your opinions on gays

[Other_Eric]

Of course I recognize their authority. Nothing you quoted contradicts anything I have posted, yet you say I have a “poverty of intellect.” The most recent document (2006) I quoted was from the USCCB, which clearly states that “homosexual inclination is not itself a sin.”
usccb.org/dpp/Ministry.pdf You even mention that the inclination is not a sin in post #783.

You mentioned that “in the thirteen years since the Catechism has been released, science has made great progess in identifying and treating the condition of same-sex attractions.” All of the documents you provided (especially the Scripture) were before the last Catechism was written. Are you saying the Catechism contradicts Sacred Scripture? If something changed in the Magisterial teaching regarding the psychological genesis of homosexual inclinations, you should provide that information rather than insulting me.

We all agree that homosexual acts and lust are sins, I’m not sure what the point is of trying to prove that the inclination itself is a sin. The Church has purposely separated the two issues and given pastoral advice on how to work with those who are struggling with SSA. I think it is best to follow the Church’s lead on this subject.

Do you suppose that the Magisterium considers itself competent to define as true or false the origin of any disease of the mind? Perhaps, since you seem to believe that the Magisterium operates as an adjunct to the psychological community, you could tell me what the official Church teaching on the origins of schizophrenia or bi-polar disorder is. If you believe that Christ has given the Church authority beyond faith and morals, allowing her to make scientific pronouncements, I would have to ask you if you believe that the Church’s authority has any limits whatsoever.

For my part, I am quite comfortable in restricting the Church’s authority to matters of faith and morals. I do not expect that the Pope will issue an encyclical defining the right way to eat a Reeses Peanut Butter Cup. Therefore, that the Catechism mentions in passing the state of the best evidence from psychology at the time does not imply that the Church has brought her infallibility to bear on the etiology of same-sex attractions. Indeed, even if tomorrow science discovers the “gay gene” and determines that the origin of same-sex attractions has nothing to do with psychology, the moral teaching of the Church would remain unaffected.

The psychological origin of same-sex attractions seems to have been definitively established by individuals including Soccarides, Nicholosi, Payne and van den Aardweg. You will note that nearly every apologetical answer from the staff on these forums refers questioners to NARTH and the data that organization has collected. It seems that should you wish to find any information or studies on the origins of same-sex attractions that has the implicit endorsement of Catholic Answers staff, that you can more than satisfy your appetite by going to www.narth.com.

Since you acknowledge that I have held that the inclination is not itself a sin, I wonder why it is that you continue to hold that I am arguing otherwise. I will say it again: same-sex attractions are not a sin, they are the effect of sin. It is like a young girl with her wrists slashed open. The wounds are not themselves sinful, they are the effect of the sinful despair that caused the girl to lacerate herself.

Like the slashed wrists having their ultimate origin in despair, Sacred Scripture tells us that same-sex attractions have their origin in idolatry. Quibbling over the psychological origin of same-sex attractions would be like arguing over the exact pathology that moved our hypothetical girl to attempt suicide. It is wholly irrelevant since the thing that should be of primary concern is the welfare of the individual. In the case of the suicidal girl, she needs to be rid of the temptations that move her to want to end her life. Similarly, in the case of a man with same-sex attractions, he needs to be rid of the temptations that cause him to seek sexual contact with a member of his own gender.

The moral issue involved is not whether an individual has same-sex attractions. Rather, the issue is, once they are determined to be present, whether the individual will rid him or herself of them. It is my position that there is absolutely no justification for failing to do what is necessary in that regard. Indeed, public health and safety, to say nothing of the individual’s hope of salvation are all involved. It is our charitable duty to ensure that every individual with same-sex attractions understands this.

 

[Other_Eric]

Yes, you did, but the question asked (“What is the origin of same-sex attraction?”) and the wording of your cites equivocate. The passages you quote don’t discuss same-sex attraction per se but rather address homosexual behavior. The latter stems from a rejection of God, which the Church is clear about. Regarding the origin of the former – the origin of the same-sex attraction itself – the Church has not definitive statement.

– Mark L. Chance.

Isn’t it more accurate to say that homosexual acts find their origin in homosexual temptations? It seems that the dichotomy you are attempting to discern does not exist. The ability to act in a homosexual manner presupposes an inclination to that sort of activity. If it is your position that individuals routinely engage in same-sex coitus absent any temptation or will to do so, then you must reject entirely the concept of Free Will.

 

[rlg94086]

Do you suppose that the Magisterium considers itself competent to define as true or false the origin of any disease of the mind? Perhaps, since you seem to believe that the Magisterium operates as an adjunct to the psychological community, you could tell me what the official Church teaching on the origins of schizophrenia or bi-polar disorder is. If you believe that Christ has given the Church authority beyond faith and morals, allowing her to make scientific pronouncements, I would have to ask you if you believe that the Church’s authority has any limits whatsoever…

Hi Other Eric,

I don’t expect the Magisterium to be the expert on everything scientific. However, I do expect that if they agreed with your bold statement that the researchers at NARTH had “definitively established” the psychological origin, there would be no reason to continuously repeat that the psychological genesis is unknown. There would be no problem in claiming that it is known.

Also, since you don’t trust the Magisterium’s statement on psychological genesis and leave that to the “psychological community,” I would remind you that the “psychological community” doesn’t agree with the researchers at NARTH. Whom do you put your faith in again??

Anyway, I’m glad to hear that NARTH and Courage are able to help those with SSA, and I hope that many find the strength to live chastely with the help of Courage and/or defeat their desires with the help of therapy, if they decide to go that route.

I am not sure I understand the idolatry connection that you say Scripture and the Church clearly make. Can you find something a little clearer, so I can understand?

Your slit-wrist analogy is not helpful, because it is poorly developed. In your analogy the act of slitting the wrists would be equivalent to lust or homosexual acts, not the inclination. The inclination would be the equivalent to the psychological issue causing the despair to occur, which led the person to slit their wrists. Since, the Church tells me the pschological genesis of homosexual inclination is unknown and the psychological community is not unified on the issue, that doesn’t help. In your analogy, idolatry would cause the psychological problem, which caused the despair which brought about the sin.

Regardless, you are saying that a sin (requiring an action of the will) causes an inclination which is not sin. That would render the inclination meaningless, and there would be no reason for the Church to teach that it isn’t a sin. She would just say that people with homosexual tendencies are idolators and in a constant state of sin. Therefore, living a chaste life would not be adequate. IOW…your reasoning renders the Magisterium’s pastoral guidance as completely meaningless. As I prefer to believe in the consistency of the Magisterium, I’m going to assume your explanation is wanting.

 

[drafdog]

My opinion on gays? They are people just like the rest of us. They simply have a genetic variation which manifests itself in a way that makes heterosexuals uncomfortable.
For a clear and balanced commentary on scriptural references to homosexuality, see “What the Bible Really Says about Homosexuality” by D. A. Helminiak, Ph.D. Written by a Catholic author, it is based on the most recent scripture scholarship and is very enlightening.
The contention that all gays are called to celibacy is just naive in the extreme. Same sex “domestic unions” should be legal and encouraged by society in general for the good of all.

Matthew

PS An earlier poster wanted to know what the original poster meant by “I’m all for it.” In the context of the post, the antecedent for “it” may be “opinions.”

 

[rlg94086]

My opinion on gays? They are people just like the rest of us. They simply have a genetic variation which manifests itself in a way that makes heterosexuals uncomfortable.
For a clear and balanced commentary on scriptural references to homosexuality, see “What the Bible Really Says about Homosexuality” by D. A. Helminiak, Ph.D. Written by a Catholic author, it is based on the most recent scripture scholarship and is very enlightening.
The contention that all gays are called to celibacy is just naive in the extreme. Same sex “domestic unions” should be legal and encouraged by society in general for the good of all.

Matthew

PS An earlier poster wanted to know what the original poster meant by “I’m all for it.” In the context of the post, the antecedent for “it” may be “opinions.”

Unfortunately, “Catholic” authors have written a lot of heretical works. This Catholic is no different. The fact that his scripture “scholarship” stating that there is nothing in the Bible that teaches that homosexual sex is a sin developed after he “realized he was gay” and became “disillusioned with the institutional church” is not surprising. Most heretical works come from someone who has a personal disobedience problem with the Church.

 

[Pug]

Similarly, in the case of a man with same-sex attractions, he needs to be rid of the temptations that cause him to seek sexual contact with a member of his own gender.

The moral issue involved is not whether an individual has same-sex attractions. Rather, the issue is, once they are determined to be present, whether the individual will rid him or herself of them. It is my position that there is absolutely no justification for failing to do what is necessary in that regard. Indeed, public health and safety, to say nothing of the individual’s hope of salvation are all involved. It is our charitable duty to ensure that every individual with same-sex attractions understands this.

Are you making the claim that an SSA individual is guaranteed to be able to rid themselves of any temptations of the SSA variety? By “needs to be rid” do you mean in order to get into heaven, or in order to have sanctifying grace, or …?

BTW, I do agree that having disordered inclinations (of all sorts) does seem to impact male-female relations. What should come naturally instead takes work. It shouldn’t be that we need to struggle to see each other as we are meant to be seen.

 

[Other_Eric]

Hi Other Eric,

I don’t expect the Magisterium to be the expert on everything scientific. However, I do expect that if they agreed with your bold statement that the researchers at NARTH had “definitively established” the psychological origin, there would be no reason to continuously repeat that the psychological genesis is unknown. There would be no problem in claiming that it is known.

Also, since you don’t trust the Magisterium’s statement on psychological genesis and leave that to the “psychological community,” I would remind you that the “psychological community” doesn’t agree with the researchers at NARTH. Whom do you put your faith in again??

Anyway, I’m glad to hear that NARTH and Courage are able to help those with SSA, and I hope that many find the strength to live chastely with the help of Courage and/or defeat their desires with the help of therapy, if they decide to go that route.

I am not sure I understand the idolatry connection that you say Scripture and the Church clearly make. Can you find something a little clearer, so I can understand?

Your slit-wrist analogy is not helpful, because it is poorly developed. In your analogy the act of slitting the wrists would be equivalent to lust or homosexual acts, not the inclination. The inclination would be the equivalent to the psychological issue causing the despair to occur, which led the person to slit their wrists. Since, the Church tells me the pschological genesis of homosexual inclination is unknown and the psychological community is not unified on the issue, that doesn’t help. In your analogy, idolatry would cause the psychological problem, which caused the despair which brought about the sin.

Regardless, you are saying that a sin (requiring an action of the will) causes an inclination which is not sin. That would render the inclination meaningless, and there would be no reason for the Church to teach that it isn’t a sin. She would just say that people with homosexual tendencies are idolators and in a constant state of sin. Therefore, living a chaste life would not be adequate. IOW…your reasoning renders the Magisterium’s pastoral guidance as completely meaningless. As I prefer to believe in the consistency of the Magisterium, I’m going to assume your explanation is wanting.

I find it odd that you believe the Church is “continuously repeating” that the cause of same-sex attractions are unknown. So far, you have only been able to produce one thirteen-year-old quote from the Catechism on a subject that you agree the Church may not be an expert on. You then proceed to treat this as a teaching on par with the rest of the Church’s holdings on same-sex attraction and draw moral conclusions from it. Since the very basis of what “the Church tells [you]” in this regard has the potential to be flawed, surely you must realize that the rest of your reasoning is similarly shaky.

I am not unaware that there are several professional organizations that have not reached any conclusions about the origins of same-sex attractions. I again refer you to NARTH’s website where you will discover that the reasons for this have more to do with politics and ideology than they do science. Within the community of professionals who recognize the condition of same-sex attraction for the debilitating pathology that it is, there is a surprising uniformity of opinion. Since, when free from the influence of self-interested activists, the science is clear, one’s discernment ought not be bothered by those organizations that have been unduly corrupted by the agendas of a few.

As far as my analogy is concerned, I fail to see what it is that is so difficult to understand about it. The Church has always recognized that sin separates us from God. The effects of that separation can manifest themselves in several different ways. Despair might manifest itself as a predilection to suicide. Idolatry might manifest itself as an inclination towards same-sex sexual activity. Since sin begets more sin, both have the high potential to compound themselves by the individuals acting upon those tendencies.

Lastly, concerning your contention that I have cast aspersions on the consistency of the Magisterium, I vehemently protest. That the Church finds herself in the position of teaching that the inclination to same-sex sexual activity is not itself a sin is readily demonstrated by the fair number of organizations who maintain, either implicitly or explicitly, that it is. Neither can this be said to render the inclination meaningless or neutral since the inclination produces an appetite for that which would lead the individual further away from God. Nor does this diminish the value of chastity, properly understood, since chastity is not the only virtue that Christians of any stripe are called to.

 

[Other_Eric]

Are you making the claim that an SSA individual is guaranteed to be able to rid themselves of any temptations of the SSA variety? By “needs to be rid” do you mean in order to get into heaven, or in order to have sanctifying grace, or …?

BTW, I do agree that having disordered inclinations (of all sorts) does seem to impact male-female relations. What should come naturally instead takes work. It shouldn’t be that we need to struggle to see each other as we are meant to be seen.

It seems to me that entrance into heaven is predicated upon all of us overcoming the disordered appetites we are subject to. Whether success in this endeavor is achieved in this life or the next is irrelevant. What is important is that we begin working towards this goal now. For any of us to determine for ourselves that what we are doing is good enough and that there is no need to earnestly make efforts towards that ultimate goal, smacks of both presumption and sloth. There will always be those that attempt to excuse themselves from this obligation citing a long list of rationalizations custom-tailored to their own concupiscence but for those of us who wish to please the Lord, no difficulty ought delay us for a moment in carrying our appointed crosses.

 

[rlg94086]

I find it odd that you believe the Church is “continuously repeating” that the cause of same-sex attractions are unknown. So far, you have only been able to produce one thirteen-year-old quote from the Catechism on a subject that you agree the Church may not be an expert on. You then proceed to treat this as a teaching on par with the rest of the Church’s holdings on same-sex attraction and draw moral conclusions from it. Since the very basis of what “the Church tells [you]” in this regard has the potential to be flawed, surely you must realize that the rest of your reasoning is similarly shaky.

My apologies on the use of “continuously repeating.” You are correct that it is not accurate. My recollection was in regards to the teaching that inclination is not a sin, but not all documents on homosexuality mention the genesis of the inclination. One exception is the USCCB document (approved by the full body of bishops), *Ministry to Persons with a Homosexual Inclination:**Guidelines for Pastoral Care *(11/2006), which is fairly recent.

A considerable number of people who experience same-sex attraction experience it as an inclination that they did not choose. Many of these speak of their homosexual attractions as an unwanted burden. This raises the question of whether or not a homosexual inclination can be changed with the help of some kind of therapeutic intervention.

There is currently no scientific consensus on the cause of the homosexual inclination. There is no consensus on therapy. Some have found therapy helpful. Catholics who experience homosexual tendencies and who wish to explore therapy should seek out the counsel and assistance of a qualified professional who has preparation and competence in psychological counseling and who understands and supports the Church’s teaching on homosexuality. They should also seek out the guidance of a confessor and spiritual director who will support their quest to live a chaste life.

Other Eric:

As far as my analogy is concerned, I fail to see what it is that is so difficult to understand about it. The Church has always recognized that sin separates us from God. The effects of that separation can manifest themselves in several different ways. Despair might manifest itself as a predilection to suicide.** Idolatry might manifest itself as an inclination towards same-sex sexual activity**. Since sin begets more sin, both have the high potential to compound themselves by the individuals acting upon those tendencies.

Might? Are you backing off of your assertion? What I asked for, and would still be interested in, is a clear teaching on the idolatry/homosexual inclination connection.
Other Eric:

Lastly, concerning your contention that I have cast aspersions on the consistency of the Magisterium, I vehemently protest. That the Church finds herself in the position of teaching that the inclination to same-sex sexual activity is not itself a sin is readily demonstrated by the fair number of organizations who maintain, either implicitly or explicitly, that it is.**** What does that mean?] Neither can this be said to render the inclination meaningless or neutral since the inclination produces an appetite for that which would lead the individual further away from God. Nor does this diminish the value of chastity, properly understood, since chastity is not the only virtue that Christians of any stripe are called to.

First of all, I apologize if what I wrote led you to believe that you doubt the Magisterium.

What I meant by rendering the inclination (and the associated pastoral teaching) meaningless, was that the person is already in a constant state of sin, and therefore unable to attain a state of grace until they rid themselves of that root sin (idolatry). Living a chaste life (as Courage supports) would not be enough. It seems more logical that the Magisterium’s call to chastity and separation of homosexual acts as sins contrasted with homosexual inclination, would mean that avoiding homosexual acts (and lust) would be sufficient in remaining in a state of grace (assuming all other mortal sins were forgiven). Or are you saying that the idolatry in question is a constant venial sin?

 

[goofyjim]

I feel I carry the cross of SSA well. To insist that we must go through therapy to change it when we cannot afford it is like saying we must be buy our way into heaven. Jesus has payed the price. As long as we are not sinning, which the inclination is clearly not sinning then we have every right to the eternal reward everyone else can expect.

Did everyone miss the gospel reading the other Sunday of the Pharisee and the publican? The publican’s prayer was heard because he made a connection with God. Having mercy means being able to feel another’s wretchedness. I see too many pharisaical approaches in this thread rather than merciful posts. I cannot make myself go bankrupt over therapy that may or may not work. I simply rely on prayer and live a chaste life despite having SSA.

 

[Other_Eric]

My apologies on the use of “continuously repeating.” You are correct that it is not accurate. My recollection was in regards to the teaching that inclination is not a sin, but not all documents on homosexuality mention the genesis of the inclination. One exception is the USCCB document (approved by the full body of bishops), *Ministry to Persons with a Homosexual Inclination:**Guidelines for Pastoral Care *(11/2006), which is fairly recent.

As far as the USCCB is concerned, their ignorance of the consensus with the community of those psychologists who do support Church teaching on this issue is hardly surprising. That body has an uneven history on this issue. Indeed, as evidenced by its fawning review of the homosexual propaganda film Brokeback Mountain, (1) it can be reasonably inferred that the USCCB has become unduly influenced by elements that do not take the Church’s teaching on sexuality seriously.

As for your continued waiting on the clear connection between idolatry and same-sex attractions, I will repeat, for your benefit, those quotes which demonstrate this connection:

In Sacred Scripture [homosexual acts] are condemned as a serious depravity and even presented as the sad consequence of rejecting God. (2)

and

Instead of the original harmony between Creator and creatures, the acute distortion of idolatry has led to all kinds of moral excess. Paul is at a loss to find a clearer example of this disharmony than homosexual relations. (3)

You may protest, as mlchance did, that these quotes refer to the sexual act, not the inclination and I respond, as I did before, that it is nonsensical to believe that the acts come from anywhere other than the inclination towards them. Further, this connection is not alien to other orthodox Catholics, such as Christopher West who has written at length from his own personal experience about the connection between idolatry and homosexuality. (4)

The issue surrounding this ethic of “chastity alone is enough” is that it is found nowhere. I doubt that there is anyone, even in Courage, who would agree that chastity alone is an affirmative defense against ongoing idolatry. Indeed, such a system is too easily conflated with mere sexual suppression. About this it has already been said

. . . one of the most dangerous forms of this unrealism is to think that one can live without sexuality. This is the old heresy of manicheism or albigensianism which long ago led to terrible sexual excesses on the part of those who sought to be absolutely pure. These misguided heretics are a reminder that one of the most dangerous sexual unrealisms is the pretense that humans can be angels. (5)

Since, in the man with same-sex attractions we are confronted at once with an individual who cannot use his sexuality nor separate himself from it, the only option we are left with is healing. Such healing is a necessary component of chastity, properly understood, and it is that virtue that all baptized Christians are called to.

(1) White, Hilary. “US Bishops’ Organization Gives Glowing Review of Homosexual-Sex Propaganda Film.” LifeSite. December 15, 2005. Available online at: lifesite.net/ldn/2005/dec/05121503.html

(2) Seper, Fanjo. Persona Humana: Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics. Vatican City: Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 1975. VIII. Available online at: vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19751229_persona-humana_en.html

(3) Ratzinger, Joseph. Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons. Rome: Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, October 1, 1986. §6. Available online at: vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html

(4) West, Christopher. Good News About Sex & Marriage: Answers to Your Honest Questions about Catholic Teaching. Cincinnati, OH: St. Anthony Messenger Press, 1997. pp. 154-155.

(5) Groeschel, Benedict J. The Courage to be Chaste. Mawah: Paulist Press, 1985. p. 35.

 

[goofyjim]

As far as the USCCB is concerned, their ignorance of the consensus with the community of those psychologists who do support Church teaching on this issue is hardly surprising. That body has an uneven history on this issue. Indeed, as evidenced by its fawning review of the homosexual propaganda film Brokeback Mountain, (1) it can be reasonably inferred that the USCCB has become unduly influenced by elements that do not take the Church’s teaching on sexuality seriously.

As for your continued waiting on the clear connection between idolatry and same-sex attractions, I will repeat, for your benefit, those quotes which demonstrate this connection:

and

You may protest, as mlchance did, that these quotes refer to the sexual act, not the inclination and I respond, as I did before, that it is nonsensical to believe that the acts come from anywhere other than the inclination towards them. Further, this connection is not alien to other orthodox Catholics, such as Christopher West who has written at length from his own personal experience about the connection between idolatry and homosexuality. (4)

The issue surrounding this ethic of “chastity alone is enough” is that it is found nowhere. I doubt that there is anyone, even in Courage, who would agree that chastity alone is an affirmative defense against ongoing idolatry. Indeed, such a system is too easily conflated with mere sexual suppression. About this it has already been said
Since, in the man with same-sex attractions we are confronted at once with an individual who cannot use his sexuality nor separate himself from it, the only option we are left with is healing. Such healing is a necessary component of chastity, properly understood, and it is that virtue that all baptized Christians are called to.

(1) White, Hilary. “US Bishops’ Organization Gives Glowing Review of Homosexual-Sex Propaganda Film.” LifeSite. December 15, 2005. Available online at: lifesite.net/ldn/2005/dec/05121503.html

(2) Seper, Fanjo. Persona Humana: Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics. Vatican City: Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 1975. VIII. Available online at: vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19751229_persona-humana_en.html

(3) Ratzinger, Joseph. Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons. Rome: Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, October 1, 1986. §6. Available online at: vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html

(4) West, Christopher. Good News About Sex & Marriage: Answers to Your Honest Questions about Catholic Teaching. Cincinnati, OH: St. Anthony Messenger Press, 1997. pp. 154-155.

(5) Groeschel, Benedict J. The Courage to be Chaste. Mawah: Paulist Press, 1985. p. 35.

Then provide the treatment affordably. Don’t bankrupt us.

 

[rlg94086]

As far as the USCCB is concerned, their ignorance of the consensus with the community of those psychologists who do support Church teaching on this issue is hardly surprising. That body has an uneven history on this issue. Indeed, as evidenced by its fawning review of the homosexual propaganda film Brokeback Mountain, (1) it can be reasonably inferred that the USCCB has become unduly influenced by elements that do not take the Church’s teaching on sexuality seriously.

As I haven’t seen anything from the Vatican that contradicts their pastoral advice, and it was approved by the complete body of Bishops - including some orthodox Bishops whom I respect, such as Archbishop Chaput - I will take their guidance. They definitely have more authority.

Regarding the “fawning review” of *Brokeback Mountain, *the USCCB’s reviewer did not give it an ‘L’ rating. You really should go to the source rather than taking another writer’s opinion:
usccb.org/movies/b/brokebackmountain.shtml

Use of the film as an advocacy vehicle to promote a morally objectionable message that homosexuality is equivalent to and as acceptable as heterosexuality does a disservice to its genuine complexity. While the actions taken by Ennis and Jack cannot be endorsed, the universal themes of love and loss ring true. The film creates characters of flesh and blood - not just the protagonists, but the wives, girlfriends, parents, and children – who give the film its artful substance.

However, the physicality of the men’s relationship and the film’s inherent sanctioning of their affair necessitate an O rating.
The film contains tacit approval of same-sex relationships, adultery, two short male sex scenes without nudity, two brief heterosexual encounters with upper female nudity, shadowy rear nudity, other implied sexual situations, profanity, rough and crude expressions, irreligious remarks, alcohol and brief drug use, fleeting violent images, a gruesome description of a murder, some fisticuffs and brief domestic violence. The USCCB Office for Film & Broadcasting classification is O – morally offensive. The Motion Picture Association of America rating is R – restricted.

Other Eric:

As for your continued waiting on the clear connection between idolatry and same-sex attractions, I will repeat, for your benefit, those quotes which demonstrate this connection:

and

You may protest, as mlchance did, that these quotes refer to the sexual act, not the inclination and I respond, as I did before, that it is nonsensical to believe that the acts come from anywhere other than the inclination towards them. Further, this connection is not alien to other orthodox Catholics, such as Christopher West who has written at length from his own personal experience about the connection between idolatry and homosexuality. (4)

I do protest, as I requested “clear teaching.” If it is as you say, you should be able to find a Bishop or theologian somewhere who explains it, rather than relying on a couple of snippets which you use to “demonstrate” your own personal conclusion. You and I have zero authority, so it is important that we identify if something is a personal opinion versus something clearly taught by the Church that we can back up.

 

[kidderdoc]

My opinion on gays? They are people just like the rest of us. They simply have a genetic variation which manifests itself in a way that makes heterosexuals uncomfortable.
For a clear and balanced commentary on scriptural references to homosexuality, see “What the Bible Really Says about Homosexuality” by D. A. Helminiak, Ph.D. Written by a Catholic author, it is based on the most recent scripture scholarship and is very enlightening.
The contention that all gays are called to celibacy is just naive in the extreme. Same sex “domestic unions” should be legal and encouraged by society in general for the good of all.

Matthew

PS An earlier poster wanted to know what the original poster meant by “I’m all for it.” In the context of the post, the antecedent for “it” may be “opinions.”

“Genetic”? Looks like someone has been drinking the bad cool-aid! What are your proofs that it is genetic, unless you are referring to the stain from original sin…

SS unions are disordered and a toddler can figure that out when he tries to fit the square peg into the round opening…common sense is not so common anymore.
:banghead:

 

[Other_Eric]

I do protest, as I requested “clear teaching.” If it is as you say, you should be able to find a Bishop or theologian somewhere who explains it, rather than relying on a couple of snippets which you use to “demonstrate” your own personal conclusion. You and I have zero authority, so it is important that we identify if something is a personal opinion versus something clearly taught by the Church that we can back up.

I suppose it is therefore your contention that the Church does not posess the authority to interperet Scripture and that you prefer your own views even to the clear writings of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and even Sacred Scripture. Having cast both of those sources aside as insufficient to merit a “clear teaching,” I doubt you would recognize the authority of any bishop or theologian who does not agree with your own, foregone, personal conclusion.

 

[Elric]

“Genetic”? Looks like someone has been drinking the bad cool-aid! What are your proofs that it is genetic, unless you are referring to the stain from original sin…

Are you suggesting that it isnt?

If so what do you believe to be the “cause” and what evidence do you have?

SS unions are disordered and a toddler can figure that out when he tries to fit the square peg into the round opening…common sense is not so common anymore.
:banghead:

I think there is a bit more to it than that.

 

[rlg94086]

I suppose it is therefore your contention that the Church does not posess the authority to interperet Scripture and that you prefer your own views even to the clear writings of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and even Sacred Scripture. Having cast both of those sources aside as insufficient to merit a “clear teaching,” I doubt you would recognize the authority of any bishop or theologian who does not agree with your own, foregone, personal conclusion.

What are you talking about?! You haven’t given a clear statement from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith or Scripture. You’ve taken two snippets from which you, Other Eric, drew a conclusion. My contention is that you don’t have the authority.

Try me. Quote a Bishop or theologian that clearly states the case and draws the same conclusion clearly. I challenge you to find one. So far, you have come up empty. I have quoted clear statements from the Catechism and the USCCB…both of which you dismissed btw. Talk about projection!

 

[kidderdoc]

Are you suggesting that it isnt?

If so what do you believe to be the “cause” and what evidence do you have?

I think there is a bit more to it than that.

No, it really is that simple…! It is our desires to make excuses for our sins that clouds the issues.
There is no proof of any genetic link. That person made the statement as a matter of fact and therefore has the burden of proof. :dts:

 

[Elric]

No, it really is that simple…! It is our desires to make excuses for our sins that clouds the issues.

Oh, and what do you base this on?

There is no proof of any genetic link.

There isnt any “proof” for any idea on where it originates, merely theories.

That person made the statement as a matter of fact and therefore has the burden of proof. :dts:

So did you.

Where do you believe it comes from?

 

[Pug]

It seems to me that entrance into heaven is predicated upon all of us overcoming the disordered appetites we are subject to. Whether success in this endeavor is achieved in this life or the next is irrelevant. What is important is that we begin working towards this goal now. For any of us to determine for ourselves that what we are doing is good enough and that there is no need to earnestly make efforts towards that ultimate goal, smacks of both presumption and sloth. There will always be those that attempt to excuse themselves from this obligation citing a long list of rationalizations custom-tailored to their own concupiscence but for those of us who wish to please the Lord, no difficulty ought delay us for a moment in carrying our appointed crosses.

“Overcoming” is not the same as getting “rid” of, at least to me. Overcoming suggests spiritual battle, which we must engage in, fighting the good fight, etc. You are right that we must overcome. We must endure to the end. All the baptized must struggle with concupiscence. We don’t get rid of it here, though. We won’t have it in heaven, of course.

**2520 **Baptism confers on its recipient the grace of purification from all sins. But the baptized must continue to struggle against concupiscence of the flesh and disordered desires. With God’s grace he will prevail

• by the *virtue *and gift of chastity, for chastity lets us love with upright and undivided heart;
• by purity of intention which consists in seeking the true end of man: with simplicity of vision, the baptized person seeks to find and to fulfill God’s will in everything;
• by purity of vision, external and internal; by discipline of feelings and imagination; by refusing all complicity in impure thoughts that incline us to turn aside from the path of God’s commandments: “Appearance arouses yearning in fools”;
• by prayer: I thought that continence arose from one’s own powers, which I did not recognize in myself. I was foolish enough not to know . . . that no one can be continent unless you grant it. For you would surely have granted it if my inner groaning had reached your ears and I with firm faith had cast my cares on you.