Senior German Priest Calls Homosexuality a Sickness. A Report

[njlisa]

@goout

Thanks for your response to my post.

I was providing anecdotal evidence that might be productive in a macro study of homosexual personality traits, e.g. narcissism. Although the study focused on men, I though it worthwhile to to use anecdotal evidence to complement our understanding of the macro analyses. My personal observations tainted my conclusions.

I also offered this qualification noted in italics.

“No matter what I might think about the physical part of Joan and Beth’s relationship, I saw remarkable goodness, kindness, loyalty, and deep friendship.”

I’m a social scientist at heart. Let me restate my comments, which have nothing to do with the church’s teaching re marriage.

In our study of SSA personality traits, we observed a same-sex couple we will refer to as Beth and Joan. Based on this observation, we found this couple demonstrate traits we would associate with societal norms of altruism. Further study will enhance our study of personality traits among same-sex attracted individuals.

There’s really no need to suspect my motives. But that’s the way it goes with these discussions.

God bless you and I hope I have better explained my purpose.

 

[Thorolfr]

njlisa:

I’m not being contentious.

In the name of charity, we should look at same-sex relationships on a case-by-case basis.

A friend of mind has been in a relationship with another woman for 20 years. For the sake of clarity, I’ll call my friend Joan, the companion Beth, and Joan’s mother Martha.

When Joan’s mother was dying, Beth participated in Martha’s care. Just like the rest of Joan’s family, Beth took her turn taking Martha to the bathroom. Beth held Martha’s hand when she was afraid. Along with Joan’s family, Beth was present in Martha’s bedside.

No matter what I might think about the physical part of Joan and Beth’s relationship, I saw remarkable goodness, kindness, loyalty, and deep friendship.

All relationships have various goods associated with them by nature. Anyone should be able to admit that. A person doesn’t have to be gay, straight, or indifferent to be compassionate and caring and be a good friend and companion.

But in the context of this thread, if a gay person is compassionate and caring and are a good friend and companion, they are unlikely to be narcissistic, which means that such a person does not really fit the stereotype that some people have about gay people.

 

[theCardinalbird]

Oh boy…

Can’t we all just agree that SSA is a temptation like any other temptation and does not define the human person?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Thorolfr]

Oh boy…

Can’t we all just agree that SSA is a temptation like any other temptation and does not define the human person?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

If you have this “temptation,” some people apparently think that it means that you had a “failed psychological development”.

 

[c1949]

Yes, the lobbying did happen, but it’s not the only reason for the change. The lobbying really just brought to light a number of psychological studies demonstrating that homosexuality is not a psychological disorder. Lobbying is not science, but it can lobby for science. That being said, science is also not theology. That homosexuality is “disordered” per the Catechism, and is not a “psychological disorder” can both be true.

Scientism, the utter belief in science, is as unscientific as most of what passes as knowledge about same sex attraction. Before we get to the theology of the discussion, let’s be brutally scientific.

Most species reproduce sexually – male + female. There is no advantage to a species survival for individuals to be sexually attracted to the same sex. Semantics is important here. Certainly in humans, “sexual” only means male + female. Any other manifestation of misuse of sexual organs has nothing to do with sexuality, by definition. Same-sex attraction can hardly be termed normal, as it is not conducive to propagation of the species. It is non-adaptive behavior. Yes, it hurts a lot of people’s feelings, perhaps makes them angry. But, calling same-sex attraction “normal” is like calling cancer “normal” just because people get it.

If the “professional” scientists could fix same-sex attraction, how many people afflicted with it would seek treatment? (And why are so many ‘rights’ advocates trying to stop those who seek such assistance? What business is it of theirs?)

Catholicism has always respected science and I think this is another case of the Church standing against the zeitgeist (culture) of the day, as it should. Respecting individuals with same sex attraction should be the same as respecting someone with cancer, in an appropriate way (same-sex attraction is usually not fatal in itself, like cancer often is; there are morality aspects of both).

 

[goout]

goout:

njlisa:

I’m not being contentious.

In the name of charity, we should look at same-sex relationships on a case-by-case basis.

A friend of mind has been in a relationship with another woman for 20 years. For the sake of clarity, I’ll call my friend Joan, the companion Beth, and Joan’s mother Martha.

When Joan’s mother was dying, Beth participated in Martha’s care. Just like the rest of Joan’s family, Beth took her turn taking Martha to the bathroom. Beth held Martha’s hand when she was afraid. Along with Joan’s family, Beth was present in Martha’s bedside.

No matter what I might think about the physical part of Joan and Beth’s relationship, I saw remarkable goodness, kindness, loyalty, and deep friendship.

All relationships have various goods associated with them by nature. Anyone should be able to admit that. A person doesn’t have to be gay, straight, or indifferent to be compassionate and caring and be a good friend and companion.

But in the context of this thread, if a gay person is compassionate and caring and are a good friend and companion, they are unlikely to be narcissistic, which means that such a person does not really fit the stereotype that some people have about gay people.

Not disagreeing with any of that.

 

[njlisa]

@c1949

Most species reproduce sexually – male + female. There is no advantage to a species survival for individuals to be sexually attracted to the same sex.

I’m pointing out an example of same-sex activity among gorillas. As you know only the strongest alpha males can attract females to join a troop. With that reality, single silverbacks resort to sexual activity with other males. (We could compare that to men in prison.)

I have no idea what the advantage is of such behavior. Perhaps it diffuses the tension and makes attacks on established families less likely.

It is rare for male gorillas go into full-on fights. If they do, one of them may be killed. When a male gorilla takes control of a family, he kills all the nursing offspring so that he can force the females into estrus.

None of these behaviors are morally acceptable to humans. They simply exist in nature.

 

[njlisa]

@edwest211

I’m responding to @c1949’s comment:

Most species reproduce sexually – male + female. There is no advantage to a species survival for individuals to be sexually attracted to the same sex. Semantics is important here. Certainly in humans, “sexual” only means male + female. Any other manifestation of misuse of sexual organs has nothing to do with sexuality, by definition. Same-sex attraction can hardly be termed normal, as it is not conducive to propagation of the species. It is non-adaptive behavior. Yes, it hurts a lot of people’s feelings, perhaps makes them angry. But, calling same-sex attraction “normal” is like calling cancer “normal” just because people get it.

I gave an example of behavior that happens among gorillas. Note, I said:

None of these behaviors are morally acceptable to humans. They simply exist in nature.

I’m bowing out of this conversation and future discussions. My well-considered points, which are responses to other posts, are being dismissed as irrelevant.

I’m better off ministering to people on the prayer intentions board. If you retort, I won’t respond.

God bless you.

 

[Thorolfr]

Not relevant.

So, what is relevant to this thread and what special insight do you have in determining what’s relevant for everyone else?

 

[njlisa]

I said I wouldn’t return to this discussion. But I’m back.

A look at the Catechism will direct us back to the heart of the matter. I have bold-faced the key points.

Chastity and homosexuality

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, 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.

To sum up:

• Homosexual acts, which are depraved and disordered, should never be approved.
• The psychological roots of homosexuality are unexplained.
• Deep-seated same-sex attraction is a trial for most.
• People who experience same-sex attraction should be treated with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.
• Unjust discrimination should be avoided.
• Homosexual persons are called to chastity.
• With prayer and sacramental grace, they can approach Christian perfection.

It’s reasonable to assume that although their acts are disordered, homosexual person deserves compassion.

The Church maintains its moral authority while calling for compassion.
If we want to follow the Church’s to the letter, this is what we must accept.

 

[Bixby]

I’m glad you came back, Njlisa. That is an excellent post!

 

[Thorolfr]

To sum up:

• Homosexual acts, which are depraved and disordered, should never be approved.
• The psychological roots of homosexuality are unexplained.
• Deep-seated same-sex attraction is a trial for most.
• People who experience same-sex attraction should be treated with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.
• Unjust discrimination should be avoided.
• Homosexual persons are called to chastity.
• With prayer and sacramental grace, they can approach Christian perfection.

I suspect that for many gay men who take statements like this seriously, the result would be depression and self-loathing.

Since most gay people can’t make the attraction or inclination go away, that means, if they believe what the Catechism says, that there is always something pulling them to do unspeakably wicked and evil things every day. The Catechism describes homosexual acts as “acts of grave depravity.” That means that they would be especially evil. As one online dictionary defines the word “depravity”:

Depravity goes beyond mere bad behavior — it is a total lack of morals, values, and even regard for other living things, like the depravity of a serial killer.

I don’t know how anyone could ever feel good about themselves if they think that something so evil is a permanent part of themselves even if it is never acted upon.

 

[CilladeRoma]

I don’t know how anyone could ever feel good about themselves if they think that something so evil is a permanent part of themselves even if it is never acted upon.

This is a very good point, and part of the reason that, like Fr. Jim Martin, i think the Church needs to look at the language it uses when speaking of issues regarding homosexuality.

 

[edwest211]

I’ve known gay people. But you could not pick any of these people out in a crowd. I don’t wonder if the guy standing in line in front of me is gay or not. Only those extremists who want to go looking for trouble bother gay people. I don’t.

 

[Bixby]

Nonsense. Calling a sin - and a serious one - anything but a sin is both deceitful and damaging to all concerned. And who ever said we are here to feel good about ourselves? We aren’t. I would strongly urge you to read the writings of the saints - I happen to be reading St Teresa of Avila’s autobiography right now, and in the last 2-3 pages she has called herself “wretched”, “foolish”, a “stupid little woman”, “loathsome” and a worm, and yet - even with all this “self-hate” her writing radiates happiness, joy in God’s infinite love. In other words she turned out all right. St Augustine’s Confessions also come to mind.

The truth is we are all broken vessels in need of salvation. And it is important to remember that the joys God has promised to those who follow him will far, far exceed any of the sins we tend to cling to here in this life. So there is joy at the end.

 

[CilladeRoma]

Being gay is not a sin.

You have actually just proven my point.
Far too many people conflate the two, and it can cause much pain for those who are trying hard to live what the Church teaches when you are constantly reminded that you are depraved.

 

[Bixby]

Being gay is not a sin.

Oh, you’re quite right. I’m sorry if it came across that I meant that. Having homosexual inclinations is not a sin - as the Catechism says it can be a cross - but acting on those inclinations emphatically is - just as fornication or adultery would be for straight people.

 

[njlisa]

@Thorolfr

I understand and appreciate your viewpoints. Please understand that I’m pointing statements from the Catechism from a neutral point of view. The Catechism’s language about masturbation is similar.

2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action. “The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.” For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of “the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved.”

To form an equitable judgment about the subjects’ moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.

The Church repeatedly states that every sexual act must be open to life – hence the prohibition against artificial contraception.

I hope that explanation helps. God bless you.

New material added since initial post.​

@CilladeRoma

Being gay is not a sin.

It may not be a sin, but the Church calls this inclination “objectively disordered.” (CCC 2358)

You could well argue that this stark language conflicts with principle of treating people with “respect, compassion, and sensitivity.” It certainly poses a problem for me.

I hope this helps. God bless you.

 

[Thorolfr]

I happen to be reading St Teresa of Avila’s autobiography right now, and in the last 2-3 pages she has called herself “wretched”, “foolish”, a “stupid little woman”, “loathsome” and a worm, and yet - even with all this “self-hate” her writing radiates happiness, joy in God’s infinite love.

Maybe that’s why she’s a saint because I doubt that most people would be able to radiate happiness and joy while also thinking of themselves as a wretched and loathsome worm. It’s because they feel that way about themselves that some people need to go and see a therapist and maybe take an antidepressant so that they can stop feeling that way.

 

[Bixby]

But you miss the important point (Read her! Really, she’s wonderful.), and that is that this path is open and doable for all of us, however broken we may be. Remember that our loving God will help us. Also that we live in an incredibly narcissistic age, which views with suspicion any suggestion that the individual is flawed and must work to reform himself. The trouble is not that the Gospel is open only to the sainted few, but that most of us (myself first and foremost) do not work hard enough for our salvation. And make no mistake, it is hard work.

The Christian message has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult, and left untried. GK Chesterton