your opinions on gays

[pathia]

.
Well I had an addiction to pornography (of men I’m a woman) and a filthy mouth that couldn’t by my own will be curbed. I prayed and prayed and prayed and now I’m completely free of both. I’m sorry you have not been freed of this, I really am you are among those that actually want to stop being homosexually oriented others think it’s ok as long as they don’t act, and or think the acts are just fine and dandy.

You state it is necessary for me to cure myself, yet you still offer no way that this is to be done for those that have not been cured via the therapies availiable. I was not convinced of anyone at these therapies that were actually cured.

I met many ‘former-homosexuals’ myself, remember I was in therapy for a decade, I was SURROUNDED by them DAILY. In private they admitted they had to fantasize and close their eyes to imagine they were having sex with a same-sexed person to actually perform their marital duties. This includes some ‘big names’ in the news of former homosexuals I see every now and then. They talk about how wonderfully straight they are, and that they never think of anything gay anymore ever, yet I remember only a few years ago when they were admitting to fantasizing a same sex partner just to complete their marriage vows.

Often they would encourage you to marry a same-sex sufferer of the opposite sex so you would both be well aware that this would be going on. I know at least four marriages that failed, after kids were born, in this situation because they ‘relapsed’ into SSA, despite having been ‘cured’ before.

Would you have a child of yours knowingly marry a former homosexual, knowing that he or she could relapse and run away from the marriage? I know more failed marriages involving former homosexual marriages than successful ones. Of course, seeing as the divorce rate in this country is 50% that really isn’t much, comparatively speaking. Still, what kind of life is that for a child?

 

[agangbern]

Okay? So what is your solution then? Note that your view is COUNTER to Catholic teaching.

Pathia,

Personally, I did not find the view of defenderoftruth to be COUNTER to Catholic teaching. It is possible that you misunderstood the Catholic teaching on the matter.

 

[pathia]

Pathia,

Personally, I did not find the view of defenderoftruth to be COUNTER to Catholic teaching. It is possible that you misunderstood the Catholic teaching on the matter.

Look at any of the sticky topics, there are several of them covering the Catholic stance on homosexuality. Look at any of the answers the apologists here themselves have given.

The orientation is not a sin, having homosexual sex is. Maybe you are misunderstanding.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=134749
Here’s a link.

 

[defenderoftruth]

You state it is necessary for me to cure myself, yet you still offer no way that this is to be done for those that have not been cured via the therapies availiable. I was not convinced of anyone at these therapies that were actually cured.

I met many ‘former-homosexuals’ myself, remember I was in therapy for a decade, I was SURROUNDED by them DAILY. In private they admitted they had to fantasize and close their eyes to imagine they were having sex with a same-sexed person to actually perform their marital duties. This includes some ‘big names’ in the news of former homosexuals I see every now and then. They talk about how wonderfully straight they are, and that they never think of anything gay anymore ever, yet I remember only a few years ago when they were admitting to fantasizing a same sex partner just to complete their marriage vows.

Often they would encourage you to marry a same-sex sufferer of the opposite sex so you would both be well aware that this would be going on. I know at least four marriages that failed, after kids were born, in this situation because they ‘relapsed’ into SSA, despite having been ‘cured’ before.

Would you have a child of yours knowingly marry a former homosexual, knowing that he or she could relapse and run away from the marriage? I know more failed marriages involving former homosexual marriages than successful ones. Of course, seeing as the divorce rate in this country is 50% that really isn’t much, comparatively speaking. Still, what kind of life is that for a child?

Well if they are having to fantasize they aren’t really straight are they? Lying is a sin and lying about being straight doesn’t help anyone. (talking about the people you’ve met) Is it me or isn’t fantasies about the same sex or another person of the opposite sex that isn’t your spouse sinful? I mean didn’t the whole thing about sinful thoughts stem from Jesus saying that whomever looks at woman (or a man for that matter) and lusts after her has committed adultery already in his heart? I doubt any Catholic organization would tell someone to marry someone of the opposite sex that suffers from homosexual “attraction” knowing they’d be fantasizing of sodomy and lesbianism. (not to call you a liar but maybe orgs like exodus etc. may do that but I doubt a Catholic org would) The thing is someone should be honest about their problem not lie about it, get married have sinful homosexual thoughts, have children and then decide “oh well sodomy/lesbianism is more important that my vows and children.”
Talk about selfish. If my child were to get married (I would like her to be a nun) I would counsel her to marry someone that is a virgin and she is sure that they do not have these problems and are found to be a truthful person not having a history of being a liar. Bringing up straight marriage failures do to selfishness (really outside of adultery what is there?-although adultery is selfish) doesn’t make homosexual “marriage” or phony straights (actual homosexuals) getting divorced better.

 

[defenderoftruth]

Pathia,

Did you notice this line?

The homosexual inclination is however “objectively disordered”

The inclination itself is objectively disordered. (not just the act) Someone who fights those inclinations is different that someone who finds no fault in them and dwells on them because “it’s ok as long as I don’t act on it”.

So the straight guy/gal that lusts all day long is ok since they don’t “act” on it?

 

[pathia]

I doubt any Catholic organization would tell someone to marry someone of the opposite sex that suffers from homosexual “attraction” knowing they’d be fantasizing of sodomy and lesbianism. (not to call you a liar but maybe orgs like exodus etc. may do that but I doubt a Catholic org would)

I am speaking of Exodus, yes.

You still haven’t answered my question. I have tried every blessing, every prayer, everything, I have starved myself, I have meditated, I have undergone therapy with both Catholic therapists and Exodus ones.

Still hasn’t done anything. I know MANY people like me, too many to even care to guess as a number.

What am we supposed to do? Everything has failed us, everything. Celibacy is obviously not enough according to your statements. Are we doomed?

 

[pathia]

Pathia,

Did you notice this line?

The inclination itself is objectively disordered. (not just the act) Someone who fights those inclinations is different that someone who finds no fault in them and dwells on them because “it’s ok as long as I don’t act on it”.

So the straight guy/gal that lusts all day long is ok since they don’t “act” on it?

How do you get ‘lusts all day’ from inclination. Inclination means, if you HAD to look at porn, which porn would you look at. It doesn’t mean lustful thoughts. Inclination means merely the way your brain is wired, be it childhood trauma or genetics it doesn’t matter. Inclination does not mean lusting.

Here, I’ll pull the definition.
in·cli·na·tion n. “A characteristic disposition to do, prefer, or favor one thing rather than another”

What, pray tell, in there says constant unending thoughts and lust?

 

[agangbern]

Look at any of the sticky topics, there are several of them covering the Catholic stance on homosexuality. Look at any of the answers the apologists here themselves have given.

The orientation is not a sin, having homosexual sex is. Maybe you are misunderstanding.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=134749
Here’s a link.

Ok, let us look at the link that you gave:

1935 The equality of men rests essentially on their dignity as persons and the rights that flow from it: Every form of social or cultural discrimination in fundamental personal rights on the grounds of sex, race, color, social conditions, language, or religion must be curbed and eradicated as incompatible with God’s design.
“grounds of sex”. Per Genesis, there are only two kinds of sex: either male or female. So, let us not imagine of a third sex being included here.

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

It is clear here: homosexual acts are acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law And acts are not confined to outward acts alone. They include internal acts, such as the act of desiring for sexual pleasure with the same sex.

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, 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.

This is not talking of homosexual here. It is simply talking about the virtue of chastity and of friendship. Nothing here is about desiring for sexual pleasure with the same sex.

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, authored by then Joseph Card. Ratzinger:
Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons:
Quote:
… it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered”. This same moral judgment is found in many Christian writers of the first centuries and is unanimously accepted by Catholic Tradition.

Still “intrinsically disordered”.

Nonetheless, according to the teaching of the Church, men and women with homosexual tendencies “must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided”. They are called, like other Christians, to live the virtue of chastity. The homosexual inclination is however “objectively disordered” and homosexual practices are “sins gravely contrary to chastity”.

Yes, men and women…“must be accepted with respect…” But it does not say that the “homosexual tendencies” are also to be accepted. The homosexual inclination remains “objectively disordered”…

…
In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.

Here again is very clear: “clear and emphatic opposition is a duty”

Where does the Church supports homosexual tendencies or acts there? The Church supports the person in his struggle for freedom from his slavery. But the Church does not support the thing that makes the person a slave.

 

[defenderoftruth]

If you continue to fight it and pray you I believe God will set you free of this burden, I believe it wholeheartedly.

However those that think that the “attraction” is ok and don’t fight that but the “act” only will never be set free, God doesn’t set persistant people who love their sinful thoughts free.

I think James says best of temptation/thoughts: (douay rheims)

James 1:14 But every man is tempted by his own concupiscence, being drawn away and allured.
James 1:15 Then, when concupiscence hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin. But sin, when it is completed, begetteth death.

It’s not good to dwell on “attraction” or think it’s ok it breeds sin, acts, and death.

 

[pathia]

Where does the Church supports homosexual tendencies or acts there? The Church supports the person in his struggle for freedom from his slavery. But the Church does not support the thing that makes the person a slave.

Where did I ever say this at all? Seesh, we are arguing the nuances of the english language, not church doctrine.

I give up, this is ridiculous. We disagree on the definitions of words. There is no reconciling that, because we are not arguing on the same ground.

 

[agangbern]

Where did I ever say this at all? Seesh, we are arguing the nuances of the english language, not church doctrine.

I give up, this is ridiculous. We disagree on the definitions of words. There is no reconciling that, because we are not arguing on the same ground.

That is a good way for a graceful exit.

 

[pathia]

That is a good way for a graceful exit.

Sorry if I came across as harsh, but am NOT going to sit around and let people stuff words into my mouth. I simply won’t let it happen. Please don’t do it again, seeing as we bump into each other alot on these boards it seems.

 

[rlg94086]

Hi folks,

Well, my self-imposed ban from CAF has failed. I find that I need to post on a couple of issues…this being one of them.

Once again, we are having some difficulty distinguishing between inclination and sin. Please read this document from the US Bishops -
Ministry to Persons with a Homosexual Inclination:
Guidelines for Pastoral Care
usccb.org/dpp/Ministry.pdf

Here is one excerpt I have in mind…

Homosexual Inclination Is Not Itself a Sin

While the Church teaches that homosexual acts are immoral, she does distinguish between engaging in homosexual acts and having a homosexual inclination. While the former is always objectively sinful, the latter is not. To the extent that a homosexual tendency or inclination is not subject to one’s free will, one is not morally culpable for that tendency. Although one would be morally culpable if one were voluntarily to entertain homosexual temptations or to choose to act on them, simply having the tendency is not a sin. Consequently, the Church does not teach that the experience of homosexual attraction is in itself sinful.

The homosexual inclination is objectively disordered, i.e., it is an inclination that predisposes one toward what is truly not good for the human person.14 Of course, heterosexual persons not uncommonly have disordered sexual inclinations as well. It is not enough for a sexual inclination to be heterosexual for it to be properly ordered. For example, any tendency toward sexual pleasure that is not subordinated to the greater goods of love and marriage is disordered, in that it inclines a person towards a use of sexuality that does not accord with the divine plan for creation. There is the intrinsic disorder of what is directed toward that which is evil in all cases (contra naturam). There is also the accidental disorder of what is not properly ordered by right reason, what fails to attain the proper measure of virtue (contra rationem).15

It is crucially important to understand that saying a person has a particular inclination that is disordered is not to say that the person as a whole is disordered. Nor does it mean that one has been rejected by God or the Church. Sometimes the Church is misinterpreted or misrepresented as teaching that *persons *with homosexual inclinations are objectively disordered, as if everything about them were disordered or rendered morally defective by this inclination. Rather, the disorder is in that particular inclination, which is not ordered toward the fulfillment of the natural ends of human sexuality. Because of this, acting in accord with such an inclination simply cannot contribute to the true good of the human person. Nevertheless, while the particular inclination to homosexual acts is disordered, the person retains his or her intrinsic human dignity and value.

 

[pathia]

Hi folks,

Well, my self-imposed ban from CAF has failed. I find that I need to post on a couple of issues…this being one of them.

Once again, we are having some difficulty distinguishing between inclination and sin. Please read this document from the US Bishops -

Thank you thank you, that was the document I was trying to find.

 

[rlg94086]

Thank you thank you, that was the document I was trying to find.

You’re welcome. It is an excellent document IMHO that gives guidance to people who have misinterpreted Church teaching on both ends of the spectrum on the issue of homosexuality.

 

[Jestocost]

I don’t understand some people’s angst on this topic. To me it seems simple.

1. Sex outside of marriage is sinful.
2. Marriage is between a man and a woman.

What else needs to be said? Oh, lust is also sinful, no matter who or what you’re lusting after. Immodesty is sinful, no matter who you’re attracted to. If an act is gravely sinful does it really matter if is gravely sinful for 1 reason or two reasons?

 

[rlg94086]

I don’t understand some people’s angst on this topic. To me it seems simple.

1. Sex outside of marriage is sinful.
2. Marriage is between a man and a woman.

What else needs to be said? Oh, lust is also sinful, no matter who or what you’re lusting after. Immodesty is sinful, no matter who you’re attracted to. If an act is gravely sinful does it really matter if is gravely sinful for 1 reason or two reasons?

No argument here…the problem is that some people believe the very inclination toward someone of the same sex is “gravely sinful.” It is possibile to have SSA, dress modestly, avoid lust, avoid sex outside of marriage, etc.

 

[iamrefreshed]

Pathia,

Did you notice this line?

The inclination itself is objectively disordered. (not just the act) Someone who fights those inclinations is different that someone who finds no fault in them and dwells on them because “it’s ok as long as I don’t act on it”.

So the straight guy/gal that lusts all day long is ok since they don’t “act” on it?

No where does it state that the inclination is a sin.

Just ‘objectively disordered’.

Charity and prayers for our brothers and sisters with this condition are what is needed. Not chastisement for following the churches teaching.

 

[defenderoftruth]

Yes Robert and my problem is not those that hate the inclination and want to be straight but those that have the inclination and say “well attraction isn’t a problem but acts are”. (like being attracted to sodomy/lesbianism is ok.) So is an adult ok that is “attracted” to children but doesn’t act on it? If they hate it and fight it, don’t dwell on it and want to be free of it I would say they aren’t sinning. But dwelling on their “attraction” to children thinking it’s ok as long as “they don’t act on it” isn’t.

 

[defenderoftruth]

Iamrefreshed see my last post.