What is the homosexual inclination?

[francisca]

Is a Josephite marriage just a friendship? Or can there still be romance while the relationship is nonsexual? You’ve set up a dichotomy which since a Josephite marriage clearly violates it is false.

To enter marriage with someone, share a bed but do not have sex with him/ her is a heresy. This is NOT spiritual marriage.

Monks and priests enter life of chastity & celibacy to be one with the church as Christ did. Nuns enter life of chastity & celibacy to be one with Jesus. This is spiritual marriage. They DO NOT marry somebody, share the bed with him/ her whom they marry, then claim everlasting chastity as they are still sharing the bed.

The problem is that you have in effect defined loving relationships as either romantic which includes sex or friendship which doesn’t. Therefore I can not show you loving relationships without sex because to you that makes the friendship.

My dear Dakota,

Loving relationship in same-gender relationship that is non-sexual is called friendship-- this concept-- is very obvious isn’t it? It become obscure only after some people create a new label “sexual orientation” so that some people identify themselves as “gay” eventhough they do not have desire to have same-gender sex.

I am trying to show you evidence that Deo Volente’s proposal of “objective sexual orientation” can’t stand the facts of life. Such sexual orientation only exist with a desire to have same-gender-sex, otherwise it doesn’t exist.

Let me give you an example. A man work in a jewelery store, but he doesn’t find those jeweleries tempting. He love the job because he likes jeweleries, but he doesn’t really think that he would spend his money for them. Another employee however is very tempted. He thinks about jeweleries night and day, about how to own them. Up to now he is not a thief, until he begin to think about a plan to steal them.

Homosexual identity is attached to inclination to have same-gender-sex. Without such inclination, then a person is not a homosexual. The case most probably because one has not experience heterosexual falling in love in his life, so he mistakenly think that his socializing preference among same-gender as his sexual orientation. Thank’s to sex orientation concept.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

To enter marriage with someone, share a bed but do not have sex with him/ her is a heresy. This is NOT spiritual marriage.

Monks and priests enter life of chastity & celibacy to be one with the church as Christ did. Nuns enter life of chastity & celibacy to be one with Jesus. This is spiritual marriage. They DO NOT marry somebody, share the bed with him/ her whom they marry, then claim everlasting chastity as they are still sharing the bed.

My dear Dakota,

Loving relationship in same-gender relationship that is non-sexual is called friendship-- this concept-- is very obvious isn’t it? It become obscure only after some people create a new label “sexual orientation” so that some people identify themselves as “gay” eventhough they do not have desire to have same-gender sex.

I am trying to show you evidence that Deo Volente’s proposal of “objective sexual orientation” can’t stand the facts of life. Such sexual orientation only exist with a desire to have same-gender-sex, otherwise it doesn’t exist.

Let me give you an example. A man work in a jewelery store, but he doesn’t find those jeweleries tempting. He love the job because he likes jeweleries, but he doesn’t really think that he would spend his money for them. Another employee however is very tempted. He thinks about jeweleries night and day, about how to own them. Up to now he is not a thief, until he begin to think about a plan to steal them.

Homosexual identity is attached to inclination to have same-gender-sex. Without such inclination, then a person is not a homosexual. The case most probably because one has not experience heterosexual falling in love in his life, so he mistakenly think that his socializing preference among same-gender as his sexual orientation. Thank’s to sex orientation concept.

So just to clarify, Saint Cunigunde was a heretic?

Marriages that turn into Josephite marriages have a tendency for the people to sleep in separate beds.

St. Augustine thought that there could exist an intense bond between two men that was pure?

Have you read the Deus Caritas Est encyclical yet? It goes quite into detail what love is and the various types.

An article that might help is this piece by Ron Belgau who is part of the Courage Apostolate (an organization supported by the Vatican), it’s about gay love and finding the Catholic Church, it also doesn’t involve gay sex at all.

How about King David and Jonathan, was their intense love gay, or was it just friendship?

 

[francisca]

How about King David and Jonathan, was their intense love gay, or was it just friendship?

The bible wrote that they were best friends, not gay. What is your point exactly?

If you tend to interpret all kinds of close relationship as gay relationship then you are wrong.

St. Augustine was not gay
KIng David was not gay
Jonathan was not gay

eventhough they had close relathionship with same gender, because those were friendship.

I think I have made my point quite clear.

So God bless you Dakota, may God’s word make you understand God’s plan for you.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

The bible wrote that they were best friends, not gay. What is your point exactly?

If you tend to interpret all kinds of close relationship as gay relationship then you are wrong.

St. Augustine was not gay
KIng David was not gay
Jonathan was not gay

eventhough they had close relathionship with same gender, because those were friendship.

I think I have made my point quite clear.

So God bless you Dakota, may God’s word make you understand God’s plan for you.

Augustine was a proponent of spiritual love between men

King David and Jonathan were friends whose love exceeded that of love between a man and a woman.

There are several types of love, eros, agape, and philia

eros is a consuming love, frequently sexual, not always

agape is considered ultimate form of Christian love, it is self-sacrificing and unconditional, it’s also very thoughtful.

philia is the type of love between friends, it’s friendship, brotherhood and general non-sexual love (not all).

Don’t just take my word for the meaning of love, take Pope Benedict XVI’s

Unfortunately Saul thought there was more going on than there was
1 Sam 20:30:

Then Saul’s anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said to him, "You son of a perverse, rebellious woman, do I not know that you have chosen the son of Jesse to your own shame, and to the shame of your mother’s nakedness?

So cute
1 Samuel 20:42:

Then Jonathan said to David, “Go in peace, forasmuch as we have sworn both of us in the name of the LORD, saying, `The LORD shall be between me and you, and between my descendants and your descendants, for ever.’” And he rose and departed; and Jonathan went into the city.

2 Samuel 1:27:

I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; very pleasant have you been to me; your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.

(Bible used was RSV CE)

'Tis a shame wedded friendships have been buried by the past, the pain they could heal is great and the love created would be boundless.

 

[chrysostim83]

What those two lesbians or two gays feel-- as you put it-- is subject to be tested. By theory, there is no sexual-potential whatsoever between them because the definition of sex is defferentiation of reproduction organs in order to produce offsprings.

But again, the only conclusion that could be drawn from this necessity for sexual-potential is not that the feelings can’t exist without it but that if one feels them without it, then they’re a disorder.

My hypothesis: they may be just lonely people who fail to find sexual love, thus they want to enjoy frienship as if it is sexual as well.

My second hypothesis: homosexuality is a product of “over-sexed society”, so as to confuse some people between friendly affection and compasion with romance and erotic feelings.

First of all, let me say that these hypotheses are not all together implausible. Fifty or sixty years ago, it was common for priests in the confessional to advise young men who struggled with homosexual sins to get married as soon as possible, and it seems likely that something like your hypotheses is what implicitly justified this advice. However, it is now widely recognized that marriage does not help with these issues and can even make them worse. So without going into details, it seems like there must be something wrong about the hypotheses.

The term “homosexuality” must include desire for sex.

I gave several arguments in the OP that sexual orientation should not be taken to include desires or any sort of willingness to engage in same sex sexual behaviors. Can you show me where exactly the arguments went wrong?

To defend further this idea of orientation without a desire for sex, consider the example you gave to Dakota:

Let me give you an example. A man work in a jewelery store, but he doesn’t find those jeweleries tempting. He love the job because he likes jeweleries, but he doesn’t really think that he would spend his money for them. Another employee however is very tempted. He thinks about jeweleries night and day, about how to own them. Up to now he is not a thief, until he begin to think about a plan to steal them.

The analogue of orientation here is a liking for jewelery, whether or not this liking is complicated by a desire to steal. Here orientation is a useful concept since it explains why the two men chose to work at a jewelery store in the first place: not everyone likes jewels and, even among those who do, a liking for them does not always motivate the choice to work with them.

In the same way, most men and women are motivated to develop a friendship as intense as spousal love with someone of the opposite sex. In terms of the example, they want to work at the bank instead of the jewelery store. But other men and women are motivated to develop such a friendship with someone of the same sex instead of or in place of someone of the opposite sex. They, so to speak, like jewels instead of money. Now, it seems to me perfectly proper to describe this latter group of men and women as having a homosexual orientation: they are, after all, oriented to a profound friendship with someone of the same sex. True, this orientation is often or almost always complicated by a desire of same sex sexual behaviors, but that’s just the nature of our fallen condition.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Read Deus Caritas Est, read some Augustine, and read some Newman.

Also reading Dreadnought would be helpful

 

[francisca]

Read Deus Caritas Est, read some Augustine, and read some Newman.

Also reading Dreadnought would be helpful

Please tell me which part of the document you are refering to.

 

[francisca]

I gave several arguments in the OP that sexual orientation should not be taken to include desires or any sort of willingness to engage in same sex sexual behaviors. Can you show me where exactly the arguments went wrong?

The argument that “sexual orientation” can exist separate from “desire to have same-gender-sex” is wrong, because such argument eliminate possibility of human beings to socialize among same-gender without being condemned as a homosexual.

So if I call my same-gender best friend more often than I call my boy-friend, does this mean I am a homosexual? If I prefer to talk about my problems with my best friend than to my boyfriend, does this mean I am a homosexual?

C’mon, how can such proposal stand in the face of facts of this life? It is a blunt lie being told to young inexperience adults who are still searching for their sexuality so as to transform (read: groom) them to become homosexuals.

Nobody with normal chromosomes and hormones, plus in good physical health can naturally become a homosexual. This is a scentific statement I am making.

To defend further this idea of orientation without a desire for sex, consider the example you gave to Dakota:

The analogue of orientation here is a liking for jewelery, whether or not this liking is complicated by a desire to steal. Here orientation is a useful concept since it explains why the two men chose to work at a jewelery store in the first place: not everyone likes jewels and, even among those who do, a liking for them does not always motivate the choice to work with them.

By the way, I think Dakota is more like the first man in the example, not the second one.

Dakota likes to socialize within same-gender circle (to make friend with same gender), but does not have any desire to have sex with any man. Dakota, in my opinion, is NOT a homosexual.

In the same way, most men and women are motivated to develop a friendship as intense as spousal love with someone of the opposite sex. In terms of the example, they want to work at the bank instead of the jewelery store. But other men and women are motivated to develop such a friendship with someone of the same sex instead of or in place of someone of the opposite sex. They, so to speak, like jewels instead of money. Now, it seems to me perfectly proper to describe this latter group of men and women as having a homosexual orientation: they are, after all, oriented to a profound friendship with someone of the same sex. True, this orientation is often or almost always complicated by a desire of same sex sexual behaviors, but that’s just the nature of our fallen condition.

In the past, male friends meet to play chess, poker, talk about politics, female friends meet to talk about recipe, latest fashion, having slumber party without worrying about sexual orientation. What you said above try to suggest that same-gender normal socialization is something to do with sexual orientation. This can’t be true.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Please tell me which part of the document you are refering to.

For this part one will do, but eventually you should read the whole thing.

The argument that “sexual orientation” can exist separate from “desire to have same-gender-sex” is wrong, because such argument eliminate possibility of human beings to socialize among same-gender without being condemned as a homosexual.

So if I call my same-gender best friend more often than I call my boy-friend, does this mean I am a homosexual? If I prefer to talk about my problems with my best friend than to my boyfriend, does this mean I am a homosexual?

C’mon, how can such proposal stand in the face of facts of this life? It is a blunt lie being told to young inexperience adults who are still searching for their sexuality so as to transform (read: groom) them to become homosexuals.

Nobody with normal chromosomes and hormones, plus in good physical health can naturally become a homosexual. This is a scentific statement I am making.

By the way, I think Dakota is more like the first man in the example, not the second one.

Dakota likes to socialize within same-gender circle (to make friend with same gender), but does not have any desire to have sex with any man. Dakota, in my opinion, is NOT a homosexual.

In the past, male friends meet to play chess, poker, talk about politics, female friends meet to talk about recipe, latest fashion, having slumber party without worrying about sexual orientation. What you said above try to suggest that same-gender normal socialization is something to do with sexual orientation. This can’t be true.

orientation just means attraction, attraction: a quality or feature of something or someone that evokes interest, liking, or desire

I’m not arguing that being friends with someone of the sam sex makes you homosexual, not at all. Most of my friends are guys, but I’m not interested in them at all. Whom do you long to dance with, to be held by, to cuddle with by the fire? While these things aren’t sexual they aren’t done with someone who is “just a friend”.

I actually regard the “LGBT community” abhorrent, destructive and depraved.

Yeah I like to socialize with people of the same gender, but that’s not what I’m talking about. Personally I prefer D&D over chess and poker, in chess and poker the goal is to be emotionless, in D&D on the other hand expressiveness, creativity and passion are good things.

I’m a rather passionate person. One of the reasons I’m drawn to Catholicism is the Latin prayers, incense, fine vestments, flowers, and other distinctly Catholic things. In a way Catholicism is an incredibly emotional thing, a thing of wonder, a thing of hope, very passionate and delights in beauty.

 

[chrysostim83]

The argument that “sexual orientation” can exist separate from “desire to have same-gender-sex” is wrong, because such argument eliminate possibility of human beings to socialize among same-gender without being condemned as a homosexual.

This is an attack on the conclusion and not the argument. The argument was that inclinations to sexual behaviors are not part of sexual orientation because (1) people of all sorts of orientations (gay, bisexual, straight) can manifest an inclination to same sex sexual behaviors by engaging in those behaviors, and (2) people of all sorts of orientations can also not manifest (and therefore, presumably, sometimes not even have) such an inclination. To make these assertions a little more definite, consider the current statistics on sexual behavior. From CDC surveys, it appears that while only about 2% of the male population is gay, roughly 10% of all adult men report having manifested a homosexual inclination by engaging in homosexual behavior at at least one point in their lives. It plainly follows, then, that orientation is not at all the same thing as inclination. (Let me spell that out: if the two were the same, then only homosexuals would manifest an inclination to same sex sexual behaviors and no heterosexual would manifest such an inclination by engaging in the behaviors.)

Now my question was, can you refute this argument? By that I don’t mean to ask if you can refute the conclusion, since, if you succeeded in doing that but didn’t manage to refute either the premises or the logic of my argument, I wouldn’t be left with the truth but with a paradox. I would have a good argument that something is the case and a good counter-argument that the same thing is not the case. In that circustance, how would I know which argument to believe?

 

[francisca]

I’m not arguing that being friends with someone of the sam sex makes you homosexual, not at all. Most of my friends are guys, but I’m not interested in them at all. Whom do you long to dance with, to be held by, to cuddle with by the fire? While these things aren’t sexual they aren’t done with someone who is “just a friend”.

I actually regard the “LGBT community” abhorrent, destructive and depraved.

Stand your firm ground Dakota, do not slide easily

Yeah I like to socialize with people of the same gender, but that’s not what I’m talking about.

I think I know what you mean. The guide is simple: no sexual desire, no orientation. Friends may do lots of things together. So long no desire to have sex, then those activites are non-sexual.

Personally I prefer D&D over chess and poker, in chess and poker the goal is to be emotionless, in D&D on the other hand expressiveness, creativity and passion are good things.

So it is about male friends for games? You are alright!

I’m a rather passionate person. One of the reasons I’m drawn to Catholicism is the Latin prayers, incense, fine vestments, flowers, and other distinctly Catholic things. In a way Catholicism is an incredibly emotional thing, a thing of wonder, a thing of hope, very passionate and delights in beauty.

OK, it’s nice to know you Dakote

 

[francisca]

chrysostim83;:

The argument was that inclinations to sexual behaviors are not part of sexual orientation because (1) people of all sorts of orientations (gay, bisexual, straight) can manifest an inclination to same sex sexual behaviors by engaging in those behaviors, and (2) people of all sorts of orientations can also not manifest (and therefore, presumably, sometimes not even have) such an inclination.

So you are trying to conclude that there is no relation between orientation and sexual behavior based on the fact that there is no pattern between orientation and behavior.

Your argument is wrong according to my argument because if there is no inclination to behave sexually, then there is no orientation to begin with. You base your argument on your own conclusion about “orientation”. How do you know those people are homosexual, bisexual, etc if they haven’t show any sign of behavior? By labeling them first then conclude their behavior based on the label? Do you see the flaw of such logic?

To make these assertions a little more definite, consider the current statistics on sexual behavior. From CDC surveys, it appears that while only about 2% of the male population is gay, roughly 10% of all adult men report having manifested a homosexual inclination by engaging in homosexual behavior at at least one point in their lives. It plainly follows, then, that orientation is not at all the same thing as inclination.

Yeah. So the statistic you quote include sexual behavior as an indicator of their sexual orientation. Thus those are “NOT labels of orientation as if separated from behavior”. The statistic indicate “behavior” or “inclination towads behavior”.

(Let me spell that out: if the two were the same, then only homosexuals would manifest an inclination to same sex sexual behaviors and no heterosexual would manifest such an inclination by engaging in the behaviors.)

Well it is subject to be tested. If a heterosexual man decide to have same-gender sex, then he is no longer heterosexual. You see that orientation is not about label, but attached to inclination/ behavior.

Now my question was, can you refute this argument?

refuted.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Stand your firm ground Dakota, do not slide easily

I think I know what you mean. The guide is simple: no sexual desire, no orientation. Friends may do lots of things together. So long no desire to have sex, then those activites are non-sexual.

So it is about male friends for games? You are alright!

OK, it’s nice to know you Dakota

So, whom do you long to dance with, to be held by, to cuddle with by the fire? Your girl friend or your boyfriend? While these are not sexual things they are normally done with someone you love romantically.

We just hang out.

No it’s not, although I do enjoy hanging out with my friends. A girl can enjoy hanging out with guys without being attracted to them likewise a guy can with girls, however since I’m a guy I find it easier to hang out with guys than people in those cases can.

So you are trying to conclude that there is no relation between orientation and sexual behavior based on the fact that there is no pattern between orientation and behavior.

Your argument is wrong according to my argument because if there is no inclination to behave sexually, then there is no orientation to begin with. You base your argument on your own conclusion about “orientation”. How do you know those people are homosexual, bisexual, etc if they haven’t show any sign of behavior? By labeling them first then conclude their behavior based on the label? Do you see the flaw of such logic?

Yeah. So the statistic you quote include sexual behavior as an indicator of their sexual orientation. Thus those are “NOT labels of orientation as if separated from behavior”. The statistic indicate “behavior” or “inclination towads behavior”.

Well it is subject to be tested. If a heterosexual man decide to have same-gender sex, then he is no longer heterosexual. You see that orientation is not about label, but attached to inclination/ behavior.

refuted.

I don’t think he is saying there is no correlation, but rather that it isn’t complete correlation.

orientation means attraction, not necessarily sexually. If a man is only attracted to men, but never acts on it is he homosexual?

You can engage in sex without being attracted to someone

 

[francisca]

So, whom do you long to dance with, to be held by, to cuddle with by the fire? Your girl friend or your boyfriend? While these are not sexual things they are normally done with someone you love romantically.

If I will ever have any chance to go to cold country side where there is dance and cuddling by the fire, I will do that with my most dear hubby, not my friends.

We just hang out.

No it’s not, although I do enjoy hanging out with my friends. A girl can enjoy hanging out with guys without being attracted to them likewise a guy can with girls, however since I’m a guy I find it easier to hang out with guys than people in those cases can.

Yes.

orientation means attraction, not necessarily sexually.

Aren’t we talking about orientation about sex? Other attractions are neutral, meaning without any orientation because they are not sexual.

If I am attracted to talk to my friend because they like to talk about the same topic like I do, then can I say that this is “sexual” orientation? This kind of attraction is not covered under “sexual orientation”. And there are many many kinds of attraction.

If a man is only attracted to men, but never acts on it is he homosexual?

It depends on

1. the reason why he thinks that he is attracted to men
2. the reason why he has never acted on it.

Let me give you a clue:

If a man watch gay porn, and then he gets his arousal, this arousal is not necessarily his sexual orientation. Porn use human’s beautiful body as a tool to arouse people in a perverted way, and so it does. It does not accurately indicate one’s sexual orientation. In fact, porn is a lie, thus whoever belive in it will be deceived.

At psychological level, the explanation usually is a trickery of

0 one’s normal behavior that prefer to play/ hang out with same gender

1. one’s own immature sexuality plus raging hormones when he was teen or even before that.
2. exposure towards “gay material”
3. being confused between one’s own imagination about his own sensual feelings and his sexual orientation as being told by point number 2.
4. one’s own reflection of his imaginative sexual orientation on his choices and decision to act
5. one’s own reflection of the act he has done in the past (that may have different reason than sex) on the whole self identity.

You can engage in sex without being attracted to someone

One can’t have sex without being attracted to “that kind” of sex. A man may not attracted to the woman person, but he has to be attracted to the sex in order that he will do the act. “The sex” shows his orientation. Thus if something is not sexual, then it can’t indicate "sex"ual orientation, can it?

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

If I will ever have any chance to go to cold country side where there is dance and cuddling by the fire, I will do that with my most dear hubby, not my friends.

Yes.

Aren’t we talking about orientation about sex? Other attractions are neutral, meaning without any orientation because they are not sexual.

If I am attracted to talk to my friend because they like to talk about the same topic like I do, then can I say that this is “sexual” orientation? This kind of attraction is not covered under “sexual orientation”. And there are many many kinds of attraction.

It depends on

1. the reason why he thinks that he is attracted to men
2. the reason why he has never acted on it.

Let me give you a clue:

If a man watch gay porn, and then he gets his arousal, this arousal is not necessarily his sexual orientation. Porn use human’s beautiful body as a tool to arouse people in a perverted way, and so it does. It does not accurately indicate one’s sexual orientation. In fact, porn is a lie, thus whoever belive in it will be deceived.

At psychological level, the explanation usually is a trickery of

0 one’s normal behavior that prefer to play/ hang out with same gender

1. one’s own immature sexuality plus raging hormones when he was teen or even before that.
2. exposure towards “gay material”
3. being confused between one’s own imagination about his own sensual feelings and his sexual orientation as being told by point number 2.
4. one’s own reflection of his imaginative sexual orientation on his choices and decision to act
5. one’s own reflection of the act he has done in the past (that may have different reason than sex) on the whole self identity.

One can’t have sex without being attracted to “that kind” of sex. A man may not attracted to the woman person, but he has to be attracted to the sex in order that he will do the act. “The sex” shows his orientation. Thus if something is not sexual, then it can’t indicate "sex"ual orientation, can it?

My point exactly, while they are not in their selves sexual things they are intimately intertwined with romantic love.

No it’s different. It’s really hard to explain.

1. It’s complicated
2. Religious convictions

I regard same sex attractions formed as a result of porn not actually homosexuality.

I’'m not sure if #1 applies to me let alone #2

homosexual men and women have faked it, I’ve met gays who have engaged in sex with people of the oppose gender who found the experience deeply disgusting to them.

Sex in this case is referring to gender

To try to understand self-mastery from a gay’s perspective read this article , I suppose I’ve progressed to step seven or so.

 

[francisca]

No it’s different. It’s really hard to explain.

1. It’s complicated

Please speak to a priest.

I always believe that healthy humans are not designed to become homosexuals. Biologically it is impossible. It’s like a cow is not designed to catch a prey, and a tiger is not designed to graze.

Humans, however, is a learning being who has complex imagination, senses, associative thinking, logic, spiritual intellectualization. If one learn something from a bad source, he may be diverted from his good natural state into un-natural state. Therefore it is important to learn from good sources instead of the bad ones.

I would not call it “self-mastery”, I would rather call it self-control. Self-control is one of the fruits of the Spirit

Galatians 5:25 But the fruit of the Spirit is… self-control.

The Spirit itself is given to those who believe that Christ died for our sins

1Corinth 15:3 … that Christ died for our sins,…

And that God gave Jesus Christ as a ransom for our sins-- this ransom is more than enough

Romans 5:16 The gift of God more than compensated for sin

The book of Romans go on with Sin as our master being replaced with Righteousness accoridng to faith as our new Master.

Romans 6
17 … after having sin as our master, you have been given to another, that is, to the doctrine of faith…
18 And being free from sin, you began to serve true righteousness
19 There was a time when you let your members be salves of impurity and disorder, walking in the way of sin; convert them now into servants of righteousness, to the point become holy.
20 When you were slaves of sin you didnot feel under obligation to righteiousness,
21 But what were the fruits of those actions which you are now ashamed of? Such things bring death
22 Now, however, you have been freed from sin and serve God. You are bearing fruit and growing in holiness.

So “self-mastery” is only possible if Christ (and not “self”) is The Master. So the term “self”-mastery is rather shaky, because self fails. The good term should be “self-control, as the fruit of faith that Christ is my Master”, so I submit my members to serve true righteousness according to faith in Christ. Thus it’s “Christ-Mastery”!

Dakota, I think we have come to the furthest that we can get regarding your situation. This will be my last posting regarding your situation, because I do not think I am capable bringing you any further from here. I will still respond to general discussion about the topic in the OP (about sexual inclination), but not specific to your situation. I really think that you need to speak to a priest.

May God bless you in your search.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Please speak to a priest.

I always believe that healthy humans are not designed to become homosexuals. Biologically it is impossible. It’s like a cow is not designed to catch a prey, and a tiger is not designed to graze.

Humans, however, is a learning being who has complex imagination, senses, associative thinking, logic, spiritual intellectualization. If one learn something from a bad source, he may be diverted from his good natural state into un-natural state. Therefore it is important to learn from good sources instead of the bad ones.

I would not call it “self-mastery”, I would rather call it self-control. Self-control is one of the fruits of the Spirit

Galatians 5:25 But the fruit of the Spirit is… self-control.

The Spirit itself is given to those who believe that Christ died for our sins

1Corinth 15:3 … that Christ died for our sins,…

And that God gave Jesus Christ as a ransom for our sins-- this ransom is more than enough

Romans 5:16 The gift of God more than compensated for sin

The book of Romans go on with Sin as our master being replaced with Righteousness accoridng to faith as our new Master.

Romans 6
17 … after having sin as our master, you have been given to another, that is, to the doctrine of faith…
18 And being free from sin, you began to serve true righteousness
19 There was a time when you let your members be salves of impurity and disorder, walking in the way of sin; convert them now into servants of righteousness, to the point become holy.
20 When you were slaves of sin you didnot feel under obligation to righteiousness,
21 But what were the fruits of those actions which you are now ashamed of? Such things bring death
22 Now, however, you have been freed from sin and serve God. You are bearing fruit and growing in holiness.

So “self-mastery” is only possible if Christ (and not “self”) is The Master. So the term “self”-mastery is rather shaky, because self fails. The good term should be “self-control, as the fruit of faith that Christ is my Master”, so I submit my members to serve true righteousness according to faith in Christ. Thus it’s “Christ-Mastery”!

Dakota, I think we have come to the furthest that we can get regarding your situation. This will be my last posting regarding your situation, because I do not think I am capable bringing you any further from here. I will still respond to general discussion about the topic in the OP (about sexual inclination), but not specific to your situation. I really think that you need to speak to a priest.

May God bless you in your search.

self mastery is actually the Church’s term

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.

 

[francisca]

self mastery is actually the Church’s term

Yeah, but still biblical “self-control” is more acurate

Our master is Christ, not self. I’m sure that some cathecism say this also.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Yeah, but still biblical “self-control” is more acurate

Our master is Christ, not self. I’m sure that some cathecism say this also.

The catechism says self-mastery

II. The Vocation to Chastity

2337
Chastity means the successful integration of sexuality within the person and thus the inner unity of man in his bodily and spiritual being. Sexuality, in which man’s belonging to the bodily and biological world is expressed, becomes personal and truly human when it is integrated into the relationship of one person to another, in the complete and lifelong mutual gift of a man and a woman.

The virtue of chastity therefore involves the integrity of the person and the integrality of the gift.
The integrity of the person

2338
The chaste person maintains the integrity of the powers of life and love placed in him. This integrity ensures the unity of the person; it is opposed to any behavior that would impair it. It tolerates neither a double life nor duplicity in speech.125

2339
Chastity includes an apprenticeship in self-mastery which is a training in human freedom. The alternative is clear: either man governs his passions and finds peace, or he lets himself be dominated by them and becomes unhappy.126 "Man’s dignity therefore requires him to act out of conscious and free choice, as moved and drawn in a personal way from within, and not by blind impulses in himself or by mere external constraint. Man gains such dignity when, ridding himself of all slavery to the passions, he presses forward to his goal by freely choosing what is good and, by his diligence and skill, effectively secures for himself the means suited to this end."127

2340
Whoever wants to remain faithful to his baptismal promises and resist temptations will want to adopt the means for doing so: self-knowledge, practice of an ascesis adapted to the situations that confront him, obedience to God’s commandments, exercise of the moral virtues, and fidelity to prayer. "Indeed it is through chastity that we are gathered together and led back to the unity from which we were fragmented into multiplicity."128

2341
The virtue of chastity comes under the cardinal virtue of temperance, which seeks to permeate the passions and appetites of the senses with reason.

2342
Self-mastery is a long and exacting work. One can never consider it acquired once and for all. It presupposes renewed effort at all stages of life.129 The effort required can be more intense in certain periods, such as when the personality is being formed during childhood and adolescence.

2343
Chastity has laws of growth which progress through stages marked by imperfection and too often by sin. "Man . . . day by day builds himself up through his many free decisions; and so he knows, loves, and accomplishes moral good by stages of growth."130

2344
Chastity represents an eminently personal task; it also involves a cultural effort, for there is "an interdependence between personal betterment and the improvement of society."131 Chastity presupposes respect for the rights of the person, in particular the right to receive information and an education that respect the moral and spiritual dimensions of human life.

2345
Chastity is a moral virtue. It is also a gift from God, a grace, a fruit of spiritual effort.132 The Holy Spirit enables one whom the water of Baptism has regenerated to imitate the purity of Christ.133
The integrality of the gift of self

2346
Charity is the form of all the virtues. Under its influence, chastity appears as a school of the gift of the person. Self-mastery is ordered to the gift of self. Chastity leads him who practices it to become a witness to his neighbor of God’s fidelity and loving kindness.

2347
The virtue of chastity blossoms in friendship. It shows the disciple how to follow and imitate him who has chosen us as his friends,134 who has given himself totally to us and allows us to participate in his divine estate. Chastity is a promise of immortality.

Chastity is expressed notably in friendship with one’s neighbor. Whether it develops between persons of the same or opposite sex, friendship represents a great good for all. It leads to spiritual communion.

 

[francisca]

I have never encounter “self-mastery” concept in the bible, so I assume it is semantic. What it refers to is “self-control” as one of the fruits of the Spirit of God. I always think that the concept of “chastity” is about self-control.