your opinions on gays

[mercygate]

It most certainly can NOT be “overcome”.

Like a lot of other things, there is a wide spectrum of results with this. Some wish to, can and DO change their orientation. Some wish to, cannot, and do not change it. Some do not have any interest in the project at all. There is no one-size-fits-all category here. Each person is in his own place with this.

Women tend to redirect their orientation more successfully than men.

 

[Elric]

I believe in this case the word “objective” is from the natural law view that since the body parts are “objectively ordered” towards procreation (i.e., the objects – reproductive organs – are built to make babies), the natural order is for people with tab A to be attracted to people with slot A so that the “objective” function of the parts can be realized to their natural end.

Can you define what you mean by “in this case”?

Are you refering to the thread in general, or are you refering to me and my use of the term “disordered” to describe myself?

 

[Fitswimmer]

I’ve lived my entire life as a celibate homosexual. I’ve never acted on my feelings, I’ve never married, never had children. I tried ignoring who I was in college and dating the opposite sex and it was a disaster. I felt like I was lying to the person I was dating and lying to myself. I don’t consider myself disordered, because God does not create disordered people. My sexual orientation is my cross, just as someone elses attraction to people other than their spouse is a cross, just as a tendency to drink to excess is a cross or a tendency to treat others with contempt is a cross.

I attend a Traditional Latin Mass, and my confessors at that parish been wonderfully compassionate and helpful to me in my struggles.

I believe that we all need to concentrate more on overcoming our own crosses and spend less time worrying about whatever our neighbor’s cross is and if they are overcoming it. If we want others to treat us with compassion in our struggles with our crosses-we need to do the same for them.

 

[estesbob]

I believe that we all need to concentrate more on overcoming our own crosses and spend less time worrying about whatever our neighbor’s cross is and if they are overcoming it. If we want others to treat us with compassion in our struggles with our crosses-we need to do the same for them.

The problem with this approach is way to many people come to these forums and claim their “crosses” are actually blessings-that is that homosexual behavior is acceptable. If we ignore that we run the risk of those viewing these forums being led astray about what the Church teaches.

 

[melensdad]

Promiscuous means sleeping with more than one partner. It is possible to have two committed homosexuals and therefore no transmission of diseases.

Jim, you and I agree on this. But I was trying to understand the following statement:

I am not sexually promiscious, I am tested annually for HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases .

So if tiggeriffic is in a “committed” relationship, then why the need for HIV testing annually? The only need that I could see is if one or both of the partners were not actually committed. Or if the relationships are committed, but only of very short duration so that partners may be “faithful” for a period of time, but then partners change. I’m only 46, never had relations with any woman other than my wife. She and I have been married for 22 years and counting I see no need for annual HIV testing if the relationship is truly a ‘committed’ relationship.

I think what tiggeriffic is saying is that he claims not to be promiscuous but realizes that he must be and therefore gets tested? Of course, I’m not sure of that. That is why I was hoping for some clarification and some version of a definition so I could more clearly understand his point of view.

I’ve lived my entire life as a celibate homosexual. I’ve never acted on my feelings, I’ve never married, never had children. I tried ignoring who I was in college and dating the opposite sex and it was a disaster. I felt like I was lying to the person I was dating and lying to myself. I don’t consider myself disordered, because God does not create disordered people. My sexual orientation is my cross, just as someone elses attraction to people other than their spouse is a cross, just as a tendency to drink to excess is a cross or a tendency to treat others with contempt is a cross.

I would gladly welcome you into my parish.

 

[rlg94086]

Well time for another dumb question then:

What is the difference?

couragerc.net/CatholicLanguage.html

Objectively Disordered: The Catholic Church describes homosexual acts as objectively disordered. The object is that things to which some action is directed. In the case of the object being homogenital acts, they are not part of the order of creation ‹never and none of the time. When something is subjectively disordered, then the lack of order depends on the person committing the act. For example to steal is wrong in general. To steal because it is the only way to feed a starving family would not be objectively disordered. This would qualify as a use of the term “objectively immoral” that Fr. Nugent recently tried to use in order to avoid assenting to the Church¹s formulations. While this is technical language, it would imply a degree of subjectivity, that is ³situational ethics² in the case of homosexuality. The congregation for the doctrine of the faith soundly rejected his proposed modification which would allow some homogenital acts some time.

 

[Fitswimmer]

The problem with this approach is way to many people come to these forums and claim their “crosses” are actually blessings-that is that homosexual behavior is acceptable. If we ignore that we run the risk of those viewing these forums being led astray about what the Church teaches.

Believe me, this cross is not a blessing. I can’t imagine how anyone could draw such a conclusion.

For those of you who do not have to live this way, think a moment of what our lives are like. We have no spouse to share our lives with, we have no children-AND the bonus prize is we get to be viewed by our fellow Catholics as somehow MORE sinful than they are-even if we have not acted on our feelings. We also get to hear from society how psychologically damaged we must be to stay in a faith that tells us we are “disordered people” and dooms us to a life without sexual gratification.

Yeah, it’s just a party every day…

 

[estesbob]

I think what tiggeriffic is saying is that he claims not to be promiscuous but realizes that he must be and therefore gets tested? Of course, I’m not sure of that. That is why I was hoping for some clarification and some version of a definition so I could more clearly understand his point of view.

I have seen multitudes of celebrities proudly announcing they are tested annually for HIV.(Scarlet johnanesen, for example) What they are really saying is “Hey-Im PROMISCOUS!” But its worse than that because if they are tested ONLY annually that means only those they had sex with the year before are safe-it says nothing about all the safety of all their sexual partners for the year to come.

Iv’e only been tested for HIV once-before my last surgery. And we had a big fight about that. My Dr ordered an HIV test and said I didnt need it and wouldnt pay for it. He said he wouldnt do the surgery unlees i did so i demanded that he an every one who would be in the operating be tested also and offer proof they had not had sex since the test. Cooler heads prevailed(meaning my wife stepped in and told me grow up). I was negaitve, of course.

 

[rlg94086]

Believe me, this cross is not a blessing. I can’t imagine how anyone could draw such a conclusion.

For those of you who do not have to live this way, think a moment of what our lives are like. We have no spouse to share our lives with, we have no children-AND the bonus prize is we get to be viewed by our fellow Catholics as somehow MORE sinful than they are-even if we have not acted on our feelings. We also get to hear from society how psychologically damaged we must be to stay in a faith that tells us we are “disordered people” and dooms us to a life without sexual gratification.

Yeah, it’s just a party every day…

I agree it is a cross, but how is it that fellow Catholics know you have SSA? I woudn’t view a single person who doesn’t have any visible, physically intimate relationships as anything but a fellow Catholic. I certainly wouldn’t know or assume they had SSA.

 

[Elric]

Sex isnt the only way to be infected with HIV, a doctor requesting that you have a blood test for HIV isnt necessarily saying that you are promiscous.

I have known a few people who have had to get a HIV test for things that were completely unrelated to sex (most of them was due to being stabbed by a used syringe).

 

[Elric]

couragerc.net/CatholicLanguage.html

What about subjective disorders?

 

[estesbob]

Sex isnt the only way to be infected with HIV, a doctor requesting that you have a blood test for HIV isnt necessarily saying that you are promiscous.

).

Which is exactly what my wife said-only not as politiely as you did.

 

[Newbie2]

Biology would also tell you, with the church out of the equation that if you place two males alone for a life time on a deserted isle they will eventually mate with each other. At least it happens in the rest of the nature.

This is pure bunk.

I’ve got some some nice swampland…I mean prime real estate…to sell anyone who buys this tripe.

…and I’ll donate the profits to the Church!

 

[mercygate]

Can you define what you mean by “in this case”?

Are you refering to the thread in general, or are you refering to me and my use of the term “disordered” to describe myself?

I was contributing to the discussion on “objectively disordered.” The line of thought tended to be referring to a character disorder when the term is not a judgment of a person who experiences SSA but on the “objective order” of the reproductive faculties. Employing them in a way that eliminates the objective order [and end], in a way that distorts, thwarts, or excludes a natural human act of intercourse is “disordered.”

I’m a hard-head. According to the definition of “objectively disordered” used here, contraception, masturbation, and coitus interruptus are also disordered. Male-female fornication, while sinful, is not “objectively” disordered because the “object” (male-to-female) is according to the order of nature.

 

[estesbob]

I respectfully disagree that the attraction is a disorder. Biology would also tell you, with the church out of the equation that if you place two males alone for a life time on a deserted isle they will eventually mate with each other. At least it happens in the rest of the nature. And if it weren’t for the religious aspect of things man would just be another animal in nature.

Not in any biology class I ever took . Care to provide us a link?

 

[mercygate]

I’ve lived my entire life as a celibate homosexual. I’ve never acted on my feelings, I’ve never married, never had children. I tried ignoring who I was in college and dating the opposite sex and it was a disaster. I felt like I was lying to the person I was dating and lying to myself. I don’t consider myself disordered, because God does not create disordered people. My sexual orientation is my cross, just as someone elses attraction to people other than their spouse is a cross, just as a tendency to drink to excess is a cross or a tendency to treat others with contempt is a cross.

I attend a Traditional Latin Mass, and my confessors at that parish been wonderfully compassionate and helpful to me in my struggles.

I believe that we all need to concentrate more on overcoming our own crosses and spend less time worrying about whatever our neighbor’s cross is and if they are overcoming it. If we want others to treat us with compassion in our struggles with our crosses-we need to do the same for them.

You sound like a person I would like to get to know.

 

[rlg94086]

What about subjective disorders?

I will repost the quote…perhaps you will read it this time and get your answer. We are not talking about psychological disorders, if that is what you are getting at. This is a common misconception.

The Catholic Church describes homosexual acts as objectively disordered. The object is that things to which some action is directed. In the case of the object being homogenital acts, they are not part of the order of creation ‹never and none of the time. ***When something is subjectively disordered, then the lack of order depends on the person committing the act. For example to steal is wrong in general. To steal because it is the only way to feed a starving family would not be objectively disordered. ***

This would qualify as a use of the term “objectively immoral” that Fr. Nugent recently tried to use in order to avoid assenting to the Church¹s formulations. While this is technical language, it would imply a degree of subjectivity, that is ³situational ethics² in the case of homosexuality. The congregation for the doctrine of the faith soundly rejected his proposed modification which would allow some homogenital acts some time.

 

[urban-hermit]

I experience SSA and, upon my return to the Catholic Church around 2002, struggled with the negative connotations of this phrase “objective disorder”.

It’s important not to allow this one concept to cloud your whole perception of yourself as a human being. But I think it simply means that homosexuality is, in and of itself, not a good thing.

Here is a quote from a relevant document, “On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons”, which I believe is helpful to anybody who wants to understand what is meant by “objective disorder”:

3. Explicit treatment of the problem was given in this Congregation’s “Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics” of December 29, 1975. That document stressed the duty of trying to understand the homosexual condition and noted that culpability for homosexual acts should only be judged with prudence. At the same time the Congregation took note of the distinction commonly drawn between the homosexual condition or tendency and individual homosexual actions. These were described as deprived of their essential and indispensable finality, as being “intrinsically disordered”, and able in no case to be approved of (cf. n. 8, sect. 4).

In the discussion which followed the publication of the Declaration, however, an overly benign interpretation was given to the homosexual condition itself, some going so far as to call it neutral, or even good. Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.

Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be directed toward those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not.

SOURCE: newadvent.org/library/docs_df86ho.htm

 

[Pete_1]

I respectfully disagree that the attraction is a disorder. Biology would also tell you, with the church out of the equation that if you place two males alone for a life time on a deserted isle they will eventually mate with each other. At least it happens in the rest of the nature. And if it weren’t for the religious aspect of things man would just be another animal in nature.

Nature tells us alot of things it does not mean they are natural for humans. Dogs mate with anything they can find, living or non living, this does not mean we, beings that have a human soul should do the same, we are nothing like the animals.

As for my opinions on people with SSA i follow the teaching of the Church.

Hope this helps

 

[Pug]

Well that begs the question of is it actually a “disorder”?

Hmmm. I’m not sure if you are asking if it is a disorder to have homosexual inclinations or if the desire to have homosexual relations is a disordered desire. That is likely too sophisticated of a question for me to answer. I don’t know if there is a difference offhand. I do think that if a person desires to have homosexual relations, then this desire has the wrong thing as the object. This is not at all unique in the world. I often desire the wrong thing, or, I also often desire the right thing, but too much. People do that sort of thing.