutional Church relieve that anguish, let alone explain it?

It is unreasonable and uncharitable of you to put such a burden on me personally, as you’ve done here – not just because I am not the OP, not just because I am not a member of the CDF who authored the Catechism, not just because I am responsible for myself and for my own weighty salvation (I might add) as opposed to being responsible for the sexual and other moral behavior of the rest of the human race…But because also I do know homosexuals rather closely and I am respectful and treat them with equal dignity as the rest of “my” world. I do not consider myself responsible for any personal sense of “alientation” that any individual homosexual experiences as a result of the words of the Catechism.

 

[Elizabeth502]

My definition of chastity is the integration of sexuality into the whole human person. How does this disagree with the catechism?

As long as the context of that sexuality is ordered to heterosexual activity, there is no disagreement. I explained earlier, but I do not think that you acknowledged it, that you lifted the term “sexuality” out of context, from that Catechism. It does not refer to orientation or attaction. The context is heterosexuality, by deifnition; the word sexuality is embedded in the differentiation between male and female and their sexual interrelationship.

There’s no allowance in the Catechism for “a sexuality” that can be integrated into the whole person in the same way that heterosexuality can - with an expectation of acting on that sexuality.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Grace & Peace!

My definition of chastity is the integration of sexuality into the whole human person. How does this disagree with the catechism?

I am, in fact, asserting that a homosexual person can be chaste. But more than that, yes, I assert that there can be chastity in a homosexual relationship.

And here we are. The catechism calls homosexuals to chastity as if it is a real possibility, a possibility which I would argue that the language of disorder nullifies. Here you state that chastity must exclude homosexual affectivity. My argument has been that the catechism makes chastity and human wholeness for the homosexual an impossible ideal that will always be beyond him or her. Here, you have affirmed my reading completely. And yet you disagree with how I’m interpreting the catechism?

I can’t address everything in your post right now, Mark. But a few things stand out that I will comment on briefly.

Round and around we are going, Mark. Your definition of chastity v the definition in the Catechism.

My question was: How is chastity possible in a homosexual relationship when chastity as the ordered gift of self excludes homosexuality? —> if it was not clear, this was referring to homosexual acts, homosexual behavior.

Homosexual affectivity is not what we are discussing. You changed terms. But I understand, I realize it is an emotional thing for you. I have a sibling who frames arguments as you do, around personal feelings. How can something so beautiful be wrong, he plaintively asked. If I were to use emotion, my views would be aligned with my dear brother’s arguments. Love can be, but it is not all emotion. It is a matter of will.
,

 

[Elizabeth502]

Just to clarify/add, Mark:
(1) The Catechism describes the attraction as disordered, not the individual. You keep stating that the CCC says the individual is disordered, which it does not say.

(2) No one with any charity would treat another human being – including a human being who is visibly disabled – as “disordered.” So in your challenging me as to “how I relieve the anguish of homosexuals about their disorder” – I cannot relieve internal anguish. What I can do, and do do, is to treat others with dignity, whatever known or unknown disorders or troubles they have or might have. If I happen to know of a particular disorder or disease or disability, I do not address it (unless they mention it & want to discuss it). Why should I? A person is not a disorder. Every person is a whole, dignified person. The Catechism acknowledges that, as does Scripture. I covered that in a previous post on this thread.

So my dealings with homosexuals are as to their personhood and my personhood, and nothing else: our common humanity. I treat them precisely as I treat heterosexuals; in fact, I would say I treat them with greater kindness & respect precisely because (if it’s obvious, or if they’ve disclosed that) they are a minority with regard to self-concept and role.

As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, I have a close male relative who has practiced the lifestyle, but who no longer does, and his last relationship was, praise God, with a female. Without interference from anyone, without reparative therapy, etc., without any approach from any family member. But when he was practicing the homosexual lifestyle, I treated him no differently than I treat him now: with compassion and respect, as every individual deserves to be treated. I don’t engage in rejection of homosexuals on an individual or group basis.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Just a quick response.

My question was: How is chastity possible in a homosexual relationship when chastity as the ordered gift of self excludes homosexuality? —> if it was not clear, this was referring to homosexual acts, homosexual behavior.

It *was *in fact unclear. Because as I wrote in a previous thread, I use the term homosexuality to refer to the inclination, and I will use the terms homosexual acts, or behavior or what have you to refer to acts or behavior. I mentioned that a couple times in this thread.

Homosexual affectivity is not what we are discussing. You changed terms.

Homosexual affectivity is precisely what we are discussing. To my mind, we’ve only recently begun discussing homosexual activity, and I keep trying to steer the conversation toward a discussion of what chastity actually means for the homosexual, but people keep saying (as you effectively seemed to say) that that’s a useless conversation to have in the first place.

But I understand, I realize it is an emotional thing for you. I have a sibling who frames arguments as you do, around personal feelings. How can something so beautiful be wrong, he plaintively asked. If I were to use emotion, my views would be aligned with my dear brother’s arguments. Love can be, but it is not all emotion. It is a matter of will.

Of course it’s an emotional thing for me. Teach me how I am to accept that I am intrinsically and (to all accounts) irredeemably disordered without some emotion–teach me further how such anguish accomplishes the purposes of the gospel. And then maybe I can manage to rip out my heart, stomp on it, spit on it, give it to you and say, “now you have a go. I don’t need it.”

(As a side note, Simone Weil spoke very movingly about the relationship between goodness, innocence and suffering–her metaphor: if a machine were somewhere able to produce the most astonishing good, the most wonderful and helpful things, cures for cancer, the whole lot of it, at the cost of a child’s tear, it would be perhaps the most perniciously evil thing created. Her metaphor is an invitation to see any human construct that purports to work toward the good of mankind–be it a machine, a law, a philosophy, a way of seeing the universe–as similarly depraved if its goodness is paid for in suffering and anguish.)

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace & Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[chrysostim83]

If it came across as unambiguous, and you are taking issue with that, I am sorry. I am not making assumptions now, and without the need to review your record of posts, can you provide a direct reply to this question: do you consider homosexual behaviors/acts as violation of chastity then?

Elizabeth502’s reaction really got my goat and some of that must have spilled over into what I wrote to you. Sorry about that.

The answer to your question is, Yes, I do believe same sex sexual behaviors are intrinsically evil.

. . .they cannot be faithful to the teachings on grace and sin and also be faithful to it’s teachings on homosexuality because they each present a radically different understanding of the human person.

This is, to me, a real problem which no one here seems willing to look at or investigate. How does one reconcile these two understandings?

Thanks for sharing Alison’s brilliant and thought-provoking argument. It’s simple and elegant, with about as bold a conclusion as anyone could wish (“the real Catholic teaching is pro-gay”). Is there any way to defuse the dilemma it poses?

Let’s revisit the first document in which the Church called the homosexual inclination an objective disorder:
Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder. (Homosexualitatis problema, 3)
From this passage, it appears that the homosexual inclination is nothing more nor less than the desire or willingness to engage in same sex sexual behaviors. For the only other thing it could be is a same sex sexual attraction, but an attraction is ordered to a person and a person is never an intrinsic moral evil. It is not possible to object here that it is the sexual-ness or the same-sex-ness of the attraction that makes it disordered, since the argument quoted makes no appeal to the quality of the inclination or the sex of the person who has it. All that remains then, is the conclusion above, that the inclination is the desire or willingness to engage in the actions.

If this point is correct, it gets us off the hook very nicely. The central nerve of Alison’s argument is that the disorder in homosexuality, unlike other moral disorders, cannot be changed. This is plausible on the surface, since there’s no evidence that sexual orientation can be changed, but the hitch is that the homosexual inclination (i.e., the disorder in homosexuality) is not the same thing as sexual orientation. After all, a nun or a monk can be heterosexual even without desiring or willing to sleep with someone of the opposite sex, and, in the same way, one can be lesbian or gay without wanting to engage in same sex sexual behaviors. Moreover, just as in the case of the nun or the monk, one can little by little overcome such concrete desires, so in the end, it turns out that the homosexual inclination does fall into line with other moral disorders after all.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Grace & Peace!
…
It *was *in fact unclear. Because as I wrote in a previous thread, I use the term homosexuality to refer to the inclination, and I will use the terms homosexual acts, or behavior or what have you to refer to acts or behavior. I mentioned that a couple times in this thread.

Homosexual affectivity is precisely what we are discussing. To my mind, we’ve only recently begun discussing homosexual activity, and I keep trying to steer the conversation toward a discussion of what chastity actually means for the homosexual, but people keep saying (as you effectively seemed to say) that that’s a useless conversation to have in the first place.

My question was: How is chastity possible in a homosexual relationship when chastity as the ordered gift of self excludes homosexuality?

I brought up homosexual relationship in the context of the question. Hence, it should have been clear I was not referring to one that is not romantic or not sexual. As you can gather from the response of chrysostim to my post, he clearly understood the meaning of my question.

Anyway, now that it’s clear how the sentence reads or should read, do you still maintain that chastity is possible in a homosexual relationship where homosexual sexual activity is taking place? If so, your definition of chastity is manifestly not in accord with the definition of chastity in the Catechism.

Of course it’s an emotional thing for me. Teach me how I am to accept that I am intrinsically and (to all accounts) irredeemably disordered without some emotion–teach me further how such anguish accomplishes the purposes of the gospel. And then maybe I can manage to rip out my heart, stomp on it, spit on it, give it to you and say, “now you have a go. I don’t need it.”

(As a side note, Simone Weil spoke very movingly about the relationship between goodness, innocence and suffering–her metaphor: if a machine were somewhere able to produce the most astonishing good, the most wonderful and helpful things, cures for cancer, the whole lot of it, at the cost of a child’s tear, it would be perhaps the most perniciously evil thing created. Her metaphor is an invitation to see any human construct that purports to work toward the good of mankind–be it a machine, a law, a philosophy, a way of seeing the universe–as similarly depraved if its goodness is paid for in suffering and anguish.)

What do you want to hear in a Catholic board where you engage Catholics who hold to Church teachings, Mark?

Over and over, the distinction is made across threads in this forum, and as Elizabeth’s last post just indicated, that it is the attraction that is disordered, not the individual.

I don’t mean to be insensitive. It’s not like our family has been unaffected by the issue or controversy or I have not been personally involved in heart wrenching discussion over issues pertaining to a gay brother. My other siblings and our mother realize it is hard for one to accept a life without a partner, involuntary celibacy akin to a scourge. However to say it would be unbearable, it can not to be endured, is an exaggeration. We hope, we pray, for young people like this CAF member with SSA in that other thread, that he is able to form real same-sex friendships, that he is able to reach out to a mature adult, a mentor, to help him get through these rough times. What he needs, as we on this side of the debate think, is time to sort out what is far from fixed or permanent, not a suggestion that the answer to despair is to give in or give up the struggle against SSA.

To go back to family members and friends in general, we realize a partnered life does not happen to every adult heterosexual male and female. For some, marriage just does not happen and a few would even remain happily single. By choice. For many, there is a ‘disorder’ of some kind, of a different nature. So the people who live single lives comprise not an insignificant part of the population. More often than not, they eventually find peace and contentment. As for heterosexual unions and marriages, there is this 50% fail rate, if you believe oft cited but unreliable statistics. So a partnered life is not for every body else who is not a homosexual, and a single life is not the worst fate.

The natal and extended family play a role even as people approach old age. Fortunately for ours, there’s a bunch of siblings, cousins, nieces, nephews, etc. So for the brother who turned out to be different in sexual orientation, who does not have a partner in life, will most likely never have a wife or children, to play ‘solo’ is not the worst thing that can happen. At the end of the day, we are our brother’s keeper. He knows he is loved. He knows he is not alone. Sure, he gets lonely, but he does not have to be if he makes it a point not to be.
,

 

[Elizabeth502]

The deprivation of sexual expression is something that many people endure without misery, and others even embrace (through vowed celibacy). To somehow equate the deprivation of what attracts one with a unique level of anguish that is equivalent to permanent ‘alienation’ from self is just not convincing unless one buys that physical sexual expression is essential to full personhood, or is the central aspect of personhood, or that it is the most beautiful expression of love, and the sine qua non of love. But that is not something that rings true with human experience. And agape can exist without eros and can bypass eros. People who have lost their sexual faculties due to injury, people who never connect with a partner (despite desire), people who consecrate their celibacy/virginity in religious life, none of these people are “alienated” from their ‘selves.’ They are just as whole, and have lives with just as much meaning (possibly in many cases with far more meaning, especially if they are living out a deeply personal calling) as people who are sexually active. That fact persists even if they remain attracted to what they cannot indulge, or have chosen not to indulge. If they are “alienated from themselves,” there is an emotional, psychological, and/or spiritual problem that no sexual activity, no sexual permission, no statement from the Vatican, will address, relieve, or cure.

Validation from society, or from institutions in society, cannot compensate for a lack of personal (self) validation, no matter how often those external validations are extended, and from what sources. In localities where homosexuals live in ultra-permissive and ultra-tolerant communities – socially and legislatively, and with every expressed desire of “equality” fulfilled – one often finds excessive and repeated attempts for further validation from external sources: demands for unique documents, demands for duplicative position papers and proclamations, demands for all kinds of public recognitions which will never result in personal happiness. Ultimately, the existential self is not subject to societal opinions, blessings, or rejections. This is the dignity of the human person even without the additional Christian understanding of that.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

As long as the context of that sexuality is ordered to heterosexual activity, there is no disagreement.

Again, Elizabeth, my critique here involves the mounting scientific and experiential evidence indicating that homosexuality is not a defective heterosexuality. This is something the RCC will have to deal with sooner or later. If chastity can only exist if the sexuality is ordered to heterosexual activity, then the RCC has effectively rendered homosexuals (by which term I refer to those with a homosexual affectivity) incapable of chastity and all of the various goods which chastity signifies.

If (contrary to the mounting scientific and experiential evidence), there is overwhelming, consistent, and conclusive evidence that a majority of homosexuals can and do, freely and without coersion, become heterosexuals and are able to desire heterosexual activity in the same way that heterosexuals do and are able, moreover, to maintain such desires, then we can say that all evidence points to homosexuality being a disordered or a disfunctional heterosexuality, and we can further make the claim that heterosexuality is just a descriptive term for universal human sexuality.

But that evidence simply does not exist. And the scientific and experiential consensus, as I’ve mentioned, is moving and has moved in quite the opposite direction: that homosexuality represents a non-pathological minority variant of human sexuality.

I explained earlier, but I do not think that you acknowledged it, that you lifted the term “sexuality” out of context, from that Catechism.

In fact I did acknowledge the larger context and thanked you for pointing it out. I also indicated that it did not affect my argument in the least. Comments like this (coupled with your recent post suggesting that I believe not having sex represents an incredible hardship–I don’t, by the way, and I’ve said as much in other posts in this thread) make me wonder if in fact you’re reading my responses at all. Which, if you weren’t, would certainly account for some of the frustrations I’ve experienced during our dialogue.

It does not refer to orientation or attaction. The context is heterosexuality, by deifnition; the word sexuality is embedded in the differentiation between male and female and their sexual interrelationship.

It’s my understanding that the catechism builds upon terms previously defined. You are certainly correct to say that sexuality is not exclusively understood by orientation or attraction (again, I’ve acknowledged as much when I indicated that sexuality is important to all of our relationships–clearly not all of our relationships are sexual). But you would be incorrect to say that sexuality does not include, in a fundamental and basic way, orientation or attraction.

There’s no allowance in the Catechism for “a sexuality” that can be integrated into the whole person in the same way that heterosexuality can - with an expectation of acting on that sexuality.

This is precisely what I have been saying. The catechism does not allow for a sexuality that is not heterosexually inclined and understands any other inclination as disordered–despite the growing consensus of scientific and experiential evidence which suggests that homosexuality is, in fact, a non-pathological minority variant of human sexuality.

Insofar as the RCC denies the scientific and experiential evidence, it denies homosexual people (that is, people whose affections are homosexually inclined) the possibility of living out their lives in chastity, because it is impossible to reconcile the scientific evidence with the understanding of the RCC. Nonetheless, the scientific evidence represents actual fact. The refusal to accept this fact and to continue to characterize homosexual affectivity as disordered amounts to a complicity in and approval of the various consequences which calling a non-pathological minority variant of human sexuality entails–not the least of which is an understanding of human anthropology which is fundamentally contrary to Catholic human anthropology (as Alison has demonstrated and I have mentioned above) and which can only produce confusion and anguish for Roman Catholic homosexuals and others who are seeking to live their lives (including their sexuality) in the light of the gospel.

And I/we can say all of this without once making a reference to an approval of homosexual acts–that is, having this conversation does not depend on us talking about people engaging in homosexual acts. What this conversation means for how those acts can be understood is a separate discussion.

I hope this clarifies one thing or another. But I doubt that it will.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Elizabeth502]

If chastity can only exist if the sexuality is order to heterosexual activity, then the RCC has effectively rendered homosexuals (by which term I refer to those with a homosexual affectivity) incapable of chastity and all of the various goods which chastity signifies.

No. Again, then, you ignored my response to Chrysostim, which listed homosexual behaivor as one of the offenses against chastity in the CCC, and thus equally renders the affirmative sacrifice of that activity as an embrace of chastity, along with (by definition) the gifts of that virtue.

But that evidence simply does not exist. And the scientific and experiential consensus, as I’ve mentioned, is moving and has moved in quite the opposite direction: that homosexuality represents a non-pathological minority variant of human sexuality.

The moral teaching of the Church founded by the Son of God is not qualified by “scientific and experiential consensus,” a consensus which also states that heterosexual unmarried couples “have” to copulate in order to be personally fulfilled, that they have the moral right (as well as the societal legal one) to engage their desires without restriction, and to describe their own desires in absolute terms.

Comments like this (coupled with your recent post suggesting that I believe not having sex represents an incredible hardship–I don’t, by the way, and I’ve said as much in other posts in this thread) make me wonder if in fact you’re reading my responses at all.

I am not only a careful writer; I’m a careful reader. I respond directly to your comments, which stated that there was a unique anguish faced by frustrated or restricted homosexuals that was somehow not shared by any other segment of humanity on earth, including (I will add) by heterosexuals so frustrated.

This is precisely what I have been saying. The catechism does not allow for a sexuality that is not heterosexually inclined and understands any other inclination as disordered–despite the growing consensus of scientific and experiential evidence which suggests that homosexuality is, in fact, a non-pathological minority variant of human sexuality.

Only non-pathological from a secular viewpoint, not from a spiritual viewpoint. And not even unanimously from a psychological viewpoint, actually. As to Catholic anthropology, it conforms to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Further, I don’t see your aim as to:

(1) what you want the Roman Catholic Church to do about its moral absolutes (if it could do anything about that, which is another thing you do not understand: it can’t); this is what the word “absolute” means;

(2) what you imagine would be accomplished by any change in the RCC’s core teachings, with regard to the supposed happiness (or “lack of anguish”) of those with homosexual attraction. Because, as I mentioned in my previous post (today), those with that attraction who have been repeatedly affirmed by the secular world are not content with such affirmations. It does not bring them personal happiness, Mark. And similarly, I would think that if you, personally, are as convinced of the “beauty” and “holiness” of your own homosexual relationship, as equal with married heterosexual relationships, as you have stated for about a year on CAF, you would have no need to try to convert lay Catholics on a discussion forum about that conviction.

The Roman Catholic Church is actually not in the happiness business, but in the salvation business, much of which takes place despite, or even with the aid of, profound unhappiness. It’s called The Cross (otherwise known as Anguish), which is the heart of Christianity. Those who are heterosexual are as much called to The Cross as those who are not, regardless of their affirmation, or lack of it, by society or by individuals. Those of any orientation who refuse the Cross do so at their own eternal peril.

But the bottom line is this: Even if the RCC were to eventually adopt a secular anthropology exclusively or primarily, which ignored the Gospel, it could never dismiss (as a result of embracing any modern ‘theory of sexuality’) the sexual code of sacred scripture, which does forbid homosexual acts. To do so, the Church would be profaning God’s Word. No cosmetic change would result in a denial of divine law as the Church understands that law. And since I am not a member of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (third time now), I cannot be held personally responsible for Roman Catholic moral theology.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

These are compelling points you raised in reply to Mark’s latest post:

The moral teaching of the Church founded by the Son of God is not qualified by “scientific and experiential consensus,” a consensus which also states that heterosexual unmarried couples “have” to copulate in order to be personally fulfilled, that they have the moral right (as well as the societal legal one) to engage their desires without restriction, and to describe their own desires in absolute terms.

I would think that if you, personally, are as convinced of the “beauty” and “holiness” of your own homosexual relationship, as equal with married heterosexual relationships, as you have stated for about a year on CAF, you would have no need to try to convert lay Catholics on a discussion forum about that conviction.

The RCC would never dismiss …the sexual code of sacred scripture, which does forbid homosexual acts. To do so, the Church would be profaning God’s Word. No cosmetic change would result in a denial of divine law as the Church understands that law.

Your final point obviously refers to the clobber verses, which preceded the Gospel and RCC teaching, but by themselves serve as a powerful stand alone obstacle for homosexual apologists. They have fielded numerous revisions and twistings to get the moral message changed, of course, but the revisions fail in an honest reading of the original languages.

Alex Mason, FPN policy analyst, has a recent piercing commentary about the clobber verses. A notable statement from his commentary:
Since it is becoming more difficult to undermine these passages from a scholarly standpoint, homosexual activists have adopted a more psychological approach, that is, appealing to the hurt emotions of those condemned by the texts.
Mark could charge that he is being ‘clobbered’, but he has evidently turned to an approach that appeals to hurt emotions to advance his argument in this thread.

 

[John21652]

Grace & Peace!

Again, Elizabeth, my critique here involves the mounting scientific and experiential evidence indicating that homosexuality is not a defective heterosexuality. This is something the RCC will have to deal with sooner or later. If chastity can only exist if the sexuality is ordered to heterosexual activity, then the RCC has effectively rendered homosexuals (by which term I refer to those with a homosexual affectivity) incapable of chastity and all of the various goods which chastity signifies.
…

But that evidence simply does not exist. And the scientific and experiential consensus, as I’ve mentioned, is moving and has moved in quite the opposite direction: that homosexuality represents a non-pathological minority variant of human sexuality.

This is precisely what I have been saying. The catechism does not allow for a sexuality that is not heterosexually inclined and understands any other inclination as disordered–despite the growing consensus of scientific and experiential evidence which suggests that homosexuality is, in fact, a non-pathological minority variant of human sexuality.

Insofar as the RCC denies the scientific and experiential evidence, approval of homosexual acts–that is, having this conversation does not depend on us talking about people engaging in homosexual acts. What this conversation means for how those acts can be understood is a separate discussion.

I hope this clarifies one thing or another. But I doubt that it will.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Someone needs to spare us from the further rantings of this avowed homosexual protagonist. In another thread he began to argue that we should adopt a Marxist perspective and if that hogwash isn’t enough to have to swallow, we are now told that *"…scientific and experiential evidence…", *which Deo Volente tells us " …represents **actual fact…", now "… suggests that homosexuality is, in fact, a non-pathological minority variant of human sexuality."He of course, states all this with no cited references. Cannot readers understand that if what Deo Volente were telling us was truly “actual fact” the conclusions would be much more than suggestions, as he asserts. They would be undisputable scientific facts! As for trying to tell us that homosexuality has no pathological underpinnings, that is stretching people’s credulity just too far. Regardless of whether the cause is genetic, or environmental, it is pathological. Unless, of course, Deo Volente has redefined the meaning of pathological! Now why wouldn’t that surprise me?

To avoid any confusion, here’s the dictionary definition - from here:

pathological ˌpæθəˈlɒdʒɪkəl] less commonly, pathologic
adj

1. (Medicine / Pathology) of or relating to pathology
2. (Medicine / Pathology) relating to, involving, or caused by disease
3. (Psychiatry) Informal compulsively motivated a pathological liar
   pathologically adv

Deo Volente is even trying to alter the meaning of what homosexuality really is. The definition, from merriam Webtser tells us -

ho·mo·sex·u·al·i·ty
noun \ˌhō-mə-ˌsek-shə-ˈwa-lə-tē
Definition of HOMOSEXUALITY
1
: the quality or state of being homosexual
2
: erotic activity with another of the same sex

He is right on one point. Homoseuality is indeed a *"…minority variant of human sexuality." *But then, saying that is like telling us the sky is blue. Homosexuals represent between 1-3% of all populations. It is not normal behaviour. Morally, it can never be considered as normative. Christianity and the Catholic Catechism represent a normative ethic - it refers to the 97% of the human popuklation who are “normal”. This poster has attempted to employ every convoluted argument ever devised to refute objective morality and the Catholic Church’s position on homosexuality. His entire argument is subjective. It has no validity when compared and contrasted with an objective moral ethic. It can make this claim, except when employed by the gay rights protagonists to further their agenda.

If Deo Volente were a smidgen honest he would know that current genetic science has thrown away the idea of there being a "gay gene’ responsible for the disordered condition which he champions. There is now a realisation that the genetic functioning of the human genome is much less deterministic and much more adaptive than previously thought. The so called “junk DNA” is yielding great insights into the role of RNA and how it writes and often miswrites DNA codes. It is now becoming known that the presence of disordered human conditions and diseases is as much a product of environment as it is of heritability. Homosexual protagonists are merely attempting to enhance an environment which legitimises their behaviour. A gift it aint.

Elizabeth502 and** InSearchofGrace** have, with great charity, offered up an indisputable argument based on the objectivity of Christian tradition and Catholic theology. Would be catholics and even those strong in their faith can learn much from their writings. They make Deo Volente’s self serving arguments seem positively whining in comparison. Still he persists and does so with the same arrogance thay made him think he was capable and qualified to advise a young and troubled person. His entire thesis is predicated on a hubris which I find appalling. End this nonsense now. Someone…

 

[michelleds]

End this nonsense now. Someone…

Yes, I have made multiple requests to have this thread locked.

Thank you, Elizabeth and InSearchofGrace, for so calmly and thoroughly responding to Deo’s claims and theories. This thread very quickly went beyond my paltry abilities and I am very grateful for your responses; I’ve learned a lot.

Mark, thank you for laying out your theories and responses and remaining calm.

Although it would appear that hardly anyone ever searches the innumerable homosexuality threads before posting their own, this is an excellent reference thread.

 

[chrysostim83]

I was going to ask John a lot of critical questions about, for example, why he switched dictionaries mid-post, or why an ethic which “refers to the 97% of the human popuklation [sic] who are ‘normal’” ought to be followed by those to whom it does not “refer.” (For the record, the natural law “refers” to everybody because it is written on the hearts of all.)

But if everyone agrees the thread’s time has come, then its time has come. For my money, the Catholic side of this discussion was disappointing. For one thing, it was common to see people here re-explain Catholic teaching over and over again without recognizing that Deo Volente had an argument about those teachings; did anyone ever respond to his use of the 2005 Instruction to show that sexuality has such a pervasive influence on human relationships that having a disordered sexuality makes one a disordered person? Not that I saw. All that happened was people would read the conclusions, then explain their own interpretations of Catholic teaching as if an argument had never been proposed.

This leads into the second issue with the Catholic side here. Many of the participants indulged in knee-jerk reactions against the views of anyone who doesn’t believe gay Catholics should feel like piles of human excrement. Or perhaps I’m overgeneralizing from my case. What I know is that certain Catholics won’t agree that chastity is the virtue that moderates the sexual appetite if they hear it from someone they suspect is not reliably anti-gay… even though they ought to know that that’s a correct definition and the one you will find in any moral theology text published before, let’s say, 1992.

 

[Elizabeth502]

We did present argument. Deo volente did not wish to accept the logical, coherent argument because he accepts neither theological premises on which the CCC is based, nor its coherence.

Second, he demonstrated over and over, in conversations wtih InSearchofGrace and me, that he preferred to lift and alter terms from the CCC to fit his definitions, rather than discuss and apply the definitions which have integrity within the document. (CCC: “By chastity is meant… By virtue is meant…”) You both did this, denying that refraining from homosexual behavior is listed in the CCC as a requirement of chastity, and (therefore) that those who abide by such chastity benefit from the virtue along with all Christians who practice this virtue.

It is not the current position of the Church that someone with any disordered attraction (including but not limited to SSA) is a disorderd person through and through, in some kind of absolute, final, complete, or radical sense. That is contrary to essential doctrine and to Scripture itself. Nevertheless, to the extent that any of us succumb to any disordered attraction (i.e., behavior), and to the extent that (therefore) the indulgence of it weakens our character, affects our psyche, undermines or distorts our self-concept, jeopadizes our relationship with the God who believers understand is indeed integral to our psyche, to that extent it is possible that repeatedly indulging in any disordered attraction can threaten our full personhood. That is not a judgment on individual persons with SSA; it is a logical conclusion that can be drawn for anyone with any kind of attraction which is not ordered to God’s creation and man’s relationship to creation. (such as unhealthy appetites) It depends on the nature of the struggle, the consistency of that struggle, the temperament and conditions of that person, etc. It is not for any human person to decide regarding any other human person. Principles are different than verdicts.

I think it is quite unfair to characterize my respectful, and InSearchofGrace’s respectful, conversations with Deo Volente as “knee-jerk reactions.” However, I will not countenance the manipulation of the English language and the disregard of logical argument. So if repeatedly returning a debater to the correct definitions and terms is considered by you to be “knee-jerk,” I can’t help you.

Finally, to accuse us debaters as somehow contributing (by supposed neglect) to the sense of “gay Catholics” “feeling like a pile of human excrement” is really beyond the pale. (Or to say that the Church is responsible for such feelings, or that those who explain the teachings are responsible for such supposed feelings.) Several times on this thread I have referred to the dignity of all human persons, including those with SSA, a universe which clearly includes participants on the thread. I have opposed the notion that having SSA makes one undignified, less a person, etc., not only from my own personal viewpoint (which shouldn’t matter or be an issue), but importantly from that of the Church.

Yes, you’re overgeneralizing, to put it mildly. I will leave readers to wonder who is and who is not engaging in intellectual debate (vs. emotional debate), and versus who might be bordering on name-calling and/or disrespecting the legitimate views of others, not to mention an objective representation of a text. Hmmm.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

I agree that the time has come to end this thread. I am very appreciative of the discussion, as well as the opportunity to have it with such lively people who are so passionately dedicated to living lives of truth and virtue.

A few things before I sign off on this thread–

–Chrysostim, I didn’t get a chance to talk with you, but I hope I will in the future. Your response to Alison’s double-bind conundrum is, I think, a very compassionate look at how we can find our way through this. It’s also an understanding I’ve never heard proposed before, and I’m very grateful to you for your willingness to engage the issue outside of the boxes we often find ourselves in. Perhaps we could investigate what your response might mean in another thread?

–John, I love you.

–So much of this conversation has reminded me of a number of things–Jesus’ words regarding the urchins of Jerusalem: we piped, but you didn’t dance; we mourned, but you wouldn’t mourn. It reminded me of Peter’s vision of the unclean foods that God insisted he had made clean, which led me to reflect on the words used in those Levitical clobber passages: to’evah or bdelygma (ritual defilement or abomination) used to describe unclean foods, a woman on her period, and homosexual activity vs. zimah or anomia (objective evil). I was put in mind of pharoah and the process by which our hearts get hardened, and I felt humbled and ashamed of my own growing hardheartedness. And I was reminded, too, of Jaroslav Pelikan’s justly famous bon mot, “Tradition is the living faith of the dead, traditionalism is the dead faith of the living,” and I felt Pelikan’s words could give *all *of us pause.

–Yes, John, I love you.

To Michelle, Elizabeth, InSearch and Diana, I wish you all love, peace, and an abundance of joy. I’m proud, honored, challenged, and overjoyed that you are my sisters in Christ. You will be in my prayers. I ask that you pray for me, too.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[chrysostim83]

–Chrysostim, I didn’t get a chance to talk with you, but I hope I will in the future. Your response to Alison’s double-bind conundrum is, I think, a very compassionate look at how we can find our way through this. It’s also an understanding I’ve never heard proposed before, and I’m very grateful to you for your willingness to engage the issue outside of the boxes we often find ourselves in. Perhaps we could investigate what your response might mean in another thread?

It would be a pleasure. I’ll try to set it up later.

 

[jomoco]

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.