Question on homesexuality

[Portrait]

While I tend to disagree with Carla for various other reasons, we could consider that abusive parents often get that way because they’re living out what they learned, we could be inexact with that and simply say… well, we know the Root cause… or we could pay better attention to the details of what might have specifically caused a person to become an abusive parent and do what we can to minimize and heal the specific damage that occurred to a person to help them be better parents, which is to address a variety of factors that include “physical, psychological and emotional as well as moral and spiritual.”

How would it be more “exact”, and how would it serve the “interests of clarity and precision”, to call child abuse a Sin just because it is when there are sometimes causes that we can know and address in more precise detail?

Dear Lynxdk,

Thankyou for your contribution above.

Calling child abuse a sin would not, of course, preclude us from factoring in other relevant considerations when dealing with this issue, but again I would want to stress the importance of tracing this sin back to the Fall, or rather to the effects of the Fall. This would be serving the interests of clarity and precision since it would be tracing the fruit (i.e. the sin of child abuse) back to its root (i.e. the Fall). Failure to do this results in minimizing the role of man’s fallen nature and the effects of Original sin, whilst other causes are sought as the primary reasons for the abuse. Now clearly this is a recipe for inexactitude as it leads to woolly thinking about the exceeding sinfulnes of sin - a major problem facing the Church today. We owe it to the world to call a spade a spade when talking about sin.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[Kolbe300]

The fact that there is no one-shoe-fits therapy for homosexual issues should not in any way detract from the very real fact that there are courses that can be pursued to bring about a healthier condition in the person who has SSA.

I certainly wasn’t disagreeing with that. Courses can be pursued to bring about a healthier condition in any person, SSA or not.

On the contrary most use the term **conspiracy of factors **to describe the myriad causes of SSA.

I would be interested in seeing how many factors within the conspiracy of factors fit very well into one of the simplified categories I gave. The examples I gave certainly aren’t all the causes spoken of. Nearly every cause I have ever read about, however, fits pretty well into one of those main categories.

I disagree with whole term “reparative” or repair when it comes to SSA for exactly the knee-jerk reaction it gets from people like you, and the misimpression it gives to those who understand little of homosexuality in the first place.

I’m not sure what you mean by people like me? I disagree with the term “reparative”, just like you. My reaction to that type of therapy, whatever it is named, is far from knee-jerk.

The goal of any therapy or course of healing for unwanted SSA is ONLY to uncover and heal past wounds and to find and fulfill, in legitimate ways, unmet needs, especially homo-emotional needs.

And that is a noble goal. Unfortunately, it’s not always advertised in that way. I find the term “ex-gay” to be terribly misleading. I think it would be helpful if ex-gay ministries would define EXACTLY what they mean by ex-gay. And right along side the success testimonies should be the testimonies of those who weren’t able to uncover past wounds or discover unmet needs. Those who didn’t experience a diminished SSA should be included because they are not necessarily “failures”.

It sounds as if you feel the only “cure” is a homosexual turning into a heterosexual.

I don’t feel that way at all. As much as I dislike the term “reparative”, I dislike the term “cure”.

In summation if a person seeks therapy for the express purpose of changing his or her homosexual desire into heterosexual desire, he is setting himself up for failure.

I couldn’t agree more.

The biggest problem I see with gay activists and their criticism of therapy is that they refuse to acknowledge that an ex-gay is really anyone who has left the lifestyle, has acknowledged that his SSA is not a natural part of him but a product of past emotional wounds and unmet needs, and through prayer, therapy and support works to diminish his/her unhealthy attraction to the same sex while striving to fulfill his emotional needs in acceptable and healthy manners.

I find this problem to be the fault of both gay activists and ex-gay activists. My entire point is that some may not discover emotional wounds and unmet needs. Some, through prayer, therapy, and support will work to diminish homosexual attraction and have no success. What I wish was more clear is that one does not have to have diminished SSA to have hope or success.

Peace!
Kolbe

 

[Lynxdk]

We owe it to the world to call a spade a spade when talking about sin.

Perhaps going back to Scottguns post would help in case you missed it:

Many acts in the Catechism are described as grave wrongs or grave depravity, etc. This is because they are considering the acts in and of themselves. Sin is about personal culpability, which is subjective. Mortal sin requires grave matter, full knowledge, and consent. By marking an act as a grave wrong, it is indicating that that act fulfills the first component of mortal sin. It’s not soft-peddling, it’s being precise.

 

[CarlaOLS]

KOLBE - First allow me to apologize for the tone of my post, which I see now contained several phrases I regret using.
By people like you I meant nothing more than people who argue as you had in the post I responded to. People it seems to me who feel that becasue some who try therapies etc do not experience diminished SSA, that it somehow proves that it is impossible for the SSA of those same people to ever diminish. That is where I believe we most disagree. The Hope I speak of, the hope I personally believe every individual with SSA can share is that God can in HIs time and way change their condition.

Although, perhaps you mean just as God allows some to carry the burden of say an incurable cancer, that it is possible for some that He wills for their same sex attraction to continually haunt them, and therefore that sort of person can still live according to the laws of God by remaining chaste in thought and deed, while accepting the SSA feelings as His will.
That way of thinking I believe is dangerous because Jesus taught us to seek and we will find and He taught us to persevere in our requests. It is a hard thing the saints teach us of how to work for something good, hope for something better, while still offering ourselves up entirely to accepting God’s will.

Now if we can agree that it would be better and healthier to live without the temptations to sexual sin that SSA causes, then we can agree that a person should never stop praying, and working towards diminishment of his SSA.

Many of those who say they tried and failed all have one thing in common - they quit trying. For whatever reason they abandoned the effort or efforts, chose not to continue searching for answers and chose not pursue any new avenues. They all gave up - Many ex-gays tell us they too once felt it was easier to conclude thay were born that way than to continue the painful road of searching and working. The hard road is always the one less traveled.

Kolbe Wrote:

I would be interested in seeing how many factors within the conspiracy of factors fit very well into one of the simplified categories I gave. The examples I gave certainly aren’t all the causes spoken of. Nearly every cause I have ever read about, however, fits pretty well into one of those main categories.

Many environmental factors contribute to the development of SSA, and researchers agree that no one thing is responsible. Rather, a conspiracy of factors come together in the right amount and at the right time to divert sexual desires to unmet emotional needs. While each person’s background is different, the emotional wounds which cause same sex attraction can be identified and healed.
**
Some common factors for males include:**

Lack of an emotional bond with an absent or distant father, especially combined with a dominant or controlling mother;
Peer rejection leading to poor self image and self-hatred;
Gender Identity Disorder;
Sexual or emotional abuse;
Early exposure to pornography
Sexual experimentation;
Perceptions of feeling unloved;
Poor body image; sensitive personality;
Social deficits;
Social phobia
extreme shyness;
Lack of hand/eye coordination and resultant dislike of team sports
teasing by peers;
Same-sex- sibling rejection; real or percieved
same sex peer rejection; real or perceived
Disrupted family life;
Parental loss by divorce or death;
Single parent household;
Psychological depression;
anxiety disorders & more.

1, 2, 3 or any number of factors combine. How is that fitting into only four categories? And looking at the diversity and broadness of the above factors how can anyone say he has ruled out without a doubt any and all of those factors as possible contributors to his SSA?

 

[Portrait]

Perhaps going back to Scottguns post would help in case you missed it:

Dear Lynxdk,

Sin may well involve personal culpability, but objectively and essentially it is an active rebellion against God’s will and a violation of His holy law. There are many defintions of sin in the N.T. (e.g. Rom. 14: 23; Jas. 4: 17; I Jn. 5: 17), but I John 3: 4 is the clearest and most revealing: “Everyone who commits sin is guilty of lawlessness; sin is lawlessness”(emphasis mine). It is not just that sin manifests itself in disregard for God’s law, but that sin is in its very nature lawlessness. Lawlessness is the essence, not the result, of sin.

Today, alas, the truth about sin is concealed by euphemisms, thus our sins become mere ‘peccadilloes’, ‘temperamental weaknesses’ or ‘personality disorders’. In stark contrast to such inadequate underestimates of sin, St. John declares that it is not just a negative failure but a revolt against the will of God and a violation of His law. Now my concern is that in the Catechism, phraseology such as ‘grave depravity’ and ‘intrinsically disordered’, to describe homosexual acts, sound very much to me like polite euphemisms.
It would be more biblically precise to call such acts sins; moreover, this would underscore the fact that they are a violation of the moral *law *of God.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[Kolbe300]

KOLBE - First allow me to apologize for the tone of my post, which I see now contained several phrases I regret using. By people like you I meant nothing more than people who argue as you had in the post I responded to. People it seems to me who feel that becasue some who try therapies etc do not experience diminished SSA, that it somehow proves that it is impossible for the SSA of those same people to ever diminish.

Hi Carla. There is no need to apologize at all. Like I said, I may not agree with everything you bring up but I admire your compassionate approach and your desire to understand things better. I want to reiterate what I said earlier: if someone desires ex-gay therapy I absolutely think they should go for it. And I hope they have success! I do believe that some people have experience diminished SSA. Personally, I believe that homosexuality, for many people, runs much, much deeper than any list of causes can get to the bottom of. I, for one, am perfectly okay with that because I have discovered the love God is calling me to. It has nothing to do with my SSA and yet I would have never heard the call and found my purpose without my own experience with SSA

That is where I believe we most disagree. The Hope I speak of, the hope I personally believe every individual with SSA can share is that God can in HIs time and way change their condition.

We may not disagree as much as you think. God can change any condition out there and He does. You are right, there is hope in that. What I would love people to see is that even if God doesn’t change the condition, there is still and abundance of hope and an abundance of opportunity to live a very holy and fulfilling life. Holiness, happiness, peace and joy are in no way contingent upon SSA diminishing, not even remotely. When we look to someone and say, “Hey, there is hope! You can change!”, we need to make sure they don’t hear, “Hey, there is hope! But only if you change!”

That way of thinking I believe is dangerous because Jesus taught us to seek and we will find and He taught us to persevere in our requests. It is a hard thing the saints teach us of how to work for something good, hope for something better, while still offering ourselves up entirely to accepting God’s will.

Carla, I prayed for 28 years for change before I realized I was praying for the wrong thing. Since then, instead of praying for change, I pray that God will make me to be exactly who he wants me to be. The second I changed my prayer, the minute I began to seek God’s will and not my own, the answers started falling into my lap. I found purpose and I found true hope. In the midst of all of that, my SSA did not disappear or diminish. The beautiful thing is that it didn’t have to. Through continued prayer, tons of spiritual direction and counseling, I’m on a great path. It may not include diminished SSA, but it’s beautiful, and I want people to know it’s out there.

Now if we can agree that it would be better and healthier to live without the temptations to sexual sin that SSA causes, then we can agree that a person should never stop praying, and working towards diminishment of his SSA.

I can agree with that for sure. A person, SSA or not, should never stop praying for strength against temptations towards sin.

Many of those who say they tried and failed all have one thing in common - they quit trying.

And my question would instantly be, “Quit trying what?” Trying to change their sexuality, or trying to become a holier, healthier, and happier person? If we believe the latter can only be accomplished with the former, we’re lost.

1, 2, 3 or any number of factors combine. How is that fitting into only four categories? And looking at the diversity and broadness of the above factors how can anyone say he has ruled out without a doubt any and all of those factors as possible contributors to his SSA?

I think a debate over how many causes there are is pointless. I apologize for narrowing it down to 4 main categories (though they are the most common ones given). When the list gets long enough, any human being could sit down and pick out a few causes that fit them. Even “straight” people! Personally, I think the longer the list, the more the evidence of how much the experts really aren’t sure.

Thanks for the discussion.

Peace!
Kolbe

 

[Lynxdk]

Today, alas, the truth about sin is concealed by euphemisms, thus our sins become mere ‘peccadilloes’, ‘temperamental weaknesses’ or ‘personality disorders’. Now my concern is that in the Catechism, phraseology such as ‘grave depravity’ and ‘intrinsically disordered’, to describe homosexual acts, sound very much to me like polite euphemisms.

It would be more biblically precise to call such acts sins…

At this point, that’s really something you would have to take up with those who wrote the Catechism, although I’ll give it one more shot, because, again, you’re only referring to Acts.

Perhaps the clearest explanation for you would be found here:

catholic.com/library/Homosexuality.asp
"…we must reject sin, including homosexual behavior—that is, acts intended to arouse or stimulate a sexual response regarding a person of the same sex. The Catholic Church teaches that such acts are always violations of divine and natural law.

Homosexual desires, however, are not in themselves sinful. People are subject to a wide variety of sinful desires over which they have little direct control, but these do not become sinful until a person acts upon them, either by acting out the desire or by encouraging the desire and deliberately engaging in fantasies about acting it out. People tempted by homosexual desires, like people tempted by improper heterosexual desires, are not sinning until they act upon those desires in some manner."

If you still don’t see the difference, or still disagree with assessing homosexuality that way… I’d suggest starting a whole new thread and maybe you’ll get more specific attention to your concerns.

Peace =)

 

[Portrait]

At this point, that’s really something you would have to take up with those who wrote the Catechism, although I’ll give it one more shot, because, again, you’re only referring to Acts.

Perhaps the clearest explanation for you would be found here:

catholic.com/library/Homosexuality.asp
"…we must reject sin, including homosexual behavior—that is, acts intended to arouse or stimulate a sexual response regarding a person of the same sex. The Catholic Church teaches that such acts are always violations of divine and natural law.

Homosexual desires, however, are not in themselves sinful. People are subject to a wide variety of sinful desires over which they have little direct control, but these do not become sinful until a person acts upon them, either by acting out the desire or by encouraging the desire and deliberately engaging in fantasies about acting it out. People tempted by homosexual desires, like people tempted by improper heterosexual desires, are not sinning until they act upon those desires in some manner."

If you still don’t see the difference, or still disagree with assessing homosexuality that way… I’d suggest starting a whole new thread and maybe you’ll get more specific attention to your concerns.

Peace =)

Dear Lynxdk,

Once again thankyou for your latest response and for the Catholic Answers link on homosexuality - very well written and nothing in it that I would fundamentally disagree with.

Actually your response, along with the link, has helped to clarify things for me with respect to homosexual desires and acts. All of us are subjected to temptation daily in one way or another, but it is the yeilding to temptation that causes us to sin and renders us culpable before God. It is no wonder that St. James says, “Blessed is the man who endures trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life which God has promised to those who love him” (Jas. 1: 12). It is with the yeilding or not yeilding that the battle with temptation is either lost or won (cf. verses 13-15).

Having said this I am still not entirely satisfied with the wording of para. 2357 of the Catholic Church Catechism; given that the subject matter is homosexual acts, I really do not think that they should have baulked at using the words sin or abomination, especially since they believe such acts are sinful anyway. It does seem that they have substituted much milder expressions in place of those thought to be too harsh or direct and therefore possibly offensive to homosexuals. However, the Church is not under any obligation to gain the goodwill of sinners or to be so concilliatory that its message is modified in the interests of a misguided charity and compassion. Now whether or not this was in the minds of those who drafted the C.C.C., it is quite impossible to say; as you quite rightly state that is something which would need to be taken up with the Chruch directly.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[Portrait]

Dear Fellow Posters,

Whilst I firmly believe that the sin of homosexuality must be denounced in the strongest terms as a violation of God’s moral law, I equally believe that homosexuals themselves “must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity” (para. 2358, Catechism of the Catholic Church). As the often qouted saying puts it, we must hate the sin but love the sinner.

Let me say forthrightly and confidently that change is possible for the homosexual; those who struggle with homosexual inclinations, or who are invloved in homosexual liasons, can be changed and go on subsequently to establish happy, enduring heterosexual marriages. This should always be asserted strongly by the Church without demur so as always to give a beacon of hope for those trapped in the homosexual life style.

The hope for change surely rest upon two very basic convictions. First, that homosexual activity is emphatically contrary to God’s norm for human sexuality, and second, that the grace of Jesus Christ can effectuate release and transformation in this aspect of human experience as well as in others.

Moreover, there is hope for the homosexual in the same sense that there is hope for the promiscuous heterosexual, the confirmed liar, drug addict, alcholic and so on. The message of the Gospel is that if one repents of ones erring ways and repairs to Jesus Christ in faith, then one can be forgiven and liberated.

Having said this I am not implying for one moment that homosexuality is a simple problem that is easily resolved; clearly it is not. Neither do I wish to be insensitive to the great suffering which homosexuals sometimes undergo in our society. However it is vitally important that we do not tone down our censure of the sin of homosexuality as this will only serve to give an uncertain sound on the trumpet. Rather, by pointing homosexuals to the forgiving grace and transforming power of Jesus Christ the Church holds before them genuine hope for a new beginning.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[CarlaOLS]

Kolbe - Thank you for persevering in our discussion. I am learning a good deal and understanding you better.

…if someone desires ex-gay therapy I absolutely think they should go for it. And I hope they have success! I do believe that some people have experience diminished SSA.

I guess I would ask again that you re-examine your understanding of what it means to be ex-gay. I believe anyone who leaves the gay lifestyle and acknowledges homosexual acts and fantasies as sins, and intends to reject that thinking and behavior can be termed as ex-gay. Being ex-gay is NOT contingent upon success in diminishment of SSA.

Personally, I believe that homosexuality, for many people, runs much, much deeper than any list of causes can get to the bottom of.

Here I think it might be helpful to consider you may have a built in predjudice in this regard after 28 years etc…The problem I have with your statement is that a young person reading such an assessment may give up before he even begins to find what factors caused his SSA. Further, it is not necessary to find every source of a person’s SSA as it was a conglomeration of several factors - often addressing one or two of the factors aggressively begins to drain the power the SSA has over the person’s life, his decisions and drives.…

We may not disagree as much as you think. God can change any condition out there and He does. You are right, there is hope in that. What I would love people to see is that even if God doesn’t change the condition, there is still and abundance of hope and an abundance of opportunity to live a very holy and fulfilling life. Holiness, happiness, peace and joy are in no way contingent upon SSA diminishing, not even remotely. When we look to someone and say, “Hey, there is hope! You can change!”, we need to make sure they don’t hear, “Hey, there is hope! But only if you change!”

HERE HERE! but at times from you I thought I was hearing “There is no hope, God won’t change you.” Yet God has changed you. (Or spared you as I have no idea if you lived the lifestyle.) You yourself then would be ex-gay.

Carla, I prayed for 28 years for change before I realized I was praying for the wrong thing. Since then, instead of praying for change, I pray that God will make me to be exactly who he wants me to be. The second I changed my prayer, the minute I began to seek God’s will and not my own, the answers started falling into my lap. I found purpose and I found true hope.

Again I say PERFECT ! But praying for change can also be praying that one’s response to his SSA change, that he no longer lust after men, that when he feels the attraction he no longer has bad thoughts but recognizes his true desires and needs are for love. You see this kind of change in understanding and thinking is what therapy is all about. I fear your words would sometimes discourage young men and women from even seeking therapy or change of heart and thinking about the sinfulness of homosexual acts. That said the aforementioned type of change in thinking and understanding oneself can come from constant prayer, self study and introspection, which IS ALSO therapy.

… Through continued prayer, tons of spiritual direction and counseling, I’m on a great path. It may not include diminished SSA, but it’s beautiful, and I want people to know it’s out there.

PRAISE GOD I think though that the path you speak of is not entirely different from the best ex-gay therapy’s out there. For example, just listening to people at an Exodus conference it is quite clear that leaving the lifestyle and sin is the main goal.

And my question would instantly be, “Quit trying what?” Trying to change their sexuality, or trying to become a holier, healthier, and happier person?

**Quit trying to leave the lifestyle, quit trying to control their lust, quit trying to understand themselves and God’s will. Kolbe we are closer than you think. **

If we believe the latter can only be accomplished with the former, we’re lost.No, no, but with the latter comes freedom from the slavery to SSA. You experience that.

I think a debate over how many causes there are is pointless. I apologize for narrowing it down to 4 main categories (though they are the most common ones given).

I believe the causes are important, which is why I come back to them so often. If a person can recognizes a few that apply to his case, he can better understand why he feels what he feels and what is the real meaning of what he feels. THEN control can better be gained.

When the list gets long enough, any human being could sit down and pick out a few causes that fit them. Even “straight” people!

**Of course, and those factors cause numerous psycological problems in unhappy adults everwhere, but for the person with SSA due to his personality, characteristics, perceptions etc… it resulted in his SSA. This is why one twin is gay and the other not, because each is soul is so unique. **

Thanks for the discussion.
Peace!
Kolbe

Thank you, Kolbe.
Ditto Peace, Carla