What is the Church's stance on conversion therapy for gays

[Dakota_Roberts]

Baelor,

Save your energy…What you should know is that I see that there may be many ways of helping people and that when you combine them then there may be more effectiveness…

I have found cases of cure for homosexuality in the hypnotherapy literature that date to 1958…and I previously mentioned Bandler…author of Frogs into Princes…

Here is a summary from an article on Hypnotherapy cure for homosexuality dating to 1958

So change can occur, does occur, requires motivation and a facilitator…perhaps understanding Nicolosi’s approach, Bandlers apporoach and hypnotherapy combined may be the wave of the future…since the goal is to serve and help…

There is a reason Freud fell out of favour in the US, regarding elsewhere it was never really popular. After all what makes a cocaine fiend who wanted to copulate with his mother a creditable source on human sexuality?

 

[CleverUserName]

And please stop condescending to me. Trust me, it is not I who looks bad as a result.

:clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping:

 

[CopticChristian]

I never made any claim about behavior, and I am not interested in behavior, only in mental state. Homosexuality is not behavior, it is a mental state.

Yes. Why am I homosexual? The answer may involve something that is impossible to change.

Only possible change.

Presumably volunteers who enter a conversion therapy program want to or are open to change. Surveys are always voluntary

Neither source is scientific.

Baelor,

You appear to have a vested interested in homosexuality. Change is never possible when you believe it is not. Homosexuality is actions. Someone does something and we see that what they do is homosexuality. Homosexuality does not exist without someone doing something.

You error in the belief that science has anything to do with this. Science usually produces observations with subsequent studies that point to a discovery for change. It was observation that Africans had large stool and a low frequency of colon cancer that led to the discovery that high fiber diets were relative to stool transit. This led to the understanding that processed foods and slow transit exposed the colon to carcinogens. Burkett, of Burkett Lymphoma fame wasn’t looking for an association with diet and colon cancer.

Point out any study that shows an attempt to modify behavior with science that has one tried and true way of providing change.

I have offered the parallel of substance abuse as behavior and the multiple views. The reality is that the AMA and medical community abandon science and use the 12 step religion via political influence of organizations. Waiting for the quasi APA, AMA etc as scientific communities to solve this problem yields nothing.

Show me any behavior that has a method that yields uniform results.

Show me your cleverness!!!

 

[Baelor]

Change is never possible when you believe it is not.

That does not necessarily mean change is possible when you believe it is.

Homosexuality is actions. Someone does something and we see that what they do is homosexuality. Homosexuality does not exist without someone doing something.

That is completely false. Someone who is sexually attracted to the same sex is a homosexual; this involves no action.

You error in the belief that science has anything to do with this. Science usually produces observations with subsequent studies that point to a discovery for change.

Which is how homosexuality should be approached, given that it may relate to neuroscience, physiology, fetal development, psychology, etc. – all scientific fields (of varying hardness).

Point out any study that shows an attempt to modify behavior with science that has one tried and true way of providing change.

Behavior is irrelevant. Homosexuality does not imply behavior.

 

[The_Bucket]

CC, you are just dead wrong on this and Baelor is right. Personally I think same-sex attraction comes from two different sources. Some are, for lack of a better term, “born gay” and others are warped into becoming sexually active homosexuals by abuse as children. Then again, there are plenty of people who are abused as children in a homosexual fashion who grow up to be actively heterosexual. So it all depends on the circumstances. But I think it’s pretty crystal clear that some people are innately attracted to members of the same sex due to no fault of their own or other people. That’s just how they are.

And Baelor is again right to say that the sin comes from action, not the attraction. If I see an attractive woman walking down the street and an idea pops into my head, I have done nothing wrong. If I let that thought linger and fantasize… or worse yet… if I act on those fantasies through masturbation or if I delve into pornography or engage in sexual activity outside of marriage… those actions are wrong. The attraction in and of itself is natural and neutral.

 

[CopticChristian]

QUOTE]

Baelor,

As a homosexual you may want to invest more time in finance and less time in science. You lack understanding of science as it applies to behavior science. I suggest you do some research on Behavioral Science and tools for investigation…Here is a start for you…

science.education.nih.gov/supplements/nih7/healthy/guide/lesson3a.htm

wisegeek.com/what-is-behavioral-science.htm

That does not necessarily mean change is possible when you believe it is.

 

[CopticChristian]

CC, you are just dead wrong on this and Baelor is right. Personally** I think **same-sex attraction comes from two different sources. Some are, for lack of a better term, “born gay” and others are warped into becoming sexually active homosexuals by abuse as children. Then again, there are plenty of people who are abused as children in a homosexual fashion who grow up to be actively heterosexual. So it all depends on the circumstances. But I think it’s pretty crystal clear that some people are innately attracted to members of the same sex due to no fault of their own or other people. That’s just how they are.

And Baelor is again right to say that the sin comes from action, not the attraction. If I see an attractive woman walking down the street and an idea pops into my head, I have done nothing wrong. If I let that thought linger and fantasize… or worse yet… if I act on those fantasies through masturbation or if I delve into pornography or engage in sexual activity outside of marriage… those actions are wrong. The attraction in and of itself is natural and neutral.

Bucket,

I am dead wrong based on what? What you think is relevant only to you.

 

[Baelor]

As a homosexual

I am not a homosexual. Please do not make assumptions about posters; you simply look immature as a result.

You lack understanding of science as it applies to behavior science.

I suggest you do some research on Behavioral Science and tools for investigation…Here is a start for you…

I read them. Irrelevant. Homosexuality describes sexual attraction toward members of the same sex, not behavior.

Baelor, behavior change is only possible when you believe it is whether you happen to believe that change is possible or not.

Since homosexuality does not involve behavior, but rather sexual attraction, what is possible with behavior change is irrelevant.

Your belief that behavior change is not possible is relevant only to you.

I never said that behavior change is not possible, because that is irrelevant to homosexuality anyway. I also did not say that it is inconceivable one could go from homosexual to heterosexual.

Your thoughts on this do not change the fact that the underlying mode of change is made possible when there is a motivation to change.

That is not the case. I cannot grow wings simply because I wish to grow wings.

You are correct that you have to believe change is possible however believing that change is not possible for any homosexual is not fact, it is conjecture.

Believing that change is always possible is similarly conjecture, which is why I did not commit to either position.

SSA does not equate to homosexuality.

They are synonymous. The PRIMARY definition in Merriam-Webster confirms this. The PRIMARY definition in the OED confirms this. “Homosexual” in reference to a person in common parlance also confirms this.

Number of times in my life I have heard SSA outside the Church: 0.

The Church also does not define homosexuality as involving sinful actions. It avoids the term altogether, perhaps due in part to social stigma, and uses “homosexual inclinations,” “homosexual desires,” etc. in order to eliminate any ambiguity and be as precise as possible.

If you want to use a secondary definition, fine. The onus is on you to define your terms.

You are confused and your thinking is disordered.

Strange. It is actually completely consistent with Catholic teaching, so please pray that you move into full communion with the Church.

 

[CopticChristian]

I am not a homosexual. Please do not make assumptions about posters; you simply look immature as a result.

I read them. Irrelevant. Homosexuality describes sexual attraction toward members of the same sex, not behavior.

Since homosexuality does not involve behavior, but rather sexual attraction, what is possible with behavior change is irrelevant.

I never said that behavior change is not possible, because that is irrelevant to homosexuality anyway. I also did not say that it is inconceivable one could go from homosexual to heterosexual.

That is not the case. I cannot grow wings simply because I wish to grow wings.

Believing that change is always possible is similarly conjecture, which is why I did not commit to either position.

They are synonymous. The PRIMARY definition in Merriam-Webster confirms this. The PRIMARY definition in the OED confirms this. “Homosexual” in reference to a person in common parlance also confirms this.

Number of times in my life I have heard SSA outside the Church: 0.

The Church also does not define homosexuality as involving sinful actions. It avoids the term altogether, perhaps due in part to social stigma, and uses “homosexual inclinations,” “homosexual desires,” etc. in order to eliminate any ambiguity and be as precise as possible.

If you want to use a secondary definition, fine. The onus is on you to define your terms.

Strange. It is actually completely consistent with Catholic teaching, so please pray that you move into full communion with the Church.

Baelor,

I admit it. I have only been through the Catechism of the USA about 8 times now and I imagine that there may be things I have missed and do not understand. You have suggested that your thoughts are consistent with Catholic teaching and you pray for my full communion. I thank you. Now, teach me my error in understanding. I understand you are an Ivy League student with a major in finance and understand something that I appear not to. When you are done I will see where I need to correct my thinking.

 

[Baelor]

Why would you not apologize for making an unjustified assumption about me? You assumed, for no good reason whatsoever, that I was a sexually active homosexual, with a pretty clear inference that I must be trying to justify or rationalize my supposed behavior through this thread. Obviously, none of that is true at all. Apologizing would be the polite thing to do.

You have suggested that your thoughts are consistent with Catholic teaching and you pray for my full communion. I thank you. Now, teach me my error in understanding.

I already have. You have only to read my posts, reflect upon them, and then read the Catechism’s teaching on homosexuality. You will understand that my statements are hardly the product of disordered thinking, but rather are in perfect accordance with Church teaching on this issue.

I understand you are an Ivy League student with a major in finance and understand something that I appear not to.

I am not majoring in finance. Even if I were, that is obviously irrelevant to this discussion, so I am confused as to why my education is being brought up at all.

 

[CopticChristian]

Why would you not apologize for making an unjustified assumption about me? You assumed, for no good reason whatsoever, that I was a sexually active homosexual, with a pretty clear inference that I must be trying to justify or rationalize my supposed behavior through this thread. Obviously, none of that is true at all. Apologizing would be the polite thing to do.

I already have. You have only to read my posts, reflect upon them, and then read the Catechism’s teaching on homosexuality. You will understand that my statements are hardly the product of disordered thinking, but rather are in perfect accordance with Church teaching on this issue.

I am not majoring in finance. Even if I were, that is obviously irrelevant to this discussion, so I am confused as to why my education is being brought up at all.

Baelor,

This is what the Catechism says about homosexuality.

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

Is this what you are referring to as the teaching of the Church?

 

[John_of_Woking]

Gods grace is possible to change someone from completely homosexual to completely heterosexual. It happens. A lot. That is where NARTH, which CAF endorses, comes in.

It also happens that others are called to chastity.’

Finally, there are lots of scientists who know that sexual orientation can and indeed does change.
At the moment they risk losing their livelihood and reputation for speaking out or they are ignored. This is because a powerful lobby is at work.

God’s grace is sufficient for thee. Faith can move mountains. If you doubt this you doubt the Gospel

 

[Baelor]

Is this what you are referring to as the teaching of the Church?

Yes.

 

[CopticChristian]

Yes.

Baelor,

I appreciate that you are willling to take the time to consider any effort to bring me back to the fold. So, that we are on the same page, is this the entirety of what it is I must address in order to be in line with Church teaching? A simple yes or no will suffice.

 

[Baelor]

I appreciate that you are willling to take the time to consider any effort to bring me back to the fold. So, that we are on the same page, is this the entirety of what it is I must address in order to be in line with Church teaching? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Yes – in the context of that teaching, you must justify your assertion that I am confused and my thinking disordered.

 

[CopticChristian]

Yes – in the context of that teaching, you must justify your assertion that I am confused and my thinking disordered.

Baelor,

You are most considerate. As we embark on this journey a great service will be performed not only for me but the 2229 viewers.

Let us start with this.

Post 79

I said…

I cannot recall how many times I post this…no change until there is motivation for change…and the key to finding motivation in my opinion comes from asking why?

you said…

Yes. Why am I homosexual? The answer may involve something that is impossible to change.

Please understand that from what you wrote, this statement caused confusion. Here you say…Yes. Why am I homosexual…? and I pray you understand without judgement I inferred you were asking as if this were you. Let us agree that this was a confusing answer and I errored in understanding it?

Next, please explain to me what it is you see in the information provided from the Catechism as it concerns where you believe I vary…? In other words what is it you believe that the Catechism is saying on this issue…?