Enter your email address to receive updates by email:

subscribe in a reader like my facebook page follow me on twitter Image Map
Podcast Message Line: 512-222-3389
Logos Catholic Bible Software

« Certain People Will Never Be President | Main | Hello, Doctor »

September 29, 2006

Comments

Matthew S

Jimmy,
I would have to say that you have provided an excellent run of an answer. I spent two years in minor seminary before I got married to my wife and started a family. I too wish to aplaud the maturity that this person you are talking to is demonstrating. I wish everyone was this mature within 30 days after they arrived at seminary, their second year.

As to deep-rooted tendencies. Personally, just due to the fact that it is listed with supporting the homosexual culture. My understanding of a tendency is that it would be something that someone automatically does. Some type of an act that is routine to a person more than something one struggles with. If it was part of a person's "cultural" action to greet a man with a hug and a kiss on the mouth instead of using a manly hug or just a handshake.

As far as this person's dealing with SSA that is something hard to addrss without knowing his age. For me their would be lots of difference with someone that is younger (pubesence to mid-20's) rather than someone who is older developmentally and has been expressing SSA through their early 30's. The longer and later the expressing of SSA, the less chance their is to properly place into context the urgings of sexuality or hyper-sexuality. The other thing that this young man might consider going to is a Sexxaholic Anonymous meeting. Be weary when you walk in but if it is a good group of people, it could be very helpful.

Under the Mercy,
Matthew S.

Suzanne

This young man's frank discussion brought tears to my eyes! My prayers are with him. I pray that he becomes a priest--what a great confessor he would make!

chris K

Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons whom I listed below as a good source is scheduled to be on the Drew Mariani program on Relevant Radio today with one of the topics to be discussed - a new report on homosexuality!:

http://216.235.201.127/NETCOMMUNITY/Page.aspx?&pid=275&srcid=211

Leigh

In regards to adolescent crushes, I would add that they can actually be *exacerbated* by the unattainability of the person who is the object of the crush. The very fact that this person is forever beyond one's reach can make them even more a subject of romantic fantasizing. Psychologists are divided as to whether it's a process of the person's unattainability making it feel safer to fantasize about them by removing the risk of rejection, or whether their unattainability makes them more of a prize if only they *could* be won.

chris K

A couple of very helpful articles by another great therapist but could not remember his name earlier: Dr. Joseph Nicolosi

http://www.ldolphin.org/narth2.html

http://www.narth.com/docs/repair.html

I think another thing that the writer has to be keenly aware of is that there are many in the seminaries, not even just students, who also experience SSA. It may be worth considering whether one's own struggle with SSA might be affected by being in an environment where SSA is sometimes even tolerated as long as it is kept quiet. I know one seminarian who converted to Eastern Orthodoxy and is now an Orthodox priest. He was dead serious when he said that the reason why he converted was that he was "tired of being asked out by bishops". I would advise to be a little cautious about the potential environment you're going into. You will not be the only person struggling with SSA, and some of the others may not be trying as hard to keep it in check. I wish you well and pray that the Lord stands beside you in your struggle.

J.R. Stoodley

Perhaps if the SSA is not sufficiently remitted by the time this reader graduates college he could still take seminary or theology courses somewhere, while he continues his struggle. Then if he succeeds he can transfer into a real seminary program. Just a thought.

Mike

I agree with Jimmy's analysis.

I do believe that the reader may very well have a future vocation, but on a purely practical level, (1) The crush on the other male should be abated for a significant period of time, and (2) Seminary IS NOT the place to go to overcome SSA.

Since the reader is young, I suggest he not apply to seminary for a while. Perhaps, in the meantime, he can work on the SSA/maturity issues through counseling and further social interaction. In addition, he can work to develop his spiritual life through prayer and spiritual direction.

You need to do a lot of research and preparation for seminary. You need to know the culture of the seminary and you need to be familiar with the people who run it. The suffragan bishop who used to run our diocese's seminary went on record as supporting the ordination of women. His "reprimand" by our late former bishop was to remove him from his post at the seminary, but then he was given a Bible study show on diocesan TV. The last time I watched it, he had a professor from the state university argue the incontrovertible truth of evolution and the big bang.

So you have to be prepared for these kinds of things, unfortunately, in the Church today in North America. Be strong, pray incessantly, and keep your eyes and ears open.

Kris

Priest or not. This young man sounds like a damn good Catholic.

bill912

Amen, Kris.

Tim

A great and relevant post. Your responses, Jimmy, are the perfect use of the intellect. Good show.
May the Lord bless this young man in whatever he does.

Serafian

The young man seems intelligent and indeed a good Catholic.

The analysis of Jimmy Akin is good but too theoretical.

If one has SSA I would not recommend him for the Catholic priesthood. The Catholic priesthood has way to many homosexuals, and the seminary and current American priest culture would be an occasion of sin with this young man.
The homosexuals (active) need to be weeded out of the priesthood.

the seminary and current American priest culture would be an occasion of sin with this young man

You think it's any safer outside the seminary and priesthood?

I think it is safer outside seminary, because the broader culture is far more heterosexual, the Catholic Church subculture is more homosexual--sad but true

The internet changes all that.

Some Day

Out of love for the Christ, the Eternal High Priest, and for the Priesthood He instituted, don't risk tainting it. When you get through your temptations, then consider it again. What onefeels is not always the best indicator in all cases for vocation. Heck, if you let hormones and disordered passions even if they are hetersexual run crazy, not even then should you become a priest. Priests are supposed to be the best of the local Church. And right now might be the dark nights of your life. Offer it up.

J.R. Stoodley

I agree in the abstract that the priesthood has too many homosexuals, but that does not automatically mean that this young man is not called to the priesthood. He needs to focus on discerning his own personal vocation and deeling with his SSA.

Though I know nothing about this man beyond what is posted here, it sounds like he may really have a true vocation, he just needs to deel with this situation first. If it is God's will that he be a priest, God will give him the grace to overcome this impediment. Perhaps he will be all the more holy and chaste a priest for this struggle early in life.

When you get through your temptations, then consider it again

When is anyone through with temptations? The day you die.

Some Day

Yes I know, I mean the big danger of falling into them. As you get older, temptationss change or your old ones get worst. Especially sins of the flesh. But if you can not get over those inclinations than out of love and humility you will not enter the Priesthood, at least not at the momment. Sins of the flesh, whether hs or not, cannot be in the Priesthood. Unless you are sure and your superiors (I wouldn't consult an american seminary because they would ordain the anti-christ, maybe foreign priest here who is holy.) are certain you are spiritually strong enough to combat the temptations.

vitae

Some Day,
I may be misreading "Da Rulz" Jimmy has instituted for his blog, but Rule 20, as he posted at the bottom of his reply, states, "When Jimmy is answering a pastoral question (i.e., for a person asking about an actual that they or someone they know is involved in, as opposed to a hypothetical situation) that can be phrased in the form "Is it morally licit to do X?", do not contradict Jimmy in the comments box. People asking pastoral questions on moral subjects often feel very disoriented and confused if they get a debate rather than an answer on a sensitive question about a situation they, a friend, or a family member is involved in. "
I respectfully suggest that your first post, worded in the form of a reply to the young man struggling with SSA, comes perilously close to breaking Rule 20.

Eileen R

Ditto, vitae. I'm getting a bit tired of the armchair pastoralists here.

Plus, Some Day is just being an idiot. American seminaries would all ordain the Anti-Christ? Ah, wow.

Richard T

Not dealing with this specific pastoral question--But one of the reasons for the crisis in the Church is the takeover by homosexuals in the priesthood. I realize there are good people with so called SSA, but putting them into an American seminary and that environment is very bad

Margaret

Re-reading this fellow's letter, I am still deeply impressed. His first and foremost goal is to do the will of God-- everything else, including his own personal preferences and desires, is secondary. If the majority of our Catholic young people in this country were similarly focused, our vocational "crisis" would largely be solved, heterodox seminary doorkeepers notwithstanding...

John

Let us pray that if this young man enters the priesthood and does have a "slip up", and unlike normal heterosexual "slip ups", he does not do so with young males which seems to be the tendency of homosexual males and especially priests

Especially priests? I thought it was just Republican congressmen.

C

This brother in Christ has my sincere prayers. Obedience like this is the path to sainthood.

I am also a young Catholic who has had SSA in the past -- but to females. I would just like to tell the letter writer that the Lord has mostly taken away that tendency. I am now married to a wonderful Catholic man and have three beautiful children.

I am mildly tempted to dwell in memories from time to time (about once a year.) I just pray for strength to ignore them.

It can be overcome, especially while young. God bless you, and I encourage you to seek out Courage (www.couragerc.net), the Catholic apostolate for those trying to overcome SSA.

Rafael

SSA attraction is a disorder that disqualifies a person from the priesthood. The church has taught this for 2,000 years. The priesthood is a sacrament were certain disorders automatically disqualify men. Epilepsy is an example as well as SSA. A man with SSA tendencies can be a devout Catholic lay person, but cannot be another Christ in the priesthood.

Did you even bother to read what Jimmy posted?

bill912

Hey, Pope Rafael, read "DA RULZ"! Especially #s 1 and 20.

John

Rafael

Good post

One would think with close to $1B in pedophila monies, 3 bankrupt dioceses with NY, Boston and LA soon to come up for settlements-the church would just say NO to any candidate with homosexual tendencies as John XXIII in his 1961 instructions clearly stated but was ignored after the council in order to obtain the "liberal" and "open minded" priest the church then desired

bill912

John, You should read "DA RULZ", too.

Biaou Hector Achille

Father,
I'm a former seminarian and I stopped after 3rd year of Theology. I'm a Togolese but I studied in Ghana and I can speak english and french. I would to serve as a priest in ytour diocese. Could you help me please?
Mob number 00233242743412
Thanks

Michael

I am struck by, aside from being active in gay culture, how reasonable this recent document is if you substitute "homosexual tendencies" with "sexual lust" or some such other term. Men who are called to the priesthood are called to be chaste and I would hope that all men entering seminary would have overcome all lustful tendencies and have reached emotional sexual maturity.

And, if it is not in too much violation of rule 20, I would encourage an organization like Courage over NARTH. NARTH spreads vicious inaccuracies about homosexuality. Unlike Courage, NARTH attempts to repair SSA and replace it with OSA, rather than help the individual live chastely with SSA. It is a big difference.

bill912

There have already been 3 comments on this post cautioning certain people about Rule 20 violations. Yet we still have people violating Rule 20. It is located on the left-hand column, under the heading "PERMAPOSTS", specifically the post titled "DA RULZ".

John

Bill

I read rule 20-and I can only guess I did not phrase my post correct-would never challenge you or Mr Akin

My apologies

Matt McDonald

Michael,

there is a difference between SSA and and OSA. Any level of SSA is disordered. OSA is normal, only when it becomes lust does it become disordered. Placing men in an environment where they are in close contact with other men, when they have a problem with SSA is inherently a near occasion of sin that would not be a problem for a normal man. A further problem is that the concept of being a father is foreign to a person with SSA, making it difficult for the sufferer to relate properly with his congregation. This is the reasoning put forward by the Vatican.

Placing men in an environment where they are in close contact with other men, when they have a problem with SSA is inherently a near occasion of sin

According to posters on this blog, simply sitting in church is a near occasion of sin for many with OSA or SSA.

A further problem is that the concept of being a father is foreign to a person with SSA, making it difficult for the sufferer to relate properly with his congregation.

The concept of being a father is no more foreign to a person with SSA than to anyone else who is a priest.

Matt McDonald

Anon,

According to posters on this blog, simply sitting in church is a near occasion of sin for many with OSA or SSA.

Who said this?

The concept of being a father is no more foreign to a person with SSA than to anyone else who is a priest.

Not true, the idea of being a father doesn't require the experience of being a father. Being a man who is emotionally mature and healthy in his gender and sexual identity will make one able to understand the concept of fatherhood. At least that's what the Holy See says about it, and I agree. Don't you?

Some Day

Plus, Some Day is just being an idiot. American seminaries would all ordain the Anti-Christ? Ah, wow.

Ok maybe I worded it like an idiot, but the message is the same. I have numerous time seen cases in which a seminarian has denied th Divinity of Our Lord, the issue been brought before the bishop by PRIESTS of his own diocese and he says what can we do about it , we'll have no new priests in years. Instances where priests themselves have said that being a priest is easy, that when he looked for a CAREER that is easy and requires little work, he found the Priesthood.
Garanteed job, pay, vacation, freebees and oh, having a "female friend"is no problem is ok as long as no one finds out. Not to mention "male friends.". Sorry, but that will result in very bad things. One of them being that the Eucharist will not be confected as a result of the denial of Christ's Divinity, ergo no belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. And so on and so on. Uh, maybe not The Anti-Christ, but people who are not other Christs in the world but anti-christ in all respects.
And not to mention the things they are learning in a seminary here in the US. I am not a seminarian yet, nor am I even in University, yet what I have been taught and read leaves the seminarians look like remidial students. And that is not becuase of my great studies, but rather the lack of it on their part. They leave expert econamists rather that saintly priests.

Roamin' Roman

No offense Some Day, but the seminarians I know are more like medieval students, not remedial students - as in, incredibly competent philosophers in the spirit of Aquinas and theologians with a depth of understanding from the writings of Benedict XVI all the way back to the Fathers of the Church and beyond - not to mention the Bible itself! Plus, they can find words they don't know how to spell in dictionaries!

Your view of the Church is just as biased as those who see a pedophile priest and see the entire Church as being that priest. You apparently are seeing one situation in one diocese, which, sad as it is, is NOT the "norm" in the United States. There are many, many, solid and good seminaries in our country, and the one that I know the best is also the largest college seminiary - chock full of manly men who are zealous mission-minded Catholics. In fact, I would not hesitate to suggest that the reader who wrote Jimmy should look into the possibility of requesting to go to this seminary to discern his vocation further, BECAUSE of its truly "Theology of the Body" understanding of the all-male priesthood. The seminary in question? St. John Vianney College Seminary, on the University of St. Thomas campus in St. Paul Minnesota (the seminary that was proud to stand up for Ben Kessler, when even the university itself was upset with his bold statements at last year's commencement speech). Check them out on the web at http://www.vianney.net and send this info on to all the young men you know who are discerning the priesthood, particularly those who might be struggling to discern in a diocese with the problems like Some Day has become clouded over by.

God bless all of you, particularly the reader who submitted this to Jimmy - may our Lord show you clearly the path He desires you to travel upon!! And if it is indeed the priesthood, may His Spirit give you all the grace and strength you need to fulfill His holy will! Our Lady, Queen of the Clergy, Queen of Confessors, pray for him!

Roamin' Roman

By the way, see this reprint of a great article written on SJV seminary recently (by the Minneapolis Star-Tribune of all places!) - http://www.vianney.net/content.asp?id=221

Roamin' Roman

Ok, my last point - I just came across this, and it was just too coincidental to pass up... read this. :) Ok, I'm through, good night!!

Some Day

I know the errors of some or even the majority do not represent the Church. But you cannot deny the crisis the Church is in today. Read the profesies of Our Lady of La Sallete. See what was said by Our Lady, in a CHURCH APPROVED APPARITION. See what she said of the priests of today. And what will happen to them. I know there are good priests out there and some good bishops too. Even here in the US. I know many Orders that have plenty of vocations. Look at this site:
www.heralds.ca

or

http://www.arautos.org.br/defaultb.asp

Tell me those aren't saintly vocations.
And they have over 300 seminarians under 18 in just one of the seminaries in Brazil.
That is an example of the True Church.
And a good part of problems in the seminary is that they start too old. They need to start in High School. And since the American bishops didn't like it, well there goes the numbers and quality of the vocations.
Ergo...

Some Day

Interestingly, the Diocese of Sioux Falls has 12 of their seminarians studying and discerning at the St John Vianney College Seminary in St Paul. I would guess that you could guess what Father Mason thinks about our SJV!


Twelve? That is such a wonderful number. They are trying to stick to the original numbers of apostles I guess. I feel sorry for the VAST numbers they must reject to keep it at twelve.
Meo Deus.

the idea of being a father doesn't require the experience of being a father. Being a man who is emotionally mature and healthy in his gender and sexual identity will make one able to understand the concept of fatherhood.

Exactly, as demonstrated by innumerable gay men who are successful priests or biological fathers.

Some Day

You misunderstood anon.
I would call you a fruit but I don't know you.
Now back to seriousness, that statement is to be interpreted as "you don't need to be a father yet to know how it should be done."
Not be an abominable person and your ok.
I am not a father, yet I know the way father should be, because it is in the moral ideas and insticts of a decent, Catholic male.
And the innumerable gay men are successfully, as you said, leading from the pulpit to Hell and their children as well. Yes, evil is good at what it does.

Gay people are not abominable persons. May the Spirit of Christ drive that message home to you Some Day.

as demonstrated by innumerable gay men who are successful priests or biological fathers.

Not to mention, the innumerable gay men and women who are also wonderful adoptive parents, foster parents, mentors, volunteers and more.

Some Day

Are you a homosexual?
Homosexuality is a sin.
And so is being a normal person and being lustful.
So you cannot be a good person and be a hs.
Because a good person does not go about sinning in such a grave manner. It is even against nature for that to happen. So please, making statements without backing them up and of that nature make you sould A)stupid B)soft C)wierd to say the least.

Homosexuality is a sin. And so is being a normal person and being lustful. So you cannot be a good person and be a hs.

Just as "normal" people can be good persons, so can gay people be good persons. And just as "normal" people can misbehave, so can gay people misbehave. Gay people are not bad because they experience same sex sexual attraction, as it is not a sin to experience same sex sexual attraction. So you can be a homosexual, i.e. a person who primarily experiences same sex sexual attraction, and be a good person.

vitae

Some Day, please read some of Jimmy's previous posts on homosexuality (you can get them via the links on the left sidebar). I think you might learn a bit about differentiating homosexual orientation from homosexual acts (if you do know the difference, it doesn't come through in your most recent post), as well as how to be charitable in discussing these issues. By charitable, I don't mean you have to agree with everything that is said, but I do think Jimmy has outlined rules for civility on his blog (see Da Rulz, Rule #1). And if you accuse others of not backing up their statements, be prepared to back up your own (e.g., "so you cannot be a good person and be a homosexual"). Thank God for the sacrament of penance, for those of us who occasionally do sin in "grave manners..."

I know that posters on this blog have cut you slack in the past for being young and perhaps a bit impetuous in what you say, and also that I believe English may not be your first language, but zeal and charity need not be mutually exclusive...

Some Day

Homosexuals do not include those tempted by it.
Only those who fall in it. A saint is not a lustful person because he is tempted by sins of the flesh, but is a saint in dening them
And I cracking on the ones who are "gay and proud"
not the ones tempted by it. And this anon has not backed up statements issues by him/her with moral documents.
And I simply won't back down from a proud person taunting with sinful ideas on a Catholic blog.

vitae

FWIW, I don't think the anonymous poster was taunting anyone. Also FWIW, I don't think all statements can be backed up with "moral documents." As Jimmy has noted in previous posts, discussion on this issue can sometimes devolve into less-than-civil discourse because definitions are not stated clearly. For example, I thought you were using the term "homosexual" to include those with same-sex attraction; evidently, you were not so using the term. Similarly, the anonymous poster may be using the term "gay" in a way that you assume means "gay and proud," but that person may not mean that; he or she may mean someone with same-sex attraction. But like I said, that's just my two-cents' worth...

Homosexuals do not include those tempted by it. Only those who fall in it.

The English language may be your weakness Some Day. In English, a homosexual is a homosexual person, and a homosexual person is a person who primarily experiences same sex sexual attraction. One can be a homosexual person and not engage in forbidden acts, just as one can be a heterosexual person and not engage in forbidden acts.

A saint is not a lustful person because he is tempted by sins of the flesh, but is a saint in dening them.

One can be a homosexual person and not be controlled by lust every bit as much as one can be a heterosexual person and not be controlled by lust. A homosexual person can be a saint.

And I cracking on the ones who are "gay and proud"

A person can be "gay and proud" and be quite chaste. What many gay people mean when they speak of pride is that they are not going to allow society to shame them for being gay, for having a sexual orientation they do not choose. Some take pride further than that, to say they will not be shamed for engaging in homosexual acts. The Church itself warns against generalizations in judging individual cases, and circumstances may exist, or may have existed in the past, which would reduce or remove the culpability of the individual in a given instance.

And this anon has not backed up statements issues by him/her with moral documents.

Is compassion for others not written on your heart? Why not look there first. If you can't find it there, ask God.

I simply won't back down from a proud person taunting with sinful ideas on a Catholic blog.

Neither will the hounds of Hell back down. Maybe you should consider a change of heart, if God permits.

Some Day

For hating evil I'll go to Hell?
If I am worthy of Hell I garantee you it won't be for that. In the English language, there is many ways to look at the same word. Let us use it in moral terms and not in square terms. Saints are not homosexuals, saints may be tempted to homosexuality, but will never fall in them.
To be plagued by temptations is not a sin. To indulge in them, even by fantasies is a sin.
"Gay and Proud"is a sin because you are proud of a defective inclination. And you praise it as well. A hs tendencial person is called to the same thing as a normal lustful person, vigilance and prayer,and sometimes in greater degree because hs is contrary even to natural insticts, therefore requires greater action against it.

Please, I am not incompationate. A person like the one who asked Mr.Jimmy this question seems to be a good person. He has a defect and combats it.
Not embraces it and nurtures it. That is the Catholic attitude, and I will gladly help a brother in Christ who fights this battle. Now a person who is hs, and sins openly, freely and proudly, I wish for their conversion, but if not, I will consider them enemies of God and worthy of polemics, to a greater or lesser degree.

In the English language, there is many ways to look at the same word... "Gay and Proud"is a sin because you are proud of a defective inclination.

Just as you said, there are many ways to look at words. You have an uncompassionate, uncharitable view of the phrase "gay and proud." As I have explained to you, it is neither a sin for someone to be "gay" nor is it a sin for a person to be "proud", i.e. not be ashamed, of his/her sexual orientation. It can be a sin, however, for you to try to make them feel ashamed of it.

Seemingly, it disturbs you to hear the phrase "gay and proud." Perhaps you should hear it more often, until the charity buried within you can come in touch with it.

Saints are not homosexuals, saints may be tempted to homosexuality, but will never fall in them.

There is no rule that says a saint can only be heterosexual. Homosexuality, like heterosexuality, as a sexual orientation, is not simply something you're tempted to "fall" into. As a sexual orientation, it's a part of you. It is more than just about evil temptations, more than just forbidden sex acts. It's a way of appreciation as well.

anontoo

As I have explained to you, it is neither a sin for someone to be "gay" nor is it a sin for a person to be "proud", i.e. not be ashamed, of his/her sexual orientation.

Except that one must differentiate between just the recognition in one's self of a homosexual orientation or inclination and the personal acceptance of the label, "gay". Two different personal realities. The experienced therapists who offer their assistance to those of the former do so BECAUSE he recognizes the distance between the two realities and desires to distance himself from the latter definition of persons, knowing all that that entails for his spiritual, physical and psychological welfare. When one wishes to spin around those realities one is hiding from the truth of the dangers involved and thus doing himself grave harm while covering it over with accusations against those who bravely face them. One then gives into the sin involved and the other fights the good fight ... just as in any other serious inclination that may exist in others of our fellow men.

Some Day

See, anontoo got it.
"Gay and proud"never refers to those who combat the inclinations, but to those who give in and announce it.

Chris Molter

I think the Church made a booboo when it accepted the use of the terms homosexual and heterosexual. I know they're convenient labels, but they're ontologically inaccurate from a Catholic point of view.

one must differentiate between just the recognition in one's self of a homosexual orientation or inclination and the personal acceptance of the label, "gay".

According to the dictionary of the English language, the word "gay", aside from meaning merry, bright and lively, means homosexual. When used as a noun, it means a homosexual, a homosexual person. Therefore, the word "gay" and "homosexual" are synonymous. If you are gay, it means you have a same sex sexual orientation, that you are a homosexual person. The Church itself, in its own choice of words, speaks of "homosexual persons," i.e. gays, gay persons.

If you're attempting to suggest that by accepting the label "gay" you're denying the possibility that you may someday not be gay, that is ludicrous. It's as silly as saying if you accept that you're happy, you're denying you might not always be happy. Most people who accept that they are gay today know that it could change, just as the Church knows that for many people being gay is NOT simply a trial. Indeed, for many if not most gay people, they had accepted that they were straight, and later discovered that they were not. They know firsthand the very possibility of change, and that acceptance of being straight or gay or whatever does not mean that it's necessarily fixed and final.

Accepting that you are gay today does not require that one ignore the possibility that one might not always be so, nor the possibility that one may continue to be gay for the rest of one's natural life. Accepting that one is gay does not preclude the possibility for change, and therefore it does not rule out the avenue of therapy for those who may seek it in the hope of change.

One then gives into the sin involved and the other fights the good fight

That is utter hogwash. Accepting that you are gay no more means you're going to engage in sin than accepting you're heterosexual means you're going to engage in sin. It's simply nonsense to believe that.

"Gay and proud"never refers to those who combat the inclinations, but to those who give in and announce it.

Gay pride is the refusal to give in to false shame. It is not shameful to be gay, to experience a same sex sexual orientation. Refusing to give in to false shame does NOT mean one does not combat sin. To the contrary, gay pride refuses to submit to the ignorance that you seek to impose. It is NOT necessary to fight the orientation itself in order to combat sin. The orientation is not sinful. Acceptance of a homosexual orientation does not necessitate acceptance of sin, any more than acceptance of heterosexuality necessitates acceptance of sin.

I think the Church made a booboo when it accepted the use of the terms homosexual and heterosexual. I know they're convenient labels, but they're ontologically inaccurate from a Catholic point of view.

Labels are like price tags. They can change, and even be removed. They are conceptual tools for understanding, steps along the path, and not the destination. The use of labels for teaching purposes is appropriate.

Matt

Accepting that you are gay no more means you're going to engage in sin than accepting you're heterosexual means you're going to engage in sin.

Homosexuality is objective disordered, heterosexuality is ordered. This disorder orients the victim towards sinful behaviour. There is something wrong with being sexually attracted to members of the same sex, there is nothing wrong with being sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex unless it goes to the level of a sin against chastity. Homosexual feelings should not be fostered, they are not healthy. Heterosexual feelings should be fostered (not to the extent of lust), they are healthy.

If you don't understand the common meaning of "gay pride" - go to a "gay pride" parade... tell me there's nothing sinful going on.

Homosexuality is objective disordered

In the words of the Church, "A distinction must be made between a tendency that can be innate and acts of homosexuality that 'are intrinsically disordered' and contrary to Natural Law."

heterosexuality is ordered

Not true. Heterosexual masturbation is disordered. Indeed, many heterosexual acts can be disordered. It's selfishness that makes sex disordered.

This disorder orients the victim towards sinful behaviour.

A homosexual orientation no more orients a person toward sinful behavior than does a heterosexual orientation. There are many people with a homosexual orientation who are no more inclined to sin than yourself or anyone else.

There is something wrong with being sexually attracted to members of the same sex

It is not morally wrong to be sexually attracted to members of the same sex. The attraction is not chosen, and there is or can be more, much more, that surrounds and extends from such attraction than simply genital sex acts. Therefore, to simply lump all that homosexuality relates to into a box labeled "wrong" is wrong.

Homosexual feelings should not be fostered, they are not healthy.

Nonsense. In the words of the Church, "when human sexuality is not regarded as a great value given by the Creator, the renunciation of it for the sake of the kingdom of heaven loses its meaning." Human sexuality, whether it be heterosexuality or homosexuality, is more than simply genital sex acts. Again, to quote the Church, "According to contemporary scientific research, the human person is so profoundly affected by sexuality that it must be considered as one of the factors which give to each individual's life the principal traits that distinguish it."

To quote the USCCB's Bishops' Committee on Marriage and Family's statement on homosexuality, prepared in cooperation with the Bishops' Doctrine Committee and the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "Like all gifts from God, the power and freedom of sexuality can be channeled toward good or evil." Sexual feelings, whether heterosexual or homosexual, can be channeled toward good or evil. Homosexual feelings can be a tremendous driving force toward good, and are thus healthy. And homosexual feelings, like heterosexual feelings, can also drive a person to sin.

Heterosexual feelings should be fostered (not to the extent of lust), they are healthy.

Heterosexual lust, fornication, rape, masturbation, adultery, etc. are all products of heterosexual feelings.

If you don't understand the common meaning of "gay pride" - go to a "gay pride" parade... tell me there's nothing sinful going on.

I understand fully well your limited mindset. It's quite common. It's akin to thinking Christmas is what you see on TV, or that independence is what you see at an Independence Day parade, or that Christianity is what you find on CBN. It's a juvenile understanding. If you can't see beyond your own limited perspective, that's your limitation.

anontoo

Therefore, the word "gay" and "homosexual" are synonymous.

Even the dictionary notes that one is contained in the other but certainly not synonymous ... especially when describing the actual difference within the culture. All gays certainly include the homosexual inclination but also involve the whole lifestyle in action. But not all homosexuals would describe themselves as gay - as in real time within the culture - which would prove them correct. The reality of the actual living out is what we are discussing here. And your spinning of Church teachings does nothing more than evolve into your own personal church but does not imply or describe the Church's understanding in any manner of Truth. And, sad to say, that is what so often gets distorted - the Truth - when one wishes to rationalize behavior that simply is against the natural/moral order ... in any addiction that results in an incomplete and twisted activity . Every other disorder within the sexual realm that was cited above has within itself its own rationale for not correcting once one has given into it. And the more the sin is indulged in, the more it latches on to the physical/chemical reactions and the greater is the tendency to justify it - even while at least unconsciously recognizing that one is abusing one's own health - mentally, spiritually, psychologically and physically.

All gays certainly include the homosexual inclination but also involve the whole lifestyle in action. But not all homosexuals would describe themselves as gay

There are many homosexuals who openly participate in "gay pride" who would choose words other than "gay" to describe themselves. That doesn't mean they're not gay or that they're not celebrating gay pride. They're celebrating it.

And I laugh when people refer to "the culture" and "the whole lifestyle", as if there's one culture or lifestyle which defines all of gay. Gay people engage in a wide variety of lifestyles, as do heterosexuals.

The reality of the actual living out is what we are discussing here.

Yes, so why limit reality to your narrow perspective?

And your spinning of Church teachings does nothing more than evolve into your own personal church but does not imply or describe the Church's understanding in any manner of Truth.

That's your spin on the matter, but it's not the Truth.

the more the sin is indulged in, the more it latches on to the physical/chemical reactions and the greater is the tendency to justify it - even while at least unconsciously recognizing that one is abusing one's own health - mentally, spiritually, psychologically and physically.

Isn't that wonderful? How very frustrating that must be, yet ultimately, it's all part of God's plan. As the Bible teaches, "The creation is subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God." There are many examples of people who've been saved after years, decades of abuse. What a great teacher! What an experience of self-discovery!

God has bound all men over to disobedience so that He may have mercy on them all. The sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. To his own master a man stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

anontoo

They're celebrating it.

And the definition of that "it" makes all the difference. Many with homosexual inclinations are not "celebrating" and to force them into your own bigger cultural closet leaves out their own private rights to differ from such promotion. It's kind of like exaggerating any population for the sake of salesmanship of a particular ideology. They've done that with the Church scandal in order to outwardly attempt to discredit all of the priesthood and destroy the Body of Christ. Again, the Truth gets lost for the people of good will. When the Truth is distorted it can only create a culture of death, not life.

There are many examples of people who've been saved after years, decades of abuse.

So then we agree! Self abuse is included one would naturally assume. Then, in order for such saving grace to continue to work one must keep one's self from those now recognized occasions of sin. On the one hand reading your selections one would believe that you look to that available saving grace ... but perhaps without the action of personal responsibility of involvement of the free will? One must act as well, through prayer and other means of staying on the narrow road if that "help is on the way" is ever to arrive for him personally. Gay pride parades, etc. don't offer such an environment - but rather they serve to promote the continuation of such abuse as somehow a kind of good. Just as the word "gay" has been twisted, so too the word "pride" ... IF such scenes are meant to depict the dignity of each's humanity ... or is that dignity to be discarded in order for the new definition of "pride" to work?!! You seem to imply by your personal selections that it is God's will for man to sin. God never wills that man sin but, if he does, to humbly come to ask for the grace of forgiveness with a disposition of working against the sin in the future. That is what makes heaven rejoice. What good is that Mercy you mention if it is never accepted??!!

Jeannette

This young man made me realize that some of the greatest saints are unknown on earth, who struggle heroically and quietly against evil.

He should remember that this isn't just about him, though, and whether he can resist temptations at seminary. It isn't fair to the other seminarians, that he would be trying to resist his attraction to them..

Tim J.

"Homosexual feelings can be a tremendous driving force toward good"

For intstance...?

Homosexual feelings are feelings of sexual attraction to members of the same sex. This is intrinsically disordered, just as feelings of sexual attraction to children are intrinsically disordered. Should one be proud of being sexually attracted to children? Should one celebrate that sexual "orientation"?

Let me put it this way, so I will not be accused of hypocrisy; I sometimes have feelings of sexual attraction to women who are not my wife. It is my moral duty to suppress these feelings as much as possible, to avoid (as far as practical) occasions where I might be tempted, and it is certainly my duty to make certain that I never, ever act on these feelings.

It would be wrong for me even to allow the appearance that I was acting on these feelings.

With God's grace, more and more, I have found this possible.

J.R. Stoodley

Heterosexual feelings should be fostered (not to the extent of lust), they are healthy.

Heterosexual lust, fornication, rape, masturbation, adultery, etc. are all products of heterosexual feelings.

It is clear that Matt was not refering to temptations to lust, fornication, etc. with that sentence. He was refering to attraction to people of the opposite sex. You should not suppress attraction to your spouce, but rather strive to keep it alive. Likewise us single people should not try to repress our attraction to certain people. That attraction is there to make future marriage possible. If I were to squelch any feelings for a girl I like I will definitely never get married (not that I personally likely will but that is another matter).

Heterosexual feelings thus can be quite healthy. Homosexual feelings on the other hand are disordered and can not be positive.

That is also the reason why quoting the Church on the value of human sexuality does not work in defending homosexuality. Human sexuality is properly heterosexual. When it has become homosexual, or pediophylic or beastialic (I probably just made up those two words) it has become disordered. To what degree it may retain some positive psycological function I don't know, but the specific orientation is a problem, which should be corrected if possible.

ps. It would be nice if some of you could pray for me a little. I'm in the difficult situation of feeling more and more for one of my best frieds and I'm afraid it is going to get weird.

Inocencio

J.R. Stoodley,

You are in my prayers. St. Francis of Assisi pray for us!

"Sanctify yourself and you will sanctify society."-St. Francis

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

J.R. Stoodley

Thanks Inocencio. I hope you are doing well. Havn't seen you around here for a while.

Oh, just to be 100% clear, I am male and the friend in question is female.

J.R. Stoodley

Steve T., you know who you are, if you happen across this I bet you will know who I'm talking about but I FORBID you to tell her or anyone.

J.R. Stoodley

Do seminarians ever share rooms? That could be another complication for this guy, even if he does get his homosexual inclinations pretty much under control.

ps. Steve, keep Jared away from her. I'm not being jealous here. You don't know the half of what he has tried to do. "Sketchy" is the understatement of the century.

Many with homosexual inclinations are not "celebrating"

Yes, many are still living in the shame of ignorance, suffering with the false belief that their sexuality is sinful.

to force them into your own bigger cultural closet leaves out their own private rights to differ from such promotion.

I don't force anyone into any closet. If you enjoy stereotyping people into boxes, then that's your game.

On the one hand reading your selections one would believe that you look to that available saving grace ... but perhaps without the action of personal responsibility of involvement of the free will?

Jesus said to his disciples, "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me." But not everyone knows or agrees what that means, and they won't know until God opens their minds. As Paul says, "It does not, therefore, depend upon a person's will or effort, but upon God's mercy." Those who understand, understand. Those who do not, do not. Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls.

Gay pride parades, etc. don't offer such an environment - but rather they serve to promote the continuation of such abuse as somehow a kind of good.

God is everywhere. God can be found, revealed in any and every environment. Gay pride parades are an excellent environment for it. I never fail to find God there.

Just as the word "gay" has been twisted, so too the word "pride" ... IF such scenes are meant to depict the dignity of each's humanity

One of the common meanings for the word "pride" is "a reasonable or justifiable self-respect." It is reasonable for a person to respect his/her sexual orientation, even if you don't like it or understand it. The word pride is also an antonym for the false shame that many experience.

Yes, you can go to various gay pride parades and likely see some rather unusual sights. Some take it to extremes while many do not. That's diversity on display. It's a festivity, much like another common celebration before Lent.

You seem to imply by your personal selections that it is God's will for man to sin.

Is that what you think I've said? Man's salvation is in God's hands. He has mercy upon whom He wills, and He hardens whom He wills. Has God not the right to make one vessel for a noble purpose and another for an ignoble one? Or to reveal the purpose of any vessel however, whenever He so desires?

That is what makes heaven rejoice.

The Father celebrates with the fatted calf for the son who returns home after squandering his inheritance in sin.

What good is that Mercy you mention if it is never accepted??!!

What good is it to a person upon whom it hasn't (yet) been bestowed? No one can come to God unless God draws him. "It was not you who chose me, but I who chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit that will remain."

Homosexual feelings are feelings of sexual attraction to members of the same sex. This is intrinsically disordered

The disorder is in the misunderstanding, the misapplication. As such, even heterosexuality can be disordered, even sexuality between husband and wife. However, when the driving force of sexuality is directed towards unity, a search for understanding, for God, it is a good. Even hitting your head against a brick wall can be seen as a good in the sense that it offers direction.

Should one be proud of being sexually attracted to children? Should one celebrate that sexual "orientation"?

Sexual attraction of any and every kind is a force, a power. It is how that power is used that determines whether it's for good or for evil. It is false to believe that sexual attraction for children can only serve evil. Sexual attraction is not a servant. It is a force, a power. When that power is directed back to its source, it's a return ticket to God.

It is my moral duty to suppress these feelings... to make certain that I never, ever act on these feelings.

It's my moral duty fully engage them as fuel for the return trip to God. As such, they are not to be suppressed, except to the extent that one has misunderstood their purpose.

Some Day

That is it. You are very close if not already in mortal sin ANON!
Gay pride parades are a great place to find God!
That is blasphemy!
And you say its a great place like you have participated. It is almost assumable that you are in sin because you have made it a public statement and are persistant in not only believing but advocating it.
Please if you disagree with the Church and the Laws instituted by God, then don't write in a blog were everyone is a Catholic and believes and follows God's law.

Brother Cadfael

As such, they are not to be suppressed, except to the extent that one has misunderstood their purpose.

Uh, let me suggest, charitably of course, that you have most definitely misunderstood their purpose.

I

Gay pride parades are a great place to find God! That is blasphemy!

Do you deny God is everywhere? Do you think He's hiding?

And you say its a great place like you have participated. It is almost assumable that you are in sin because you have made it a public statement and are persistant in not only believing but advocating it.

I parade with Jesus, hand in hand, in tender embrace, with no shame whatsoever.

Please if you disagree with the Church and the Laws instituted by God, then don't write in a blog were everyone is a Catholic and believes and follows God's law

Who opposes God's law? He commands me to love homosexuals.

Uh, let me suggest, charitably of course, that you have most definitely misunderstood their purpose.

There is but one purpose, to serve, to love God, to love neighbor as oneself. I work to turn everything to that purpose, even that which you detest.

Some Day

I detest sin and even the sinful attitudes and vice within myself.
I don't detest a person who is faithfuly fighting the disorderly passions within him.
Now what is the difference between "gay pride"and I am not ashamed that I have defects like everyone else? That "gay pride" does not want to get rid of vice but to normalize it, and the fighting sinner wants to defeat his own defects, not give in.

I

Now what is the difference between "gay pride"and I am not ashamed that I have defects like everyone else?

Gays are alienated, segregated, abused, labeled as "disordered", defective, ill and other derogatory terms which do not reflect their true glory as human beings. This happens at the hands of their family, church, peers, society at large in numbers which exceed those for heterosexuals. They resort to "pride" as an antidote to the shame heaped upon them and the abuse, which the members of the Church have participated in under the color of the Church, to include the coverup and failure to address the issue of child molestations.

That "gay pride" does not want to get rid of vice but to normalize it, and the fighting sinner wants to defeat his own defects, not give in.

Many gays are simply sick of being picked upon. You act as if gays have some special duty which heterosexuals are exempt from. What gays do is no more disordered or sinful than what billions of heterosexuals do everyday and which doesn't get a tenth the zing. Many gays are trying to get their lives in order, make something out of a stressful, confusing mess that's been dumped upon them. You have a very large chance to choose a wife and get married. They do not. You can publicly express yourself with someone of the opposite sex in ways that if they did the same nonsinful thing, you would be disgusted. You want them to live in the cage that you built for them, and by so doing, you disrespect them as human beings.

Don't do that, suffer, so what if you have to live alone in perpetual virginity with no partner to care for you in sickness and bad times, so what if we vote down every option which provides societal support for your well-being, you're a freak and if you're not going to become heterosexual, too bad for you. Get out of my sight... That's the message many of them hear, and to drown it out, they have a parade or whatever.

Mary Kay

Pipe, your 6:33 post confirmed what I had sorted out, that words like "gay" and "pride" are chosen to counteract "shamed based" feelings.

There are several inconsistencies in your logic, but it's too late here to address most of them. The biggest one is "no one else suffers like I/we do."

I

The biggest one is "no one else suffers like I/we do."

Those are your words, not mine, a projection of your bias upon what was written. At no time did I say or suggest that "no one else" suffers in similar ways or as much. I referred to two general groups, homosexuals and heterosexuals. For your reference...

Reports of parental maltreatment during childhood in a United States population-based survey of homosexual, bisexual, and heterosexual adults.
Child Abuse Neglect, Nov. 2002
Department of Epidemiology, UCLA School of Public Health

OBJECTIVE: The study objective was to determine the nature and prevalence of childhood maltreatment experiences among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults and to compare findings to those obtained from similar heterosexual adults.

METHOD: Data from the National Survey of Midlife Development in the United States (MIDUS), which measured both childhood experiences with parental emotional and physical maltreatment and adult sexual orientation, were used to compare childhood maltreatment experiences of 2,917 heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual individuals, age 25-74 years, separately by gender.

RESULTS: Homosexual/bisexual men reported higher rates than heterosexual men of childhood emotional and any physical maltreatment (including major physical maltreatment) by their mother/maternal guardian and major physical maltreatment by their father/paternal guardian. In contrast, homosexual/bisexual women, as compared to heterosexual women, reported higher rates of major physical maltreatment by both their mother/maternal guardian and their father/ paternal guardian. Differences among individuals with differing sexual orientations were most pronounced for the more extreme forms of physical maltreatment.

CONCLUSIONS: Adult minority sexual orientation is a risk indicator for positive histories of experiencing parental maltreatment during childhood. While the reasons for this are beyond the scope of the current study, previous research suggests that childhood individual differences, including possibly gender atypicality, may be a causal factor.

=============================================

Mental health correlates of perceived discrimination among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults in the United States.
American Journal of Public Health, Nov. 2001
Department of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles

OBJECTIVES: Recent studies suggest that lesbians and gay men are at higher risk for stress-sensitive psychiatric disorders than are heterosexual persons. We examined the possible role of perceived discrimination in generating that risk.

METHODS: The National Survey of Midlife Development in the United States, a nationally representative sample of adults aged 25 to 74 years, surveyed individuals self-identifying as homosexual or bisexual (n = 73) or heterosexual (n = 2844) about their lifetime and day-to-day experiences with discrimination. Also assessed were 1-year prevalence of depressive, anxiety, and substance dependence disorders; current psychologic distress; and self-rated mental health.

RESULTS: Homosexual and bisexual individuals more frequently than heterosexual persons reported both lifetime and day-to-day experiences with discrimination. Approximately 42% attributed this to their sexual orientation, in whole or part. Perceived discrimination was positively associated with both harmful effects on quality of life and indicators of psychiatric morbidity in the total sample. Controlling for differences in discrimination experiences attenuated observed associations between psychiatric morbidity and sexual orientation.

CONCLUSIONS: Higher levels of discrimination may underlie recent observations of greater psychiatric morbidity risk among lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals.

=======================

Parental physical abuse and sexual orientation in males.
Archives Sexual Behavior, June 1989
Sociology Department, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb

Gay males were found to have been more abused during adolescence. Abuse was related to a history of childhood femininity, to having poor relationships with fathers, and to having engaged in gay sex during adolescence. A history of childhood femininity and engaging in gay sex may provoke parental abuse.

Some Day

Is it abuse to give a sound punishment when a child is out of line?
Esspecially when they aren't "straight"?
Pun intended.

Tim J.

Anon, I would bet that all this would be more or less equally true of adolescent alcoholics, petty thieves or those with what they call "anger management" issues. The difference is that nobody has yet suggested that these maladjustments should be celebrated and encouraged.

Some sins cause more social problems for the sinner than others. It's rough, but that's the way it is. I don't see how denying the sinfulness of the sin helps that.

Tim J.

I missed this bit earlier;

"It is false to believe that sexual attraction for children can only serve evil..."

Just so we're clear, there, Anon.

We have nothing further to discuss. All your God talk is a cover to justify your own sin.

You are so sick that you can't see how sick you are. God help you.

I

Is it abuse to give a sound punishment when a child is out of line? Esspecially when they aren't "straight"?

The article reported on instances of abuse. I would not assume a reasonable punishment to constitute abuse.

I would bet that all this would be more or less equally true of adolescent alcoholics, petty thieves or those with what they call "anger management" issues.

The subject is the difference between two groups differentiated by non-chosen basic attributes, specifically sexual orientation. Petty thievery and anger management deal with conscious choices, while alcoholism is a disease.

We have nothing further to discuss. All your God talk is a cover to justify your own sin.

Are you jumping to conclusions again? I'm not advocating abusing children or saying that it's not a sin. I'm differentiating between temporary passing thoughts that simply flitter in someone's daydreaming mind without any resulting action from actual destructive behavior. Yes, such thoughts can be troublesome, and there are people who experience bizarre thoughts from time to time, and some seek to handle those thoughts by turning to God for help, and that can be a good part of a program. That is what I'm saying. Nothing sinister.

bill912

"It is false to believe that sexual attraction for children can only serve evil..."

"You are so sick that you can't see how sick you are."

I believe the correct word is not "sick", but "evil", Tim.

Tim J.

" Petty thievery and anger management deal with conscious choices, while alcoholism is a disease."

That is really a very simplistic view. All of the above behaviors, along with homosexuality, may involve elements of non-chosen basic attributes, as well as environment and personal choice. The fact that there may be a "non-chosen" element to each of these doesn't mean that any of them ought to be accepted, let alone celebrated.

"I'm not advocating abusing children or saying that it's not a sin. I'm differentiating between temporary passing thoughts that simply flitter in someone's daydreaming mind without any resulting action from actual destructive behavior."

Those thoughts, whether they are acted on or not, if they are given conscious assent and are indulged, are sinful IN THEMSELVES. Indulging such thoughts IS destructive behavior.

"Yes, such thoughts can be troublesome"

They should be. The point isn't whether the thinker finds the thoughts troubling or uncomfortable, the point is the thoughts are evil. Period. If you remain well adjusted and heppy while indulging impure sexual thoughts (be it sexual attraction to children or same sex attraction, or adultery, fornication), you still sin gravely. I expect Satan prefers well-adjusted sinners, untroubled by conscience.

"and there are people who experience bizarre thoughts from time to time, and some seek to handle those thoughts by turning to God for help,"

And some don't. The thoughts are still evil in themselves and not to be encouraged by society.

"that can be a good part of a program. That is what I'm saying. Nothing sinister."

Okay, but you understand that this is what I have been saying all along about homosexual thoughts? They should be avoided, suppressed.

Sexual attraction to those of the same sex is no more normal or beneficial than sexual attraction to children.

Mary Kay

Pipe, dismissing my comment as a variation of "that's just your perception" (aka projection and bias)is simply yet another way that you invalidate what others say.

This is how your post came across: You have a chance to get married. They do not. You get to publicly express yourself. They do not. You disrespect them.

Perhaps what I picked up on is the major Victim tone of that post. Poor victims just trying to deal with the "stressful, confusing mess that's been dumped upon them."

Feeling dumped on is a huge Victim statement. So is your entire last paragraph.

That's what I picked up on. Nor is is "just my perception." You might want to consider how your statements come across to other and stop blaming others for not understanding.

Brother Cadfael

Pipe,

Christ did not die on the Cross so that it would be ok to persist in sin. You have a distorted notion of love, and I pray that you will come to accept Christ's love for you.

I

Those thoughts, whether they are acted on or not, if they are given conscious assent and are indulged, are sinful IN THEMSELVES.

You not only contradict yourself but your statement is in error nonetheless. "If they are given conscious assent and are indulged", that is itself a form of acting upon them. Furthermore, the "they... in themselves" refers to thoughts which have not been acted upon in any way, but you want to color them as sinful. You are confused. A sin a morally bad act.

It is not Church teaching that it's sinful to consciously recognize one's sexual orientation. It is not Church teaching that it's sinful to act upon that conscious recognition in good ways, and there are many good ways that one can act upon them. That is what I've been pointing out, and all your efforts to color what I've been saying in a dark light is but your own indulgence in a flight of fantasy.

>>the point is the thoughts are evil.<<

That may be your point, but my point is that in all things God works for the good of those who love Him. Throughout history God has turned evil into good for His children, and that is what I'm pointing out. You can argue with me until you're blue in the face, but you'd just be indulging in a flight of dark fantasy.

>>but you understand that this is what I have been saying all along about homosexual thoughts? They should be avoided, suppressed.<<

Your view is limited. Imperfection is perfected through God, love, God's love (redundancy watchers: pardon the redundancy). I say allow God to perfect what is imperfect, surrender to Him, allow Him to perfect you in His love.

When Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil, was Jesus trying to avoid temptation? There Jesus stood His ground, shielded in the armor of God. When the devil had finished tempting, the devil left. God is faithful; He will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. When you're tempted, He will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it.

dismissing my comment as a variation of "that's just your perception" (aka projection and bias)is simply yet another way that you invalidate what others say.

Your feeling of invalidation comes from your holding to a limited view. If you would see what I am saying from my view, you would not feel invalidated.

Perhaps what I picked up on is the major Victim tone of that post... That's what I picked up on. Nor is is "just my perception."

In that, we both share the same perception. However, it is also the perception accorded in the Church's teaching when it goes so far as to make the special statement, "They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided." Do you imagine the Church simply threw that statement in randomly?

You might want to consider how your statements come across to other and stop blaming others for not understanding.

Have you done that? Was it not your choice to place your own colorful perception in quotes? Did you not realize how that could be seen as an attempt to stuff your own perception into someone else's mouth?

My response to you was, "Those are your words, not mine, a projection of your bias upon what was written." Was my response not true? Is it blaming you to help you see what you did? If by blame, you mean to hold responsible, should we not hold you responsible for what you did?

I

Christ did not die on the Cross so that it would be ok to persist in sin. You have a distorted notion of love

You have a distorted notion of what I've been saying.

Brother Cadfael

Pipe,

You have a distorted notion of what I've been saying.

No, I have to say, you're coming through, loud and clear.

David B.

I,

The Church says that Homosexuality, not only behavior but Homosexuality ITSELF, is a grave disorder of the passions.

There is no alternative way of interpreting that.

I

The Church says that Homosexuality, not only behavior but Homosexuality ITSELF, is a grave disorder of the passions.

That's actually what you say the Church says, but nonetheless, I agree it's substantially inline with Church teaching, though not completely. To be clear, though you speak of homosexuality as if it's apart from behavior, the Church defines: "Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex," and "Homosexual relations are acts which lack an essential and indispensable finality." Putting them together, we get: Homosexuality refers to those acts which lack an essential and indispensable finality between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. By that, homosexuality refers to disordered procreative behavior. If you're seeking to expand the word "homosexuality" beyond that, you're contradicting Church teaching.

Perhaps what you're referring to in regard to that which is not a behavior is the inclination toward homosexuality, and to you help you out on that, the Church teaches that the homosexual inclination is an "objective disorder."

Is someone saying the Church says otherwise?

Mary Kay

Pipe, there is a difference between saying that you invalidate what others say, even that you invalidated what I said, and "feeling invalidated." I do see what you are saying and I don't feel invalidated.

Skipping down to the related considering how you come across, your response was a great example "the best defense is a good offense." I put "just your perception" in quotes because that's what I've distilled variatons of that response down to.

You are very adept with words and it's apparent that you've done a lot of book learning. And yet, you've missed crucial points in an intellectual sense.

Which brings me to the victim perception. I do wish that when people quote statements that they would give a source. So that others do not have to Google search, it's from the 2003 statement from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith at:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

Mary Kay

Since I obviously still haven't figured out how to do urls, here's the shorthand one:

http://tinyurl.com/imqm

Anyway, back to the discussion. Interesting that you picked out certain sentences to support a particular point, but miss the overall point of the CDF statement.

When I started this post, I was going to say that feeling vicitimized is a sign of "room to grow" on the Christian journey.

Christ didn't die so that people could feel victimized. He suffered and died, he willingly suffered and died to free people from feeling victimized. None of the saints talk about feeling dumped on or victimized.

Despite the numerous posts on this thread, it's been difficult to have a discussion with you. Your response to nearly all the comments to you is that the other poster is wrong. And yes, I have noted that others have said that you're wrong. But you sound as if you think you're the only one who correctly understands Catholic teaching on homosexuality.

I'm sure there's more that could be said, but I have a full day of errands ahead of me.

Tim J.

Okay, Pipe -

"Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex,"

This makes no mention of genital sex, it says "relations".

Kissing, hand holding, sleeping with, or otherwise acting out homosexual inclinations, *genitally or not*, are objectively disordered acts, because they flow from objectively disordered passions.

In addition they cause scandal, which is sinful in itself.

Or are you saying it would be okay for me to kiss, hold hands, sleep with a woman other than my wife, as long as we don't go "all the way"?

You're attempts to present your views as being somehow in line with Church teaching are disingenuous at best.

"It is not Church teaching that it's sinful to act upon that conscious recognition in good ways"

The ONLY good way to respond to homosexual temptations is to resist them.

erick

-My two cents worth:
"Abstain from ALL APPEARANCE of evil"- I thes. 5:22.

David B.

"you speak of homosexuality as if it's apart from behavior"


YOU speak of homosexuality as if it's apart from sex.

If Sexuality is only behavior, and is not an act of the will, Then no one who suffers from the disorder and is tempted to lust after persons of his own sex can resist acting upon his impulses. But every last rational Human has Free Will and can resist doing anything he has control over. Sexual behavior is something man has control over (or I would probably have become a father many times over), and therefore the argument is false.

The comments to this entry are closed.

January 2012

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31