What is God's call to men with deep-seated homosexual tendencies?

[Bluegoat]

I think homosexuals are called to live out their lives as Chriatians in the same kinds of ways most other single people are.

Many people find they have restrictions based on some kind of situation they were born with. Some are minor - I will never be a helicopter pilot in the military - others are more fundamental and life defining.

Often, one’s personal limitations and burdens can suggest a specific direction, sometimes in a direct, other times in an indirect kind of way. So working with homosexual Christians is a ministry which is often understaffed, as well as simply being friends with them. Many gay practicing Catholics find they are very isolated and lonely. That would be a direct example.

Sexuality is very important in most people’s lives, especially at certain times of life. This is true even for those who are celibate. In my observation, people who try to escape, ignore, or suppress this aspect of their humanity suffer unfortunate consequences. On the other hand, there are ways to incorporate it or accept it appropriately, even into a celibate lifestyle. Sexuality gives a lot of energy - it can be directed in many ways that are worthwhile, although I think it really helps to have a good mentor or guidance. Many homosexuals seem to figure it out eventually on their own, but it can be a bit rocky.

As well, many many things that are open to all Catholics or Christians are also open to homosexuals. Not marriage or the priesthood. (I have my doubts rather about Third Orders, I’d be interested to see a more specific and in depth discussion). But scholars, mystics, martyrs, teachers, theologians, servants, lay leaders, musicians, artists… Individual homosexuals have many other talents that can be more important than who they are attracted to in discerning a vocation.

 

[Other_Eric]

I am not well-read on this subject, but from what I recall reading of Catholic teaching on homosexuality, this is not Catholic teaching. I recall reading that those with deep-seated homosexual tendencies are called to celibacy. I certainly may be incorrect, and would note any official Church teachings that suggest otherwise, but my understanding was that the Church teaches homosexual tendencies are not sinful if not acted upon, and some cannot overcome the basic orientation.

Those with same-sex attractions are not called to celibacy, they are called to *chastity*. (1) Chastity, as defined by the Church is “the successful integration of sexuality within the person and thus the inner unity of man in his bodily and spiritual being.” (2) The sexuality of one with same-sex attractions is disordered against God. (3) Therefore, one can no more integrate it into one’s person than one could integrate blasphemy into the Mass. To try to equate the sexual suppression advocated by some with chastity is therefore misguided and unrealistic. Indeed,

. . . one of the most dangerous forms of this unrealism is to think that one can live without sexuality. This is the old heresy of manicheism or albigensianism which long ago led to terrible sexual excesses on the part of those who sought to be absolutely pure. These misguided heretics are a reminder that one of the most dangerous sexual unrealisms is the pretense that humans can be angels. (4)

Inherent in this ideology is rank heresy.

You might then be tempted to say that it is only the same-sex genital act that the Church condemns, but this is a myopic and shallow reading of the teaching. We ought remind ourselves that “homosexuality has very little to do with sex.” (5) Augustine’s definition of sin, affirmed in the Catechism, (6) includes the desires we find ourselves subject to and since Christ calls us to internal purity (7) what is required is the proper and natural ordering of one’s libido. Further, since the Church teaches that the sexuality regulates “the aptitude for forming bonds of communion with others” (8) in even a platonic fashion, and since the sexuality is disordered in one with same-sex attractions (9) it becomes obvious that mere genital expression is only the beginning of the sinful applications of this disorder. Every relationship such a person might attempt becomes implicated.

The cross appointed to those who experience same-sex attractions is to become rid of them by whatever means is most efficacious. Anything less is either obstinacy, sloth or both.

(1) Catechism of the Catholic Church. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1993. ¶ 2359. Available online at:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P85.HTM

(2) Ibid. ¶ 2337. Available online at:
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P85.HTM

(3) Ibid. ¶2358. Available online at: vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P85.HTM

(4) Groeschel, Benedict J. The Courage to be Chaste. Mawah: Paulist Press, 1985. p. 35.

(5) Harvey, John F. The Truth About Homosexuality. San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press. 1996. p. 122.

(6) Catechism of the Catholic Church. ¶1849. Available online at: vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P6A.HTM

(7) New American Bible. Matt 5:28. Available online at: usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew5.htm

(8) Catechism of the Catholic Church. ¶2332. Available online at: vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P84.HTM

(9) Ibid. ¶2358. Available online at: vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P85.HTM

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Elephantiasis is so rare, you can’t possibly have used it to argue a point just now!

By the same token, the congenital birth defects in question are so rare that they are remarkable and spring readily to mind. (In a similar way: hermaphroditism is rare, but St. Augustine certainly knew about.)

Elephant Man did not have elephantiasis.

You’re missing the point. Simply because homosexuals were and are about 5% of the population, it is EXTRAORDINARILY more likely that “eunuchs from birth” refers to them.

 

[chrysostim83]

You’re right. They say it was probably Proteus syndrome with maybe a touch of neurofibromatosis.

However that is, the New Jerome Biblical Commentary and the notes to NAB seems to be on my side (that is, that “eunuchs from birth” means people with severe physical defects that make marriage impossible). The kind of defects are pretty startling, especially to a culture that excluded eunuch from the assembly (see Deut 23:1). They would no doubt be remembered down the generations, and would probably be just frequent enough that the memory would never die.

 

[Other_Eric]

Elephant Man did not have elephantiasis.

You’re missing the point. Simply because homosexuals were and are about 5% of the population, it is EXTRAORDINARILY more likely that “eunuchs from birth” refers to them.

It is extraordinarily unlikely that Christ referred to homosexuals in this way. The culture at the time had no concept of homosexuality, only a recognition that people could choose to behave in that fashion, or not. Today, we know that homosexuality is in no way a constitutive element of a person’s makeup but is instead a psychological deformity that the individual has a grave obligation to overcome. In other words, such a person must choose to order his impulses and behavior to conform to the body given him by his Creator.

 

[Gerard_Nadal]

**You ask great questions. My answers are not so generic as you might think. First, God calls the homosexual to His healing love. Jesus calls him to pick up his cross daily and follow him. We eventually get nailed to our crosses and die to ourselves on them. That’s how we work out our salvation.

In asking your question, you say you don’t want generalities, but then you present homosexuals as a group. So, it’s difficult to give a specific, as God calls individuals. For instance, he does not call all heterosexuals to Holy Orders. Canon law spells out several impediments to priesthood that heterosexuals must accept. God calls individual gay and straight people to specific works.

Father John Harvey, a psychologist has pioneered ministry to homosexuals and has written some excellent books. You might start there.

God Bless.**

 

[shoewindow3000]

shoewindow3000: If that what they meant, then why isn’t it what they said? In fact, the document nowhere refers to actions; and if you read it again, you should get the impression that the mere presence of homosexual tendencies is enough to indicate affective immaturity and lack of spiritual fatherhood. I think it would throw my back out to interpret the text the way you do.

The only way for anybody to even know that you have “homosexual tendencies” is if you act on them.

 

[Eucharisted]

Chastity and overcoming unruly passions is the life of every Christian. Those who are unable to have sex according to the Divine Law are called to wherever the Lord wants them: teachers, social workers, doctors, police officers, etc. Moreover, they called to be sharers in His Cross. Now everyone is called to this, but the Lord especially calls them to share in His Passion. By suffering with Him - by uniting their sufferings to His own on the Cross - they become like Him, cultivating in themselves the perfections He Himself had and wishes to give souls, in the Holy Spirit. Through this life in Christ and in the Spirit of Christ - the Christian life, the spiritual life - they act as His instruments, as His living sacramentals, in the world, reminding men of chastity, charity, patience, kindness, understanding, and other virtues, graces, and truths, whatever the Lord so wills for them. God works in this mysterious way: He uses sinners to remind the righteous of the way of life, the crooked and narrow way that leads to the eternal garden, that is, to Heaven. This is God’s call to those who are unable to have sex according to His Own Law: the homosexual, the transexual, the impotent, those who sterilize themselves, those who are attracted to animals or objects, etc.

 

[Other_Eric]

Chastity and overcoming unruly passions is the life of every Christian. Those who are unable to have sex according to the Divine Law are called to wherever the Lord wants them: teachers, social workers, doctors, police officers, etc. Moreover, they called to be sharers in His Cross. Now everyone is called to this, but the Lord especially calls them to share in His Passion. By suffering with Him - by uniting their sufferings to His own on the Cross - they become like Him, cultivating in themselves the perfections He Himself had and wishes to give souls, in the Holy Spirit. Through this life in Christ and in the Spirit of Christ - the Christian life, the spiritual life - they act as His instruments, as His living sacramentals, in the world, reminding men of chastity, charity, patience, kindness, understanding, and other virtues, graces, and truths, whatever the Lord so wills for them. God works in this mysterious way: He uses sinners to remind the righteous of the way of life, the crooked and narrow way that leads to the eternal garden, that is, to Heaven. This is God’s call to those who are unable to have sex according to His Own Law: the homosexual, the transexual, the impotent, those who sterilize themselves, those who are attracted to animals or objects, etc.

I disagree in the strongest terms. God cannot have any calling for those who obstinately persist in experiencing same-sex attractions. What student can afford to be saddled with the wild swings of passion in a teacher who is affectively immature? What hospital wants to employ a doctor from a group of people shown to have a high incidence of drug addiction? You are correct that those with same-sex attractions are called to carry their respective crosses and by uniting in Christ’s passion, become more like Him. For them, this means heterosexual.

 

[chrysostim83]

I disagree in the strongest terms. God cannot have any calling for those who obstinately persist in experiencing same-sex attractions. What student can afford to be saddled with the wild swings of passion in a teacher who is affectively immature? What hospital wants to employ a doctor from a group of people shown to have a high incidence of drug addiction? You are correct that those with same-sex attractions are called to carry their respective crosses and by uniting in Christ’s passion, become more like Him. For them, this means heterosexual.

Eric, this is going too far. There are men with deep-seated homosexual tendencies (DSHT) who will never eliminate them or develop heterosexual tendencies: reparative therapists such as Fr Harvey and J. Nicolosi would say about 34% of their clients are this way, while more orthodox practitioners would say 100% of their gay clients are that way. In fact, Fr Harvey has seen men whose DSHTs have never improved at all even though they were practising chastity of the heart. In view of this, Father teaches there is no obligation for men with DSHT to attempt to change into heterosexuals (see “Truth about Homosexuality” pp 117-121).

On the other hand, your extreme position illustrates something problematic in the notion that DSHTs imply affective immaturity. For if that is so, then it seems pretty clear that men with DSHT have no calling other than to overcome their affective immaturity which can only be accomplished by eliminating the DSHTs. By what we have seen, it follows that there are some people who are not called to anything and never will be called to anything. Does this seem right to you? Isn’t it possible that there are some homosexual men who can overcome affective immaturity without making any futile attempts to change their tendencies?

Notice, indeed, that we Catholics can follow the instruction to the letter and yet disbelieve in its justification. It is an unfortunate circumstance if this is really necessary. Do at least notice that the logic of affective maturity is self-effacing: if you are warranted in saying men with DSHT are affectively immature, then you can test for this kind of immaturity–therefore, you don’t need to exclude men with DSHT as such, you just need to test their maturity; if, on the contrary, you are not warranted in saying men with DSHT are affectively immature, then the reason you make the claim is to conceal what you are actually doing–viz., excluding men with DSHT as such and just because you want to. Either way, the instruction seems less than candid to me.

 

[Other_Eric]

On the other hand, your extreme position illustrates something problematic in the notion that DSHTs imply affective immaturity. For if that is so, then it seems pretty clear that men with DSHT have no calling other than to overcome their affective immaturity which can only be accomplished by eliminating the DSHTs. By what we have seen, it follows that there are some people who are not called to anything and never will be called to anything. Does this seem right to you? Isn’t it possible that there are some homosexual men who can overcome affective immaturity without making any futile attempts to change their tendencies?

Notice, indeed, that we Catholics can follow the instruction to the letter and yet disbelieve in its justification. It is an unfortunate circumstance if this is really necessary. Do at least notice that the logic of affective maturity is self-effacing: if you are warranted in saying men with DSHT are affectively immature, then you can test for this kind of immaturity–therefore, you don’t need to exclude men with DSHT as such, you just need to test their maturity; if, on the contrary, you are not warranted in saying men with DSHT are affectively immature, then the reason you make the claim is to conceal what you are actually doing–viz., excluding men with DSHT as such and just because you want to. Either way, the instruction seems less than candid to me.

 You confuse the relationship of deep-seated homosexual tendencies to affective immaturity. It is not a matter of deep-seated homosexual tendencies *implying* affective immaturity. It is the recognition that such tendencies are but one possible symptom of such immaturity. Correct the immaturity and the deep-seated homosexual tendencies pass. A man may be affectively immature and yet not have same-sex attractions, but no man can have same-sex attractions without being affectively immature. It is like pointing out that all canaries are birds yet all birds are not canaries.

Further, if there exist even a majority of those with same-sex attractions who lack the fortitude or strength of character needed to overcome them, such people shouldn’t have any calling now or ever. Asking me whether I think this is right is irrelevant. Neither you nor I have any standing to dictate to God what is right or who “deserves” a calling.

 

[chrysostim83]

Never mind. It is clear that you have extensive experimental and clinical expertise in this area. I wonder you don’t publish a review of the 2 decades of literature that appeared to refute your contention that men with DSHT are necessarily immature (you can start by looking at the studies cited by Gonsiorek, “The Empirical Basis for the Demise of the Illness Model of Homosexuality” p 132 in Homosexuality: Research Implications for Public Policy 1991). You should also contact Fr Harvey and give him the benefit of your superior knowledge, since the poor old darling is laboring under the misconception that men with DSHT can be mature (see Harvey Homosexuality and the Catholic Church chapter 8 especially p 152). And isn’t it about time you made your experimental data available to all?

 

[Other_Eric]

Eric, this is going too far. There are men with deep-seated homosexual tendencies (DSHT) who will never eliminate them or develop heterosexual tendencies: reparative therapists such as Fr Harvey and J. Nicolosi would say about 34% of their clients are this way, while more orthodox practitioners would say 100% of their gay clients are that way. In fact, Fr Harvey has seen men whose DSHTs have never improved at all even though they were practising chastity of the heart. In view of this, Father teaches there is no obligation for men with DSHT to attempt to change into heterosexuals (see “Truth about Homosexuality” pp 117-121).

It is true that Harvey recognizes no obligation to change one’s sexual orientation. He holds such for the following reasons:

1. 
   *]No guarantee of success can be given to the individual with same-sex attractions,
   *]Previous failed attempts may have set the individual’s will against correcting the error,
   *]Those told that they had to change might not return to a Courage meeting the next week,
   *]That there is a distinction to be drawn between “psychological healing” and “spiritual healing,”
   *]That Christ does not necessarily heal those who come to Him
   *]God will provide whatever necessary graces a person needs in order to lead a life of what Harvey calls “sexual abstinence.” (1)
   
   These objections need to be exposed one by one for the serious breach from Tradition and the Authority of the Church that they are:
   
   1. 
      *]Failure in therapy is linked to lack of motivation. (2) Since motivation is an aspect of the will, this means that a person who has failed in therapy has set his personal will against the healing God offers to him.
      *]That a person has failed in therapy before is no reason for him not to try again. Harvey needs to be reminded that Christ, having fallen three times under His cross, never gave up and lay immobile in the dirt.
      *]If any so-called Catholic group needs to custom tailor the Truth simply so that it remains popular, then it is not of God.
      *]The distinction Harvey is trying to make is nothing more than a Manichean dichotomy that attempts to divide the soul from the body and repudiates the Church’s teaching that each is a non-constituent part of the human person.
      *]Harvey’s conception of a Christ who does not necessarily heal all is a Christ who also cannot be said to save all. As such, his Christ is more the product of one of Calvin’s fantasies than it is an accurate reflection of our Lord and Savior.
      *]It would be difficult to find a more perfect example of putting God to the test than the one that Harvey means to standardize here. Further, let’s call Harvey’s ethic of “sexual abstinence” for what it really is: sexual suppression and the ultimate rejection of the individual having been created male or female. Harvey means to turn into a virtue his sick plan for rank ingratitude.
      
      This leaves us with only one possible conclusion: that the call to purity and chastity necessarily assumes a heterosexual orientation. Therefore, men and women with same-sex attractions have what Harvey refers to as what “the moral law clearly commands” and he is, apparently, too blind to see. (3)
      
      (1) Harvey, John F. The Truth About Homosexuality. San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press. 1996. p. 117-121.
      
      (2) Aardweg, Gerard van den. The Battle for Normality: A Guide for (Self-) Therapy for Homosexuality. San Francisco, CA: Ignatius, 1997. p. 65.
      
      (3) Harvey, John F. p. 117.

 

[chrysostim83]

Therapy is not one-size-fits-all. As a licensed mental health provider you should know that. Rather than representing a lack a motivation, failure to change may only indicate that the therapeutic modality that fits the client’s needs is not yet known. Could it not?

I’m beginning to suspect your name rhymes with van den Aardweg: he’s the only person I know who thinks homosexuality is caused by a weak character and that it requires a strong character to overcome. That makes the endeavor sound well nigh impossible.

 

[Other_Eric]

Therapy is not one-size-fits-all. As a licensed mental health provider you should know that. Rather than representing a lack a motivation, failure to change may only indicate that the therapeutic modality that fits the client’s needs is not yet known. Could it not?

I’m beginning to suspect your name rhymes with van den Aardweg: he’s the only person I know who thinks homosexuality is caused by a weak character and that it requires a strong character to overcome. That makes the endeavor sound well nigh impossible.

If failure at one type of therapy is simply because the client has not found the right modality, then it is his lack of impetus to find that modality that constitutes the absence of motivation.

 

[chrysostim83]

So you’re saying that every such person needs to give up his day job, get a degree in social work, psychology, or psychiatry, do extensive empirical research in this area, have sufficient luck to hit on the right modality, instruct other mental healthcare providers in this new kind of a therapy, and then, finally, avail themselves of their services?!

It would be far simpler just to admit that Fr Harvey could be right (for crying out loud, his latest book carries a nihil obstat and imprimatur) than to go to this extreme if it turned out that there is a man with DSHT for whom no known treatment modality will work.

 

[puzzleannie]

The only authentic way in which one with same-sex attractions serves is by working to overcome said attractions and achieve heterosexuality.

this of course is personal opinion, not Catholic Church teaching

such a person laboring under this burden, as would anyone with a personality disorder, a physical handicap, or come incapacity, do his best to deal with the effects of his condition, avoid anything inherent in the condition which might lead him to further damage–physical, mental, psychological or spiritual. The fact that some homosexuals have through therapy and prayer managed to overcome the attraction and even succeed in a heterosexual relationship does not mean that everyone is capable of this. Just because for instance some people who are wheelchair bound have found ways to participate in sports, for instance, does not mean everyone should be able to do so, or that there is something wrong with them if they can participate in basketball or marathons, as if they just haven’t tried hard enough.

The hypothetical person we are discussing has at his disposal a unique profound means of coming to that utter dependence upon and trust in God that is the true path to spiritual fulfillment and ultimately, union with God.

the truth is, and every saint who had to struggle, says the same thing, that whatever the burden of sin, habit, or inclination, we are helpless do deal with these things or to effect change in ourselves under our own power. With God, all things are possible, but in HIS time, not ours. The particular grace available to a person confronted with this condition is correspondingly strong to the depth and intensity of their homosexual condition. The gospels demonstrate over and over that the more one is in need of healing, the more profound is their experience of God’s grace.

 

[Other_Eric]

So you’re saying that every such person needs to give up his day job, get a degree in social work, psychology, or psychiatry, do extensive empirical research in this area, have sufficient luck to hit on the right modality, instruct other mental healthcare providers in this new kind of a therapy, and then, finally, avail themselves of their services?!

It would be far simpler just to admit that Fr Harvey could be right (for crying out loud, his latest book carries a nihil obstat and imprimatur) than to go to this extreme if it turned out that there is a man with DSHT for whom no known treatment modality will work.

I remind you that Christ informed the rich, young man to sell all that he had in order to follow Him. Those with same-sex attraction have been given much the same choice. Either they abandon whatever honors and trappings of this world they have accumulated and do what it takes to follow Christ, or they abandon Him.

Also, it is a sad fact that nowadays an imprimatur means nothing. I dare say that Christopher Hitchens could have received one for his book were he so inclined.

 

[Other_Eric]

this of course is personal opinion, not Catholic Church teaching

such a person laboring under this burden, as would anyone with a personality disorder, a physical handicap, or come incapacity, do his best to deal with the effects of his condition, avoid anything inherent in the condition which might lead him to further damage–physical, mental, psychological or spiritual. The fact that some homosexuals have through therapy and prayer managed to overcome the attraction and even succeed in a heterosexual relationship does not mean that everyone is capable of this. Just because for instance some people who are wheelchair bound have found ways to participate in sports, for instance, does not mean everyone should be able to do so, or that there is something wrong with them if they can participate in basketball or marathons, as if they just haven’t tried hard enough.

The hypothetical person we are discussing has at his disposal a unique profound means of coming to that utter dependence upon and trust in God that is the true path to spiritual fulfillment and ultimately, union with God.

the truth is, and every saint who had to struggle, says the same thing, that whatever the burden of sin, habit, or inclination, we are helpless do deal with these things or to effect change in ourselves under our own power. With God, all things are possible, but in HIS time, not ours. The particular grace available to a person confronted with this condition is correspondingly strong to the depth and intensity of their homosexual condition. The gospels demonstrate over and over that the more one is in need of healing, the more profound is their experience of God’s grace.

This sort of indifference to someone who is wounded might be fine if we were only talking of something trivial like, say, a broken leg or a hangnail. We must remember what the Church teaches that the sexuality *is*:

Sexuality affects all aspects of the human person in the unity of his body and soul. It especially concerns affectivity, the capacity to love and to procreate, and in a more general way the aptitude for forming bonds of communion with others. (1)

To hold that any person need not correct this gross deformity would then be to hold that God has not created any person thus afflicted with a need for communion. In other words, such a person isn’t saved.

I challenge puzzleannie to find any other instance of a person not being obliged to correct a personal flaw before admittance to the Beatific Vision. Tell me why it is that in her Church, only some need appear before the Creator without stain nor blemish but others, like those with same sex attractions, only need live up to her relaxed standard? Please cite any official teaching that approves of this sort of moral relativism.

(1) Catechism of the Catholic Church. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1993. ¶2332. Available online at: vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P84.HTM

 

[TuEsPetrus]

Other Eric, simply amazing responses. You know your stuff and I am going to show some friends with tendencies understand precisely that it is no joke, just to have tendencies. The equivalent with the body would be having an open wound that constantly bleeds, sooner or later it will kill you if you do not stop it! In the very same manner, deep-seated homosexual tendencies, pretty much will be the equivalent of a leper. All that it touches will get infected , and even if the leper is a the strongest most fervent Catholic he understands that if he touches anyone he will become infected too. Honesty with oneself about DSHT , should pretty much invalidate any possibility of service to the Church. However, in one way we are connected through the communion of Saints, his sacrifices could be offered to save souls. Similarly the Holy Lepers lived as victim souls, so should the DSHT person stay away from any public service to the Church, not until his problem is resolved. If someone simply says, “What if it they never go away?” Well ask yourself, unless a leper was fully cured would you allow him to touch all of your family members, neighbors, babies etc… However, just like you don’t show up to school when you have a contagious air born disease in a similar Homosexuals should simply be like the Publican’s and be in the back of the Church, asking God for forgiveness and repentance.