Poll: majority of Catholics who attend Mass weekly support same-sex marriage, women's ordination [CWN]

[JimG]

They are Catholics. Perhaps they’re not Catholics in good standing but they are Catholics.

Well, one expects the Church to be full of sinners; there’s no surprise there. The church is filled with sinners of every variety each Sunday. What surprises me is that there are those who reject basic doctrines of the Church while seeing no conflict in their position. But I suppose that there are also those who see nothing wrong with adultery, cohabitation, fornication or grand theft as a matter of principle and still go up for communion every week. To me it is rather like a strict Southern Baptist who accepts every Catholic Marian doctrine and sees no conflict in still attending his Baptist church.

But of course, there are those who are well educated in both catechism and civil & human rights. And there is a chasm between the two spheres in the issue of homosexuality. These people aren’t blind fools – assuming they are is overly simplistic.

I don’t think that they are fools. I just think that they are wrong about the nature of marriage.

This is an argument from tradition. Those Catholics discussed in this poll are likely going to need more to go on to change their views.

Certainly it’s an argument from tradition, and from anatomy, and from biology, and from anthropology, and from history. It’s been apparent for millenia that only a man and a woman are capable of engaging in an act which is both ordered to procreation and to the unification of husband and wife and the bearing and raising of children. That’s a pretty important thing to any civilization, since without a next generation, the civilization dies out. That’s a marital act, and same sex couples are not capable of it, and so are incapable of marriage.

As outlined in Carle Zimmerman’s “Family and Civilization,” family structure has not varied hugely over the course of millenia; it follows predictable patterns. Only rarely does family structure become so disintegrated that social structure begins to crumble. But we are getting to that point once again. (In his view, for only the third time in history.)

 

[SMGS127]

Okay. “Be wary” is not anywhere close to the certitude you presented that there is no link. Perhaps, you should be equally wary of saying there isn’t a link.

Again, there is overlap in the age ranges, as children develop at different rates.

As I said, there is no established link. No one has ever been able to show one. I challenge you to show a properly-conducted study that proves a link. Hint: there isn’t one. My comment stands.

 

[epan]

More info on that ‘poll’.

*From September 23 - 29, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,776 American adults with a margin of error of +/- 2.3 percentage points. The survey includes 392 Catholics with a margin of error of +/- 5 percentage points. Live interviewers call land lines and cell phones.

**The Quinnipiac University Poll, directed by Douglas Schwartz, Ph.D., conducts public opinion surveys in Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Ohio, Colorado, Virginia and the nation as a public service and for research.
*
This whole thing is based on one WEEK and 1776 people, of whom all of 392 were Catholics, and from that they posit a MAJORITY of US Catholics?

Pardon me while I try to stop my eyes from rolling.

Yes, that would be the correct conclusion, for those polling results. What are you objecting to?

 

[SaintAugustine]

As I said, there is no established link. No one has ever been able to show one. I challenge you to show a properly-conducted study that proves a link. Hint: there isn’t one. My comment stands.

So, you are more definitive than the psych classes you referred to. Interesting. You must be an expert.

 

[One_point]

Well this puts me in an odd spot then, because I agree with you, but I disagree with One Point. I definitely think same-sex attractions are a cross to bear, but I highly disagree that those with SSA should seek to have such attractions removed before even contemplating becoming religious. Changing an immutable trait would almost require a miracle, and to hope for something that may not happen and refuse to accept a vocational call until said miracle occurs, when you could instead learn to live with the attractions but reject them for Christ while answering His call, seems foolish to me. Being gay and being religious are not mutually exclusive terms, if one has their priorities straight.

SMGS127, does the church teach that this tendency or any other lustful tendency is “immutable” as you say? Huh? Which wisdom informs this opinion? The world’s or the church’s? If pride can be healed at the core of our soul, the deepest disorder in the spiritual centre of the soul and the root of all other disorders, why wouldn’t lust be healed which is rooted in the sensual part of the soul? I challenge you to read the story of st. Mary of Egypt. Imagine telling her that her fleshly passions were “immutable”. According to whom? God or the world?

It takes a miracle, as you say, to overcome the disorders. I agree. It takes no less than God himself. So the question is just how far do you believe in the Christian miracle of grace? Ask St. Paul about his conversion from hate to love, or st Augustine or st Ignatius or st Mary of Egypt about their conversions from their lust to perfect purity. How many countless examples does the church give us of Christians who were great sinners bonded to their flesh who took the journey and reached wholeness? Shall we believe the testimony of their lives or the popular ‘wisdom’ of the current culture?

The Lord says without him we can do nothing. I am not asking anyone to overcome his lustful inclinations by himself. I can’t overcome any of my faults on my own. But I’ll be d****ed if I let the world lie to me that any of my deep-seated faults were immutable. All human faults and disorders would be immutable without grace. But we believe in a God who became a human babe and crucified to give us grace to make us whole, do we not? Have you heard of Francisco, the murderer of st. Maria Goretti, slave of lust and rage? We also have in our church calendar countless examples of the greatly disordered sinners turned into living images of Christ. Why would I buy into the messages of unbelievers when they try to tell me that my greed or pride or lust or selfishness or anger or hate or sloth or envy were immutable? That sounds to me like a lie from the evil one.

We know we were never made to be “gay”, just as we were never made to be proud, or angry or suffer strong inclinations to selfishness or envy or gluttony or strong aversion from effort, lazy, even though we suffer all these things. But we know these are weaknesses in our nature, symptoms of bondage, and all are on the physician’s table for healing and healed they will be, if we remain humble and open, in God’s good timing. What we can never allow ourselves to do is follow the script of unbelievers who are ignorant of who we are and what we were made for and our destiny. They don’t know we have a soul, or understand its nature and grandeur or the disorders it suffers from. How would they know how to heal it? We should tell them the good news of who we really are and what Christ has already done for us and the hope of our sanctification, instead of buying into their false messages that our fleshly disorders are impossible to heal and even a good thing or even who we are!

 

[One_point]

Would not a gay man who had no worldly attachment to his sexuality fit this requirement?

Then why would he be a “gay man”? If he has overcome the particular concupiscence, why insist on identifying him with it? That’s like calling Zachaeous after his transformation, a “greedy man who had no wordly attachment to his greed”. The greed and homosexual inclination are disorders. If one is no longer bonded to them, then he has been healed of them to a great extent. Why identify Christians with sins and weaknesses they have overcome through grace? Why identify them with these dis-orders at all, even if they have not yet over-come them and still struggle?

Edit: I also don’t understand the idea of “gay” being an attachment. If people ask me if I’m lesbian, I say “yes but celibate.” If someone asks a straight person if they’re straight, should they answer “i don’t want to have worldly attachments to a sexuality?” No, they say they’re straight! Saying I’m lesbian means almost no more to me than saying I have blue eyes, as I referenced earlier, and the only bit it matters more is that I can identify with those who struggle with SSA to help bring them to the Church.

i appreciate your reaching out to lost souls in this community, But you approach this question of identity with the mind of the world; thinking of this disorder of the flesh as if it were at par with blue eyes. But are blue eyes a disordered inclination towards sin?

Imagine a Christian who went about identifying himself to others as a greedy man or woman, or a gluttonous man or woman, or a lazy or angry or envious man or woman. Just because he has suffered these things all his life it does not make them part of his identity or a characteristic of his being like the color of his eyes. The proper analogy would be other disorders you suffer from apart from this one, not the color of your eyes. You must have suffered them all your life, but It is not ok for a Christian to be labeling herself with any of her disorders. You do so only because the culture has saturated you that with the idea that this disorder really isn’t a disorder but a neutral, natural characteristic of your nature such as the color of your eyes or hair. Problem is, the culture is lying. In any case, I do appreciate both your conversion from an active gay lifestyle and your outreach efforts to others still living the lifestyle. That is a miracle of conversion we thank God for. I hope in time, as you strive to grow holier and struggle to follow the paths of the countless holy souls before us as we all struggle to do, you will realize for yourself just how far short the wisdom of the world falls when it comes to the illnesses or weaknesses of the soul.

 

[SMGS127]

So, you are more definitive than the psych classes you referred to. Interesting. You must be an expert.

No I am equally as definitive. There is no established link. Show me otherwise if you disagree.

SMGS127, does the church teach that this tendency or any other lustful tendency is “immutable” as you say? Huh? Which wisdom informs this opinion? The world’s or the church’s? If pride can be healed at the core of our soul, the deepest disorder in the spiritual centre of the soul and the root of all other disorders, why wouldn’t lust be healed which is rooted in the sensual part of the soul? I challenge you to read the story of st. Mary of Egypt. Imagine telling her that her fleshly passions were “immutable”. According to whom? God or the world?

It takes a miracle, as you say, to overcome the disorders. I agree. It takes no less than God himself. So the question is just how far do you believe in the Christian miracle of grace? Ask St. Paul about his conversion from hate to love, or st Augustine or st Ignatius or st Mary of Egypt about their conversions from their lust to perfect purity. How many countless examples does the church give us of Christians who were great sinners bonded to their flesh who took the journey and reached wholeness? Shall we believe the testimony of their lives or the popular ‘wisdom’ of the current culture?

The Lord says without him we can do nothing. I am not asking anyone to overcome his lustful inclinations by himself. I can’t overcome any of my faults on my own. But I’ll be d****ed if I let the world lie to me that any of my deep-seated faults were immutable. All human faults and disorders would be immutable without grace. But we believe in a God who became a human babe and crucified to give us grace to make us whole, do we not? Have you heard of Francisco, the murderer of st. Maria Goretti, slave of lust and rage? We also have in our church calendar countless examples of the greatly disordered sinners turned into living images of Christ. Why would I buy into the messages of unbelievers when they try to tell me that my greed or pride or lust or selfishness or anger or hate or sloth or envy were immutable? That sounds to me like a lie from the evil one.

We know we were never made to be “gay”, just as we were never made to be proud, or angry or suffer strong inclinations to selfishness or envy or gluttony or strong aversion from effort, lazy, even though we suffer all these things. But we know these are weaknesses in our nature, symptoms of bondage, and all are on the physician’s table for healing and healed they will be, if we remain humble and open, in God’s good timing. What we can never allow ourselves to do is follow the script of unbelievers who are ignorant of who we are and what we were made for and our destiny. They don’t know we have a soul, or understand its nature and grandeur or the disorders it suffers from. How would they know how to heal it? We should tell them the good news of who we really are and what Christ has already done for us and the hope of our sanctification, instead of buying into their false messages that our fleshly disorders are impossible to heal and even a good thing or even who we are!

The problem is in expecting of God that He will fix every immutable error of original sin in our lives. Some hardships He gives us as learning experiences; we must not demand of Him that He fix all of our errors before we will pursue His vocational call. You want to discuss humility? How about recognizing that God allows us to have errors in our lives for a reason, and accepting that He wishes us to follow Him despite having them. Trust in God that He will work on what needs to be worked on; don’t demand of Him that He fix every little problem. If you put faith in God, He will bring you to Heaven; this does not necessitate the removal of your disorders during this life, though it does necessitate an effort on your part to avoid sin and especially mortal sin.

Live in grace, and avoid sin. Make no demands of Christ but put your faith, love, and trust in Him.

Oh, and by the way, the Church teaches that on matters of science, we are free to believe whatever we wish, as long as it does not contrast with Church doctrine. Believing that SSAs are immutable absent a miracle does not contrast with Church doctrine anymore than believing that being born without a left leg is immutable absent a miracle. There would be no congenital problems of any kind in a world without original sin.

 

[SMGS127]

Then why would he be a “gay man”? If he has overcome the concupiscence, why insist on identifying him with it? That’s like calling Zachaeous after his transformation, a “greedy man who had no wordly attachment to his greed”. What on earth does that mean? The greed and homosexual inclination are disorders, if one is no longer bonded to them, then he has been healed of them. Why insist on identifying Christians with sins and weaknesses they have overcome through grace? Why insist on identifying them with these dis-orders at all, even if they have not yet over-come them and still struggle?

Your approach this with the mind of the world; thinking of this disorder of the flesh as if it were at par with blue eyes. Are blue eyes a disordered inclination towards sin? Imagine a Christian who went about identifying himself to others as a greedy man or woman, or a gluttonous man or woman, or a lazy or angry or envious man or woman. Just because he has suffered these things all his life it does not make them part of his identity or a characteristic of his being like the color of his eyes. The proper analogy would be other disorders you suffer from apart from this one, not the color of your eyes. It is not ok for a Christian to be labeling herself with any of her disorders. You do so only because the culture has told you that this disorder really isn’t a disorder but a neutral, natural characteristic of your nature such as your eyes or hair. But the culture is lying to you.

The difference is that “lazy” is entirely defined by the behavior and has no immutable brain function behind it. SSA, on the other hand, is an immutable part of the brain, absent a miracle, and is therefore, part of who you are. It does not mean that you value your SSA over God at all. It just means that you recognize that God allowed you to be born with a disordered orientation due to the effects of sin, but that you’ll still choose God even if it means ignoring that part of yourself.

The true analogy would be if someone discussed being born without the ability to conceive except through IVF. They would identify as infertile, but they would choose to follow God and his morals rather than risk the deaths of children in order to satisfy their wish for a child. Same-sex attractions are disordered but the attractions themselves are morally neutral. And yes, the Church does teach this. The attractions are just as morally neutral as any other trait of yourself, whether hair color, eye color, height, etc. The fact that you cannot give into the impulses they place into your body does not change the fact that they are morally neutral.

 

[One_point]

Would not a gay man who had no worldly attachment to his sexuality fit this requirement?

So why would he be a gay man in that case? If he had overcome the concupiscence then he would be healed, would he not? That is no different than calling St. Paul a hateful man who was no longer, after his conversion, attached to his sin. Or Zacheous a greedy man who was no longer attached to his greed. Why identify a Christian with a sin or weakness that he has long overcome?

Edit: I also don’t understand the idea of “gay” being an attachment. If people ask me if I’m lesbian, I say “yes but celibate.” If someone asks a straight person if they’re straight, should they answer “i don’t want to have worldly attachments to a sexuality?” No, they say they’re straight! Saying I’m lesbian means almost no more to me than saying I have blue eyes, as I referenced earlier, and the only bit it matters more is that I can identify with those who struggle with SSA to help bring them to the Church.

You can only answer that way (that you’re a lesbian) only because you approach this with the mind of the world. Are blue eyes disorders of the flesh? That you think the two are comparable shows that you have bought into what the culture tells you about homosexuality, that it is a neutral natural characteristic no different than the color of your eyes. But the culture is lying.

Compare your SSA disorder with other disorders that you have in yourself for example, maybe greed or pride or selfishness or gluttony. Can you imagine labeling yourself with any of these disorders just because you have struggled with them all your life? Can you imagine labeling yourself a “greedy man or woman” or “an envious woman”, or “angry man or woman”, in the same tone and attitude as if you were describing the color of your hair? No. Because no matter how long you have struggled with pride, selfishness or anger or laziness, you have never allowed these into your identity. For this SSA disorders, the culture has managed to convince people to take it from the “envy, lust, anger, gluttony, laziness” shelf and onto the “blue eyes, black skin, blonde hair, tall body, slender legs” shelf. It is a lie.

 

[One_point]

SORRY smgs127, I had not read your reply. I withdrew my pist to rewrite it in a better tone but seems you already replied before I withdrew. No matter! Who says that homosexuality is an immutable part of the human brain? I think you should explain that to me before we discuss further.

 

[SMGS127]

So why would he be a gay man in that case? If he had overcome the concupiscence then he would be healed, would he not? That is no different than calling St. Paul a hateful man who was no longer, after his conversion, attached to his sin. Or Zacheous a greedy man who was no longer attached to his greed. Why identify a Christian with a sin or weakness that he has long overcome?

Well overcoming in the sense that it does not affect your life is different than the traditional consideration of what “overcoming” a temptation is thought to mean in our culture, e.g. to remove it entirely. These are two different interpretations of the word “overcome.” I identify as a lesbian who has about 95% overcome it. I have no worry of ever falling back into the behavior, but I still fall into ruts occasionally where I start encouraging my attractions. Even once I (entirely through the grace of our Lord) overcome it completely, I will still have those attractions; they will just no longer provide a near occasion of sin for me. In other words, I will still be attracted to women physically, but it will not put me at any risk. This is how I am 95% of the time, and only the occasional libido spike can push me out of my routine in ignoring my attractions. Eventually, I hope in Christ that even that will not lead me to seek out my attractions. But the attractions will still be there, just entirely controlled, just as they are 95% of the time for me. Thus, I am a celibate lesbian, e.g. attracted to women with no interest in pursuing it.

You can only answer that way (that you’re a lesbian) only because you approach this with the mind of the world. Are blue eyes disorders of the flesh? That you think the two are comparable shows that you have bought into what the culture tells you about homosexuality, that it is a neutral natural characteristic no different than the color of your eyes. But the culture is lying.

Compare your SSA disorder with other disorders that you have in yourself for example, maybe greed or pride or selfishness or gluttony. Can you imagine labeling yourself with any of these disorders just because you have struggled with them all your life? Can you imagine labeling yourself a “greedy man or woman” or “an envious woman”, or “angry man or woman”, in the same tone and attitude as if you were describing the color of your hair? No. Because no matter how long you have struggled with pride, selfishness or anger or laziness, you have never allowed these into your identity. For this SSA disorders, the culture has managed to convince people to take it from the “envy, lust, anger, gluttony, laziness” shelf and onto the “blue eyes, black skin, blonde hair, tall body, slender legs” shelf. It is a lie.

SORRY smgs127, I had not read your reply. I withdrew my pist to rewrite it in a better tone but seems you already replied before I withdrew. No matter! Who says that homosexuality is an immutable part of the human brain? I think you should explain that to me before we discuss further.

I put these posts together because I want to reply to them together. Our specific gender attractions are immutable. The brains of gay men have been shown to react to testosteronal pheromones in the same way that straight women’s do, whereas straight men’s (and lesbians’) brains react to estrogenal pheromones this way. Thus, the attractions themselves are just another part of our worldly bodies, much like blue/brown/green eyes are. We don’t know if our glorified bodies will have colored eyes, either. It’s true that colored eyes (usually) don’t lead people to sin as easily as SSAs do, but both are still morally neutral biological traits.

The behavior on the other hand, much like the behaviors of being lazy, angry, greedy, lustful, etc., is sinful and is not immutable, obviously.

Edit: even the Church refers to these people as “homosexual persons:”

“2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.”

 

[One_point]

The difference is that “lazy” is entirely defined by the behavior and has no immutable brain function behind it. SSA, on the other hand, is an immutable part of the brain, absent a miracle, and is therefore, part of who you are. It does not mean that you value your SSA over God at all. It just means that you recognize that God allowed you to be born with a disordered orientation due to the effects of sin, but that you’ll still choose God even if it means ignoring that part of yourself.

The true analogy would be if someone discussed being born without the ability to conceive except through IVF. They would identify as infertile, but they would choose to follow God and his morals rather than risk the deaths of children in order to satisfy their wish for a child. Same-sex attractions are disordered but the attractions themselves are morally neutral. And yes, the Church does teach this. The attractions are just as morally neutral as any other trait of yourself, whether hair color, eye color, height, etc. The fact that you cannot give into the impulses they place into your body does not change the fact that they are morally neutral.

That is a bad analogy. Being born infertile is like being born blind or deaf or crippled. It is not a disorder of the flesh. Being born with homosexuality would be like being born selfish and greedy. Guess what! We ARE born that way! The difference is that we would never dare to claim that our greed and selfishness was incurable by grace or label it “immutable”.

About the call or vocation. Who ever said that God calls people and then tells the church not to take them in? If someone thinks he has a vocation that the church says no to, that person is mistaken in his discernment.

I want to know where the church says the disorder is like blue eyes. The church calls this a disorder and discusses it under “lust”, in what way is that neutral? The church distinguishes sin from fault or tendency to sin, between acts and temptations. But she does not tell us that these disordered desires or concupiscence are like the color of our skin. The colors of our skin do not need restoration in Christ, but concupiscence does.

 

[SMGS127]

That is a bad analogy. Being born infertile is like being born blind or deaf or crippled. It is not a disorder of the flesh. Being born with homosexuality would be like being born selfish and greedy. Guess what! We ARE born that way! The difference is that we would never dare to claim that our greed and selfishness was incurable by grace or label it “immutable”.

About the call or vocation. Who ever said that God calls people and then tells the church not to take them in? If someone thinks he has a vocation that the church says no to, that person is mistaken in his discernment.

I want to know where the church says the disorder is like blue eyes. The church calls this a disorder and discusses it under “lust”, in what way is that neutral? The church distinguishes sin from fault or tendency to sin, between acts and temptations. But she does not tell us that these disordered desires or concupiscence are like the color of our skin. The colors of our skin do not need restoration in Christ, but concupiscence does.

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection

The Catechism emphasizes a huge difference between same-sex attractions and same-sex behavior. One is morally neutral and is not in any way a sin, and the other is one of the gravest sins a person can commit on Earth.

Also, there are many celibate gay and lesbian Catholics (or even married gays & lesbians who marry despite not having physical attractions!) who identify with the disorder as a means to express sympathy with those currently actively gay or lesbian to help evangelize them: do you believe this to be a morally evil identification?

As for your comment about the Church not taking them in, a Bishop’s actions are not infallible. If he rejects a Seminary candidate, that does not mean God’s intention is not for that man to be a priest.

 

[One_point]

SMGS127, all you have quoted is that the church distinguishes the sin from the disorder. I am not arguing that the two are one thing. What I am denying is that a disorder of the flesh is neutral in the same way your eyes are. Being sick is no sin, but neither is it neutral. It’s something that needs healing. Same as selfishness. These disorders are concupiscence. Concupiscence needs restoration or healing in Christ, difficult and arduous as it may be. There is nothing like that with your eyes. Christ did not die to change your eye color. But he died to save you from the slavery of the devil, the flesh and the world. This attraction is a disorder in your nature. How disappointing that you think Gods grace only capable of healing you 95%. You are only 24 now. If you are already so successful in combating this inclination, How can you know what you will be assuming you continue the journey till 80?

About vocations. They are never a personal discernment. God does not just call one to a function or office, but to a community. Do you think that God gives you a vocation to the sisters of charity without preparing a place for you at the sisters of charity? Unless of course you assume that person’s personal belief to be all important. If a person has a vocation to the priest-hood, then he will continue praying and striving and will one day overcome his deep-seated homosexual tendencies and go in. Unless we believe he God ego calls us does not also provide for the calling, if it is really him calling us and not merely our own conviction.

 

[SMGS127]

SMGS127, all you have quoted is that the church distinguishes the sin from the disorder. I am not arguing that the two are one thing. What I am denying is that a disorder of the flesh is neutral in the same way your eyes are. Being sick is no sin, but neither is it neutral. It’s something that needs healing. Same as selfishness. These disorders are concupiscence. Concupiscence needs restoration or healing in Christ, difficult and arduous as it may be. There is nothing like that with your eyes. Christ did not die to change your eye color. But he died to save you from the slavery of the devil, the flesh and the world. This attraction is a disorder in your nature. How disappointing that you think Gods grace only capable of healing you 95%. You are only 24 now. If you are already so successful in combating this inclination, How can you know what you will be assuming you strive on the path of holiness till 80?

You misunderstood my post. Let me quote you back a line from my post so you see what I mean:

SMGS127:

I identify as a lesbian who has about 95% overcome it. I have no worry of ever falling back into the behavior, but I still fall into ruts occasionally where I start encouraging my attractions. Even once I (entirely through the grace of our Lord) overcome it completely, I will still have those attractions; they will just no longer provide a near occasion of sin for me.

Also, you’re not differentiating between “neutral” and “morally neutral.” I’m not arguing that it makes no difference to a person whether they are heterosexual or homosexual in the way it makes no difference if they are brown-eyed or blue-eyed. I’m arguing that having an immutable consequence of original sin is not morally evil in and of itself; it is morally neutral. Acting upon it is morally evil.

 

[One_point]

Insisting that concupiscence is immutable sounds to me quite contrary to the examples of holy persons. It sounds more like an attachment to your illness. Like saying my lust is immutable. You are so definitive as others have noted. But are you stating fact here, or belief?

I am not distinguishing neutral from morally neutral because morally neutral simply means that it is not sin. But we have already said it is not. I am saying it is not neutral like your blue eyes are neutral. It is as neutral as your selfishness or greed can be called neutral when you’re not acting on them.

 

[SMGS127]

Insisting that concupiscence is immutable sounds to me quite contrary to the examples of holy persons. It sounds more like an attachment to your illness. Like saying my lust is immutable. You are so definitive as others have noted. But are you stating fact here, or belief?

I am not distinguishing neutral from morally neutral because morally neutral is just saying it is not sin. But we have already said it is not. I am saying it is not neutral like your blue eyes are neutral. It is as neutral as your selfishness or greed, Ito the extent that these can be said to be neutral.

I’m stating personal experience. I don’t understand why you think it’s such a bad thing to think of concupiscence as temporally immutable. Of course God is omnipotent. He can do anything, end anything, create anything, heal anything. But I don’t expect anything of Him other than He will do what He knows is best in my life. Until then, I accept that I am attracted to women, and I choose to not act upon that attraction. If, through the glory, grace, and mercy of God, I am lucky enough to spend my eternity in His presence, I know that I will do so without the concupiscence in tow. But I see no need to make my reciprocal pursuit of Him contingent on Him first fixing a temporally immutable characteristic, no matter what it is. If I was a former drug addict, I would not absolutely demand that God removed my entire craving before I’d pursue Him. I would allow Him to work within me so that I could handle my addiction and avoid falling into sin. I put no contingencies on my pursuit of the Lord, and I have my full faith and trust in Him to do what is best for me in my life, and I don’t demand anything of Him.

 

[One_point]

I’m stating personal experience. I don’t understand why you think it’s such a bad thing to think of concupiscence as temporally immutable. Of course God is omnipotent. He can do anything, end anything, create anything, heal anything. But I don’t expect anything of Him other than He will do what He knows is best in my life. Until then, I accept that I am attracted to women, and I choose to not act upon that attraction. If, through the glory, grace, and mercy of God, I am lucky enough to spend my eternity in His presence, I know that I will do so without the concupiscence in tow. But I see no need to make my reciprocal pursuit of Him contingent on Him first fixing a temporally immutable characteristic, no matter what it is. If I was a former drug addict, I would not absolutely demand that God removed my entire craving before I’d pursue Him. I would allow Him to work within me so that I could handle my addiction and avoid falling into sin. I put no contingencies on my pursuit of the Lord, and I have my full faith and trust in Him to do what is best for me in my life, and I don’t demand anything of Him.

Are you implying that one can only follow God by becoming a priest? Our primary vocation is to become saints. If we can’t do that in the priesthood, then we do it where we are. If not, then I think your post is filled with too many irrelevancies. One starts where they are. In mortal sin. Then they struggle to higher and higher levels of perfection, in which concupiscence is gradually defeated, from its roots in the sensual part of the soul as with lust as well as it’s much deeper roots in the spiritual centre of the soul where it’s much more difficult to heal as in pride. Yet this is the journey we are on. It is the ordinary course of grace.

You keep singing this immutable song, but it is something you are stating almost as an article of faith. You believe it but is it fact? You speak from experience. That’s all well and good, but your experience is that so far you still struggle. How can such experience help you to conclude in anyway that what you struggle with is immutable? Wouldn’t you need to experience the whole journey to perfection before saying that by experience you know that this inclination is immutable?

Yet, the only ones with this experience of the whole journey are saints. And they sure seem to come out in the end victorious over their concupiscence. I have yet to encounter any of them saying that their concupiscence was immutable.

God is omnipotent, yes. But being cured of concupiscence is the normal course of grace. You speak as if it would be something out of the ordinary for God to gradually heal concupiscence until one day, one is perfected. For some people in danger of pride, God sometimes may allow them to struggle in some areas to keep the greater danger of pride at bay. He may permit them to endure grave temptations from the devil up until the threshold of great sanctity. But the plan is that we are all to be made whole on this journey, to become saints on this earth, even if for some of us it should come on our death bed. At least as far as our soul is concerned, both the sensual and spiritual aspects of it, it’s complete perfection is the plan. Unless we don’t believe we are all called to become saints. If we die before we are saints, it’s because of our failures to fully embrace grace, to leave everything and throw ourselves at grace. I sure know that I and the vast majority of Catholics are guilty of this failure everyday. We will probably be perfected in purgatory! But the idea that some concupiscence I have is “temporally immutable” that is a new one to my mind.

 

[pnewton]

SMGS127, all you have quoted is that the church distinguishes the sin from the disorder. I am not arguing that the two are one thing. What I am denying is that a disorder of the flesh is neutral in the same way your eyes are. Being sick is no sin, but neither is it neutral. It’s something that needs healing. Same as selfishness. These disorders are concupiscence. Concupiscence needs restoration or healing in Christ, difficult and arduous as it may be. There is nothing like that with your eyes. Christ did not die to change your eye color. But he died to save you from the slavery of the devil, the flesh and the world. This attraction is a disorder in your nature. How disappointing that you think Gods grace only capable of healing you 95%.

Reading this, I was thinking that the I do not think grace heals us this way, so that sin no longer tempts, at least in this world. Rather grace is what helps us overcome temptation. I think it could be argued that such a person who is buffeted by this temptation (to use the words of St. Paul) is a larger vessel for grace than those who are not. This is the blessing of homosexual attraction, that one’s weakness is a greater opportunity for the grace of God.

 

[SMGS127]

Reading this, I was thinking that the I do not think grace heals us this way, so that sin no longer tempts, at least in this world. Rather grace is what helps us overcome temptation. I think it could be argued that such a person who is buffeted by this temptation (to use the words of St. Paul) is a larger vessel for grace than those who are not. This is the blessing of homosexual attraction, that one’s weakness is a greater opportunity for the grace of God.

Thank you; I do not see myself as having greater grace than others, but I am thankful for what God has done through my life, even with His allowances of temptations, evils, or wrongdoings in my life. I know it is all for a grand purpose, and I trust in Him to lead me to the proper outcome for me.