R
Ryan1
Guest
I agree. There is help in Jesus and his Church, as well as in therapy.
- Status
R
Ryan1
Guest
There are personal testimonies, but no scientific studies proving the efficacy of any given therapeutic method.
R
Ryan1
Guest
We cannot conclude that therapy has no value for lack of studies. If that were the case, there would be no reason to pursue therapy to begin with.
R
Ryan1
Guest
Based on what study?
C
Cruciferi
Guest
Most would say that “Therapy” is useless for this condition. Thus, there’s no reason to pursue it.
R
Ryan1
Guest
The “scientific method” isn’t a study.
We might be talking past each other. Being cured may not be possible (therapeutically) in the sense of the elimination of same sex attractions, any more than an anorexic can eliminate the thoughts and behaviors that lead to destruction. But harmful behaviors may be lessened through therapy for both.
We might be talking past each other. Being cured may not be possible (therapeutically) in the sense of the elimination of same sex attractions, any more than an anorexic can eliminate the thoughts and behaviors that lead to destruction. But harmful behaviors may be lessened through therapy for both.
L
Lea101
Guest
That’s not really true though. Unless the person develops ssa through trauma/negative experiences, therapy would be fruitless in making a person straight (some find their ssa fading after they acknowledge and heal from negative experiences, which may explain some testimonies, but there are plenty of others who are gay for no reason). Therapy could help sexual addictions regardless of sexual orientation though, if that’s what you’re referring to by mentioning behaviors. Even then not all gay people are engaging in more sexual activity than an average straight person.
L
Lea101
Guest
Anyway back to the main topic, I personally don’t get why gay people should be excluded from religious vocations if they are chaste and plan on being chaste throughout their lives. I may understand the point of living together in close quarters may be a temptation as Catholics don’t recommend both sexes to house together for the same reason, but other than that, I would assume a straight priest/nun etc would struggle with lust as well.
R
Ryan1
Guest
I don’t think we disagree here.
L
Lea101
Guest
The thing is, no romantic/sexual relationship would be required to have a ‘marriage’ with the Church, and that’s what sexual orientation is (the attraction to a sex). Priests weren’t always celibate, they used to have spouses and that didn’t make their nuptial relationship less proper? Although I understand that celibacy in priesthood is still being debated upon. I just don’t get the marriage argument because men, including priests, are the bride (the Church) and Jesus is the groom and that’s obviously okay…but when female/homosexual ordination is concerned, suddenly it shows a ‘gay marriage’ type of relationship with the Church?
Same here although I think they’re being purposefully vague because we simply do not know much about homosexuality (or trans issues as well). I can imagine gay men would eventually be allowed when gay acceptance is much more mainstream?
Same here although I think they’re being purposefully vague because we simply do not know much about homosexuality (or trans issues as well). I can imagine gay men would eventually be allowed when gay acceptance is much more mainstream?
Last edited:
C
Cruciferi
Guest
Sorry, I have to disagree with that. 
P
Peeps
Guest
Here’s a link:
www.psychologytoday.com
I think that as long as people insist that homosexuality is NOT a psychological disorder, it will never be researched again, and we will never learn the truth.
It’s amazing how closed-minded scientists can be, even though they insist that they are the most open-minded. Take the example of ulcers–for decades it was presumed that ulcers were caused by stress, bad diet, and other things that were blamed on the sufferer. The cure was a bland diet and reduction of stress, which didn’t work.
Then a doctor/scientist came along and offered a theory that ulcers were caused by a bacterial infection.
The doctor was laughed to scorn and ridiculed by other “scientists,” and given no support for further research.
So finally the doctor mixed up a suspension of Helicobacter pylori, the bacteria that he theorized was causing ulcers. Within a WEEK, he was suffering from ulcers. He then treated himself with the known cure for bacterial infections–antibiotics, and was cured within another week.
So now, we in the lab do a lot of testing for Helicobacter pylori, and a lot of those tests are positive, and instead of living on bland foods and doing lots of deep breathing exercises and thinking happy thoughts–people can be treated with antibiotics and get back to their normal lives.
Maybe if we did the same open-minded study of sexual attractions and interpreted the results with an open mind, we would make some helpful discoveries. Considering that homosexuals are more likely to suffer from a list of physical and mental disorders, including depression and suicide–I think this could be a public health crisis.
Everyone assumes that the homosexual is depressed and suicidal because of all the bias and homophobia–but what if that’s WRONG, just like saying that stress caused ulcers? What if there is something about the homosexual condition itself that causes a chemical reaction in the body that creates a depressive state (clinical depression IS caused by chemical imbalance and is treated successfully in many people with chemicals/meds).
But whenever someone says something like this, they are immediately condemned as unscientific and harboring a bias against LBGTQ people. Ridiculous! Tell that to the doctor who cured ulcers!
And remember also all the other scientists who were rejected by the scientific community for what were considered “unscientific theories” at the time, but were eventually proven to be the truth. Remember Monk Mendel, whose genetic research (not just theory-spinning!) is still valid today!
When Homosexuality Stopped Being a Mental Disorder
Not until 1987 did homosexuality completely fall out of the DSM.
www.psychologytoday.com
I think that as long as people insist that homosexuality is NOT a psychological disorder, it will never be researched again, and we will never learn the truth.
It’s amazing how closed-minded scientists can be, even though they insist that they are the most open-minded. Take the example of ulcers–for decades it was presumed that ulcers were caused by stress, bad diet, and other things that were blamed on the sufferer. The cure was a bland diet and reduction of stress, which didn’t work.
Then a doctor/scientist came along and offered a theory that ulcers were caused by a bacterial infection.
The doctor was laughed to scorn and ridiculed by other “scientists,” and given no support for further research.
So finally the doctor mixed up a suspension of Helicobacter pylori, the bacteria that he theorized was causing ulcers. Within a WEEK, he was suffering from ulcers. He then treated himself with the known cure for bacterial infections–antibiotics, and was cured within another week.
So now, we in the lab do a lot of testing for Helicobacter pylori, and a lot of those tests are positive, and instead of living on bland foods and doing lots of deep breathing exercises and thinking happy thoughts–people can be treated with antibiotics and get back to their normal lives.
Maybe if we did the same open-minded study of sexual attractions and interpreted the results with an open mind, we would make some helpful discoveries. Considering that homosexuals are more likely to suffer from a list of physical and mental disorders, including depression and suicide–I think this could be a public health crisis.
Everyone assumes that the homosexual is depressed and suicidal because of all the bias and homophobia–but what if that’s WRONG, just like saying that stress caused ulcers? What if there is something about the homosexual condition itself that causes a chemical reaction in the body that creates a depressive state (clinical depression IS caused by chemical imbalance and is treated successfully in many people with chemicals/meds).
But whenever someone says something like this, they are immediately condemned as unscientific and harboring a bias against LBGTQ people. Ridiculous! Tell that to the doctor who cured ulcers!
And remember also all the other scientists who were rejected by the scientific community for what were considered “unscientific theories” at the time, but were eventually proven to be the truth. Remember Monk Mendel, whose genetic research (not just theory-spinning!) is still valid today!
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself
Patron
I can’t respond to this poll because I have no idea what you mean by the words used.
“Support”: Does that mean ministering to gay people dying of AIDS or reminding gay people that Jesus loves them very much, or does it mean picketing in support of gay marriage?
“Activity in homosexuality”: Like “Support”, this could be a lot of things over a very wide range.
“Openly gay”: If a person is chaste, then how are they making their sexual preferences known and why would they make them known? The point of making one’s sexual preferences known is generally to find a desirable partner of the gender you’re seeking. If not looking for a partner, then why would you even go there? I don’t think at this point any priest is going to stand up and say, “I’m gay and don’t worry, kids, if you’re gay too you can still live a life like me.”
“Promote homosexuality as OK”: We’ve discussed before that having SSA is not a sin in the eyes of the Church; it’s acting on that desire that is the sin. So do we mean the priest is expressing this viewpoint (the view of the Church) or that he’s promoting gay sexual relations or gay marriage?
I really think this is the type of thing where the superiors in charge need to look at the priest candidate or priest as a whole and see what he is doing. If he is having unchaste relations, whether it’s with men or women or both, it needs to stop. It is not somehow okay or more forgivable if the priest is having relations or the preliminaries with an adult woman rather than a man. If he is giving other people the impression it’s okay to have sex outside marriage, whether it’s with a woman or a man, that is a problem. If the priest is doing neither of those two things, and does not appear to be at risk of doing them, then I don’t need to know his personal orientation or what he did before being a priest.
I strongly suspect there have been many gay priests and religious whose parishioners and other people around them never knew they were gay and who never acted on whatever gay desire they may have had, and were ordinary, decent priests and religious.
“Support”: Does that mean ministering to gay people dying of AIDS or reminding gay people that Jesus loves them very much, or does it mean picketing in support of gay marriage?
“Activity in homosexuality”: Like “Support”, this could be a lot of things over a very wide range.
“Openly gay”: If a person is chaste, then how are they making their sexual preferences known and why would they make them known? The point of making one’s sexual preferences known is generally to find a desirable partner of the gender you’re seeking. If not looking for a partner, then why would you even go there? I don’t think at this point any priest is going to stand up and say, “I’m gay and don’t worry, kids, if you’re gay too you can still live a life like me.”
“Promote homosexuality as OK”: We’ve discussed before that having SSA is not a sin in the eyes of the Church; it’s acting on that desire that is the sin. So do we mean the priest is expressing this viewpoint (the view of the Church) or that he’s promoting gay sexual relations or gay marriage?
I really think this is the type of thing where the superiors in charge need to look at the priest candidate or priest as a whole and see what he is doing. If he is having unchaste relations, whether it’s with men or women or both, it needs to stop. It is not somehow okay or more forgivable if the priest is having relations or the preliminaries with an adult woman rather than a man. If he is giving other people the impression it’s okay to have sex outside marriage, whether it’s with a woman or a man, that is a problem. If the priest is doing neither of those two things, and does not appear to be at risk of doing them, then I don’t need to know his personal orientation or what he did before being a priest.
I strongly suspect there have been many gay priests and religious whose parishioners and other people around them never knew they were gay and who never acted on whatever gay desire they may have had, and were ordinary, decent priests and religious.
Last edited:
M
mrsdizzyd
Guest
Yep.
O
on_the_hill
Guest
There needs to be a distinction between homosexuality and leading an actively/or wanting to have an active homosexual lifestyle.
O
on_the_hill
Guest
That would exclude pretty much all human beings.
A
anon10271182
Guest
It seems at least two voters are either not Roman Catholic, or, if they are, have a total lack of understanding about natural and Divine law–and Church teachings in re same:
tfpstudentaction.org
12 Quotes Against Sodomy That Every Catholic Should Know
Here's what the Saints, Doctors, and Catholic Church Fathers really taught about the sin of sodomy.
tfpstudentaction.org
Last edited:
L
Lea101
Guest
I kind of support celibacy but not for that reason I think it’s difficult for a man to support his family with that sort of income. While the wife can work, and most wives do, it’ll be weird for the church to expect that since they tend to be conservative about women being breadwinners. I may be wrong, though. Either way it’s not a matter I care about as there’s not many people flocking to be married deacons.
In a symbolic way, yes, but it’s not like the Church is a woman. A relationship with the Church is very very different from a relationship with an actual woman (and thank God for that, or else it’ll be awkward lol). It doesn’t require an attraction to females, and the ‘Bride’ consists of many, many men. I don’t know the Church’s teaching on asexual priests, but I’m curious tbh
I don’t think it has to be immediately apparent with him, most gay men understand relationships and marriage. They just desire that with a male instead. Hence I just don’t see why gay men should be denied just because of their attraction.
As for the discrete part, I don’t think they should lie and say they’re straight if they were ever asked. But I’ve heard priests openly talk about their struggles with lust during talks to show that they identify with us, so i won’t care when a gay priest briefly mentions that he’s gay as long as he promotes church teachings. Especially since their attraction in itself isn’t a sin.
But regardless of sexual orientations I just find it weird for priests to broadcast their own sexual sins unnecessarily.
In a symbolic way, yes, but it’s not like the Church is a woman. A relationship with the Church is very very different from a relationship with an actual woman (and thank God for that, or else it’ll be awkward lol). It doesn’t require an attraction to females, and the ‘Bride’ consists of many, many men. I don’t know the Church’s teaching on asexual priests, but I’m curious tbh
I don’t think it has to be immediately apparent with him, most gay men understand relationships and marriage. They just desire that with a male instead. Hence I just don’t see why gay men should be denied just because of their attraction.
As for the discrete part, I don’t think they should lie and say they’re straight if they were ever asked. But I’ve heard priests openly talk about their struggles with lust during talks to show that they identify with us, so i won’t care when a gay priest briefly mentions that he’s gay as long as he promotes church teachings. Especially since their attraction in itself isn’t a sin.
But regardless of sexual orientations I just find it weird for priests to broadcast their own sexual sins unnecessarily.
M
MaryEstelle2
Guest
I question the third statement in the poll. It is ambiguous so I didn’t mark any of them.
J
jtwp5
Guest
One can have SSA and not act on it and still be chaste. I know a friend like this who was in the seminary. I don’t see the issue if they aren’t acting upon it. I guess it depends on what you call “Deep-seated tendencies”.
- Status