Some random thoughts on homosexuality

[LCMS_No_More]

Boxie, you seem to be confusing condition and lifestyle. A homosexual person does not need to change his or her orientation if that is even possible; her or she simply needs to live a chaste life (as all are called to do). For sure, no one is suggesting that we should deem acceptable any kind of sexual expression which does not have its roots in Eden. God revealed the proper meaning and purpose of sex in Sacred Scripture. Pope John Paul II did a wonderful thing in showing this through his series of letters and encyclicals on the Theology of the Body.

What if a person desires to change their orientation? Should they be supported and encouraged in doing so with the goal of possibly marrying or told to settle with living a single life (chastity lived out either way)? What if the single life seems unattractive to a person?

 

[dulcissima]

What if a person desires to change their orientation? Should they be supported and encouraged in doing so with the goal of possibly marrying or told to settle with living a single life (chastity lived out either way)? What if the single life seems unattractive to a person?

Few people would support such an undertaking. Personally, I think it could be fine. Attraction certainly isn’t a prerequisite for marriage. Often times men and women are initially attracted to one another when they meet and marry, and then as time goes by, that attraction can fade. Marriage isn’t based on attraction. Although such a marriage certainly could be a recipe for heartache…

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Few people would support such an undertaking. Personally, I think it could be fine. Attraction certainly isn’t a prerequisite for marriage. Often times men and women are initially attracted to one another when they meet and marry, and then as time goes by, that attraction can fade. Marriage isn’t based on attraction. Although such a marriage certainly could be a recipe for heartache…

Attraction is necessary for the act to consummate a marriage. That’s an important aspect and I acknowledge that it’s not the only one (self-confidence, kindness, compassion, love, and a rather long list of things are involved). I’m actually thinking in terms of the whole package in this endeavor. Rest assured and please pray for me.

 

[Portrait]

Boxie, you seem to be confusing condition and lifestyle. A homosexual person does not need to change his or her orientation if that is even possible; her or she simply needs to live a chaste life (as all are called to do). For sure, no one is suggesting that we should deem acceptable any kind of sexual expression which does not have its roots in Eden. God revealed the proper meaning and purpose of sex in Sacred Scripture. Pope John Paul II did a wonderful thing in showing this through his series of letters and encyclicals on the Theology of the Body.

Dear JaredR,

Whilst I am fully aware of the distinction to be drawn between homosexual orientation and homosexual acts, I nevertheless think that it must be asserted without reservation that change is not only possible it is indeed actually desireable since marriage is God’s norm for human sexuality.

Sacred Scripture states quite unequivocally that those struggling with a homosexual proclivity can prevail over their affliction. After listing a number of categories that most typically characterize the ungodly, including homosexuals, St. Paul reminded the Corinthians, “And such were some of you” (see I Cor. 6: 9-11, emphasis mine).

Corinth was a notorious centre of all manner of vice in the ancient world and some of the Christians had been converted out of such a vicious background. True we are not informed that they were all able to establish normal hetrosexual relationships but it is not unreasonable to assume that some did. Quite possibly some were called to a celibate life, which St. Paul mentions in I Corintians chapter 7 as a specific option for some Christians. However they were all granted grace and strength to live a new life in Christ who had redeemed and regenerated them through baptism.

Therefore I would say that LCMS_No_More should earnestly pray for a change in his sexual orientation so that he can enter into a fulfilling relationship with a member of the opposite sex. This possibility should in no wise be ruled out or dismissed as an unrealistic option. Of course it may be that our Lord intends for him to abstain from sexual relations and live life as a celibate. In either case God will supply the necessary grace to live a life that is pure and holy.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[chrysostim83]

What if a person desires to change their orientation? Should they be supported and encouraged in doing so with the goal of possibly marrying or told to settle with living a single life (chastity lived out either way)? What if the single life seems unattractive to a person?

Hi LCMS_No_More,

Answering only for myself, I don’t think it’s good idea to support and encourage people to change their sexual orientation. Even if I could bring myself to admit that the kind of therapy involved is effective (there’s no evidence that it is), it seems to me that the outcome is not worth the time or expense. Most reparative therapists will tell you it takes about 5 years to change one’s orientation, and the attempt typically requires one to go to individual and group therapy every week. Assuming the therapist charges $80 a session, we have (ignoring interest rates) a total cost of
($80/session)(2 sessions/week)(52weeks/year)(5 years)=$41,600.
Now factor in the uncertainty of the outcome, say a probability of success of somewhere between 1/20 and 1/3; then in order for the expected value of the sexual orientation change effort to be 0—i.e., in order for the attempt to meet the minimal condition of being worth your while—the value you attach to becoming heterosexual would have to be in the range of $124,800 and $883,000. So, to put this analysis in concrete terms, you would have to prefer being heterosexual to having a nice house.

So what’s going on here? Why is it so important to be rid of same sex attractions? These are in part rhetoric questions, but I am actually interested in the kind of answers people can come up with, because (for the life of me!) I can’t think of any good answers myself.

Peace

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Hi LCMS_No_More,

Answering only for myself, I don’t think it’s good idea to support and encourage people to change their sexual orientation. Even if I could bring myself to admit that the kind of therapy involved is effective (there’s no evidence that it is), it seems to me that the outcome is not worth the time or expense. Most reparative therapists will tell you it takes about 5 years to change one’s orientation, and the attempt typically requires one to go to individual and group therapy every week. Assuming the therapist charges $80 a session, we have (ignoring interest rates) a total cost of
($80/session)(2 sessions/week)(52weeks/year)(5 years)=$41,600.
Now factor in the uncertainty of the outcome, say a probability of success of somewhere between 1/20 and 1/3; then in order for the expected value of the sexual orientation change effort to be 0—i.e., in order for the attempt to meet the minimal condition of being worth your while—the value you attach to becoming heterosexual would have to be in the range of $124,800 and $883,000. So, to put this analysis in concrete terms, you would have to prefer being heterosexual to having a nice house.

That’s if someone can afford the therapy and wants to take that route. I cannot afford to do so but I do have an understanding about SSA that many people don’t (I’m an avid reader) which gives me a leg up. I’ve been studying the issue for about 5 years.

So what’s going on here? Why is it so important to be rid of same sex attractions? These are in part rhetoric questions, but I am actually interested in the kind of answers people can come up with, because (for the life of me!) I can’t think of any good answers myself.

Peace

There are several reasons.

First, since one of the underlying causes of SSA is self-loathing, wouldn’t it be a healthy thing to overcome self-loathing?

Second, I definitely do NOT want to grow old alone. The very notion terrifies me. My self-loathing and social rejection have made me somewhat bitter and I definitely do NOT want to be a bitter old man who dies alone with no one to care about him and no one to care about…I can think of few deaths with less meaning and significance. If I continue down the current road without making any changes, that’s the future I foresee.

Third, I don’t understand why people think that SSA people should be left with the single life as their one and only option. God Himself said, “it is not good for man to be alone.” In fact, it’s the first thing we have recorded that God said was not good about the creation, yet people seem to think that SSA are somehow to be excluded from that. Are SSA people that they can be considered a subspecies such that “it is good for man to be alone if he has SSA?” Is that logical? And before anyone says, well, if you have friends, you’re not alone. My answer is this: what did God do when He said that “it is not good for man to be alone?” He gave the man a spouse, not a friend or a support group. Friends are part of the path of healing and can help, but at the end of the day, literally speaking, a single person is alone.

Fourth, for me, and I can only speak for myself, simply lying down and accepting that I will have SSA, along with the requisite underlying mental and emotional issues, my whole life is an unacceptable option. Does God really want me hating myself, feeling inferior to men and fearful of women for the rest of my life? If He does, that seems rather sadistic.

Speaking of support groups, Courage is a great thing and I’ve been helped by it, but it’s very limited, IMO. It’s good for those who have decided to settle with being alone in the single life. That once or twice a month meeting is sure helpful .

Actually, that’s something I never understood about Catholics. When I was a non-Catholic Christian, we had weekly events but as a Catholic, I’m lucky if something is scheduled more than once a month. How can we get anything done by doing it just once a month, especially trying to deal with, if not overcome, something as all-encompassing as SSA (I say all-encompassing as it touches every single area of my life from how I see myself, how I relate to others and how I relate to God, etc.).

So, do you think it’s a good thing for an SSA person to be alone? If so, why?

 

[Portrait]

Hi LCMS_No_More,

Answering only for myself, I don’t think it’s good idea to support and encourage people to change their sexual orientation. Even if I could bring myself to admit that the kind of therapy involved is effective (there’s no evidence that it is), it seems to me that the outcome is not worth the time or expense. Most reparative therapists will tell you it takes about 5 years to change one’s orientation, and the attempt typically requires one to go to individual and group therapy every week. Assuming the therapist charges $80 a session, we have (ignoring interest rates) a total cost of
($80/session)(2 sessions/week)(52weeks/year)(5 years)=$41,600.
Now factor in the uncertainty of the outcome, say a probability of success of somewhere between 1/20 and 1/3; then in order for the expected value of the sexual orientation change effort to be 0—i.e., in order for the attempt to meet the minimal condition of being worth your while—the value you attach to becoming heterosexual would have to be in the range of $124,800 and $883,000. So, to put this analysis in concrete terms, you would have to prefer being heterosexual to having a nice house.

So what’s going on here? Why is it so important to be rid of same sex attractions? These are in part rhetoric questions, but I am actually interested in the kind of answers people can come up with, because (for the life of me!) I can’t think of any good answers myself.

Peace

Dear chrysostim83,

Surely any bona fide Christian would wish to be freed from a homosexual attraction given that it is both sinful, unatural and a violation of the moral law of God.

Homosexual attration has its origin in the Fall and Original Sin. Moreover we know from Sacred Scripture that sin affects every part of human nature, including our sexuality, and every area of human experience. The effects of sin are physical, psychological and emotional as well as moral and spiritual. Thus just as the natural creation has been defaced by the Fall and the curse (Gen. 3: 17-19), so also have people’s bodies been affected; genetic disorders, physical disabilities and hereditary disease all have to be traced back to the the disorder in the created realm which was introduced as a consequence of man’s original disobedience.

Therefore homosexuality in terms of attraction, orientation and temptation has to be viewed as one of the sad effects of the Fall. To put it quite simply homosexual orientation and deviant behaviour is evidence that we live in a fallen world and as such must always be appraised negatively, just as we do in the case of fornication, adultery, and beastiality for example.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Dear chrysostim83,

Surely any bona fide Christian would wish to be freed from a homosexual attraction given that it is both sinful, unatural and a violation of the moral law of God.

Homosexual attration has its origin in the Fall and Original Sin. Moreover we know from Sacred Scripture that sin affects every part of human nature, including our sexuality, and every area of human experience. The effects of sin are physical, psychological and emotional as well as moral and spiritual. Thus just as the natural creation has been defaced by the Fall and the curse (Gen. 3: 17-19), so also have people’s bodies been affected; genetic disorders, physical disabilities and hereditary disease all have to be traced back to the the disorder in the created realm which was introduced as a consequence of man’s original disobedience.

Therefore homosexuality in terms of attraction, orientation and temptation has to be viewed as one of the sad effects of the Fall. To put it quite simply homosexual orientation and deviant behaviour is evidence that we live in a fallen world and as such must always be appraised negatively, just as we do in the case of fornication, adultery, and beastiality for example.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

SSA is not a sin in and of itself and the Church has never said that it was.

That being said, SSA is a SYMPTOM of other issues that combine to create a wounded, hurt person who manifests attractions to persons of the same sex as a way to treat the emotional injuries done to them. That’s it in a nutshell, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Portrait]

SSA is not a sin in and of itself and the Church has never said that it was.

That being said, SSA is a SYMPTOM of other issues that combine to create a wounded, hurt person who manifests attractions to persons of the same sex as a way to treat the emotional injuries done to them. That’s it in a nutshell, nothing more, nothing less.

Dear LCMS_No_More,

Whilst I would not deny for one moment that other issues have to be factored in as regards the development of homosexual attraction (e.g. parent-child relationships; peer interactions; same-sex parent and sexual abuse), the fact remains that because homosexual attraction is by definition unnatural and contrary to God’s norm for human sexuality, it surely cannot be viewed as anything but sinful. Clearly if it is not normal or natural then it must needs be sinful and immoral and therefore detestable to a holy God.

Homosexual attraction is a wicked fruit of the Fall and must be resolutely resisted by any professing Christian who struggles with a homosexual tendency: “…whatever is true, whatever is honourable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things” (Philipp. 4: 8, emphasis mine).

This is not retreat into a simplistic analysis but to adhere to the incontrovertible teaching of Sacred Scripture to which authority the Church itself submits.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Dear LCMS_No_More,

Whilst I would not deny for one moment that other issues have to be factored in as regards the development of homosexual attraction (e.g. parent-child relationships; peer interactions; same-sex parent and sexual abuse), the fact remains that because homosexual attraction is by definition unnatural and contrary to God’s norm for human sexuality, it surely cannot be viewed as anything but sinful. Clearly if it is not normal or natural then it must needs be sinful and immoral and therefore detestable to a holy God.

Homosexual attraction is a wicked fruit of the Fall and must be resolutely resisted by any professing Christian who struggles with a homosexual tendency: “…whatever is true, whatever is honourable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things” (Philipp. 4: 8, emphasis mine).

This is not retreat into a simplistic analysis but to adhere to the incontrovertible teaching of Sacred Scripture to which authority the Church itself submits.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Your ideas are not in line with the Church’s catechesis. Sorry.

 

[chrysostim83]

Hi LCMS_No_More,

First of all, thanks for not taking my rather negative post the wrong way. Since you’ve read a great deal on this subject, you’re probably more prepared to answer contradictory points of view than I am. Indeed, you handled Portrait’s contributions admirably. (I would only add the following quick and dirty way of seeing that his argument is wrong: If having same sex attractions is sinful, then there is a moral obligation to engage in sexual orientation change efforts. But this contradicts the express statement of Fr Harvey, whose moral theological credentials are above reproach.)

Now, you’ve put your finger on some very deep problems. I can’t answer the first problem you raise, since all I can think to do is deny that SSA necessarily develops out of or expresses self-loathing. Of course, it’s true that many gay men have trouble accepting themselves, but this is usually taken to be the natural consequence of internalized homophobia. However that may be, we probably won’t get very close to solution of this problem on an internet forum.

The fourth problem you bring up is closely related to the first. I quite understand how you could not accept going the rest of your life with SSA and mental or emotional issues. But I’m left wondering if you could accept life with SSA and without the other issues. Since you would argue that these issues are part and parcel of having SSA, and I would demur from that idea, we probably won’t get very far on this problem either.

We might be able to get somewhere with the second and third problems which deal directly with loneliness. The form this question takes in my own mind is, “How much company do you need to keep in order to maintain your sanity?” A reasonable answer seems to be, “About as much as you had into your late teens or early twenties,” which is to say, quite a lot. After all, children live with their parents and siblings, and young adults live with room-mates until they get married (I’m only talking about what’s typical here). The usual Christian vocations and states-of-life generally end up offering the necessary amount of company. This is obvious in the case of marriage and religious life, and slightly less obvious in the case of the priesthood. So now the question boils down to, “How can single persons get this much company?” For most it is probably difficult, but I would say, if someone knows in advance that he will be single, then he can elect a communal living arrangement. To take a holy example, this is precisely what Cardinal Newman did; to take a profane example, most of the gay men I know live with room-mates with whom they have no sexual relations whatsoever.

To summarize that last paragraph in a slogan, you could say that gay men are called to be monks-but-not-monks and that this calling therefore involves living with other men who have dedicated themselves to seeking the Lord in celibacy.

Allowing for the disagreements we’ll have on the points I mentioned, does this solution make any sense to you?

Peace

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Hi LCMS_No_More,

First of all, thanks for not taking my rather negative post the wrong way. Since you’ve read a great deal on this subject, you’re probably more prepared to answer contradictory points of view than I am. Indeed, you handled Portrait’s contributions admirably. (I would only add the following quick and dirty way of seeing that his argument is wrong: If having same sex attractions is sinful, then there is a moral obligation to engage in sexual orientation change efforts. But this contradicts the express statement of Fr Harvey, whose moral theological credentials are above reproach.)

Now, you’ve put your finger on some very deep problems. I can’t answer the first problem you raise, since all I can think to do is deny that SSA necessarily develops out of or expresses self-loathing. Of course, it’s true that many gay men have trouble accepting themselves, but this is usually taken to be the natural consequence of internalized homophobia. However that may be, we probably won’t get very close to solution of this problem on an internet forum.

Actually, the development of SSA is different than how it’s healed. “Internalized homophobia” IMO is a “gay affirmative therapy” thing that I want absolutely nothing to do with whatsoever.

What I’m talking about is being told over and over and over again by my dad (the one man whose job it was to affirm me as a boy and later as a man) that I’m lazy and that I can’t do anything right. What I’m talking about is being led to believe by my mother, however unwittingly on her part, that being a boy/man is not a good thing. What I’m talking about is the lack of encouragement from either when it came to doing boy things. I was just “the kid,” not “the son.”

What I’m talking about is not being able to develop good, long-lasting peer friendships with other boys. Those who I did become friends with soon tired of me or told me outright that they couldn’t be seen with me at school.

Believe me, I’ve read a lot on this topic and I know from which I speak. My inability to believe that I am equal to other men as a man is what is holding me down and holding me back and that goes back to self-hatred. I’ve been programmed from an early age to believe that there is something wrong with me and that I’m “less than.” That’s where I’m coming from.

The fourth problem you bring up is closely related to the first. I quite understand how you could not accept going the rest of your life with SSA and mental or emotional issues. But I’m left wondering if you could accept life with SSA and without the other issues.

Actually, if the emotional issues are settled, then I believe that the SSA will be diminished. It’s no wonder how after visiting my one straight friend that I usually come away feeling decent and even able to view myself in a much better light. Could it be that he treats me like a man and gives me the respect he would give any other man. He treats me like an equal. I’m even starting to feel differently toward women because of the strength I get from being treated like an equal to a man I think highly of. He elevates me into manhood by treating me like a man.

That, in and of itself, is very helpful in healing these issues.

Since you would argue that these issues are part and parcel of having SSA, and I would demur from that idea, we probably won’t get very far on this problem either.

Agreed.

We might be able to get somewhere with the second and third problems which deal directly with loneliness. The form this question takes in my own mind is, “How much company do you need to keep in order to maintain your sanity?” A reasonable answer seems to be, “About as much as you had into your late teens or early twenties,” which is to say, quite a lot. After all, children live with their parents and siblings, and young adults live with room-mates until they get married (I’m only talking about what’s typical here). The usual Christian vocations and states-of-life generally end up offering the necessary amount of company. This is obvious in the case of marriage and religious life, and slightly less obvious in the case of the priesthood. So now the question boils down to, “How can single persons get this much company?” For most it is probably difficult, but I would say, if someone knows in advance that he will be single, then he can elect a communal living arrangement. To take a holy example, this is precisely what Cardinal Newman did; to take a profane example, most of the gay men I know live with room-mates with whom they have no sexual relations whatsoever.

To summarize that last paragraph in a slogan, you could say that gay men are called to be monks-but-not-monks and that this calling therefore involves living with other men who have dedicated themselves to seeking the Lord in celibacy.

Allowing for the disagreements we’ll have on the points I mentioned, does this solution make any sense to you?

Peace

In all seriousness, I don’t think that is something that would be endorsed by the Church all too much. Near occasion of sin and all that.

For me, healing is the best answer. If I find that I still have the same degree of SSA when I deal with these issues and get some healing from them, then fine. If it diminishes to a substantial degree, then I would want to consider pursuing marriage and a somewhat normal life.

I’ll bet that the SSA diminished greatly and won’t be as much of a problem.

 

[chrysostim83]

Hi LCMS_No_More,

As expected, we won’t be able to agree on the first or fourth points you raised, so I just want to reply to the objection to the monks-but-not-monks model. I should have guarded against it in the last post because it is fairly obvious.

In the first place, there is no reason for thinking that the men living together will find each other attractive. Indeed, not being attractive to the other room-mates might be requirement for living with them. In fact, there’s no reason why lesbians and gay men couldn’t live together, which would further decrease the attractiveness of the room-mates to each other.

Second, while I can imagine how living with just one other person might be a near occasion of sin, still, one reason to have more than two people living together is so that all may give strength and help to each. So, if two members appear to be, as it were, on their way to doing something foolish, the others can admonish or even, for repeated offences, evict them.

Third, and perhaps most important of all, the arrangement I have in mind should keep loneliness and boredom at bay, and since it is, or ought to be, well-known that both of these things can exacerbate lust, it seems reasonable to suppose that men who live with each other have fewer near occasions of sin (in this regard) than those who live alone.

The explanation of my views was incomplete without this little defence. Guess that’s all for now. Peace.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Hi LCMS_No_More,

As expected, we won’t be able to agree on the first or fourth points you raised, so I just want to reply to the objection to the monks-but-not-monks model. I should have guarded against it in the last post because it is fairly obvious.

In the first place, there is no reason for thinking that the men living together will find each other attractive. Indeed, not being attractive to the other room-mates might be requirement for living with them. In fact, there’s no reason why lesbians and gay men couldn’t live together, which would further decrease the attractiveness of the room-mates to each other.

Second, while I can imagine how living with just one other person might be a near occasion of sin, still, one reason to have more than two people living together is so that all may give strength and help to each. So, if two members appear to be, as it were, on their way to doing something foolish, the others can admonish or even, for repeated offences, evict them.

Third, and perhaps most important of all, the arrangement I have in mind should keep loneliness and boredom at bay, and since it is, or ought to be, well-known that both of these things can exacerbate lust, it seems reasonable to suppose that men who live with each other have fewer near occasions of sin (in this regard) than those who live alone.

The explanation of my views was incomplete without this little defence. Guess that’s all for now. Peace.

I don’t think it would work for me as I do have interests outside of SSA and my faith. I also like to have some degree of privacy. I’m into things a lot of people think of as wierd, like sci-fi and I don’t like to hear comments or get out-voted as to what to watch on tv all the time. While I hate being alone (by myself not by my choice), I do occasionally enjoy the freedom to just be in solitude (by myself by my choice), either in or out of the house.

 

[Portrait]

Your ideas are not in line with the Church’s catechesis. Sorry.

Dear LCMS_No_More,

Having re-read para. 2357 of our Catechism, I would concede that the Church does not explicitly say that homosexual attraction per se is sinful, it does, notwithstanding, state that homosexual acts “are contary to the natural law” and that “they do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity”. On this we would both concur.

However, I feel bound to ask how warranted it is to to drive a wedge between homosexual thoughts and engaging in actual “acts of grave depravity”? Now unless I am utterly misapprehending and hence misconstruing the sense of Sacred Scripture, it would appear that the bible does not support such an erroneous dichotomy between homosexual attraction and homosexual acts, between the thoughts and the acts.

In St. Mark’s Gospel, for example, it is recorded that our Lord said: “For from within,out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, fornication, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within and defile a man” (7: 21-23). By “licentiousness” our Lord means impurity and unchastity of all sorts (which would include homosexuality), in thought and word as well as just deed. All of these ugly sins are the fruit of internal evil desires. Thus they are inextricably connected and equally fall under the condemnation of God because they are violations of the Commandments. Covetousness, for example, begins as a sin in the heart before it is a sin in action, likewise with any sin and this is our Lord’s whole point. Clearly all evil and unlawful desires are sinful and homosexual attraction being an evil and unlawful desire becuase it is unnatural, impure and unchaste must necessarily be sinful.

Again prior to the Great Flood of Noah’s time we read in the Book of Genesis that “The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that* every imagination of *the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (6: 5, emphasis mine). The heart of man was a well of corruption (cf. Jeremiah 17: 9) and God was provoked every day - “God is a righteous judge, and a God who has indignation every day.” (Psalm 7: 11). Man had so greviously fallen from the glorious image in which he was originally created. However, what is germane to the subject under discussion is that the *thoughts *of man’s heart “was only evil” not merely his actions.

The above two examples from Sacred Scripture, and they could be multiplied, surely argue quite cogently that we have no biblical rationale for dissociating homosexual thoughts or attraction from homosexual “acts of grave depravity”.

Quite fankly I cannot understand why the Church appears to make this unwarranted distinction when Sacred Scripture does not do so. After all “the Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant” ( Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 86). Perhaps I am totally misunderstanding both Scripture and our Church’s teaching, if that is so then please by all means put me straight and show me the way of truth more perfectly.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[dulcissima]

Attraction is necessary for the act to consummate a marriage. That’s an important aspect and I acknowledge that it’s not the only one (self-confidence, kindness, compassion, love, and a rather long list of things are involved). I’m actually thinking in terms of the whole package in this endeavor. Rest assured and please pray for me.

I have been praying for you.

Attraction isn’t necessarily a requirement for consummation. I have known a couple of people with homosexual orientation (including an uncle of mine) who were married and did not have problems in that area. Their marriages didn’t last, however. I think that is due more to unresolved personal issues as well as lack of a solid faith basis.

While I definitely do not have any harsh feelings towards those with SSA (and do think that most of us have that to some degree), I do think a homosexual lifestyle tends to be like a blind alley. My first boyfriend (back when I was 15/16) it turns out is gay. We’ve reconnected on Facebook, and his life just seems exhausting and not at all fulfilling, all pleasure, no sacrifice, and no real contentment. I think that we are advised against this as Christians because this kind of love is not at all reflective of the love that Christ has for us, which really is the basis for true love.

 

[BobObob]

However, I feel bound to ask how warranted it is to to drive a wedge between homosexual thoughts and engaging in actual “acts of grave depravity”? Now unless I am utterly misapprehending and hence misconstruing the sense of Sacred Scripture, it would appear that the bible does not support such an erroneous dichotomy between homosexual attraction and homosexual acts, between the thoughts and the acts.

Pope Benedict (then Cardinal Ratzinger) said:

“Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder. Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be directed to those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not.”

brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/j/josephratz184315.html
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html

Regarding what the Bible says about homosexuality, you need to consider that there has not been a term for a homosexual inclination until the last 100 or so years. Any time homosexuality was mentioned before that (including every time it is mentioned in the Bible) it always means homosexual acts. This includes the “licentiousness” you mentioned in Mark 7:21-23.

You also need to consider that the Bible is not an all-encompassing catechism that is meant to cover everything. The Church helps us in areas not explicitly covered by the Bible.

Regarding evil in man’s thoughts, having an attraction is not the same as lusting. Having an attraction is a passive experience, lusting, including in the thoughts of men, is a willful and intentional act.

You also need to be careful when considering the word “desire”. I may be attracted to and receive pleasure from eating ice cream, or I may intend to eat ice cream. These are two very different situations in which the word “desire” may be used to describe the relationship between the ice cream and I. In a different situation, a man who is attracted to and would receive pleasure from sleeping with a prostitute, yet does not do so for moral reasons, does not sin by having heterosexual “desire”. However, if he intentionally looks at a woman with lust (which would be a willful evil thought) or he fornicates, he does sin. Now apply that to a man with SSA…

I want to emphasize the point that sexual attraction does not equal lust. Automatic and unintended sexual thoughts do not constitute lust either. Lust and other sinful thoughts are willful.

I recommend looking at the morality of passions. The term “passion” includes sexual attractions (CCC 1763), which are part of the sensitive appetite. Regarding passions, the Church says:

“In themselves passions [which includes sexual attractions] are neither good nor evil…” (CCC 1767)

Quite fankly I cannot understand why the Church appears to make this unwarranted distinction when Sacred Scripture does not do so. After all “the Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant” ( Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 86). Perhaps I am totally misunderstanding both Scripture and our Church’s teaching, if that is so then please by all means put me straight and show me the way of truth more perfectly.

The Bible never talks about homosexual orientation, only about actions (and evil thoughts in general) (see above).

 

[Boxie]

SSA is not a sin in and of itself and the Church has never said that it was.

That being said, SSA is a SYMPTOM of other issues that combine to create a wounded, hurt person who manifests attractions to persons of the same sex as a way to treat the emotional injuries done to them. That’s it in a nutshell, nothing more, nothing less.

Wait, i am not very good with this subject and i am trying to understand it more. You said that you could may be get married some day because it is not good for man to be alone, but if you marry a woman will you still be attracted to men? And would you be honest enough to tell her this? And if you had sexual contact after marriage would it lead you back to the other way? Then what? What if you become bored with her and need what first gave you the real feeling of love? I am not sure how that works or if i am even close to what you feel, but i am surmising. see a pretty woman and i am attracted to her face and clothes etc. but i would not want to have a relationship with another woman. I can look at other men and think they are very handsome but it would not put me in bed with them. May be allot of people think they are different because they feel guilty for being human and just thinking some one is nice looking? There is nothing wrong with that.

 

[Crumpy]

Another excellent video, in which a psychologist briefly explains in 17 minutes many prevalent factors having to do with the development of SSA, can be found on the homepage of www.homosexuality101.com.

Both of these videos seem disingenuine to me. They come across as people who think they know more than they actually do.

To say that homosexual behavior has eight components is to say that you don’t really understand it. What is needed is a totally scientific understanding of human sexuality, from genetics on upwards. The patterns that these people talk about don’t seem any more pursuasive than astrological analyses.

I think SSA is fundamentally genetic. There’s genetic research being done all the time, and it has taken decades to unravel the significance of very small chemical differences. There was such an announcement a couple weeks ago, but I can’t remember what that issue was.

I hope and pray that there will soon be a cure for homosexuality.

 

[BobObob]

Both of these videos seem disingenuine to me. They come across as people who think they know more than they actually do.

To say that homosexual behavior has eight components is to say that you don’t really understand it. What is needed is a totally scientific understanding of human sexuality, from genetics on upwards. The patterns that these people talk about don’t seem any more pursuasive than astrological analyses.

I think SSA is fundamentally genetic. There’s genetic research being done all the time, and it has taken decades to unravel the significance of very small chemical differences. There was such an announcement a couple weeks ago, but I can’t remember what that issue was.

I hope and pray that there will soon be a cure for homosexuality.

For a long time, people have been looking for a genetic cause for alcoholism. Much research over time has demonstrated that there is no gene that causes alcoholism, although it tends to run in families. It tends to run in families (I believe) because tolerance of alcohol is a biological thing which is genetically influenced. The fact is that becoming an alcoholic is in no way genetically determined.

Although being addicted to alcohol and being sexually attracted to the same sex are different phenomenon, there are some notable similarities.

There has been no replicable scientific research that has shown any genetic determination of SSA. That’s not to say that genetics has no influence on SSA. One genetic makeup can influence a person’s temperament, which can influence which behaviors a certain person will likely enjoy (which the video mentioned).

BTW, neither of the videos claim to be a be-all end-all regarding the causes of SSA. They only mention things that are the most prominent.

Perhaps researchers may find a gene that is directly causal of SSA (at least for some with SSA). I highly doubt such direct causal gene would ever be found though. More research in the relation of genetics to the causes of SSA can only be a good thing, so longs as those studies are conducted properly and the data is interpreted correctly (we must remember that correlation does not equal causation).