[2009-06-15] Change Is Possible for Gays, Says Psychologist

[BelindaP]

I thought that spouses could forgo sex if they both agreed to do so to spend more time in prayer. But, I guess it's not an option to do it permanently in a sacramental marriage?

 

[D'Ann]

I thought that spouses could forgo sex if they both agreed to do so to spend more time in prayer. But, I guess it's not an option to do it permanently in a sacramental marriage?

No, it's not an option to permanently not join together as one in a Sacramental Catholic marriage.

The only time that a couple can go without bonding together as one is if there are health risks to one or both of them... such as a heart problem, etc.

But a couple must find a way to still have some affection that brings them closer spiritually, mentally and emotionally and physically.

 

[JoabAnias]

I thought that spouses could forgo sex if they both agreed to do so to spend more time in prayer. But, I guess it's not an option to do it permanently in a sacramental marriage?

St. Paul infers in Sacred Holy Scripture that it is efficacious to separate for a time so that a couple may devote themselves to the Lord and in the same passage that they should come back together. 1Cor 7 I think.

 

[BelindaP]

That's too bad.

 

[Polycarp1]

It would be inappropriate for me, an Episcopalian, to debate in OBOB. Let me just note for general information that NARTH, the organization whose website is the first of the two links at the end of the OP, is neither Catholic nor honest -- they knowingly use false statistics produced by a renegade psychologist who is the only man thrown out of the APA for falsifying data, and slant their information in a strongly evangelical Protestant mode. Take what they say with more than a grain of salt.

 

[français]

What makes me laugh, is how NARTH says that one organization is political based and not science based... And I believe this is a double standard, because NARTH is very political/religious based, and not science based by any means. I have never seen an article from NARTH showing scientific evidence for their claims.

Here is what I will say on the issue; I myself am a homosexual, who is currently engaged to my boyfriend and will be getting married soon. (Go ahead, take a break and throw up if you wish LOL.) I am also an ex-Catholic.(Didn't leave the religion because of my sexuality though.)

When I was a Catholic, I was much more willing to listen to people who told me to be chaste than to people who told me that I can change my sexuality.

Listen, if you think that homosexuality is a sin, than ok. I mean, the Bible is clear on the issue that it is a sin. So, I don't call you an idiot or think badly of you for believing it is a sin.

However, just because it is a sin, doesn't mean that homosexuals choose their same sex desires.We all have sinful desires; whether it be with someone of the opposite sex, with drugs/alcohol, etc. However, just because you may WANT to do these things, doesn't mean you should. Or doesn't make it right.

I think that from a religious standpoints, homosexuals actually have it the best. Because they are given such a hard test from God. And, if they can pass the test(by being chatse) then hopefully they will be among the highest ranks in Heaven.

When I went to Church, I told an elderly guy I was gay. He told me I needed to change and that God doesn't like that I like other guys. You know what? I pretty much just forgot about him. I didn't listen to him at all.

But, then once in Confession I told the Priest, and he said that no matter how hard the desires, to just be chaste and not act upon them. I listened to him a lot more and was more open to hearing his advice because he at least didn't deny the fact that I didn't choose my orientation. I think you people would be a lot more successful if you just admitted that homosexuality wasn't a choice. It wouldn't be giving a victory to the LGBT movement, because we already know this. It would just be accepting reality. And then, instead of telling people to change, just tell them to be chaste and approach them in a loving way, not in an obscure way.

I am openly gay and I have a boyfriend and I have not chosen the life of chasity and celiabacy. But you know, if I really wanted to, and if I feared God enough(meaning I would have to believe in him first LOL) I could. And, I would be a very strong person if I was able to do that. Instead of people ridiculing me saying "get married, try dating a girl" they should say "keep up the good work and being celibate, and remember you are not alone!"

And to all the gay people here.. Personally, I would want to say just be yourselves. Date who you want, it's your life. But, many of you are God fearing people, and I respect that. Just keep up the good work in being celibate and remember you are not alone. And if there is a God, then boy would he be proud of you because you have accomplished such a hard test. And you are among the strongest in Faith if you are willing to make such a heavy sacrifise for the sake of God. What a kind heart you have.

 

[faerieevaH]

The article is poorly written, unconvincing and bad journalism, I'm afraid.

 

[JoabAnias]

Totus Tuus.

 

[SolomonVII]

It would be inappropriate for me, an Episcopalian, to debate in OBOB...

Yes it is.

 

[D'Ann]

All I can do is pray... with love and compassion and without condemnation or judgement.

I don't have the answers... but I know that the Church does and all I can do is trust the Church.

I think this burden that chaste people carry, no matter what sex orientation they may be... is a tough one... all I can do is pray.

 

[SolomonVII]

The article is poorly written, unconvincing and bad journalism, I'm afraid.

What did you think about Cardinal Ratzinger's letter in the OP though.

Pure gold, was it not?

Is there anything that struck you as expecially pertient to how a Christian might respond to these issues, and the role that scinece plays?

 

[SolomonVII]

11. It has been argued that the homosexual orientation in certain cases is not the result of deliberate choice; and so the homosexual person would then have no choice but to behave in a homosexual fashion. Lacking freedom, such a person, even if engaged in homosexual activity, would not be culpable.​

Here, the Church's wise moral tradition is necessary since it warns against generalizations in judging individual cases. In fact, circumstances may exist, or may have existed in the past, which would reduce or remove the culpability of the individual in a given instance; or other circumstances may increase it. What is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behaviour of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable. What is essential is that the fundamental liberty which characterizes the human person and gives him his dignity be recognized as belonging to the homosexual person as well. As in every conversion from evil, the abandonment of homosexual activity will require a profound collaboration of the individual with God's liberating grace.​

It is a dangerous road that a science based in materialism and determinism is taking us on, when it deems that we are bereft of real choice in defining who we are sexually, that such choice is not really possible, that we are the products of our genes and our hormones alone and that human will is impotent to change any of this.

What is gained in freedom from culpability becomes lost in terms of human dignity, if this is indeed true.

The cardinal touches on an Augustinian theme in noting how individuals may have become so tainted as to be incapable of exercising free will in many specific cases, how original sin has corrupted the ability to act freely to express our sexual nature as God intends for it to be expressed.

Yet there is hope in spite of this corruption, in the belief that not our will, but God's will be done. Nothing, absolutely nothing is inevitable, through him, with him, in him.

The first step then is to believe it is at least possible.

 

[isabella1]

I thought that spouses could forgo sex if they both agreed to do so to spend more time in prayer. But, I guess it's not an option to do it permanently in a sacramental marriage?

No it is not an option in a marriage. That would be called a "Josephite marriage", and requires special permission to have between a married couple from a Bishop. It is not the norm and is rarely granted.

 

[isabella1]

Joab, post #40 is really good. It took me a while to read, but worth it.

 

[SolomonVII]

I've always wondered why somebody doesn't start up a matchmaking service for gays and lesbians. Celibate gays could be paired with celibate lesbians so they could be married. Marriage very often ends up being more about partnership and companionship than sex anyhow.

Openness to life is of primary importance in marriage.

It is also very much a re-creation of the one flesh union that was the state of humanity before God shaped Eve from Adam's side.

This is a theological statement more than a scientific one of course. The science behind the statement would note that unlike all of the other essential needs to maintain life, such as food water, and the elimination of wastes, our procreative needs do not take place on the level of the individual, but on the level of the male-female bonding of two fleshes literally into one flesh.

This is as primal and as important to life as any of our other physical needs of food, water, and elimination of wastes.

This is actually all part of the pro-life position that the Catholic Church evangelizes on other issues as well.

 

[eastcoast_bsc]

It would be inappropriate for me, an Episcopalian, to debate in OBOB. Let me just note for general information that NARTH, the organization whose website is the first of the two links at the end of the OP, is neither Catholic nor honest -- they knowingly use false statistics produced by a renegade psychologist who is the only man thrown out of the APA for falsifying data, and slant their information in a strongly evangelical Protestant mode. Take what they say with more than a grain of salt.

That renegade Psychologist would be Paul Cameron.

Cameron first waded into the fray over gay rights in 1982, when he became chairman of the Committee to Oppose Special Rights for Homosexuals, which formed to fight a proposed ordinance in Lincoln, Neb., to extend civil rights protections to gays and lesbians. Cameron was then a professor at the University of Nebraska. Campaigning against the ordinance, Cameron told the congregation of the University of Nebraska Lutheran Church that a local 4-year old boy had recently been dragged into a shopping mall bathroom and castrated by a homosexual. The story was totally false. The Omaha Police Department and local hospitals had no record of such an assault. But the tale of the homosexual castration attack upon a child quickly became a popular myth, and Cameron kept defending it in the media as "an example of what could happen," even after admitting that his source for the information was a friend of a friend who'd supposedly heard it from a police officer. The Omaha gay rights ordinance was voted down by a four-to-one margin.

A year after his victory in Nebraska, Cameron announced himself as the head of a new scientific research group he called the Institute for the Scientific Investigation of Sexuality (ISIS). He said the institute's first project would be a nationwide sex survey. And Cameron boldly predicted in media interviews that, "The results will tend to indicate that those who lead sexually venturesome lives are more inclined toward suicide, are less happy, and contract more diseases." (Legitimate researchers do not publicize their findings in advance of data collection).

Cameron took his act to the national stage in the mid-'80s against the backdrop of the escalating AIDS panic. In 1986, he co-authored the book Special Report: AIDS, which advocated establishing concentration camps immediately for "sexually active homosexuals," theorized that HIV is transmissible by casual contact, and popularized a fictional medical condition labeled "Gay Bowel Syndrome."

These are just some of the lies that Paul Cameron has used to denigrate Gays.

He has been denounced bu most Socio-Psycho associations. But what bothers me, is that Narth uses his discredited statistics, and Courage backed Narth as an Association.

 

[SolomonVII]

But what about what Cardinal Ratzinger had to say?

 

[SolomonVII]

If you declare with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Giving voice to ones heartfelt with your lips is a very Christian thing to do.

Not just to confess, not just to believe but to confess and believe is at the heart of Christianity.

I think it is agreed that Bafriend overstated his case here. He has not offered any defense that he has not at any rate.
But all in all, there is a whole lot more understatement going on here, rather than the one overstatement on his behalf.

That is understandable.

 

[eastcoast_bsc]

Giving voice to ones heartfelt with your lips is a very Christian thing to do.

Not just to confess, not just to believe but to confess and believe is at the heart of Christianity.

I think it is agreed that Bafriend overstated his case here. He has not offered any defense that he has not at any rate.
But all in all, there is a whole lot more understatement going on here, rather than the one overstatement on his behalf.

That is understandable.

The exact same scenario happened in the past, he was called on for inserting the word Evil into the Church's opinion in regards to gays, but he has chosen to call Gays evil again.

 

[CoyoteUgly]

The exact same scenario happened in the past, he was called on for inserting the word Evil into the Church's opinion in regards to gays, but he has chosen to call Gays evil again.

What should he have said that would be more in line with Catholic teaching, as you understand it?