Well, that is true. Technically, as long as we don’t sin…there is no obligation to seek after psychological wholeness. It won’t matter when we die anyway, as long as we were spiritually healthy. Vanitas vanitatum.An earlier draft had said that there was “no moral obligation” for gay people to undergo therapy.
A good compromise, frankly. I support such therapy, but it is not really a spiritual issue as long as you dont sin. As such, it should be a personal decision, not a church issue. The Church is not in the business of endorsing certain schools of medicine, science, etc…The final draft eliminated that sentence, but did not endorse such therapy, saying there was no consensus on it.
I realize that this can be perceived as a “pastoral” issue, but it seems like another example of the US Catholic Bishops trying to water down the faith.The move to name contraception as a reason to refrain from communion failed 148-75.
I don’t get it. Was the vote you quoted just what the bishops wish to emphasis at this conference? The church has a position on this, doesn’t it?I realize that this can be perceived as a “pastoral” issue, but it seems like another example of the US Catholic Bishops trying to water down the faith.
Well, that is true. Technically, as long as we don’t sin…there is no obligation to seek after psychological wholeness. It won’t matter when we die anyway, as long as we were spiritually healthy. Vanitas vanitatum.
In fact, living with psychological problems, unhealed, is a Cross…and we are not called on to put down our crosses or heal them"…we are called on to carry them.
I’m not condemning psychotherapy to treat same sex attraction (I believe for many it could help significantly)…but it certainly isnt obligatory. Too many confuse psychological health with spiritual health.
Does anyone have a link to these documents?
A good compromise, frankly. I support such therapy, but it is not really a spiritual issue as long as you dont sin. As such, it should be a personal decision, not a church issue. The Church is not in the business of endorsing certain schools of medicine, science, etc…
To be fair, I should emphasize that the bishops didn’t vote against contraception barring a person from the Eucharist. They just voted against specifically mentioning that in the document.Is there a way to find out which Bishops voted which way?
And, their failure to pass the contraception issue baffles me…the Church teaches contraception is a grave sin. I have always been told we are obligated to assent to the teachings of the Church on this (kind of like you have to believe in Purgatory), otherwise you are not ‘in communion’ with the Church and must refrain from Communion. By the Bishop’s not including the contraception statement, I think they are muddying what appears to be Rome’s stance on the issue by omission.
And if you prefer the PDF format (easier to save and read later), they are available on the USCCB website: usccb.org/bishops/index.shtmlHere is a link to the document from The Curt Jester. He reformatted it from PDF to html to make it more accessable.