San Francisco Catholic Charities Head an Active Homosexual

[Brendan]

Strummer:

Heh, I like that. Good one.
Hmm, really? Are you sure? I don’t mean to be argumentative it’s just that I’ve always read the word “objectively” to mean from a non-biased, non-subjective, “outside” point-of-view. You’re saying the word more specifically refers to the “object” which makes the act a disorder? Interesting.

Yep, Moral Theology (like most branches of any art) uses terms in a particular way.

Moral Theology is concerned with three main things: The Nature of the Act, The Intent involvoing it and the Circumstances around it.

If any aspect is immoral, the act itself is rendered immoral.

Acts have a nature. Sometimes the act is naturally\intrinsically immoral. Abortion and Homosexual acts are among these. There are no circumstances or intent that would render these acts moral.

An Inclination, on the other hand has no moral nature of itself. A particular sexual urge might be moral or not, depending on the act, but the concept of ‘sexual urge’ itself is neither moral or immoral.

So when the Church uses the term ‘objective’ in relating to urges, it means the object of the urge itself.

Homosexuality is an inclination towards (ordered) towards an false (dis) object. The urges are therefore Objectively Dis Ordered.

That is not, of itself, sinful. Those who resist disordered urges of any type are to be praised and modeled after.

But if one gives into the urges, gives a consent of the Will (which is always required for sin), then immorality occurs.

Hmm, I wonder. Everything we do, every step we take (cue Sting ) is informed in some degree by our moral compass. If that compass is damaged by, say being born intrinsically attracted to members of the same sex, can we morally hold such a person as accountable as one with a rightly-oriented compass? The courts and the Church allow for the imparment of a mental affliction. Could not an intrinsic moral affliction similarly affect our wills and lessen our culpability?

A mental affliction can impair the full consent of the Will required for sin.

But the moral compass is always true. It is called Natural Law. It is God’s Law for all mankind written on our hearts (Romans 2:12-16). It is one Law given by God to each person.

The compass may be clouded by sin (and hence one of the benefits of regular confession), and it might be ignored, but it will never be wrong.

That would mean that God is guiding them in a wrong direction.

 

[Gabriel_Gale]

Strummer:

Heh, I like that. Good one.
Hmm, really? Are you sure? I don’t mean to be argumentative it’s just that I’ve always read the word “objectively” to mean from a non-biased, non-subjective, “outside” point-of-view. You’re saying the word more specifically refers to the “object” which makes the act a disorder? Interesting.

**

CCC:

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.

Your question should be disordered to what? The Church states, that the purpose of sex is procreative and unitive. Our desires should conform (be ordered) to that purpose. Therefore, desires outside that purpose is disordered. Same sex activity is always none procreative. Therefore, the inclination is objectively disordered.

Hmm, I wonder. Everything we do, every step we take (cue Sting ) is informed in some degree by our moral compass. If that compass is damaged by, say being born intrinsically attracted to members of the same sex, can we morally hold such a person as accountable as one with a rightly-oriented compass? The courts and the Church allow for the imparment of a mental affliction. Could not an intrinsic moral affliction similarly affect our wills and lessen our culpability?

As many neuroscientist and psychiatrist reduce all behavior to genetics, should the courts hold drunk drivers or violent sociopaths culpable? After all, more studies have demonstrated hereditibility in alcoholism and sociopathy than homosexuality. Moreover, why limit exculpation to genetic defects? Is the pedophile who was abuse as a child and now abuses other children beyond blame?

 

[Strummer]

Gabriel Gale:

Your question should be disordered to what? The Church states, that the purpose of sex is procreative and unitive. Our desires should conform (be ordered) to that purpose. Therefore, desires outside that purpose is disordered. Same sex activity is always none procreative. Therefore, the inclination is objectively disordered.

Are you suggesting that only procreative sex escapes being “disordered”??? By your definition then sex with a woman past menopause or after a radical hystorectomy is similarly disordered, no matter that it be within the confines of a married union?
Gabriel Gale:

As many neuroscientist and psychiatrist reduce all behavior to genetics, should the courts hold drunk drivers or violent sociopaths culpable? After all, more studies have demonstrated hereditibility in alcoholism and sociopathy than homosexuality. Moreover, why limit exculpation to genetic defects? Is the pedophile who was abuse as a child and now abuses other children beyond blame?

Though a propensity toward alcoholism does seem to be genetically driven, this does not include any sort of insurmountable urge to drive as well. Pedophilia is a mental disorder in my book and as heinous a crime though it is, I must grant a lessening of the offender’s moral responsibility due to the diminished capacity of his/her illness. It’s still a punishable crime though. I’m only referring to *moral * culpability, not criminal.

 

[anamchara]

We can discuss, but the discussion must always be focused on how we can get a better understanding of what the Church teaches, not about if the Church is wrong in these matters (it’s not)

Well, that is a very orthodox response and I can respect this. However, were this the case then I would expect there never to be any disagreements among bishops, priests or for that matter among anyone in the Vatican city Personally, I’m leery of lay interpretation of Church teachings, and this I will always question, no offense but especially in forums like these.

Certainly, the Truth must be presented charitibly and with no falsehood. But it still must be presented.

I’ve never found it presented charitably on any Catholic forum I’ve ever been on. Very sad. It’s more about hating the sinner.

But James tells us we need to more than just pray for others, we are obliged to help them as well.

Christ, as well, did more than just pray for the adulterous woman, he TOLD her not to sin again. We must do the same.

I am aware of this part of our teaching Brendan.

Thank you for the very civil and interesting discussion.

God’s peace.

 

[Strummer]

Brendan:

A mental affliction can impair the full consent of the Will required for sin.

But the moral compass is always true. It is called Natural Law. It is God’s Law for all mankind written on our hearts (Romans 2:12-16).

But as homosexuality is an intrinsic moral disorder it’d be like having a large magnet next to our “moral compass”. Yes, North is still north, but these poor souls were created with this inherant disorder and their compass is skewed but from their vantage point it would appear “normal”.

Brendan:

It is one Law given by God to each person.

The compass may be clouded by sin (and hence one of the benefits of regular confession), and it might be ignored, but it will never be wrong.

That would mean that God is guiding them in a wrong direction.

I think it is convenient of you to use terms like “clouded” and “might be ignored” but this is mere conjecture, biased to support your point for it presupposes that we must hold the individual fully accountable. However, if a person cannot access an unadulterated moral compass, they will unwittingly make many missteps. This unwittingness lessens their culpability, doesn’t it?

This leads us to a more difficult question: if we accept that homosexuality is an inherant trait (as I believe the Church does) AND that it is morally disordered then how do we reconcile God’s creation of morally disordered beings? Something must be wrong with this equation.

 

[Strummer]

itsjustdave1988:

The data speaks for itself. The study was done by Dr. Spitzer, who was one of the champions of the APA removing homosexuality as a disorder. I find the thesis that his study was “biased” to be dubious at best. The bias seems more with respect to the APA as such a study is an embarrasing indicator that their policitally correct decision was not based upon science.

“The data speaks for itself”?! Hardly. Not when one takes into account the methodology by which that “data” was gathered.

• Volunteer subjects???
• Over 90% reporting that “religion was either ‘extremely’ or ‘very’ important in their lives”
• Over a third of the respondants had “seriously contemplated suicide due to dissatisfaction with their unwanted attractions.”
  That tells me the study was heavily slanted toward those who had vested interest in convincing themselves as well as others that their “treatment” worked. Furthermore, the study itself reports, “examples of ‘complete’ change in orientation were not common.” And you find my charge of bias “dubious at best”?
  I’m sorry but this is not a scientific study, it is a sales brochure.

 

[Libero]

Brendan:

But James tells us we need to more than just pray for others, we are obliged to help them as well.

Christ, as well, did more than just pray for the adulterous woman, he TOLD her not to sin again. We must do the same.

Problem is that simply condemning them using ancient lines from the bible, or confusing lines from the catechsim is NOT help - it is just insulting… (them being active homosexuals)

Trying to ensure that they cannot pursue a career in charity is not help either - nor is devoting entire threads to discussing how wrong they are.

Whilst some here have claimed that homosexuals are the ones with “skewed” moral compasses, I put it to some that many Catholics have a very skewed idea of what consitutes help…

 

[Brendan]

Libero:

Problem is that simply condemning them using ancient lines from the bible, or confusing lines from the catechsim is NOT help - it is just insulting… (them being active homosexuals)

I never said anything about “simply condeming” them. In fact, just the opposite. I referenced Christ’s example with the Adulterous Woman.

He did not condem her, but rather told her not to sin again.

That is what we are called to do.

It is BECAUSE they are active homosexuals that Christian Charity requires to help them overcome that and to live as Christ desires.

Those words might be ancient (I prefer ‘timeless’) but they are still God’s Word.

Whilst some here have claimed that homosexuals are the ones with “skewed” moral compasses, I put it to some that many Catholics have a very skewed idea of what consitutes help…

Once again, you will see above that I clearly stated that everyone’s ‘moral compass’, the Natural Law imprinted within them, is perfectly formed in everyone.

We all need to help each other actually look at that compass.
When we see others deviate from God’s direction, we should perform what act of Mercy are necessary to help them on their way, as we ourselves should count on the help of others when we drift from the direction of God and His Church.

 

[Libero]

Brendan:

I never said anything about “simply condeming” them. In fact, just the opposite. I referenced Christ’s example with the Adulterous Woman.

He did not condem her, but rather told her not to sin again.

I both agree and disagree with you - as I fail to see the charity (I dont really apprecaite the notion that forcing someone to stop is more charitable in the long run, or any malaky like that…)

That is what we are called to do.

It is BECAUSE they are active homosexuals that Christian Charity requires to help them overcome that and to live as Christ desires.

Those words might be ancient (I prefer ‘timeless’) but they are still God’s Word.

Once again, you will see above that I clearly stated that everyone’s ‘moral compass’, the Natural Law imprinted within them, is perfectly formed in everyone.

We all need to help each other actually look at that compass.
When we see others deviate from God’s direction, we should perform what act of Mercy are necessary to help them on their way, as we ourselves should count on the help of others when we drift from the direction of God and His Church.

But this is all irrelevant - my point does not finish with these fora, it is applicable everywhere - do you honestly believe Catholics are taking the correct track in attempting to show homosexuals why they are wrong?

Who would you rather listen to:

The militant Ian Paisley or The tactful Archbishop Tutu?

I think I know who I would…

NOTE: Please read signature - I wouldn’t want to mislead you know…

 

[Brendan]

Libero:

But this is all irrelevant - my point does not finish with these fora, it is applicable everywhere - do you honestly believe Catholics are taking the correct track in attempting to show homosexuals why they are wrong?

Who would you rather listen to:

The militant Ian Paisley or The tactful Archbishop Tutu?

I think I know who I would…

NOTE: Please read signature - I wouldn’t want to mislead you know…

Yes, I do believe the Catholic Church is taking the correct tack in showing homosexuals why they are wrong.

I presume that’s what you mean by ‘Catholics’. If you are talking about the approach of individual Catholics, that varies.

Some attempt to convey the wrongness of homosexual acts in a very loving way, Both JP-II and Benedict for example. The entire approach of Courage RC is right on.

Others declare the Truth with little or no charity, and that approach is not Christ like and should be avoided. Those who attempt this method are also in need of learning from the Church’s example.

Still others are content in either affirming the homosexuals in their sin ( DignityUSA) or are not willing to speak up at all. That that one is the worst of all.

 

[Libero]

Brendan:

Yes, I do believe the Catholic Church is taking the correct tack in showing homosexuals why they are wrong.

I presume that’s what you mean by ‘Catholics’. If you are talking about the approach of individual Catholics, that varies.

Some attempt to convey the wrongness of homosexual acts in a very loving way, Both JP-II and Benedict for example. The entire approach of Courage RC is right on.

• • • Others declare the Truth with little or no charity, and that approach is not Christ like and should be avoided. Those who attempt this method are also in need of learning from the Church’s example. - - -

Still others are content in either affirming the homosexuals in their sin ( DignityUSA) or are not willing to speak up at all. That that one is the worst of all.

(Highlighted bit) Well I think we agree there.

It is a shame people are so reluctant to use this courage facility, I have never heard it referred to - but then again that may just be because of where I live…

 

[urban-hermit]

Libero:

I need more info - from previous experience, I have noticed that it is not usually the head of a company/ charity that deals with the everyday cases - does the CEO of say Wallmart personally check out your shopping?

Either way, it doesn’t sound like he is doing anything illegal - so clearly he is not the problem - rather your government - try making them correct the REAL problem!

I apologize if I was harsh or belabored my point … i guess we just disagree regarding the appropriateness of this man’s actions as head of Catholic Charities.

What I want to emphasize is that i have a problem with this man’s ACTIONS, not the fact that he has homosexual attractions.

 

[Libero]

urban-hermit:

I apologize if I was harsh or belabored my point … i guess we just disagree regarding the appropriateness of this man’s actions as head of Catholic Charities.

What I want to emphasize is that i have a problem with this man’s ACTIONS, not the fact that he has homosexual attractions.

Thankyou for the apology, and I understand your concerns

Suppose we will have to agree to disagree - alot of my threads have this outcome BTW

 

[urban-hermit]

Libero:

But this is all irrelevant - my point does not finish with these fora, it is applicable everywhere - do you honestly believe Catholics are taking the correct track in attempting to show homosexuals why they are wrong?..

The way i see it, given the power of sexual temptations, and the seductiveness of sexual habits once they are formed, nobody is likely to put in the considerable effort to repent of sexual acts which gravely offend God unless they actually believe that the acts DO gravely offend God.

In addition, homosexual acts have consequences in the physical world of the here and now, which can also be a motivation to turn away from them.

Then again, and perhaps most convincingly, we have the testimonies of those who have found chastity and healing to lead them to peace and happiness. We need to hear more of these.

So i say it is important and correct to point out the wrongness of homosexuality. Doing it with love is the challenge. There are many ways to do this. Sometimes it can even be done by our silence (by which i mean for example withholding approval), or by advocating a better alternative.

Just a personal note, when i first made the commitment to turn away from homosexual pursuits, i did not fully believe it was sinful, and i certainly did not believe it was fair that i would have to live a celibate life. But i had a talk with God and i grudgingly agreed to be chaste. Only then did i receive the grace to see how right that choice was. And He has continually re-confirmed that these past 4 years. I realize that is just my story and I hope that does not sound presumptuous of me, I just offer it for your consideration now or in the future…

 

[Brendan]

urban-hermit:

Just a personal note, when i first made the commitment to turn away from homosexual pursuits, i did not fully believe it was sinful, and i certainly did not believe it was fair that i would have to live a celibate life. But i had a talk with God and i grudgingly agreed to be chaste. Only then did i receive the grace to see how right that choice was. And He has continually re-confirmed that these past 4 years. I realize that is just my story and I hope that does not sound presumptuous of me, I just offer it for your consideration now or in the future…

Thanks for the note Hermit.

That is a hard road, but the right road. We’ll keep you in the family prayers!!

 

[JSmitty2005]

WanderAimlessly:

San Francisco Catholic Charities Head an Active Homosexual

Does this really surprise anyone? In San Francisco?!

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Strummer:

… And you find my charge of bias “dubious at best”? I’m sorry but this is not a scientific study, it is a sales brochure.

You are correct. I do find your opinion dubious.

A 2002 article published by the American Psychological Association journal “Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training” defends the ethics and effectiveness of sexual reorientation therapy. The article cites, “the scientific evidence* that efforts to change thoughts, behaviors, and feeling-based sexual orientation can be successful.” *(“Ethical Issues In Attempts To Ban Reorientation Therapies,” by Mark A. Yarhouse, Psy.D. of Regent University and Warren Throckmorton, Ph.D. of Grove City College).

Dr. Spitzer’s study has already been furthered by other studies, and will continue to be furthered, until eventually science instead of political bias will be the basis of our understanding of the effectiveness of homosexual reorientation therapy.

 

[Gabriel_Gale]

“The data speaks for itself”?! Hardly. Not when one takes into account the methodology by which that “data” was gathered.

I guess that you would need to define “a scientific study.” The study was a survey a would fall into the category of a naturalistic study. Usually, such studies are simply gathering cases and examining what happened to the study group. Such studies are not uncommon in mental health. The question that the study sought to answer was whether or not homosexuals can experience a change in their orientation. Another question was whether or these change efforts were harmful to people.

Dr. Spitzer presention of the his conclusions was extremely circumspect.

In regrds to the methodology, I not sure about some of your points.
*

• Volunteer subjects???

Are you suggesting that these people were coerced into making false statements?

Over 90% reporting that “religion was either ‘extremely’ or ‘very’ important in their lives”

I don’t see how this is a methodological issue. Dr. Spitzer was upfront in explaining that most of the participants in the survey were religious, mainly evangelical.

That tells me the study was heavily slanted toward those who had vested interest in convincing themselves as well as others that their “treatment” worked.

First, many of the survey respondents did not consider their change effort as “treatment.” They weren’t promoting Reparative Therapy.
Second, many admitted that they did not acheive heterosexual desires but were still satisfied with a abstinent lifestyle.
Finally, the study was slanted. The survey was about a certain population. The goal of the study was to find whether or not these very religious, motivated people had changed.
*And you find my charge of bias “dubious at best”? *
I’m sorry but this is not a scientific study, it is a sales brochure.
*
I find your charge mainly illogical. You call the reseacher biased (with-out knowing anything about Dr. Spitzer), even though you state that the reseacher admitted that this survey did not find a lot of examples of complete change (a bias researcher would hide such results).

Spitzer concluded, “Some highly motivated individuals through a variety of change efforts can make substantial changes in multiple indicators of sexual orientation and achieve good heterosexual function.”

Dr. Spitzer seemed to distance himself from his
research results with a vague and contradictory disclaimer. He stated, “it would be a mistake to assume that the study shows that homosexual orientation is changeable for most highly
motivated individuals, it probably is certainly is not.”

This hardly sounds like a sales brochure for the 700 Club

 

[Gabriel_Gale]

Strummer:

This leads us to a more difficult question: if we accept that homosexuality is an inherant trait (as I believe the Church does) AND that it is morally disordered then how do we reconcile God’s creation of morally disordered beings? Something must be wrong with this equation.

It’s called Original Sin. Yes, we are all morally deficient. We all have urges that aren’t ordered towards love and justice. I fali to see why homosexual would not be as accountable as greedy corporate executives or sexual predators. Greed, lust, pride are all powerful emotions. That’s why we need an infallible source to check our morality.

Does it really matter whether or not we can demonstrate some kind of genetic relationship. Neuroscientist assume that it’s all genetic. The question is whether or not any of these urges are irresistable?

 

[Strummer]

itsjustdave1988:

You are correct. I do find your opinion dubious.

And yet you do not refute any of my points. It seems unexamined disagreement is sufficient for you to doubt me.

itsjustdave1988:

A 2002 article published by the American Psychological Association journal “Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training” defends the ethics and effectiveness of sexual reorientation therapy. The article cites, “the scientific evidence* that efforts to change thoughts, behaviors, and feeling-based sexual orientation can be successful.” *(“Ethical Issues In Attempts To Ban Reorientation Therapies,” by Mark A. Yarhouse, Psy.D. of Regent University and Warren Throckmorton, Ph.D. of Grove City College).

I looked into that article you cited, Itsjustdave1988. I see that you realize that it is a position paper and not a scientific study and yet you rest your case on the fact that this article cites “the scientific evidence that efforts to change thoughts, behaviors, and feeling-based sexual orientation can be successful.” Let’s put that statment into a bit of context, shall we?

In presenting the case the authors intend to refute they state:

"Concerning whether reorientation therapies are successful, Tozer and McClanahan (1999) stated that “there is no empirical evidence to show that conversion therapy is effective in reorienting a lesbian, gay, or bisexual person to heterosexuality.”

Hmm, that’s pretty strong. Let’s see how the authors combat that one.

“More germane to the question of immutability is the empirical evidence in support of change. Only one report of change needs to be cited to refute the claim of absolute immutability, and nearly all of the early studies (1950s–1980s) that have been published—though they are methodologically less sophisticated than might be desired—report success for some percentage of persons studied. It should also be noted that poor methodology does not disprove success.”

Huh? That’s their test?! “Only one report of change” is enough to convince them that the therapy works? This sounds like a diet pill commercial, not psychology.
And what is with this disparaging of methodology? Okay, I can grant you that poor methodology does not “disprove success”, rather it invalidates the entire study!

Science requires objective, repeatable and predictive studies in order for the findings to be of any value. That re-orientation therapy sort of works some of the time is hardly more than anecdotal evidence. More respectable and conclusive work may be done in the future but so far you have not cited anything worth objective contemplation. If you’re predisposed to believe that homosexuality is a choice and curable, then you’d have no motivation to dissect these studies any more than necessary to get your “support”. However, if you have an actual desire to know the scientific truth, these studies and arguments contribute nothing but noise.

itsjustdave1988:

Dr. Spitzer’s study has already been furthered by other studies, and will continue to be furthered, until eventually science instead of political bias will be the basis of our understanding of the effectiveness of homosexual reorientation therapy.

Given your rather low bar for accepting scientific analysis and methodology as long as the conclusions are in line with your prejudice, I would suggest you re-examine your definition of “bias”.