In our sex obsessed society, one feels compelled to be hetero or homo. Could it be that some were actually called/designed to be neither?
Also, who is more displeasing in the eyes of God - the unmarried man and woman who fornicate together or two men or two women who fornicate together?
It's all about sex or rather our obsession with it. Are not contracepting married Catholics and Protestants just as abominal in the eyes of God as two men or two women engaging in what ever it is they engage in?
Sex is our one opportunity to engage in a creative, supernatural event - the creation, in conjuction with God of an eternal soul.
This is the sole intended purpose of sex - there are no other intended purposes! Sex was not created to enhance communication or to bring people closer. Again, the sole intended purpose of sex is the creation, in conjuction with God, of an eternal soul.
I’m sorry, Mark, but I really fail to see why a group like Courage should be praised. What groups like Courage do is give homosexuals a forum to flaunt their perversions and ignore the near occasion of sin. A homosexually oriented male should in no way be encouraged to form “strong friendships” with people of his own gender, especially in a group of other similarly situated individuals. Struggles with their brand of disorder should be confined to the confessional. That’s what it’s there for. Groups like this have the grave potential of degenerating into “dating pools” rather than discussion groups on chastity.
We have already seen how homosexuals have wrought a serious blow to the integrity of the priesthood. They’ve poisoned the psychological and medical communities and stand ready to do the same to the institution of marriage. Continuing to minister to homosexuals in this fashion can only bring about more moral decay.
All that you say about the potential for Courage to collapse may well be true, but that does not prevent orthodoxy from triumphing in the end.
Misuse does not exclude proper use.
The purpose of marriage according to what the Pope has been saying is both procreative and unitive. It is not solely procreative; for, if this were the case, then why bother with marriage?
Marriage reflects our unity with God; without this unity what good a new soul?
The Eucharist indicates our marriage with Christ, a unitive act.
God does not hate homosexuals.
He created all of us.
Why should He have created homosexual people if He hated them?
You're right. God does not hate homosexuals. He also doesn't hate people with eating disorders. Does it therefore follow that an eating disorder is blessed by God? Neither is disordered sexuality, precisely because God wants the person with the disordered appetite to be happy.
Paul:
You are wrong. Sex has both a unitive as well as a procreative aspect. Marriage (that's the sacrament of sex in case you didn't know) is for the healing, exaltation and perfection of the spouses, according to John Paul. You might really want to familiarize yourself with the theology of the body. The cold biological view of sex you advance is miles away from the Catholic understanding. You might just as well say that the purpose of the Eucharist is to provide carbohydrates.
Eric what do we do with the gays? Lock them in a closet? Also if Catholic gays join a support group that teaches them to live chaste lives, how is their near occasion of sin anymore difficult then the near occasion of sin straight people have to face everyday dealing with the opposite sex?
Another thing according to your non-logic logic we would have to conclude alcholics would be more tempted to drink by going to AA meetings (where they would be around other recovering alcoholics).
I once had the pleasure of talking to one of the Priests who run Courage in my area. They lead their charges to lean heavily on the Divine Eucharist for help with the struggle against homosexuality.
Don't you believe in the Power of the Eucharist Eric? I'm sorry but I find your views less than helpful.
On another note the Priest who runs the local Courage group also told me sometimes he has dealings with Exodus International. They help each other from time to time.
I remember he said "It's usually the younger people who want to change their orientation. The older gays just want to learn to be chaste."
I myself believe it is possible to change. However, it by definition couldn't be an overnight process.
Some ex-gay ministries seem to have a pie in the sky mentality that does more harm than good.
I think many of the Protestant "Name it & claim it" crowd are equally distructive in this regard as well.
Just so thoughts. God Bless!
Hello,
I agree that God loves everybody, regardless of who they are or what they do.
I wouldn't go so far to say that homosexuality is "normal" and that God "created" people to be homosexual. What He creates and what He allows are two different things. Human sexuality is more or less a matter of both biological and psychological development, and I don't see any reason why homosexuality is any different. At the very least, we don't know enough scientifically to imply that it is exclusively "in-born." In fact, I'd be quite surprised if that was the case. Like any sort of developmental process, it has probably been influenced by many things. What the Church does know is that it is a disordered orientation, whatever its cause.
I agree with Mark that homosexuals should not be isolated. I see nothing wrong with two homosexual men or women sharing close, chaste friendships. There's nothing wrong with single men and woman forming chaste friendships, so why sould it be any different with homosexuals? Friendships as such would offer a great deal of support for them.
It is a bit dis-heartening reading that there are many homosexuals in the seminary. In all honestly, this saddens me.
Anon and Someone I Should Fear (why?), are you still following this discussion?
Can you tell me why you assume that I fear you if I don't support your claim that certain kinds of sexual expression are "natural" or "normal"?
I do not fear the gay people I know. I disagree with the choices they've made and the way they look at themselves, but I don't fear them.
Kathie L.
Mark and James:
You both seem to be suffering from the mistaken impression that homosexuality in itself is some quaint sexual variation. In fact, it is an extremely dangerous form of sexual compulsion that often manifests itself in a predatory fashion. You should both read Charles Socarides on this matter. This is why interactions between homosexuals of the same gender cannot be considered on par with interactions between heterosexuals of opposite genders. Thus, meetings of Courage cannot be simplistically analogized with some benign AA meeting, unless the AA meeting was being held in a bar.
So what is the solution that I propose? Merely the one that Christ himself ordained. Homosexuals still have access to Reconciliation and the Eucharist. They can still draw upon them for strength. The Sacraments do not need to be supplemented. Everything that the homosexual needs to live according to Church teaching already exists without the need for Courage. Indeed, the Church did just fine for almost two millennia without it.
Will this lead to isolation in some instances? I suppose. However this is a natural consequence of their disorder, part of the cross that Christ has asked them to bear. I’m sorry that you find me neither reasonable nor charitable in this instance but over thirty years’ worth of your brand of compassion has led to sexual anarchy. Correcting it may seem cruel, but it is better that they submit to this now rather than suffer an eternity of damnation.
Some homosexuals have successfully changed to heterosexuals, but it took a long time and lots and lots of counseling. It's not surprising that some people become "Dos Equis", as Eve Tushnet's article put it; changing ones orientation is simply not an easy thing to do. Some people may only halfway complete the process, prematurely proclaim themselves "cured" and end up sliding back before long.
Also, the typical Evangelical quick-fix "crisis-point conversion" mentality can add to the problem. Some may think that conversion to heterosexuality will be as easy as their conversion to Evangelicalism - or even simultaneous with it (Jesus saves your soul and changes your orientation as a package deal!). That's just not the case.
There's also a certain anti-psychology element in Evangelicalism; if a homosexual convert falls under the influence of this school of thought, he may think he can become heterosexual without the help of counseling: "I'm a new creation in Christ now, my past is irrelevant, I don't need to discuss it with a psychologist". I've heard some Evangelicals quote 2 Cor 5:17 as a proof-text against psychology; of course, not every Evangelical rejects psychology, but some do.
Since "changing" is such a long, difficult process, chastity - though difficult in its own way - is a more workable solution for many gays. I think Evangelical groups emphasize "changing" instead because many Evangelicals are uncomfortable with chastity; to them, it's a "Catholic" thing.
I am a moron. Oh yeah, that Humae Vitae document! I completely forgot.
Ok back to reading and very light on replying.
Can I have my ass back now?
(At least I know somebody read something I wrote. I was beginning to think there was a secret software screening my posts from the rest of the world, but displaying them only to me.)
I think I am going to go over here and .... sleep.....for ...a ......zzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Eric,
I just can't see Christ telling someone, "Shut up and go in thy closet and lock thyself in there and talk only to thy Father. Otherwise, thou mightest be scandalously attracted to another man. Btw, thou foul wretch, get away from me. Come see me when I am become bread, when there will be no danger of thy sick, compulsive attraction latching on to me. Ugh! Away! Thou disgustest me." On the contrary, Christ welcomes any one, as Psalm 51 tells us, with a broken and contrite heart. We should be like Christ.
Brian:
In the first place, Christ already tells all of us to lock ourselves in our rooms and pray to our Father in private. There is nothing especially radical in that.
Secondly, why shouldn’t Christ be disgusted by an intrinsic, unnatural disorder that grossly violates His Natural Law? In fact, Christ’s disgust is made painfully obvious in Romans.
Lastly, nothing I said denies that Christ welcomes the homosexual with a broken and contrite heart. It’s just that the conditions for sincere contrition in this instance involve many sacrifices on the part of the homosexual. This isn’t a radical concept either. We all have to make sacrifices to obey the will of God.
I think that Courage by and large does excellent work. However, I am concerned by Eve Tushnet's opposition to encouraging homosexuals to change their orientation, and Mark's apparent endorsement of that position as "sensible."
Only last year, Dr. Robert Spitzer, a prominent psychiatrist who had been key in the American Psychiatric Association's 1973 decision to drop homosexuality from its list of mental disorders, conducted a study which showed that successful conversion therapy is possible.
See:
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/0...alth/
09GAY.html
It may only be possible for a minority of people with same-sex attraction to change orientation, presumably those who are younger and for whom the gay lifestyle has not yet become completely habitual. Others may need the emphasis to be on chastity and frequent reception of the sacraments, especially penance.
But let's not dismiss those efforts to help overcome homosexual behaviour by reducing or eliminating the inclination itself.
The Church has called homosexual *orientation* an "objective disorder." Surely efforts to overcome that disorder should be encouraged and applauded.
Eric:
You act like a walking, talking caricature of all that the average gay person (even those who are trying to be faithful to Christ) fear most. Yours is a gospel of stigma, fear and loathing.
Eric:
The principal proponent of Courage whom I know is David Morrison, who is a very fine Catholic and, frankly, more sensible and charitable than you've shown yourself to be so far. What do you propose instead of a group that is dedicated to helping gays live according to the teaching of the Church? The clear guidance that only stigma can provide? Boy, that's the way to win friends and influence people. For God so stigmatized the world that he told everybody to shut up, go to confession and get used to isolation. Great plan.
Eric, being gay is NOT a perversion. It's a natural difference in normal human sexuality.
Eric's views have no basis in science, reason or church teaching.
He is lumping different types of sexual compultions together & treating them in a blaket fasion.
I'm sorry Eric you don't have ANY idea what you are talking about.
Sexual Predidation is a seperate condition from homosexuality. Their are straight peredators as well as gay ones.
I'm sorry but people who get off on forcing others to have sex with them are a different species from those who have a disordered affection for their own gender.
You wrote
"You both seem to be suffering from the mistaken impression that homosexuality in itself is some quaint sexual variation."
I NEVER said that. Nor did Mark. Not very honest are we.
You clearly never took psychology(I did). You clearly are comenting on things you know nothing about.
James:
It is true that I’ve never had formal psychological training outside of a couple undergraduate courses in college. Nor have I ever denied that there are straight predators.
Predation and homosexuality are inextricably linked, however. Thankfully society still mostly recognizes this or I would have to pull my children from the Boy Scouts. To say that my views have no basis in science is simply not accurate. Socarides, Nicholosi and others have documented a correlation between homosexuality and predatory forms of sexuality. I urge you to read their books and visit their website.
www.narth.org
As far as my integrity is concerned, perhaps I was not as clear as I could have been. I merely meant that neither you nor Mark appeared to be giving the condition of homosexuality the kind of grave concern that it warrants. It is an extremely dangerous perversion that has the marked tendency to leave chaos in its wake. Perhaps you have had the opportunity to witness this in the psychological courses you’ve taken.
As I said to Mark, I also say to you: I’m sorry that you do not share my concern but I will keep you in my prayers and hope that one day you will.
That link doesn't work, Eric.
But this one does:
http://www.narth.com/
Thank you, David.
God forgive me I am going to enjoy this!
Eric I just went to the website you recommended & here is what I found.
quote
"Courage is the only recovery program for those with same-sex attractions which adheres to the Catholic moral teaching on homosexuality and has been endorsed by the Vatican. This program should be available in every diocese for both laity and priests. If priests and laity do not have access to therapy which can help them come to the freedom proper to the children of God and support groups like Courage, they may fall into despair and feel that the Church has placed upon them a burden that is impossible to bear."-Letter to the Catholic Bishops by Richard P. Fitzgibbons, M.D.
Peter Rudegeair, M.A.
Eugene F. Diamond, M.D.,
The very source you rely on Eric blows your stupid godless opinons to dust. From now on nobody can take your foolish heartless views seriously. You simply are NOT paying attention!
Did you read that last sentence? Your un-Catholic views will do just that.
Everybody read the whole thing for yourself.
http://www.narth.com/docs/catholic.html
You lose Eric! Jesus & the repenitent gays win.
I suggest you go back & read that site & get a grip. Your views only serve Satan they don't serve God.
Also where does Dr. Charles Socarides teach that group therapy with gays will incourage them to act more gay?
Where is the scientific data on this?
On another note I think I have figured out Eric's malfuncion. I beieve it is this. We shouldn't let gays in the seminaries because it is an all male enviroment & that will place a burden of temptation on them that is unfair (this I for the most part agree with. Though there could be a few acception under the right cercumstances. Maybe.). Therefore we should not let gays join Courage support groups for the same reason.
Apples & oranges! The people at Courage show up for meetings they don't live together!
One last point
Eric the Laughing Boy wrote:
:Thus, meetings of Courage cannot be simplistically analogized with some benign AA meeting, unless the AA meeting was being held in a bar.
I guess you believe Courage meetings are held in bath-houses & not Catholic Churches. Think Man! Use the brain God gave you. I have picked on you enough. I'm going to go do something else. As Deter would say in a thick German accent "Your conversation has become tiersome. NOW IS TIME ON SPROKETS VEN VE DANCE"!
First of all, Courage is not intended as a substitute for Penance and the Eucharist; indeed, the group strongly encourages gays to receive the Sacraments.
Second: yes, Jesus did give us the Sacraments, and they are absolutely wonderful, but let's not forget that they exist within the context of the Church. And the Church is a Mystical Body; many members united in Christ as the Head. We Catholics are not "lone rangers" with just the Sacraments to sustain us, but a family with many brothers and sisters, a body with many members to support and pray for us.
To say that a homosexual has to endure his spiritual life all alone flies in the face of the communal nature of the Church which Our Divine Lord established; "And the eye cannot say to the hand: I need not thy help. Nor again the head to the feet: I have no need of you" (1 Cor 12:21 DRV). No Catholic with homosexual inclinations is alone; he is part of the Mystical Body of Christ, and can certainly draw strength from his brethren in Christ.
This is what Courage is all about. To imagine that a group like Courage could not possibly be good, that because of its members it must necessarily be a den of sin, is to lack faith in the grace of Christ to transform even the worst sinners. The people in Courage receive the Sacraments and seek to live chastely in Christ; I'd hardly consider that a den of sin.
Are some of them tempted by seeing people at Courage meetings? It's possible, but they would be tempted every single day in the world as well. One reason for attending these meetings is to teach them skills for dealing with temptation, which will make them better able to handle temptation *anywhere*.
Just because Courage is new doesn't make it bad or less-than-Catholic. It upholds the moral teachings of the Catholic Church on homosexuality; which is certainly good. This matter is not either/or, it's both/and; homosexuals can have both the grace of the Sacraments *and* the fellowship of other Catholics to aid them toward holiness.
Finally, why attack Courage when a group like Dignity is out there; save your fire for them!
Rosemarie,
I love you! Great post! Give the Baby a kiss for me too!
Also Laughing Boy wrote:
":Homosexuals still have access to Reconciliation and the Eucharist. They can still draw upon them for strength. The Sacraments do not need to be supplemented."
I myself fail to see the moral, doctrinal or practical difference between Eric's dark ideology & the Protestant belief "I have Jesus so I don't need Mary!"
Clearest case of the either/or mentality if I ever saw.
No Eric it's NOT either the Eucharist/Confess or Courage. It's both. Eric your view isn't Catholic!
"The Sacraments do not need to be supplemented"
Heresy! So we don't need the Blessed Mother, The Saints & the help of other Christians? Eric you need to rethink this idea of yours.
Your approch will NOT lead to the Salvation of Souls. It will lead gay people to despair. I can't believe you can't see how EVIL your view is. There is no differnce between it & the mentality that says "The Homosexual Lifestyle is Moral & Beautiful". Both your view & the later one lead to the loss of Souls!
I will pray for you Eric that you give up these dark beliefs about Courage.
James:
I really see no conflict here. Fitzgibbons merely points out that Courage, as is, is the only organization that adheres to the Church’s teaching on sexuality. That does not mean that Courage is in any way a good idea.
If you read further into NARTH’s literature you will discover the true nature of homosexuality. It is a narcissistic compulsion that breeds nihilism and in some cases, true psychotic behavior. Letting them alone to have “support groups” with one another is naďve at best and should only be attempted under the most controlled conditions. The most casual perusal of NARTH’s documents will reveal that homosexuals are extremely sick people.
As I have said before homosexuals tend to destroy good moral order. They have done so for the priesthood, the psychological and medical communities, the entertainment industry, the schools and the once venerable Democratic Party. Do not be so arrogant as to assume that what they have wrought on these institutions they will not bring to a group like Courage.
Groups like Courage, while on the surface they seem like a good idea, are actually a frightening vulnerability to the good moral order of the Church. Christian charity demands reticence on the part of those afflicted with homosexual desire. That is how the Church managed for two millennia. If you doubt me look at the lives of the Saints who have been canonized. Many of them were openly, at one time, murderers, thieves, anti-Semites, and heretics. Not one was at any time an open homosexual. What are we to make of this example? That even if there is a homosexual in the Communion of Saints, he did not get there by flaunting himself, he got there by being prudently quiet about it.
Does this really sound cruel? Then I suggest you’ve fallen prey to the politically correct culture traps that homosexuals have set for you. Complaints from homosexuals about the overwhelming burden supposedly placed upon them by the Church should be treated with skepticism. Dr. van den Aardweg acknowledges the homosexual’s propensity for dramatic exaggeration in his book “The Battle for Normality.” Plenty of Catholics, including myself, have no problem living within the Church’s sexual morality and neither should they.
As far as un-Catholic sentiment you’ll find more in the history of the Church to support my view than this nifty little experiment instituted by the very clergy already now under the grip of the Lavender Mafia.
Eric:
You are a dream come true for Jody. Finally, a Catholic who really believes all the loony things that anti-catholic caricatures charge Catholics with believing.
Eric writes:
"As I have said before homosexuals tend to destroy good moral order. They have done so for the priesthood, the psychological and medical communities, the entertainment industry, the schools and the once venerable Democratic Party."
But those homosexuals were *not* seeking to follow the teachings of the Church, receive the Sacraments and remain chaste. The homosexuals in Courage are doing all those things, and that makes all the difference.
Eric writes:
"Do not be so arrogant as to assume that what they have wrought on these institutions they will not bring to a group like Courage."
Trusting in the grace of God to transform repentant sinners is not arrogance. Homosexuals in Courage are different because they seek to live chaste lives in accordance with the teachings of the Church. Do you think that Christ will not transform them by grace of the Sacraments they receive?
Eric writes:
"Christian charity demands reticence on the part of those afflicted with homosexual desire. That is how the Church managed for two millennia. If you doubt me look at the lives of the Saints who have been canonized. Many of them were openly, at one time, murderers, thieves, anti-Semites, and heretics. Not one was at any time an open homosexual. What are we to make of this example? That even if there is a homosexual in the Communion of Saints, he did not get there by flaunting himself, he got there by being prudently quiet about it."
Actually, there is another explanation for that. The entire concept that various "sexual orientations" exist is a modern one. Greco-Roman culture had no concept of "sexual orientation"; men got married to have children but might also commit various sex acts with women, men or even boys on the side. The idea that a man would, by very nature, stick to sexual activity with only one type of person was foreign to them.
So no one from the earliest centuries of the Church would have been considered a "homosexual", simply because the concept did not exist!
St. Augustine writes very discreetly in his "Confessions" about a certain young man, and strongly implies that he had an affair with him. Augustine, of course, also had illicit heterosexual affairs, so he was not homosexual (as I said, there was no such concept back then), but he did once indulge in that sin and admits doing so.
Medieval Christian society also had no concept of "sexual orientations". Heterosexual conjugal relations were permissible, everything else was a sin. So no one of that era would have been seen as "homosexual" in the sense we perceive it today, as an exclusive preference for members of the same sex.
Also, I doubt too many people with a homosexual inclination would have been openly homosexual in medieval Christian society. This could also explain why you cannot find former "open homosexuals" among the saints; no one was open about that kind of thing at all in that society!
Eric is mad because I caught him with his pants down.
I believe when he makes statements like "Church history supports my view" He shows his lidless eye Radtrad colors. There is no difference between his view & Radtrads who find anti-semitic statements in Church History & treat it as if it where part of Church Tradition.
As a side note: I've read the Desert Fathers THEIR way of treating homosexuality & sexual sin is the same as my view. Not Eric's view. Sorry Laughing Boy lost again!
As for Dr. Charles Socarides his research & data don't lead HIM to conclude Courage is harmful to gay Catholics. As Laughing boy was trying to imply.
Eric the Liar wrote:
"Fitzgibbons merely points out that Courage, as is, is the only organization that adheres to the Church’s teaching on sexuality. That does not mean that Courage is in any way a good idea."
Yet Fitzgibbons says:
"This program should be available in every diocese for both laity and priests"
Obviously the good Dr thinks Courage IS a good Idea! Deal with it!
One last point Eric (aka THE GUY WHO LIKES TO THROW ROCKS AT THE ADULTERESS) by his own admission isn't a professional psychologist. So his interpretation of Dr. Socarides is meaningless. He is not qualifided to judge what is the correct treatment of Homosexuals.
I close with this quote from Chesterton I riped of Bill Cork's PAge.
""A puritan is a person who pours righteous indignation into the wrong things."
Eric what a loser!
Calm down, Jim! No need for name-calling; it only makes people angry.
Love ya,
Eric the Loser write:
"As far as un-Catholic sentiment you’ll find more in the history of the Church to support my view than this nifty little experiment instituted by the very clergy already now under the grip of the Lavender Mafia."
Lavender Mafia? I've checked the Pro-Gay activist websites. They list Courage as a "Hate group". It seems because Courage endorces Catholic teaching on homosexuality. Hmmmmm?
Maybe it is a conspericy. Hey Mark Shea you call Mulder & Scully. I'll get Inspector Gadget.
Hey! Then Eric can tell us how gays got rid of the Latin Mass!
Rosemarie,
Yes dear. Sorry. Love you.
I do have a question though where does
Dr. van den Aardweg condemn Courage? I mean his book is sold by Ignatus Press. Not exactly a Radtrad treat the homosexuals like lepers publishing house.
James: Address the idea, not the person.
Da Management
Sir yes Sir!
Still it's so very hard to resist the temptation to go off on such profound stupidity. It's like reacting to Dashale about Rush Limbaugh. You can't help bu tmake fun of such foolishness. I'll be good from now on.
Sorry.
Is it possible for HaloScan to number the comments? Particularly on these lengthy and therefore most interesting threads it would be a great convenience to know immediately--more or less-where I left off reading the comments. I do appreciate the way comments go from first to latests
rather than the other way around.
Some number up the ladder of comments.
"The purpose of marriage according to what the Pope has been saying is both procreative and unitive. It is not solely procreative; for, if this were the case, then why bother with marriage? "
The unitive purpose supports the procreative purpose if only because the pathetic little human thing NEEDS two parents to BEST survive in this difficult world until he/she reaches maturity. One "bothers" with marriage so that the offspring can have a decent chance in life.
Look, I really did not mean to invite such a firestorm of vitriol.
Mark:
I really don’t see why I should care what a person like Jody thinks about much of anything and I’m surprised you do.
Rosemarie:
Homosexuals may be receiving the Sacraments now, and who knows, even they may believe that they are sincerely trying to follow the will of God. Sooner or later, however, when immersed in a group setting with others predisposed to the same perversity, the fall will come, and the Church’s integrity will once again be jeopardized.
While homosexuals may be transformed by the Sacraments that they receive this transformation should never be assumed. Would you trust a pedophile with a child if he maintained that he had been transformed by the Sacrament? I sincerely hope not.
You bring up St. Augustine to rebut my Communion of Saints argument. Clever, but here again Augustine only implies and does not say definitely. His reticence has saved him. Regardless of whether or not homosexuality was understood as a distinct sexual identity/orientation/lifestyle the fact remains that it was understood not to bring it up. This is part of the foundation of Western Civilization. Some things are best left to the silence of the confessional.
If the aim is to discourage homosexuals from committing their acts of depravity, then I will concede Courage may be a good idea, but only under intense scrutiny and supervision of all who participate.
Finally, James:
You’ve failed to grasp the over-arching concern that I have, so let me try once again to present it to you.
You have a homosexual individual who, according science-based literature (like that from NARTH), is at a significantly heightened risk to display psychotic, compulsive behavior, including, but not limited to, orgy, pedophilia and bestiality.
That indulgence in his so-called sexual preference is likely to aggravate this condition.
Who has spent his entire adolescent life concocting elaborate means of deceiving those around him into believing that all is normal with him until he “comes out.”
You take this individual and cast him into a group of other homosexuals where they can detail their “struggles” with each other, go out and have coffee afterwards completely unsupervised, secure in the knowledge that “Christ won’t let them do anything wrong now.”
Am I the only one who sees the problem in this? What’s going to happen ten years from now when Courage becomes yet another priesthood-like scandal because everyone was so focused on his or her precious compassion today?
Rosemarie:
You state that Augustine "strongly implies" in The Confessions that he had a homosexual affair. For the record, scholars are far from unified in this view. In fact, it may be telling that the theory only came into vogue in recent years. Even some progressives, including Garry Wills, maintain that it's a hasty one to draw from the available evidence.
It is a sad statement on our times that we can't seem to imagine a close friendship lacking a sexual component.
The facts are against you Eric so your arguments becomes more foolish by the hour. In fact you offer no new arguments you just repeat yourself.
You have not answered ANY of our questions to you. You just ignore inconvenant facts.
It is clear to me you are just simply restating arguments myself & others have completely destroyed.
I just pray to God in Heaven you never encounter ANY gay persons seeking help for their homosexuality.
Your godless anti-Catholic beliefs would do more harm to them than the "Gay is beautiful" crowd.
Your foul advice would put a heavy burden on their backs which you yourself wouldn't lift with one of your fingers.
I pray gay people would rather encounter the likes of Fr. Groetchel who has a Masters in Psyhcology. Is flawlessly Orthodox in his Catholic faith & is 100 times wiser then you & I put togather & he is one of the founding Priests of Courage.
God forgive you Eric.
Actually, Therese you too are a bit off. We know that homosexuality runs in families, occurs more often than chance dictates in monozygotic twins separated a birth, is established well before the age of three and doesn't correlate with any form of mental illness. Further, given the occurrence of homosexuality in other animal species, and the recent study out showing that rams who engaged in same sex behavior had similar brain structures to humans as reported by LeVay, (an American), the evidence continues to mount that it's a pretty normal occurrence. My argument remains that your claims to either disordered status or unnaturalness is bunk. As for faulting gay people for engaging in sexual behavior with people they love without the blessing of a sacrament denied them because of who they love, that the most reprehensible Catch-42 I've heard.
As far as Eric and the bunk he peddles goes, NARTH is many thing, but scientific isn't one of them. They have no data to support their claims nor studies that stand up to the simplest of reviews -- in short its simple prejudice dressed up in scientific clothes.
And directly to Eric, I don't give the posterior nether region of a rat as to whether or not you care about what I say. What you report here is, as I've mentioned, unfounded and ill-informed bunk, used as justification by _you_ so you don't have to care said posterior nether region of a rat about anything outside of your narrow conception of the world. .And despite the sharp words Mark and I have exchanged over the months, he at least thinks -- wrongly :^) -- before he writes... something I note is terribly lacking in your remarks.
Additional:
There may be hope for Eric.
Quote:
"If the aim is to discourage homosexuals from committing their acts of depravity, then I will concede Courage may be a good idea, but only under intense scrutiny and supervision of all who participate."
Well this is what goes there if you bothered to get off your behind & look into it for yourself. Instead of forming opinions based on profound ignorance. You didn't read the praise heaped on Courage & its founder on NARTH's website? This is why you have no crediblity! I suggest you look into Courage for youself then form an opinion.
Last point. Don't feel to bad Eric. I made an idiot of myself on Steve Ray's Message board when I went toe to toe with a Fr. Feeney fan named David Smith (I think he likes Fenney don't quote me on that). I didn't know what I was talking about in regard to Fr. Feeney's reconciliation with the Church. So Mr. Smith made me look like a fool. I deserved it. You need to do some research on Courage & not rely on your ignorance to pull you alone.
Sorry I was too hard on you.
God be with you.
Eric, you're out of your mind. What empirical evidence is there that when people who have homosexual inclinations but are committed to chastity form friendships to support each other in that commitment, those friendships are likely to degenerate into unchastity? Do AA members end up stealing away together to bars? Hardly. (And I know that, as you say way up, AA meetings aren't held in bars. Neither are Courage meetings held in bathhouses or bedrooms.) You're in fact positing some kind of determinism that would make it impossible to maintain with the Church that the homosexual orientation, while an objective disorder, isn't per se a moral disorder.
In fact, you reveal yourself to be thoroughly confused on this point when you say way above:
>
The natural law regulates our choices. Homosexual inclinations, insofar as they aren't chosen, may make more likely certain violations of the natural law, but it's a confusion of categories to say that they per se violate the natural law. That's like saying they violate civil laws against sodomy.
Nor does Romans say that Christ is digusted with people because of their unchosen inclinations (although it does say those inclinations result from our prior distance from God - i.e., in an unfallen world, one wouldn't see them). It speaks primarily of (chosen) behavior.
Finally, the idea that one grows as a (chaste) Christian by receiving the sacraments and then locking oneself in a cell is a perversion of Catholic sacramental and moral theology.
Jody,
Homosexuality is a disordered passion according to the CCC. Not a mental illness. So like Eric your views are bunk & based on ignorence of the subject!
Also you caught me at a bad time. I'm in "slam the Anti-Catholic Right winger mode". To switch to "Anti-catholic left wingers mode" would require I go get an adapter. I'm just too tired right now. In short go play with Mark Shea I believe in my heart of hearts he will make short work of you if he chooses too.
Toodles!
Kevin,
Eric's view is more Calvinism's total depravity than Catholic teaching. I think. I could be wrong I am not Eric. But that is how it's coming off.
Eve,
How should a married man struggle with his homosexuality? (And the issue is not impotency with his wife.) Isn't there a command to change, even in orientation? Chasity for such a man was not defined in your piece.
Steve
Eric writes:
"Homosexuals may be receiving the Sacraments now, and who knows, even they may believe that they are sincerely trying to follow the will of God. Sooner or later, however, when immersed in a group setting with others predisposed to the same perversity, the fall will come"
Courage is a group setting with others seeking chastity, which promotes Church teaching and encourages reception of the Sacraments. Will God abandon those who are sincerely trying to follow His will and obey Holy Mother Church? Do you have any confidence in the grace of God and the Sacraments?
"and the Church’s integrity will once again be jeopardized."
The current scandal occurred because certain clergymen *failed* to follow the Church's moral teaching. Courage *promotes* the Church's moral teaching; if the seminaries were more like a Courage meeting, we wouldn't have this problem.
"While homosexuals may be transformed by the Sacraments that they receive this transformation should never be assumed. Would you trust a pedophile with a child if he maintained that he had been transformed by the Sacrament? I sincerely hope not."
You're starting to saw off the branch you are sitting on. All along you've been arguing that the Sacraments are all that is necessary for homosexuals to fight their urges, now you say that we cannot assume that the Sacraments will transform them. I hope you don't lack faith in the grace of God.
Homosexuality and pedophilia are not the same; though some pederasts do try to pass themselves off as gays, it's not the same thing. Courage is a support group for homosexuals, not pedophiles.
"You bring up St. Augustine to rebut my Communion of Saints argument. Clever, but here again Augustine only implies and does not say definitely. His reticence has saved him."
His repentance is what saved him. I brought him up because you claimed that all penitent homosexuals in the past kept mum about their indiscretions, yet St. Augustine may be an exception to that.
"Regardless of whether or not homosexuality was understood as a distinct sexual identity/orientation/lifestyle the fact remains that it was understood not to bring it up. This is part of the foundation of Western Civilization. Some things are best left to the silence of the confessional."
Again, my point was that saints of old would not have been known as penitent homosexuals because the concept of sexual orientation did not exist at the time. You are basically arguing from silence, which is hardly airtight.
Of course, my husband tells me that the Desert Fathers did openly mention homosexual activity. Their view wasn't shameful silence, but compassion and forgiveness of the transgressor.
"If the aim is to discourage homosexuals from committing their acts of depravity, then I will concede Courage may be a good idea, but only under intense scrutiny and supervision of all who participate."
That is the exact aim of the group. If a homosexual wanted to find a partner, he'd hardly go to a Courage meeting. The tone and spirit of such meetings is far from that of a bar or bathhouse.
One more thing; Eric writes:
"You take this individual and cast him into a group of other homosexuals where they can detail their “struggles” with each other, go out and have coffee afterwards completely unsupervised, secure in the knowledge that “Christ won’t let them do anything wrong now.” "
I'm reminded of a discussion I had with an anti-Catholic Fundamentalist I once knew. He asked how we Catholics could expect our priests to remain celibate when they have to sit in a confessional and listen to women give the details of all their sexual sins!
I told him that it was quite obvious he had never gone to Confession! (He had never been Catholic). As any Catholic who confesses regularly knows, when it comes to sins against purity, we never confess every single thing in gory detail! Nor does the priest want us to do it; if we tell him too much he will stop us and say "Okay, you don't have to tell me that" (at least a good priest will; I don't know about what some of these sinful priests might say).
Also, we tend to use euphemisms, such as "I committed a sin against purity" or "a sin of the flesh". It is entirely possible to confess such sins without even saying the word "sex". So such confessions are actually rather tame and, yes, even "chaste"!
Yet this Fundamentalist's imagination had run wild; he actually thought the Confessional was the equivalent of phone sex for priests! Nothing could be further from the truth.
Even so, is Eric's idea of what occurs at a Courage meeting really accurate? Isn't it possible that the people at a Courage meeting speak in vague generalities and euphemisms, as in the Confessional, not getting too "graphic" about anything. Perhaps their meeting actually has a similar "chastity" to it, as occurs in the Confessional. Then such objections to Courage would be just as off-base as the Fundamentalist's objection to the Sacrament of Penance.
"Am I the only one who sees the problem in this? What’s going to happen ten years from now when Courage becomes yet another priesthood-like scandal because everyone was so focused on his or her precious compassion today?"
Courage is not likely to be another priesthood-like scandal because, unlike the modernist seminaries who turn out sexually-active priests, Courage actually upholds Church moral teaching and encourages chastity. That is a fundamental difference which Eric has to take to heart.
Just as a side note, my wife correctly points out to me that it is possible to answer Eric without vitriol. She is of course correct. I confess publically that I have been engaging in this, and my behavior has been as erroneous as Eric's ideology. I apologize to Eric and everybody. I'd also like to say my wife is doing an excellent job. That's right, fellows, I'm married to her, the rest of you can't have her. she's mine, all mine, BWAHAHAHAHA!!!
As for Steve, I would just briefly say that chastity means "the proper use of sex according to one's state in life". Thus a married man is chaste as long as he is having conjugal relations with his wife; single people, including vowed celibates, are unchaste if they have any sex at all. Hope that clears it up.
Mark, while it's an interesting image, homosexuality isn't the same thing as an eating disorder. They don't map in similar manners in the brain nor do they have analogous effects in human behavior. Unlike what Jennifer remarked, we know a heck a lot now about homosexuality, much more than Socarides, as Eric brought up, ever did. While it's possible that there are environmental factors at work, they probably play out in similar manners to variations in traits for anger, compassion, happiness and thrill seeking -- all genetically coded for and influenced by environment.
The RCC has an opinion that homosexuality is unnatural and objectively and morally disordered. Unfortunately, those claims just don't hold up in light of modern research.
Jody - you can't use that tired old "mapping in the brain" argument about homosexuality, unless you plan on using the single (Danish, I think) study that showed brain changes in a set of only 42 individuals, and then ONLY in male homosexuals, and further, changes which could be explained by other environmental factors.
The Church's teaching continues to hang together beautifully. The desire is disordered but not sinful; the action is sinful, just as all sexual activity outside the context of marriage is sinful. Clearly a much fairer and more logical treatment than the "God Hates Fags" idiots.
When will you learn to pick your argument correctly? You have two positions to argue: whether same-sex attraction is disordered (and therefore changeable), and whether sex outside of marriage is sinful.
The Church does not single out homosexual sexual activity. It's an equal-opportunity limiter of behavior to within the confines of God's clear teaching.
I'm sorry, I said something wrong there. I don't think that disordered thinking is automatically changeable. That was accidentally glib.
I don't know if disordered thinking is changeable.
The argument is simply whether it's disordered. The other argument is simply whether sex belongs anywhere but in marriage.
Uh..I don't think so
The Church has described homosexuality
as objectively disordered. Nothing
good can come from this state, but
a person has a chance to live
a more meaningful life if he/she
becomes heterosexual.
Mark:
I’m sorry that you feel that way. Spreading the Word of God sometimes involves telling people the harsh truths they would rather not hear. In this case, a misguided desire to be “compassionate” to homosexuals. True compassion involves dealing with homosexuals in the ways that the Church has traditionally prescribed. Their salvation depends on it. This is not loathing it is genuine Christian love.
As I said, I’m sorry that you choose to see my position as that of a raving bigot. Nothing could be further from the truth. I will, however, keep you in my prayers and hope that you see your error one day.
Thanks for the link, Mark! ...I think Mark Cameron is misreading my piece. I think Eric has a very bizarre and unfounded view of what people with homosexual attractions are LIKE, and what goes on in Courage. I suggest he talk to people who are involved with it. There are predatory homosexual men. I don't suppose any of us really need reminding how many predatory heterosexual men there are, do we? And I for one have not found ANY reason to believe homosexual attractions lead to or even correlate with being more-likely-to-be-predatory. So basically, Eric's point of view is IMO not based on reality.
Eve
OK, if I understand rightly, Eric is saying that those of us who are attracted, to one degree or another, to our own sex are so inherently predatory, prone to pedophilia, bestiality, and psychosis, that we mustn't have any sort of friendships with anyone of our own sex, or at least be terribly closely supervised whenever we're around each other, or we'll do terrible, vile things.
Best be thoroughly solitary, confide in no one, except, perhaps, the priest in that one small window he has for confession every week. If I read the right experts, I'll know this is true.
Thanks, but no thanks. I have been attracted to my own sex, I still find some women attractive, and I have never had, or wanted to have, any sexual contact with children or animals. I've never done anything predatory or forced. I have close female friends that I - gasp - don't have sex with. I even have some close female friends who are lesbian or bisexual, and I still don't have sex with them. I've been faithfully married to one man for fourteen years. I consciously avoid, with either men or women, any situations that I think might tempt me, or them, to adultery. And I think it's quite possible for me to avoid such situations, and still have both male and female friends.
I will admit to a week in a psychiatric ward, eighteen years ago, with depression, shortly after two good friends of mine had died in accidents - so I suppose, if you want, you can count me as susceptible to "psychosis" - and of course anyone who has been depressed is dangerous as a friend. I've been well since then, but, you never know what dangerous psychotic depths may still lurk within me.
Of course, since I'm one of those people, and therefore doomed to defile everything I touch, I must be lying about all this. No matter what I may tell you, I'm bound to hop into bed with any woman I see, in a thoroughly promiscuous and predatory manner. I'm sure that somewhere there's a reference by Dr. Charles Socarides which explains this all properly. I guess I should leave my Bible study group - there are other women in it.
First, I apologize for jumping into this discussion so late.
Paul:
Your question is a good one, but I think it speaks to our limited understanding of evolution.
For example, it may benefit a species to spin off a small part of itself--say 5 or 10 percent 
--to do nothing but care for the others, and not reproduce.
Or perhaps there are upward pressures on gay genes. If pop culture is any indication, females may prefer some typically gay traits (see DiCaprio and Nsync).
(Those are two ideas off the top of the head, which sits atop the body of an engineer, not an evolutionary biologist.)
Once we have developed a good understanding of evolution, I may be comfortable with moral and ethical arguments from it, but AFAIK that time is far off.
Happy Thanksgiving everyone. I'm going home to my family now.
One question.
If "homosexuality" is genetic, why hasn't it dissappeared from the gene pool? or at least exerted some downward pressure on the percentage of people who are genetically predisposed to "homosexuality"?
Uh, DiCaprio and 'Nsync have gay traits? What are those exactly? Last I checked the National Enquirer, the dirt on them was strictly heterosexual. (Yes, I flip through that paper at the checkout counter: a guilty pleasure.)
Last I checked, all things being equal, young women generally prefer groomed, polished, and handsome young men over big fat slobs. It may make the latter feel better to dismiss the former with all evidence to the contrary as gay I suppose.
My previous post was not meant to be a dig at big fat slobs. I am a partly-reformed big fat slob myself, but probably will backslide soon enough.
Regarding why homosexuality hasn't bubbled out of the gene pool,, in addition to what Tom just posted, it's also been put forth that genes that code for homosexuality also code for some other adaptive trait. With one you get the other. Be that as it may, its part of our genome and is no "worse" for our species than red hair, or green eyes or left-handedness.
As to Eric and his "disordered passion" -- bunk. There is nothing empirically or even demonstrably disordered about it. Nor is there anything "unnatural" to it, nor "intrinsically moral[ly] evil" about it. There isn't a shred of evidence to back that up the RCC's claim. It's as silly as fundamentalist Islam's claim that unveiled women "cause" men to rape them.
Happy Turkey Day....
But if it is genetic, you would have to admit the the number of "gays" should at best stay statistically the same and not increase over time. Similar to the way the number of "pro-choice" people have declined over the past 30 years, due to the fact that their population replacement rate is lower than that of "pro-lifers".
James, Eric's position is not Calvinist, except perhaps in a very cariactured sense. Total depravity, despite the name, doesn't mean that the unregenerate are moral lepers who must be kept off from the rest of society. There is grace available in Christ for all, no matter how depraved. As Paul said, "I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world...since then you would need to go out of the world...For what have I to do with judging those who are outside?" (1 Cor. 5:9-10, 12) The Church is not called to shrink away from, but rather to seek after, those who sin. It is true that Paul says we are to judge those who are immoral within the Church, but we've got to give them a chance. No one is an island, and so though I don't know anything about Catholic support groups for homosexuals, I don't think that as a Calvinist I would have to condemn them out of hand as conducive to immorality.
Evan,
I wasn't going after Calvinism I was trying to point out how un-Catholic Eric's views were. I don't fully understand Calvinism & I don't pretend too.
If you prefer he holds a corrupt false form of Calvinism. Either way it's still not Catholic. I hope he has changed his mind by now & I suppose I should have been a little kinder to him. My fault for returning Evil for Evil instead of overcoming Evil with Good.
Patrick,
I was thinking about that boyish effiminate beauty which I've read is popular with young girls. I was not suggesting that anyone I mentioned is gay. Jody said what I meant, only with some clarity. I was trying for an example, and picked a bad one.
Paul,
I think we are approaching this issue from two different angles. I have trouble disagreeing with you without rambling for a while on subjects I don't understand well enough to ramble on about (natural selection and the scientific method).
I haven't had time to read this entire exchange, so if I'm retreading old ground, please bear with me.
One of the things that struck me about Tushnet's comparison of the Catholic model of addressing homosexuality and those living with the temptations and the predominant Protestant model is that it reflects the larger difference between Catholicism and Protestantism in general.
In many, if not most, of its forms, Protestantism believes that salvation is a one-time event dependant on a one-time "decision for Christ." Catholicism views salvation as dependant on an unearned infusion of supernatural grace and subsequent lifelong struggle -- by that supernatural grace earned for us by God's own blood, sweat, and tears -- to live a Christlike life.
PS-- Thank you, Lynn, for sharing your story. You are in my prayers. God bless.
Actually, Therese you too are a bit off. We know that homosexuality runs in families, occurs more often than chance dictates in monozygotic twins separated a birth, is established well before the age of three and doesn't correlate with any form of mental illness.
And which twin studies were these?
Further, given the occurrence of homosexuality in other animal species, and the recent study out showing that rams who engaged in same sex behavior had similar brain structures to humans as reported by LeVay, (an American), the evidence continues to mount that it's a pretty normal occurrence.
And the name of this study done by LeVay?
Jody, modern research deals in theories, and is as changeable as the weather; whereas, the RCC teaches truth. Truth is absolute, and is not subject to change.
One time long ago a Catholic priest psychologist told me that homosexuality is natural, evidenced by animals in barnyards.
Immediately I knew he was not telling me the truth. Animals are not capable of sin; no matter their behavior or what it looks like to us, it is not a sin. If an animal kills and eats another animal, it is not a sin. If a human does this, it is indeed a sin.
Human nature is more complex than animal nature, because each human has something extra. This is a supernatural thing. Being supernatural, this extra thing is subject to something beyond the limitations of nature, namely God. God says a homosexual act is a sin; therefore, it is.
One cannot observe nature and determine how man may behave, because man is greater than nature.
Jody, have you, yourself, actually done any modern research?
Someone you should fear: Saint Paul the Apostle tells us to fear nothing at all. Therefore, "Someone you should fear" is not to be feared.
The whole homosexual argument boils down marriage at its core. Andrew Sullivan would say that the Church discriminates against gays, but I think the commitment that the Church asks of a gay male and that which is asks of me [hetero married male] are not much different. My arguments are detailed on my blog:
larrykropp.blogspot.com
Has anyone remarked that the origin of the difference between Catholic and Protestant attitudes on this matter of 'switching teams' stems from -- generally speaking -- the Protestant rejection of consecrated celibate life? It really is considered a moral obligation to marry and have children by many of the lower Church Protestant groups.
As someone who has a very Draconian view of what needs to be done about the clerical scandals I also think that human sexuality in our fallen state is a great deal more complicated than many posters are making it out to be. If Michelangelo had not been homoerotically inclined we would not have the David or the Creation of Adam. A case of a 'felix culpa', I would argue, controlled and channeled into some of the greatest religious art of our tradition.
Regarding "gay" rams and other assorted "homosexual" members of the animal kingdom: Let Christians not be deceived by the tropes of modern science parroted without question by our easily excitable media.
If my neighbor's dog tries to have his way with my leg, would you say that dog is a humanlegosexual? I believe you would say that dog is pumped up with hormones, and confused. Why, then, are you so quick to accept the "gayness" of a ram that tries to hump, for lack of a more delicate term, another ram?
We have no way to tell what the ram on the receiving end makes of all the excitement behind him, but I've yet to see the research that says any kind of penetration, for lack of a more delicate term, is actually taking place. (Show me a male ram that enjoys being penetrated anally, and I'll show you a drugged animal; I won't even go into what I think are the impossible logistics of such a coupling in a species of this design.)
Please, Christians, reconsider what you're buying into when you so blithely accept the "gay" animals trope some researchers and members of the media have been selling.
Caroline, the unitive aspect of marriage is more than simply to bring up kids. It reflects the unity of God and man. This is why I included the Eucharist statement in my blog.
The route I took to getting a grip on this unity thing: Read the Bible, read the Bible, read the Bible. Notice especially the Song of Songs. Notice also that the Scriptures on the Eucharist show the knot between God and man. Gospel parable calling Jesus the Bridegroom, and the Church His bride is also to be noted.
But there is more. Read, as Mark Shea urges above, Pope John Paul II's "The Original Unity of Man and Woman".
After all, Caroline, what is important ultimately other than one's relationship with God, and children? I wonder if you take your "destination, Heaven" for granted? Why haven't the canonized saints taken such a reward for granted? Saint Paul the Apostle talks about his eternal crown awaiting him, but he demonstrates his life of complete sacrifice for Christ as the grounds for this hope of his -- and this is long after the Eucharist was instituted, a Sacrament which he preached, taught, and celebrated.
Eric recommends that we read what NARTH has to say about homosexuals
(as opposed to homosexuality).
I urge you to investigate a member of NARTH's board of scientific advisors.
His name is Nathaniel Lerhman. He's
espoused conversion therapy for homosexuals, the proposition that nazi-ism was a homosexual movement, and last but not least the claim that HIV does not cause AIDS. The only reasonable explanation for his political positions is that Lehrman hates homosexuals so much that he would promote AIDS/HIV demialism as a means of anti-gay genocide.
Eric, you're no better than a nazi, yourself.
Sorry for my long absence. Turkey to eat and all.
James:
I’m glad that you feel that there is some hope for me. Perhaps in the following weeks you may see that there are plenty of things upon which we can agree.
I still think that efforts to minister specifically to homosexuals are as misguided as legislation enacted specifically for them.
While you seem to make much of my idea that Courage may work under controlled circumstances, I must stress that those controls would probably end up being objectionable to the homosexual. If they want to keep as much freedom in their life as possible, than I think the best course of action for them would be silence. If they must have a group setting to explore their individual struggles, then the best place for that is in a mental health ward where they can be supervised.
This does not deny homosexuals any of the compassion that we as Christians are expected to give to them. It is a recognition of how extremely destructive homosexual acts are to homosexuals themselves and to society at large. It recognizes that homosexuals in particular may lack the kind of will power it takes to overcome their urges (they can’t, for instance, even stay faithful to their own latex idols, as “barebacking” is coming into fashion among them). And so, it realizes that certain things must be done to ensure compliance.
Social disapproval, or stigma, properly implemented, is not some kind of crude, punitive formulation intended to deprive homosexuals of their rights. It is compassionate in that it helps homosexuals to maintain their chastity. Simply enforcing sodomy laws would do wonders to curb same-sex sexual activity and have the added advantage of institutionalizing exactly those homosexuals who have the most trouble remaining chaste. For the others, they should be ashamed because that which they are tempted to do (like all sin) is shameful.
As far as the assumption that I would change my mind were I to encounter some homosexuals, I assure you I have had more than my fair share of interaction with them. My thoughts about them do not spring from thin air.
James, Sorry if I misunderstood. It's just as possibly the only Calvinist on these comments I try to correct misunderstandings
Michelle, I know what you mean about many Protestant sects. The "once saved, always saved" concept is all too popular. But as a Reformed Protestant, I can agree wholeheartedly with your understanding of the Christian life. There is the grace we have already, and the grace we have not yet. There is the Kingdom within, and the Kingdom that will descend. There is the glorified body in Heaven right now and then there is our flesh on Earth. And the two war against each other (Rom. 7) but in Christ we shall gain the victory.
David Kubiak asks:
"Has anyone remarked that the origin of the difference between Catholic and Protestant attitudes on this matter of 'switching teams' stems from -- generally speaking -- the Protestant rejection of consecrated celibate life? It really is considered a moral obligation to marry and have children by many of the lower Church Protestant groups."
I said something to that effect way up near the top of this thread, when I wrote: 'I think Evangelical groups emphasize "changing" instead because many Evangelicals are uncomfortable with chastity; to them, it's a "Catholic" thing.'
You put it even better than I did. I agree; that is a big reason why Evangelicals promote "changing" rather than celibacy.
Eric,
Speaking as an abstinent homosexual who still has to work for a living, I can only say that the remaining social stigma and discriminaiton encouraged by the Catholic church only lead me to renounce my catholicism and to take on the Church as my enemy.
I've no patience fot the notion that sodomy laws should be enforced as they once were by sending homosexuals to wards for the criminally insane. I will oppose by ANY means necessary any state government or religious body involved in the reinstitution of such laws.
Have a nice day.
Eric,
Christ said to go into one's closet and pray to the Father, yes, but that was not the only recourse he gave them. He promised not to reject any one who comes to him. One can and should come to him in the Sacraments, but, as others have noted, Christ has not limited himself to the Sacraments. Nor to Tradition. Nor to Scripture. Christ has also put people into our lives, and I for one tremble to think of the Day of Judgment when it will be revealed how many I have turned away rather than accepted in his name. What you're proposing seems to be a way of rejecting people en masse, and systematically. I would indeed tremble.
Finally, I mean this not to be mean to you but as your brother in Christ, you revealingly said that you had no problems living the Church's teaching and so others should not either. That was spoken like a true Pharisee. I would recommend that you think about those teachings of Christ that you do have a hard time living, despite your best intentions, and let Christ use those difficulties to nurture in you compassion for your brothers and sisters whose struggles, though different in form, are against the same frail flesh.
No problems living the Church's teachings???
I wonder how this could be? There is nothing harder than to live the teachings of the Church -- to find out about this, I suggest reading the Saints ... any of them. Start with St. Paul.
To anonymous, the celibate homosexual: Have you tried reparative therapy? Also, you seem to be doing the same thing to NARTH as you accuse them of doing, namely unloading speculation of what they are about on them. As you are inviting others to get to know and understand your situation, wouldn't you think it appropriate for you to actually contact NARTH and find out from the horse's mouth what they mean by the "evidence" you interpret as sinister?
Eutychus D.: Why is it so hard to get the idea across for you and others to consider that the reason that animals are not homosexual is that they are incapable of sin, whereas homosexual activity is sin. It's as simple as that.
Animals do all sorts of things which may be interpreted as sexual, but this does not make them perverts. Sure, animals may be "trained" to do things that are not their natural things to do ... but the animals do what they need to to survive. In training, the animal does what it thinks gets it down the road. It has no culpability of wrongdoing.
If your dog humps your leg and never learns not to, it is because it is being rewarded for doing so. The sin, perhaps, is on the ones managing the dog. In other words, why is the dog doing it if you don't want it to? And of course, why would you want it to?
To take trash the beauty of creation is to talk trash on the Creator -- there is no other possible explanation for dumping on nature. It may be a sign of despair.
Also about "gay" animals. I've never noticed that people who are around lots of animals consider these creatures to be "gay". I've been around goats. If anyone thinks sheep are so inclined, let them watch goats.
In this case, the three bucks were penned next to a corral of 14 does. The bucks were "champing at the bit" all day long, kind of playing leap frog at the fence. It was obvious that they were not interested essentially in one another, but in the does. The owner of these goats knew he needed to move the bucks much further away from the does, but he was time-strapped, and didn't see it as a major problem.
Cows (female cattle) hump pregnant cows; this is not homosexual. They are not lesbian cows. It is part of the animal nature. Whether range cattle, undomesticated, do the same, I don't know. But regardless, animals dwell in the natural realm; human beings dwell also in the supernatural realm, where God utters words of instruction and law to us which we do not find in nature. Animals obey man and nature; man is made to obey the Creator of nature.
So, when man's realm is displaced onto animals, then it is a travesty of truth.
Eric,
I would say you need to read my wife's (ie Rosemarie) excellent refutation of your errors. As for agreement. The only thing we agree on is that gay sex is a sin. That's it.
As my wife pointed out your irational objections to Courage are no different from Anti-Catholic fundamentalist objections to Confession. The facts, the CAtholic Faith & even NARTH are still against you. I'm sorry.
John,
Thanks for the kind words. I feel...well.... validated.
Regards,
Paul
I know it has been said before, but it deserves to be repeated.
We are not mere animals.
We are created in the image and likeness of God.
Darwin's theory of evolution is not popular because it tries to answer the question of "where did we come from?" His theory is popular because it allows those who do not wish to be morally responsible to have an out. 'If we are all just animals, all created from the same godless, single-celled organism, then morality is nothing more than an adaptive survival trait. A trait that has no superior or fundamental basis in our existance and can therefore be substituted at the discretion of the organism trying to survive.'
--------
Black and white do exist. Gray occurs when WE bring the lense out of focus. When someone argues that moral arguments are ultimately gray, they are arguing for moral ambiguity. In a morally ambiguous (or gray) world all answer are ultimately, equally valid. A gray world ultimately denies the existance of natural law.
The slavery of sin is manifested in our attempt to rationalize sin and explain how our immoral behavior is actually moral. The enslaved sinner is incessantly bound to explain his or her bahavior, not just to others, but more importantly to themself.
It kind of gives you a chill when you ponder the profound brilliance of the confessional. Acknowledgement of one's transgressions to another human being actually helps to shake off the chains that bind our own mind. Reconciliation is a natural, as well as, a supernatural grace from God.
Natural reconciliation is not possible in a gray world that cannot see its own sins.
'Tis the season to recognize the light of the world, in the world.
John L. Sillasen:
I don't understand your point about whether there's any such thing as "gay" animals. (I say there is no such thing: Politically corrected human perception sees "gayness" in the hormonal confusion of some animals, then sells the concept to the world as a fait accompli.)
Near as I can figure from what you've written in two posts above, it seems as though you're agreeing with me and telling me off at the same time.
Paul Sheibmeier: When the Pope says that the purpose of marriage is both procreative and unitive, and you define it differently, at first I thought you only call it procreative. But I just re-read what you say, and find the unitive aspect embedded in your statement. Because you put God in the mix, implying that there is a relationship among man, wife and God in the creation of the new person: this is procreative and unitive.
Very interesting. Lynn posted a very good comment sharing her own personal experiences with same sex attraction. The rest of the folks are still talking about "those homosexuals". I mean, you are speaking about people in a general, detached way. I was very surprised that I didn't see any comments addressing Lynn's comment.
But then again, maybe I'm not surprised. I think that it's very easy to criticize homosexuals and judge them and even dictate how they should relate to God until you have a loved one that is homosexual. I don't think you necessarily change your moral stance, but that judgement of them doesn't come quite so easily.
So, I am curious... is there anyone out there with an opinion similar to Eric's that has a homosexual relative or close friend? And I'm not talking about aquaintences (spelling...sorry).
I don't want to hear comments like, "there's this guy at work who...". Or "I know this lady who..."
I mean someone you really care about.
What do you think?
Eutychus D.: What I am saying is this, that animals are not capable of homosexual activity. Some of their behavior, whether effected or not by domestic conditions, is being interpreted as homosexual. Those who seem to make this interpretation, also seem to say that this is evidence that the natural world included homosexuality.
This hypothesis is shear speculation. It blurs the line between animals and human beings. And it does this, as far as I can see, to rationalize or justify homosexual behavior among humans.
Only human beings are capable of homosexual behavior, because only we are capable of an act of free will. Animals do not have this capacity of free will, and cannot choose against the will of God. Thus, they cannot sin. What animals do is in the natural realm; if they do things that would be atypical such as a dog killing and eating a child, the sin is not on the dog, but on people who are responsible for the dog's atypical behavior.
We are not animals; we have free will to choose either to do right or to sin. We cannot offload the guilt of sin onto others or animals or plants or inanimate things or diseases. Human beings are where the buck stops when it comes to sin.
Perhaps I am so passionate about this issue due to my growing appreciation of creation. I find that I like it the way God made it. It is not easy to see how God made it; it takes lots of effort to discern between God's will and man's will when one examines nature.
The Fall (Adam and Eve story) wreaked havoc on all of creation, not only mankind. Animals suffer due to original sin, although they, themselves, do not have sin but suffer the effects of sin.
Many people these days are trying to help restore nature which has been corrupted to some extent. Often such people are not Catholics at all, nor even monotheists. But, by instinct for doing good, perhaps, they are attempting to help put creation into its intended condition. Maybe this effort will lead some of these people to Christ, Who created what they're trying to rescue, only haven't made the connection.
Meggan:
So far I haven't even encountered anybody out there with an opinion similar to Eric's. He's pretty much all alone on this blog.
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
