Serious doubts about Church teaching on homosexuality

[CesarAugustus]

Keep in mind, when I say conservatives, I do not mean politically. I follow the following steps in discerning someone’s argument:

A) Is he/she orthodox or heterodox? Does he/she follow Catholic teaching? Is this person interested in teaching Catholic teaching or interested in helping me feel “free” from the burdens of Catholic teaching?

If A = orthodox, I continue:

B) Are they conservative, neutral, or lax? That is to say, do they attempt to bind people to stronger rules than Catholicism teaches (conservative), attempt to “get around” Catholic doctrine in ways that are dressed up pretty (lax), or attempt to present Magisterial teaching objectively with sourcing? There are several issues on CAF where conservatives well outnumber those in the neutral camp, and so I intentionally request Magisterial (or Doctoral) teaching in order to discern the rationale behind one’s actions. If a person is of the conservative mindset, they will be unable to do so. And I typically do not put much faith in the stock of a Catholic who cannot source their claims.

Back in Christ’s time, they had the same issue. There were the heterodox, the conservatives (the Pharisees), and the lax. He admonished all three groups, but saved His harshest criticism for the Pharisees. Likewise, while I put more stock in their opinions than the lax or heterodox, I find myself unable to be convinced by those with conservative positions on issues.

However, I more than welcome any moral theology citations that can be brought to my attention. I do seek to follow Christ above all else. I just will not subject myself to rules instituted falsely by the laity, nor will I keep myself from advising what I believe to be a good course of action to other gays & lesbians, just because someone random opposes it without sourcing.

That is not conservatism. The word you want is strict. And if they go beyond, rigorist. The comparison with Pharisees is inadequate too. Phariseism is an attitude that doesn’t distinguish between age, sex, status, etc. It appears in liberal, progressive, conservative, traditional, etc. environments.

I think the majority of this forum is far from being strict or rigorist.

When you speak about conservatism, you are entering the topic of the current spectrum in the Church today. As I said earlier, they are not a non plus ultra. Conservatism refers to maintaining a status quo. In Catholicism, that would be adherence to Magisterium. Sometimes, that adherence is expressed through following of particularities of recent pontiffs or institute founders, and a certain distaste of previous discipline, or more traditional things (That would be, being at the current).

 

[Kamaduck]

I would add to your list the fact that this romantic friendship, due to its close ties, would have the possibility of leading to a state where both people committed to each other in stronger ways, such as legal/medical authority, joint banking, etc. I don’t know if you’d ever consider that with your best friend. And while married people do this too, I see no reason it is exclusive to marriage. I think it is exclusive to a maximized trust level, more than anything, which is not unique to marriage either.

Eh, I suppose I wouldn’t do that with a friend. Unless maybe we were both sure that we were going to remain single, and we wanted someone to have authority to take care of things in case of emergencies. But my best friend wants to get married, so it’s a moot point.

 

[SMGS127]

That is not conservatism. The word you want is strict. And if they go beyond, rigorist. The comparison with Pharisees is inadequate too. Phariseism is an attitude that doesn’t distinguish between age, sex, status, etc. It appears in liberal, progressive, conservative, traditional, etc. environments.

I think the majority of this forum is far from being strict or rigorist.

When you speak about conservatism, you are entering the topic of the current spectrum in the Church today. As I said earlier, the are not a non plus ultra.

My apologies. I will use “strict” in the future then.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Umm…in a way yes, in a way no. Naturally, if you commit yourself to take care of another person in life, even in a sexually disinterested way, that person is going to be upset if you divert significant attention to another person. In that sense, healthy jealousy may still arise in a romantic friendship. But the desire would not go so far as to desire a sexual possession, where you view their body as yours and your body as theirs; such is a desire unique to marital relations, for sure.

I guess the question isn’t whether the jealousy is healthy – I think most jealousy is healthy, in the sense that the temptation to express jealousy is natural in most close friendships. The question is whether the jealousy is justified. I have a wonderful friend who I imagine is sometimes jealous of my family, because they monopolize my time. He doesn’t express this jealousy, really, a fact that constantly astonishes me. Instead, he expresses his desire to be with me – which is quite different. His desire to be with me is completely justified and good, but the jealousy is just a temptation.

In contrast, if my wife spends all her time with other friends, I am justified in expressing jealousy. I have a right to her time and attention.

I don’t think anyone here is arguing for romantic sexuality. Romantic physical intimacy, yes. Romantic sexuality, no. There is a clear difference.

This difference wasn’t clear to me at all, until you said…

Umm…expressing your love for someone is the best definition I can think of for romance.

Now, I see it. Of course, I don’t myself take “romance” to mean this. In fact, I’ve never connected romance with love at all; maybe I’m weird that way.

But I do think that people should be encouraged to vocally and actively express love to their same-sex friends. I know this is taboo, but the taboo is a bad one. I think physical expressions of that love are certainly appropriate too. The only question, as I think Rau has been regularly repeating, is the appropriate boundaries of such physical expressions.

(As said above, I don’t think those boundaries can be found without understanding what precisely it is that makes lust wrong. And I don’t know what that is.)

 

[SMGS127]

I guess the question isn’t whether the jealousy is healthy – I think most jealousy is healthy, in the sense that the temptation to express jealousy is natural in most close friendships. The question is whether the jealousy is justified. I have a wonderful friend who I imagine is sometimes jealous of my family, because they monopolize my time. He doesn’t express this jealousy, really, a fact that constantly astonishes me. Instead, he expresses his desire to be with me – which is quite different. His desire to be with me is completely justified and good, but the jealousy is just a temptation.

In contrast, if my wife spends all her time with other friends, I am justified in expressing jealousy. I have a right to her time and attention.

I suppose? A person in a romantic friendship does not have the God-given right to that person’s attention that a spouse does. I agree with that. But is it not fair to say that a person in a romantic friendship should be able to have a decent expectation of attention? Which is to say, would not a person who promises to commit themselves to taking care of another be bound to fulfill said promise? It is certainly not an inherent right of the other person to be taken care of. But there should be an expectation that the promise is kept.

This difference wasn’t clear to me at all, until you said…

Now, I see it. Of course, I don’t myself take “romance” to mean this. In fact, I’ve never connected romance with love at all; maybe I’m weird that way.

But I do think that people should be encouraged to vocally and actively express love to their same-sex friends. I know this is taboo, but the taboo is a bad one. I think physical expressions of that love are certainly appropriate too. The only question, as I think Rau has been regularly repeating, is the appropriate boundaries of such physical expressions.

(As said above, I don’t think those boundaries can be found without understanding what precisely it is that makes lust wrong. And I don’t know what that is.)

I agree that the physical boundaries are the sticking point here. As far as L goes, I would define it as an inordinate and chosen or approved desire for an act of the flesh which is unattainable.

 

[LongingSoul]

smgs, what you need to do is address your scenario to a proper theologian. There is some on this site. Otherwise, talk with a Priest to see if what you are proposing is something the Church sees no problem with. You aren’t going to accept anything said to the negative on this thread and I only see you tying yourself into a painful and dangerous bind by trying to justify it.

 

[SMGS127]

smgs, what you need to do is address your scenario to a proper theologian. There is some on this site. Otherwise, talk with a Priest to see if what you are proposing is something the Church sees no problem with. You aren’t going to accept anything said to the negative on this thread and I only see you tying yourself into a painful and dangerous bind by trying to justify it.

This isn’t true. I just require an argument to be given in defense of it. I am satisfied with my plan at the moment, because I have been able to address every objection and argument that has come up in the negative. And if every worry is addressed and there is no Magisterial teaching on the issue, I see no problem with it.

If you have an argument that you believe I cannot address, I am more than willing to hear it. Your recent inclination to insult me is not really helping you though, no offense.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I suppose? A person in a romantic friendship does not have the God-given right to that person’s attention that a spouse does. I agree with that. But is it not fair to say that a person in a romantic friendship should be able to have a decent expectation of attention? Which is to say, would not a person who promises to commit themselves to taking care of another be bound to fulfill said promise? It is certainly not an inherent right of the other person to be taken care of. But there should be an expectation that the promise is kept.

Well, I think that it’s appropriate, in ordinary friendships, to make promises of care and continued friendship. So those promises would carry with them some duties, certainly. Things are blurrier than I made them out to be, in my previous post. As usual, prudence must be exercised, and prudence has no formulas.

 

[Rau]

You are in a desperate panic to justify a behaviour…

By all means, debate the theology, the interpretation of teaching, scriptures, matters of history, logic, whatever. But declaring someone who argues (IMHO) calmly, logically and sincerely, to be “in a desperate panic”, and to impugn motives, is inappropriate. Why not just hold those assessments to yourself?

 

[Rau]

Same sex attraction just like any other disordered desire, can be indulged and fed to compound the intensity… or it can be turned down to a little background niggle by reaching out to God for healing.

This is not an unreasonable position to take. But the thing which is objectively disordered is not just an attraction to a same sex person, but an attraction to same sex acts - which is the intrinsically disordered thing. So your point would be certainly right if responding to the attraction to the person was about seeking out the intrinsically disordered. If that’s not the case, it is just less clear cut.

 

[LongingSoul]

This isn’t true. I just require an argument to be given in defense of it. I am satisfied with my plan at the moment, because I have been able to address every objection and argument that has come up in the negative. And if every worry is addressed and there is no Magisterial teaching on the issue, I see no problem with it.

If you have an argument that you believe I cannot address, I am more than willing to hear it. Your recent inclination to insult me is not really helping you though, no offense.

You’ve stated that you believe that the Church accepts as licit, homosexual people living together romantically in committed partnerships so long as they don’t have sex. You believe this to be true despite all the concerns and objections put forward because they amount to conservative Catholicism which doesn’t count.

I believe through my 50 plus years of Catholic education and striving to live the Catholic way, that this attitude is not within the scope of chastity or Catholicism and firmly believe you are robbing yourself of Gods grace and inviting sin by living this way.

Now it seems that Rau is moving to shift me on from this thread with his chastisings and I will.

I wish you the best in your search. I hope you find peace in you life, smgs.

 

[One_point]

I have asked this question: is romantic attraction and expression sexual? I would appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut on it on this thread

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=895013

 

[bobcrawford]

Two things. I think it was ABC who did a report a few years ago on genetic twins. They were able to find identical twins where one became homosexual and the other was heterosexual. So if homosexuality was indeed genetic, either both twins would be heterosexual or homosexual. Thus clearly the two remaining possibilities are choice or mental condition.

Again a few years ago I read an article concerning someone who claimed to have a drug that could treat the brain of a homosexual and cause him/her to desire the opposite sex instead of the same sex. In other words, the drug therapy was treating a chemical imbalance in the brain. Some homosexuals got all upset when learning about the drug. They didn’t want to take it or have anything to do with it. Interesting, because that implies it is a choice which leads to my next comment.

There is a now young woman who I coaches in softball when she was in elementary school. As a adult she stated that she was homosexual. She has had several same sex partners who it appears are also homosexual. Now here is the interesting part. She is going through the process to change her gender to that of a male. Her current partner says they will stay together. OK, so now the homosexual partner is going to stay with the person who will be the opposite sex; but wait, wasn’t she claiming to be homosexual? So does that ultimately say that homosexuality is a choice?

I cannot help believing that our over sexualized society contributes to a lot of gender confusion that just was not as messed up as it was prior to the roaring 70’s.

JMHO and thoughts.

 

[SMGS127]

Two things. I think it was ABC who did a report a few years ago on genetic twins. They were able to find identical twins where one became homosexual and the other was heterosexual. So if homosexuality was indeed genetic, either both twins would be heterosexual or homosexual. Thus clearly the two remaining possibilities are choice or mental condition.

This is completely false, and it shows a lack of knowledge of genetics. 50% is a very high shared trait percentage for identical twins, and it actually indicates the opposite of what you are saying. That is to say, twin studies show a likelihood of a biological cause to homosexuality.

There is a now young woman who I coaches in softball when she was in elementary school. As a adult she stated that she was homosexual. She has had several same sex partners who it appears are also homosexual. Now here is the interesting part. She is going through the process to change her gender to that of a male. Her current partner says they will stay together. OK, so now the homosexual partner is going to stay with the person who will be the opposite sex; but wait, wasn’t she claiming to be homosexual? So does that ultimately say that homosexuality is a choice?

No, lesbians occasionally stay with their partners who transition, but this also has to do with the facts that:

a) Lesbian relationships are incredibly emotional/close, so even though the relationship may technically become heterosexual, that initial bonding remains.

and b) Transmen rarely get SRS.

 

[frobert]

Two things. I think it was ABC who did a report a few years ago on genetic twins. They were able to find identical twins where one became homosexual and the other was heterosexual. So if homosexuality was indeed genetic, either both twins would be heterosexual or homosexual. Thus clearly the two remaining possibilities are choice or mental condition.

Do you have competence in genetic research? No? Then read some articles by competent genetic researchers.

Again a few years ago I read an article concerning someone who claimed to have a drug that could treat the brain of a homosexual and cause him/her to desire the opposite sex instead of the same sex. In other words, the drug therapy was treating a chemical imbalance in the brain. Some homosexuals got all upset when learning about the drug. They didn’t want to take it or have anything to do with it. Interesting, because that implies it is a choice which leads to my next comment.

Again read some competent research into the efficacy of such drugs and especially their social side effects. History shows that similar thinking was prevalent in Nazi medical experiments

There is a now young woman who I coaches in softball when she was in elementary school. As a adult she stated that she was homosexual. She has had several same sex partners who it appears are also homosexual. Now here is the interesting part. She is going through the process to change her gender to that of a male. Her current partner says they will stay together. OK, so now the homosexual partner is going to stay with the person who will be the opposite sex; but wait, wasn’t she claiming to be homosexual? So does that ultimately say that homosexuality is a choice?

Sexuality for some individuals, especially bisexuals, is fluid. That does not mean it is a choice for all or most gays and lesbians. Again read some competent research instead of poor reporting and sensationalism in the mainstream media.

I cannot help believing that our over sexualized society contributes to a lot of gender confusion that just was not as messed up as it was prior to the roaring 70’s.
JMHO and thoughts.

I can not help but think Christians, some well meaning and some not so well meaning, contribute to confusion and misunderstanding of sexual orientation. Why not take the CC’s view that the origins of sexual orientation are largely unknown.

 

[Ender]

Do you have competence in genetic research? No? Then read some articles by competent genetic researchers.

There have been any number of twin studies. It is well known that, while there is a high concordance rate (50-65%), it is quite common for one twin to be homosexual and the other not. This is clearly a problem for those who claim that homosexuality is genetic rather than environmental, and it doesn’t require competence in genetic research to be able to discuss this issue.

Sexuality for some individuals, especially bisexuals, is fluid. That does not mean it is a choice for gay and lesbian.

What do you mean that sexuality is fluid only for some individuals? If it is genetically caused then how can it be fluid, but if it is fluid how can it also be genetically determined?

Ender

 

[SMGS127]

There have been any number of twin studies. It is well known that, while there is a high concordance rate (50-65%), it is quite common for one twin to be homosexual and the other not. This is clearly a problem for those who claim that homosexuality is genetic rather than environmental, and it doesn’t require competence in genetic research to be able to discuss this issue.

Not really. It demonstrates a high degree of correlarity on a biological scale. This could be explained by in-utero influences on the fetuses, or even a gene being accidentally turned on or off. No matter what the reason, it does demonstrate a high likelihood of a biological basis of homosexuality that leads to someone, yes, being “born this way.”

 

[Ender]

This is completely false, and it shows a lack of knowledge of genetics. 50% is a very high shared trait percentage for identical twins, and it actually indicates the opposite of what you are saying. That is to say, twin studies show a likelihood of a biological cause to homosexuality.

• Because identical twins develop from a single fertilized egg, they have the same genome. So any differences between twins are due to their environments, not genetics.*

learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/epigenetics/twins/
Ender

 

[SMGS127]

• Because identical twins develop from a single fertilized egg, they have the same genome. So any differences between twins are due to their environments, not genetics.*

learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/epigenetics/twins/
Ender

I didn’t say genetic, I said biological. There is a high degree of possibility that the in-utero environment affects the embryo(s) and causes them to develop with a homosexual orientation. Studies on younger brothers correlate with this theory.

(If you’re not aware, the study of “genetics” and something being “genetic” does not mean the same thing)

 

[frobert]

• Because identical twins develop from a single fertilized egg, they have the same genome. So any differences between twins are due to their environments, not genetics.*

learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/epigenetics/twins/
Ender

While your link mentions epigenetics it dose so only fleetingly.

“Epigenetics involves genetic control by factors other than an individual’s DNA sequence. Epigenetic changes can switch genes on or off and determine which proteins are transcribed”.
Source…

Learn more about genetic switches

Bold emphasis added.

Why not take the CC’s published view that the origin of sexual orientation is largely unknown?