Which Homosexuals Are "Incurable"?

[Slavonic]

If you can reference Robert Spitzer:

Robert Spitzer, M.D., the renowned Columbia University psychiatric researcher, who was directly involved in the 1973 decision to remove homosexuality from the American Psychiatric Association’s list of mental disorders, has recently become involved with research the possibility of change. Dr. Spitzer stated in an interview: “I am convinced that many people have made substantial changes toward becoming heterosexual…I think that’s news… I came to this study skeptical. I now claim that these changes can be sustained.” (Spitzer 2000).

…so can I:

Several months ago I told you that because of my revised view of my 2001 study of reparative therapy changing sexual orientation, I was considering writing something that would acknowledge that I now judged the major critiques of the study as largely correct. After discussing my revised view of the study with Gabriel Arana, a reporter for American Prospect, and with Malcolm Ritter, an Associated Press science writer, I decided that I had to make public my current thinking about the study. Here it is.

Basic Research Question. From the beginning it was: “can some version of reparative therapy enable individuals to change their sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual?” Realizing that the study design made it impossible to answer this question, I suggested that the study could be viewed as answering the question, “how do individuals undergoing reparative therapy describe changes in sexual orientation?” – a not very interesting question.

The Fatal Flaw in the Study – There was no way to judge the credibility of subject reports of change in sexual orientation. I offered several (unconvincing) reasons why it was reasonable to assume that the subject’s reports of change were credible and not self-deception or outright lying. But the simple fact is that there was no way to determine if the subject’s accounts of change were valid.

I believe I owe the gay community an apology for my study making unproven claims of the efficacy of reparative therapy. I also apologize to any gay person who wasted time and energy undergoing some form of reparative therapy because they believed that I had proven that reparative therapy works with some “highly motivated” individuals.

Robert Spitzer. M.D.
Emeritus Professor of Psychiatry,
Columbia University

 

[CopticChristian]

If you can reference Robert Spitzer:

…so can I:

Slavnonic,

That is just one. He apologized for his data. Dr. Nicolosi points out you cannot retract data. He apologized. What about the others?

I believe I owe the gay community an apology for my study making unproven claims of the efficacy of reparative therapy.

1. Spitzer has not retracted his study. The proper term for what Spitzer has done is provided in the title to his recent letter of apology: He has reassessed his interpretation (Spitzer, 2012). It appears that he may have originally wished to retract the 2003 study, but the editor of the journal in which the study was published, Kenneth Zucker, Ph.D., denied this request. Zucker has been quoted regarding his exchange with Spitzer as observing:

You can retract data incorrectly analyzed; to do that, you publish an erratum. You can retract an article if the data were falsified—or the journal retracts it if the editor knows of it. As I understand it, he’s [Spitzer] just saying ten years later that he wants to retract his interpretation of the data. Well, we’d probably have to retract hundreds of scientific papers with regard to interpretation, and we don’t do that. (Dreger, 2012)

What Zucker is essentially saying is that there is nothing in the science of the study that warrants retraction, so all that is left for one to change is his interpretation of the findings, which is what Spitzer appears to have done.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

That is a good point and I would add the foundational problem is that some do not see this issue as grave as it really is. If they did they would not take the positions they take.

Fix, perhaps you can answer the questions that Coptic cannot. Here they are:

…] do you imagine it’s possible to see and love Christ in others if all we can see in them is the sin they do?

Do you imagine that salvation would be possible if God waited for us to love him properly before he was willing (to borrow the words of Hezekiah from Isaiah) to love our souls from the pit corruption? Do you imagine that salvation would be possible if God waited for us to stop sinning before he revealed to us his own vision of the New Adam in the self-emptying love of Jesus Christ?

Do you imagine that when Paul writes to the Ephesians that they should “walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God” that he was characterizing the self-emptying love of Jesus on behalf of sinners as the sort of love which is best imitated A) by moral theologizing from a distance; or B) by active self-desolation (if need be) on behalf of others, especially sinners and for the sake of their good?

Do you imagine that when Paul writes to the Corinthians that Love “does not take offense or store up grievances” that what he meant to say was “Love is easily offended by others’ sin and finds it impossible to even imagine another’s goodness when their sinfulness is so manifest–because if there’s one thing the Incarnation, Life, Death, Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus Christ shows, it’s that Love prefers maintaining a comfortable distance in order to better cultivate an attitude of smug disdain when it comes to the sinfulness of others”?

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Slavonic]

Slavnonic,

That is just one. He apologized for his data. Dr. Nicolosi points out you cannot retract data. He apologized. What about the others?

The Fatal Flaw in the Study – There was no way to judge the credibility of subject reports of change in sexual orientation. I offered several (unconvincing) reasons why it was reasonable to assume that the subject’s reports of change were credible and not self-deception or outright lying. But the simple fact is that there was no way to determine if the subject’s accounts of change were valid.

That’s a data problem.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

This I believe, this I understand, and if you recognize your difficulty in having anyone grasping your requests for reconsideration of whatever it is you think and believe then it is because the world inside your head does not conform to

The profession of Faith
Sacramental Life
Life in Christ
Prayer

that is in my head, and when you understand that your actions are ordered as you think and believe, you will understand that when there is disorder in your actions then there is disorder in your thinking.

You believe there is disorder in my thinking because you believe that my actions are disordered. You seem to suggest that that is what is keeping you from understanding what I’ve written. Moreover, based on what you perceive my actions to be, you suggest that because I do not confuse my faith with a table of contents (however much a catechism forms or structures faith, it is not faith nor a substitute for faith) I am not a proper Christian.

But may I ask: what do you know of specifically my actions, Coptic, that you have not assumed? Have I confided in you the specific details of my behavior, be it good or ill? *It is your own assumptions that are getting in the way, here. *

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[speakttruth]

I am trying to keep up with these threads, but it keeps getting harder.

What I have noticed that some of the posters that like to use all these arguments that are really trying to persuade the issue that could be simply stated that they either believe in a homosexual relationships, that they have SSA, or whatever they like to call it, basically think it’s OK to have sex with the same sex and want to justify it with all these reasons that do not exist.
It’s wrong, it is not the Catholic teachings, it will never change no matter how many times you want to explain it with all these cloudy explanations using some sort of fake theology to justify it. I am not sure why you people have to convince each other, this is not the problem.
The problem is that your either a faithful Catholic trying to live by Gods rules or your trying to live by your own and justify saying that it’s about love when you want to sin. The issue being pushed insincerely is it is all about that God loves everyone, no one can change, nothing can change, God accepts me for everything as long as I love someone and excuses for all sorts of bad behavior . Their is all sort of names given for every kind of problem we have in society, but what all of it comes down to is sin. We either sin or we don’t. Living a homosexual life is not what God intended. Can people change, you bet, is it easy? No. Is there a cure? If following Jesus is called a cure. Can Jesus help us find help in other people that have been given the gift of knowledge to help them? Yes, for anything. What is a cure, perfection or perfecting? We can’t be perfect, but we are suppose to do is keep trying and we will always come up short as long as we have original sin, but as long as we do keep trying , that is what God wants us to do. Success isn’t as important as the effort.
Do what you want, but don’t try and convince the Catholic Church to change her morals to suit the Fancy of the age. Either love it all and maybe not understand it all, or hate it and leave. No one is forcing people to stay in the Catholic church. We want to be faithful people filling up the pews, not fake people. This is why it is suppose to be the Militant Church, not the wimpy church. All this competition to see who is smarter and hide behind all the explanations that just tries to confuse the issue, when it really becomes apparent that its about an agenda, and not really about God and the love of the Catholic church and trying to understand it and live by her teachings, but to undermine it. Just my observations.
GB

 

[Kolbe300]

You and other Catholics should review this…as it appears that those that say…no therapy has ever been proven scientifically that Homosexuals cannot change have not read this…

catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/ho0039.html

Okay, I reviewed it. Here’s the thing. I don’t deny that folks could experience change when it comes to sexuality. There’s ample evidence showing that some sexual issues do occur because of abuse and other factors. Plus, God is capable of anything.

I tried to “pray the gay away” for many, many, many years. The only good thing about that experience was that I was praying. I go to spiritual direction regularly and see a Catholic psychologist regularly. I’d recommend anyone do the same. Everybody could use a little therapy. If someone wants to go see Dr. Nicolosi, I wouldn’t hold them back. They’re free to do as they wish. I’d be willing to share my opinion that I think the treatment rarely works to change sexual orientation and can, in fact, be traumatic. I’m allowed that opinion as much as you are allowed yours.

The piece you provided says that this gay-to-straight type of therapy helps reduce “symptoms” in 30% of cases. And “symptoms” disappear in another 30% of cases. I’m not exactly sure what a reduction in symptoms really means. If one is still attracted to the same sex, but a little less so, they’re still attracted to the same sex. I’ll leave the explaining of that up to those who have experienced it.

Here’s the question I have: If 30% of gay men who seek this therapy discover complete change in their sexual orientation (according to what you posted), that leaves 70% who don’t. In other words, the overwhelming majority.

What should we do for them? If most of the men who undergo therapy don’t come out heterosexual, what should we tell them? Do we tell them they didn’t work hard enough at it? Do we tell them to keep going until they’re one of the 30%?

Or can we tell them that there is a place in our Church fit for them? Can we tell them that a beautiful life can be lived, even for a homosexual person? I can do that. I can tell them that with ease. Can you? Are you even willing to try?

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

What I have noticed that some of the posters that like to use all these arguments that are really trying to persuade the issue that could be simply stated that they either believe in a homosexual relationships, that they have SSA, or whatever they like to call it, basically think it’s OK to have sex with the same sex and want to justify it with all these reasons that do not exist.

Speak, who in this thread is saying it’s okay to have sex with someone of the same sex? I’ve not said such a thing. I may have said something very much like it in some thread from many many years ago, from before I started studying the catechism more closely, but I can’t recall saying anything analogous recently. So please be specific.

Now, I can’t speak for anyone but myself, but having seen a fair number of these threads, what I’m about to say represents observations of general patterns.

What some folks have been trying to maintain is the real distinction between act and attraction. Some of these folks are celibate homosexuals who do not take kindly to others assuming things about their behavior for which there is no evidence. Some of these same celibate homosexuals reject the idea of conversion therapy either based on their own experience of it (i.e., it represented a painful failure), or because they do not see it as necessary (in much the same way that the catechism doesn’t deem it necessary–if it did, it would say, “Get into some conversion therapy program!”). When their brothers and sisters in the faith start pushing reparative therapy on them, or start pushing an understanding of homosexuality which is concerned only with sexual behavior or politics as opposed to it just being a fundamental attraction to someone of the same sex (which need not necessarily be expressed in some sexual act or another), then they get upset.

They get upset because they perceive that part of who they are is being egregiously (and apparently willfully) misunderstood by their faith family.

They get upset because it seems clearer and clearer to them that their faith family doesn’t really count their experience of their own lives as anything worth considering and would prefer to think of homosexuality as an abstract sin-construct as opposed to a sexual orientation that really informs the lives of real people trying to live their lives honestly and faithfully.

They get upset because it seems like their faith family would prefer them to be something very specific on account of their sexuality (usually miserable or conforming to an ideal of heroic suffering if they can’t “change”), but they’ve come to experience their sexuality in very different terms–not as an easy thing, all things considered, but not as a curse either.

They get upset because whenever they would like their faith family to moderate their rhetoric long enough to actually listen to or understand them, their faith family seems to reject the attempt at understanding as being soft on sin, too permissive, or an attempt to change church teaching–which upsets these folks even more, because they’re committed to celibacy and aren’t trying to change church teaching!

In the end, they get upset because their faith family seems really invested in not paying attention to what they have to say.

And all of that upsetness is angering. And all-too-often that anger becomes depression because it’s internalized: they feel helpless, swallowed up by wave after wave of pious well-meaning that, in their experience, would rather drown and crush them than address their thirst for honest communion with their faith family.

Now, in many of these threads, there’ll be a few folks trying to push buttons, advocating for one partisan position or another, dogmatically entrenched on one side or another–they usually don’t have very much to say, but what they do say, they say it often and unthoughtfully–they’re usually given to regurgitating the usual bromides of their position as if they were anything but the bromides they are, or they are overly concerned with being the stodgiest and most upright person in the room. These folks are easy to spot and easy to dismiss. But for the most part, people are just trying to understand each other.

So for what it’s worth, that’s what I see as happening in so may of these threads. There aren’t two sides here: the pro homosexual sex side and the anti homosexual sex sides. There are a lot of perspectives, a lot of different experiences, a lot of nuance that can be easily overlooked or misunderstood if we’re not too careful

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[CopticChristian]

Grace & Peace!

You believe there is disorder in my thinking because you believe that my actions are disordered. You seem to suggest that that is what is keeping you from understanding what I’ve written. Moreover, based on what you perceive my actions to be, you suggest that because I do not confuse my faith with a table of contents (however much a catechism forms or structures faith, it is not faith nor a substitute for faith) I am not a proper Christian.

But may I ask: what do you know of specifically my actions, Coptic, that you have not assumed? Have I confided in you the specific details of my behavior, be it good or ill? *It is your own assumptions that are getting in the way, here. *

Under the Mercy,

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Mark,

This is CAF. My mind is ordered towards Catholic thinking based on

Profession of Faith
Sacramental Life
Life in Christ
Prayer…

You do not accept the entirety of the Creed One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church
You do not have valid Sacraments because you do not have a valid priesthood

Life in Christ demands you cannot violate any commandment or reside against any commandment to seek Holiness…

Your thinking is disordered towards revealed truth and therefore your thoughts and actions are not ordered to what I see as ordered.

You are welcome here. If you want acceptance of your philosophical contructs that see your thinking and actions as ordered towards what you percieve to be revealed truths then post on an Anglican site that accepts what you think and believe.

 

[Kolbe300]

Now, I can’t speak for anyone but myself, but having seen a fair number of these threads, what I’m about to say represents observations of general patterns.

What some folks have been trying to maintain is the real distinction between act and attraction. Some of these folks are celibate homosexuals who do not take kindly to others assuming things about their behavior for which there is no evidence. Some of these same celibate homosexuals reject the idea of conversion therapy either based on their own experience of it (i.e., it represented a painful failure), or because they do not see it as necessary (in much the same way that the catechism doesn’t deem it necessary–if it did, it would say, “Get into some conversion therapy program!”). When their brothers and sisters in the faith start pushing reparative therapy on them, or start pushing an understanding of homosexuality which is concerned only with sexual behavior or politics as opposed to it just being a fundamental attraction to someone of the same sex (which need not necessarily be expressed in some sexual act or another), then they get upset.

They get upset because they perceive that part of who they are is being egregiously (and apparently willfully) misunderstood by their faith family.

They get upset because it seems clearer and clearer to them that their faith family doesn’t really count their experience of their own lives as anything worth considering and would prefer to think of homosexuality as an abstract sin-construct as opposed to a sexual orientation that really informs the lives of real people trying to live their lives honestly and faithfully.

They get upset because it seems like their faith family would prefer them to be something very specific on account of their sexuality (usually miserable or conforming to an ideal of heroic suffering if they can’t “change”), but they’ve come to experience their sexuality in very different terms–not as an easy thing, all things considered, but not as a curse either.

They get upset because whenever they would like their faith family to moderate their rhetoric long enough to actually listen to or understand them, their faith family seems to reject the attempt at understanding as being soft on sin, too permissive, or an attempt to change church teaching–which upsets these folks even more, because they’re committed to celibacy and aren’t trying to change church teaching!

In the end, they get upset because their faith family seems really invested in not paying attention to what they have to say.

And all of that upsetness is angering. And all-too-often that anger becomes depression because it’s internalized: they feel helpless, swallowed up by wave after wave of pious well-meaning that, in their experience, would rather drown and crush them than address their thirst for honest communion with their faith family.

Now, in many of these threads, there’ll be a few folks trying to push buttons, advocating for one partisan position or another, dogmatically entrenched on one side or another–they usually don’t have very much to say, but what they do say, they say it often and unthoughtfully–they’re usually given to regurgitating the usual bromides of their position as if they were anything but the bromides they are, or they are overly concerned with being the stodgiest and most upright person in the room. These folks are easy to spot and easy to dismiss. But for the most part, people are just trying to understand each other.

So for what it’s worth, that’s what I see as happening in so may of these threads. There aren’t two sides here: the pro homosexual sex side and the anti homosexual sex sides. There are a lot of perspectives, a lot of different experiences, a lot of nuance that can be easily overlooked or misunderstood if we’re not too careful

Exactly right. Thank you.

 

[CopticChristian]

Okay, I reviewed it. Here’s the thing. I don’t deny that folks could experience change when it comes to sexuality. There’s ample evidence showing that some sexual issues do occur because of abuse and other factors. Plus, God is capable of anything.

I tried to “pray the gay away” for many, many, many years. The only good thing about that experience was that I was praying. I go to spiritual direction regularly and see a Catholic psychologist regularly. I’d recommend anyone do the same. Everybody could use a little therapy. If someone wants to go see Dr. Nicolosi, I wouldn’t hold them back. They’re free to do as they wish. I’d be willing to share my opinion that I think the treatment rarely works to change sexual orientation and can, in fact, be traumatic. I’m allowed that opinion as much as you are allowed yours.

The piece you provided says that this gay-to-straight type of therapy helps reduce “symptoms” in 30% of cases. And “symptoms” disappear in another 30% of cases. I’m not exactly sure what a reduction in symptoms really means. If one is still attracted to the same sex, but a little less so, they’re still attracted to the same sex. I’ll leave the explaining of that up to those who have experienced it.

Here’s the question I have: If 30% of gay men who seek this therapy discover complete change in their sexual orientation (according to what you posted), that leaves 70% who don’t. In other words, the overwhelming majority.

What should we do for them? If most of the men who undergo therapy don’t come out heterosexual, what should we tell them? Do we tell them they didn’t work hard enough at it? Do we tell them to keep going until they’re one of the 30%?

Or can we tell them that there is a place in our Church fit for them? Can we tell them that a beautiful life can be lived, even for a homosexual person? I can do that. I can tell them that with ease. Can you? Are you even willing to try?

Kolbe,

Keep looking, studying, researching…trying to understand rather than accept, just born that way…nothing you can do…

J Homosex. 1988;15(1-2):185-212.
The borderline personality disorder and gay people.
Silverstein C.
Abstract
This paper examines the diagnostic category called Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) and its relationship to gay people. It discusses the psychoanalytic definition of borderline personalities, and to it adds a cultural definition. In the light of these cultural variables, the diagnosis is defined as a metaphor for the complexities and confusions of modern life. These confusions are important in the lives of gay people, who, it is suggested, are currently more prone to be diagnosed as BPD. Through the life study of a gay man, both the psychoanalytic and cultural variables are identified, then generalized to the problems of gay people in our transitional society.

The entire article can be viewed here…I don’t agree with all the conculsions or suggestions however there is an attempt to look…
drcsilverstein.com/publications/borderline#

 

[Kolbe300]

Coptic,

You’re very good at posting links. Any chance you’d like to have a discussion instead?

Here’s the question I have: If 30% of gay men who seek this therapy discover complete change in their sexual orientation (according to what you posted), that leaves 70% who don’t. In other words, the overwhelming majority.

What should we do for them? If most of the men who undergo therapy don’t come out heterosexual, what should we tell them? Do we tell them they didn’t work hard enough at it? Do we tell them to keep going until they’re one of the 30%?

Well?

 

[CopticChristian]

Coptic,

You’re very good at posting links. Any chance you’d like to have a discussion instead?

Well?

Kolbe,

What is it you want to discuss?

 

[Kolbe300]

Kolbe,

What is it you want to discuss?

The piece you provided says that this gay-to-straight type of therapy helps reduce “symptoms” in 30% of cases. And “symptoms” disappear in another 30% of cases. I’m not exactly sure what a reduction in symptoms really means. If one is still attracted to the same sex, but a little less so, they’re still attracted to the same sex. I’ll leave the explaining of that up to those who have experienced it.

Here’s the question I have: If 30% of gay men who seek this therapy discover complete change in their sexual orientation (according to what you posted), that leaves 70% who don’t. In other words, the overwhelming majority.

What should we do for them? If most of the men who undergo therapy don’t come out heterosexual, what should we tell them? Do we tell them they didn’t work hard enough at it? Do we tell them to keep going until they’re one of the 30%?

Or can we tell them that there is a place in our Church fit for them? Can we tell them that a beautiful life can be lived, even for a homosexual person? I can do that. I can tell them that with ease. Can you? Are you even willing to try?

 

[fix]

Grace & Peace!

Fix, perhaps you can answer the questions that Coptic cannot. Here they are:

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

The context of this issue is this forum. It is about folks who stop by here and constantly either argue against Church teachings or subtly try to undermine Her teachings. These folks get responses. Mostly the reply to these responses fall into two broad categories.

The first category is that the Church is wrong because of …Inquisitions, Galileo, Usury, Slavery, and the like. The second broad category are those that claim the tone or wording is uncharitable, hate-filled, you know the usual charges.

The second category tries to divert the truth of the moral arguments by individualizing things to some “gay” person or persons who are being “driven away” by these mean Jansenist Catholics who are rigorists and have no compassion for the poor struggling sinner. Those who charge that never seem to mention the constant attack on culture by those who want to dismantle marriage, the family, and impose their ideology like a cudgel. Instead of answering the moral arguments they try and impose an emotionalism disguised with bible quotes so as to avoid the tough arguments by claiming lack of charity.

Now here is what the Church says about some of this:

People today need to turn to Christ once again in order to receive from him the answer to their questions about what is good and what is evil. Christ is the Teacher, the Risen One who has life in himself and who is always present in his Church and in the world. It is he who opens up to the faithful the book of the Scriptures and, by fully revealing the Father’s will, teaches the truth about moral action.

No damage must be done to the harmony between faith and life: the unity of the Church is damaged not only by Christians who reject or distort the truths of faith but also by those who disregard the moral obligations to which they are called by the Gospel (cf. 1 Cor 5:9-13). The Apostles decisively rejected any separation between the commitment of the heart and the actions which express or prove it (cf. 1 Jn 2:3-6). And ever since Apostolic times the Church’s Pastors have unambiguously condemned the behaviour of those who fostered division by their teaching or by their actions.38

 

[RMCarlson]

I actually do.

My friend,
I really can’t argue this with you. I really can’t.

In order for you to understand, you need to understand science. Science is on my side here, because there is definitely not such a thing as a “homosexual” bodytype.

The only thing you can claim exists, which I agree with, is the presence of homosexual tendencies, impulses, temptations, or inclinations. These do exist, and they are a great challenge for the person who bears them.

If you still disagree, look up what “biological” means, and you’ll understand.

Inclinations are not bodily realities. They are just inclinations. Just because you feel an attraction to the same sex doesn’t mean that your genitalia are somehow different from everybody else.

False. If you prove that, I will readily believe it, but I know it is false because I have seen many studies to the contrary, and in addition, I know personal family members who have grown up thinking they were “homosexual” and then chose to change their lifestyle and are now upstanding people.

If you decide you can’t change yourself, you never will, and that is the road of sin.

Why are you so focused on genitalia? You are really out of touch. You’ve completely missed the point- “bodily realities” have nothing to do with “inclinations.” He never said anything about a ‘homosexual body type.’ Science is actually not on your side. I know that any quotes I give you will be disputed with “I just cannot discuss this with you…”

Here is something you can’t dispute: the topic of homosexuality is ripping our church apart. Abusive priests, scandal, cover-ups, etc. People who have been Catholics for generations are leaving the church because of intolerance and double standards. We are never going to make converts and bring people to Jesus if we are subtly yet firmly suggesting that they are either not “upstanding” or we ourselves are in a position to judge the state of a human being’s soul. That’s God’s turf- not yours or mine.

Here’s where we should start- by validating the human being- not the behavior- but the human being. You completely dismiss the human being when you suggest they weren’t “upstanding” people before they* allegedly* switched orientation. You imply that a human cannot be “upstanding” until they are actively heterosexual- dismissing everyone else. Hearing Catholics like you denigrate other human beings makes me fear for the future of our church.

 

[The_Bucket]

Here is something you can’t dispute: the topic of homosexuality is ripping our church apart. Abusive priests, scandal, cover-ups, etc. People who have been Catholics for generations are leaving the church because of intolerance and double standards. We are never going to make converts and bring people to Jesus if we are subtly yet firmly suggesting that they are either not “upstanding” or we ourselves are in a position to judge the state of a human being’s soul. That’s God’s turf- not yours or mine.

Here’s where we should start- by validating the human being- not the behavior- but the human being. You completely dismiss the human being when you suggest they weren’t “upstanding” people before they* allegedly* switched orientation. You imply that a human cannot be “upstanding” until they are actively heterosexual- dismissing everyone else. Hearing Catholics like you denigrate other human beings makes me fear for the future of our church.

I heartily concur. I understand the emphasis on this subject in many orthodox circles because it’s a topic being brought up in the secular world. Gay marriage is on the march, the homosexual lifestyle is not only condoned but celebrated in our culture. So it’s a relevant and timely topic.

But it’s not the only topic out there! We need not ignore the sin involved or even deflect away to another subject, but let’s not get so wrapped up in this subject just because the rest of the world is wrapped up in it! We laity in the world should not be of the world. And part of being counter-cultural is not letting the secular world dictate what we focus on.

That’s why I think the new evangelization is so wise. That’s why Pope Benedict was quite smart to emphasize 2013 as a Year of Faith. It’s a year to focus on the entire faith not just on the elements that the rest of the world wants to concentrate on.

No one is going to listen to us if all they hear is the condemnation first. Jesus did not demand repentance before he reached out to the prostitutes and tax collectors. He dined with them first. He showed them love first. It wasn’t until the end of his interactions with these people that he said “now go and do not sin anymore.” Does that mean that Christ somehow condoned their behavior? No way! He knew that these people, who were societal pariahs because of their own sinful actions, needed to experience love. He knew that they basically gave up on themselves and resigned themselves to sinful lives because they felt like they could never be loved by God or by His people.

We should absolutely not celebrate the “homosexual lifestyle.” But we need to follow Christ’s model in reaching out to these people. Show them love first and we’ll get to the “do not sin anymore” part later.

 

[CopticChristian]

Here is something you can’t dispute: the topic of homosexuality is ripping our church apart. Abusive priests, scandal, cover-ups, etc. People who have been Catholics for generations are leaving the church because of intolerance and double standards. We are never going to make converts and bring people to Jesus if we are subtly yet firmly suggesting that they are either not “upstanding” or we ourselves are in a position to judge the state of a human being’s soul. That’s God’s turf- not yours or mine.

You completely dismiss the human being when you suggest they weren’t “upstanding” people before they* allegedly* switched orientation. You imply that a human cannot be “upstanding” until they are actively heterosexual- dismissing everyone else. Hearing Catholics like you denigrate other human beings makes me fear for the future of our church.

Carlson,

Why are you so focused on genitalia? You are really out of touch. You’ve completely missed the point- “bodily realities” have nothing to do with “inclinations.” He never said anything about a ‘homosexual body type.’ Science is actually not on your side. I know that any quotes I give you will be disputed with “I just cannot discuss this with you…”

I have no idea how you drew this conclusion…

The discussion as noted below…

In order for you to understand, you need to understand science. Science is on my side here, because there is definitely not such a thing as a “homosexual” bodytype.

The only thing you can claim exists, which I agree with, is the presence of homosexual tendencies, impulses, temptations, or inclinations. These do exist, and they are a great challenge for the person who bears them.

If you still disagree, look up what “biological” means, and you’ll understand.

Inclinations are not bodily realities. They are just inclinations. Just because you feel an attraction to the same sex doesn’t mean that your genitalia are somehow different from everybody else.

is making the point that there is no such thing as “homosexual bodytypes”…you focus on the 7th to the last word in the discussion and conlude that there is a focus that is not there.

Do you believe that there is a homosexual body type?

Here’s where we should start- by validating the human being- not the behavior- but the human being.

Do you then validate all sins against Chastity…do you validate the Prostitute and the pimp, the Fornicator, the Adulterer, the Mastubator and the Rapist…?

Help me understand how I validate a Rapist?

 

[CopticChristian]

I heartily concur. I understand the emphasis on this subject in many orthodox circles because it’s a topic being brought up in the secular world. Gay marriage is on the march, the homosexual lifestyle is not only condoned but celebrated in our culture. So it’s a relevant and timely topic.

But it’s not the only topic out there! We need not ignore the sin involved or even deflect away to another subject, but let’s not get so wrapped up in this subject just because the rest of the world is wrapped up in it! We laity in the world should not be of the world. And part of being counter-cultural is not letting the secular world dictate what we focus on.

That’s why I think the new evangelization is so wise. That’s why Pope Benedict was quite smart to emphasize 2013 as a Year of Faith. It’s a year to focus on the entire faith not just on the elements that the rest of the world wants to concentrate on.

No one is going to listen to us if all they hear is the condemnation first. Jesus did not demand repentance before he reached out to the prostitutes and tax collectors. He dined with them first. He showed them love first. It wasn’t until the end of his interactions with these people that he said “now go and do not sin anymore.” Does that mean that Christ somehow condoned their behavior? No way! He knew that these people, who were societal pariahs because of their own sinful actions, needed to experience love. He knew that they basically gave up on themselves and resigned themselves to sinful lives because they felt like they could never be loved by God or by His people.

We should absolutely not celebrate the “homosexual lifestyle.” But we need to follow Christ’s model in reaching out to these people. Show them love first and we’ll get to the “do not sin anymore” part later.

Bucket,

Some but not all can do this. It may be well to form some sort of mission for Chastity that does not condemn any one sin rather embraces that all sins against Chastity are repugnant…

In the Mission to Chastity…we would welcome all that want to be able to come to the truths of Faith…perhaps it is a way to reach out and have those you say are disregarded, regarded…

Perhaps adopting Maria Goretti as a patron saint…

Caritas in castus…how does that sound…?

I don’t know the answser…this is just a thought…

 

[The_Bucket]

You don’t necessarily have to think of all sexual sin as equivalent. But you are called to love all men and women and bring them to Christ no matter what they’ve done. That’s the call we all have; the call to sainthood.

Christ told us the world would know us by how we love one another. And what good does it for us to only love those who love us back? Even pagans do that. What profit do we gain for only loving those who are consistently faithful to the Truth?