Homosexuality

[Cam42]

[quote name='qfnol31' post='992311' date='May 29 2006, 10:19 AM']
It says it is largely unexplained, not totally unexplained.

Also, the way that is put forward, it seems that there is some explanation already present.

Also, I believe at one point Todd did put forward his private opinion about how it should be handled, and you just ran with it. He was responding to something of hot stuff and you took it completely out of context. However, at that time, he said the main source for the cure would be for the person to emerse himself in God's grace.
I don't think that anyone has said the person who has homosexual tendencies is unstable...just not healthy in sexual development.

By the way, if the answer for homosexuality does not lie in the mind, where is it? In man's nature? In man's body? Elsewhere?

By the way Cam, Todd would be less at odds, in your mind, with the Catechetical position if you took time to understand it better than you have.

Be it not in the Catechism, we know by good Catholic theology that homosexuality is not in man's nature and is not a problem of the flesh alone. Therefore, the problem rests in man's mind.
How can that possibly be the case? The mind must be the condition for this unless you're a modernist, a heretic, or something else I haven't thought of...
[/quote]

So far all of this you are putting forward is your opinion. I believe this......I believe that.....all that is fine and you are entitled to your opinion, but (and this is a big but) you have not proven my position to be wrong. My position is a support for the Catholic position as put forth from current Catholic teaching. What is your precedence? Three other phatmassers? C'mon.....

Zach, how about showing some proof that the Church teaches that this is a psychological problem and a mental issue. How about showing other than your own conjecture, how your position is compatible, not only with your opinion, but your opinion supported through the Church's teachings. I have done this, how about you doing the same for the thread.

I took NOTHING out of context. You have yet to respond to that accusation from earlier as well. Todd equates the "condition" and the "mind" to be the same thing.....I have given the quote earlier. How aout responding to that.....(I don't expect one, btw, because it is beyond your scope to do so).

How dare you say that I don't understand the catechetical position....this coming from a guy who doesn't even understand the promulgation.......that is truly funny.....LOL.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Cam42' post='992255' date='May 29 2006, 05:06 AM']
Todd's argument clinches nothing, because it is at odds with the catechetical position. CCC #2357 says that the psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. What does that mean? It means that there is no psychological basis. The Church teaches through her silence that psychology is not the answer. The answer is clearly stated through the last statement in CCC #2358 which states that the homosexual person is called to fulfill God's will in his life and, if he is a Christian, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties he may encounter from his condition. Nowhere in any of the Church's teaching does she say that one should seek out secular psychological means.

Todd, et al. are trying to equate the mind as the condition. And to subsitute one word for another doesn't somehow solve the problem, but rather it masks it. And through this masking the homosexual person has been compromised.

Simply follow what the Church teaches. The argument is not clinched. The reason is that this statement is at odds with this statement:[/quote]
Todd has not said anything at all at odds with the Cathechism, nor with the teachings of the Church.
The 1992 Catechism says: "Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained." That is to say, the CCC does not take an official "position" on what the psychological genesis of homosexuality is - as there are a number of different theories, and as hot stuff has pointed out, the Catechism is not a psychiatric textbook. It does not list [b]anything[/b] as a "mental disorder," nor advise psychological treatment for [b]any[/b] condition. That is not the CCC's place. The CCC tells what actions are moral and immoral. Giving psychological theories is outside the scope of Faith and Morals.
The statement, "Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained," does [b]not[/b] deny that homosexual inclinations have a psychological genesis, rather it implies that it does; it just does not give an explanation, as this issue has not been resolved. The Catechism does [b]not[/b] state "It has no psychological genesis" or "its psychological genesis is nonexistant."
To claim that is what it is saying is to blatantly twist the meaning of the words.

You are not presenting authentic Catholic teaching but only your own opinion, to which you twist the words of the Catechism.

Your politically correct personal "interpretations" and opinions do not equate the infallible teaching of the Church, no matter what silly titles you may blasphemously apply to yourself.

[quote]Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.[/quote]
This says absolutely nothing about whether homosexuality is disordered, or whether the disorder lies in the mind. Neither does it condemn as wrong or sinful any attempt to cure this disorder by psychological means. As with other disorders, not all cases are easily curable.
What the cathechism is saying is exactly what it states - that people with this disorder are called to chastity - as are all Christians. The alternative to chastity is unchastity, which is sinful.

[quote]Show me where the Church says that one is psychologically unstable because he is homosexual. You cannot, because the Church does not teach that. You assume it, because that is what YOU want it to be. That is taking something which is objective and making it subjective. And that has NEVER been the way that the Church taught.
[/quote]
The Church is not in the business of making psychiatric diagnosis, one way or the other.

The Church does teach that homosexual inclinations are in themselves objectively disordered, and it is clear from reason that this disorder lies in the psyche.

While you and hot stuff repeatedly deny this (absurdly, as going against Church teaching), [b]you repeatedly avoid the issue of where you believe this disorder lies.[/b]
(Unless I am inadvertantly missing something, it seems the only other options would be that it is entirely physical or entirely spiritual.)

And you slanderously accuse Todd of contradicting Church teaching, and make the false and ludicrous claim that he equates the homosexual disorder with the homosexual person. (Which neither he nor I has ever made.)
Obviously, a person can have a disordered condition of the mind without being intrinsically disordered as a person.
(If you were to logically follow your own statements, the conclusion would be that no mental disorders of any kind can exist.)
You owe Todd and all phatmass an apology for this dishonest slander.

You have slanderously twisted both the words of the Catechism and of your opponents on this boards in a feeble attempt to gain "debate points." Until you repent, and decide to actually debate, rather than engage in empty sophistry, slander, and straw-man arguments, I shall shake the dust from my feet and move on from this debate.

[Socrates]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='992126' date='May 28 2006, 08:16 PM']
I ignore nothing. And we could launch into areas where the Church's understanding has grown since Aquinas's time but that would be a distraction.

What the Church declares is key. Lust is objectively disordered. What is disordered? Is it natural? No it is not (then it would be ordered)
[/quote]
Yes, that would indeed be a distraction, and completely fallacious, as the Church has in no way changed its teachings on the unnatural sin of homosexuality.

Note what St. Thomas Aquinas states:
[quote]I answer that, As stated above (Articles [6],9) wherever there occurs a special kind of deformity whereby the venereal act is rendered unbecoming, there is a determinate species of lust. This may occur in two ways: First, through being contrary to right reason, and this is common to all lustful vices; secondly, because, in addition, it is contrary to the natural order of the venereal act as becoming to the human race: and this is called "the unnatural vice."[/quote]
Unnatural lust is clearly distinguished from other species of lust.
St. Thomas says all lust is contrary to right reason.
The higher powers of human reason dictate that that the sexual act take place only within marriage.
The fornicator or adulterer lowers himself to the level of a brute animal by following his lower animal passions unrestrained by reason.
Dogs, cats, horses, etc. will mate with any available member of the opposite sex of the species.
This is similar to the glutton who indulges his appetites for food unrestrained by reason.

With unnatural lust, however, the act (sodomy) is contrary to nature itself (mating with a female of the same species). Thus, this is called "the unnatural vice."

[Cam42]

[quote name='Socrates' post='992495' date='May 29 2006, 07:19 PM']
Todd has not said anything at all at odds with the Cathechism, nor with the teachings of the Church.
The 1992 Catechism says: "Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained." That is to say, the CCC does not take an official "position" on what the psychological genesis of homosexuality is - as there are a number of different theories, and as hot stuff has pointed out, the Catechism is not a psychiatric textbook. It does not list [b]anything[/b] as a "mental disorder," nor advise psychological treatment for [b]any[/b] condition. That is not the CCC's place. The CCC tells what actions are moral and immoral. Giving psychological theories is outside the scope of Faith and Morals.
The statement, "Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained," does [b]not[/b] deny that homosexual inclinations have a psychological genesis, rather it implies that it does; it just does not give an explanation, as this issue has not been resolved. The Catechism does [b]not[/b] state "It has no psychological genesis" or "its psychological genesis is nonexistant."
To claim that is what it is saying is to blatantly twist the meaning of the words.

You are not presenting authentic Catholic teaching but only your own opinion, to which you twist the words of the Catechism.

Your politically correct personal "interpretations" and opinions do not equate the infallible teaching of the Church, no matter what silly titles you may blasphemously apply to yourself.
This says absolutely nothing about whether homosexuality is disordered, or whether the disorder lies in the mind. Neither does it condemn as wrong or sinful any attempt to cure this disorder by psychological means. As with other disorders, not all cases are easily curable.
What the cathechism is saying is exactly what it states - that people with this disorder are called to chastity - as are all Christians. The alternative to chastity is unchastity, which is sinful.
The Church is not in the business of making psychiatric diagnosis, one way or the other.

The Church does teach that homosexual inclinations are in themselves objectively disordered, and it is clear from reason that this disorder lies in the psyche.

While you and hot stuff repeatedly deny this (absurdly, as going against Church teaching), [b]you repeatedly avoid the issue of where you believe this disorder lies.[/b]
(Unless I am inadvertantly missing something, it seems the only other options would be that it is entirely physical or entirely spiritual.)

And you slanderously accuse Todd of contradicting Church teaching, and make the false and ludicrous claim that he equates the homosexual disorder with the homosexual person. (Which neither he nor I has ever made.)
Obviously, a person can have a disordered condition of the mind without being intrinsically disordered as a person.
(If you were to logically follow your own statements, the conclusion would be that no mental disorders of any kind can exist.)
You owe Todd and all phatmass an apology for this dishonest slander.

You have slanderously twisted both the words of the Catechism and of your opponents on this boards in a feeble attempt to gain "debate points." Until you repent, and decide to actually debate, rather than engage in empty sophistry, slander, and straw-man arguments, I shall shake the dust from my feet and move on from this debate.
[/quote]

Your opinion is totally out in left field. You need to show just HOW your interpretation of the Catechism is justified. You have not done that, yet; neither has Zach or anyone else, other than hot stuff and myself.

You are correct, it is not the Catechism's place to determine the psychological genesis, but the twisting of the words are not done by me....I have simply stated what the Catechism teaches and if there is any twisting, it is by the other side who claims to substitute the "condition" with the "mind."

I have not twisted the Catechism, but rather I have simply expounded upon it. My expounding is accurate though. There is nothing that I have said is contrary.

The Church says NOTHING about the genesis resting in the mind, so we cannot infer that the Church assumes it is a possiblity. That is what is the twisting of the Church's position. Again, I ask you to show me where the Church teaches or implies or states that homosexuality is a mental problem. The simple fact is that it does not. I have posted what the Church teaches and states.

You say that the Church is not in the business of making psychological diganosis, then why do you assume that the homosexual is mentally unstable? There is no basis for that, according to your own position, unless you'd like to recant that statement. Thanks for changing your position.

Slanderously? Gee, nice ad hominem. You have no basis. Socrates, I don't care what type of snarks you throw out, but be accurate.....I have not slandered anyone. Try attacking the argument, not the person.....that was a shallow shot, but what else should I expect from someone who cannot argue against the position.....it is the last resort.

Go ahead and shake the dust, but don't forget to post again.....just like you did for hot stuff.....that was seriously funny.....I am done with this thread, except for the last little slam on hot stuff......typical of you Socrates, typical.

[qfnol31]

Cam, you have no basis for telling people not to throw ad hominems until you stop yourself.

Unless you do not stop, please refrain from asking others not to.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='992347' date='May 29 2006, 10:38 AM']Wrong. Todd, Socrates and others have argued that homosexuality is a mental disorder. I'm simply refuting it. And while it is your opinion, (and theirs) that the issue of homosexuality lies within the mind and others may have the opinion that it is biological, it is simply that.[/quote]

What was wrong? Since you're arguing against it being seated in the mind, there are two other options that I can see. Can you see an alternative? Nature, physical, mental...?

[quote]Opinion

We also know by good Catholic Theology that lust is a perversion and it is unnatural. There is no false dichotomy at all. Both lust and homosexual desire directly contradict the purpose for sexuality.[/quote]

What's opinion? That homosexuality is rooted in our nature? That means God gave it to us...but He didn't. Is it in our body? I don't think so...that means our body controls who we are, and then there's no need for a soul. Is there another option?

[quote][b]NO[/quote] [/b]

No?

[quote]2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.[/quote]

It is the disordered desire for sexual pleasure. I said, "It is the disordering of something that is natural." Desire for sexual pleasure isn't natural? Well, if it isn't, then there isn't such thing as an ordered desire for it. The Catechism implies that there is such thing as an ordered desire or ordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. That desire, when not sought for itself but sought within the context and secondarily to the procreative and unitive purposes of sex is not disordinate. That therefore implies that lust is the disordering of something natural, unless pleasure of sex isn't natural nor is enjoyment or desire of it (of course, within the right context.

[quote]It is not. It is a travesty to see Catholics argue that it is. Lust has nothing to do with the natural. The natural inclination is towards the sacred, unitive and procreative. Lust has no connection to any of these. That is why it comparable to homosexual desire. Because it does not desire to be sacred unitive or procreative. That is why it is considered to be objectively disordered![/quote]

Unless the Catechism is wrong, it very much has to do with the natural. Lust also includes the inordinate enjoyment of sex. I have a feeling sex was meant to be enjoyed. It therefore is a perversion of what is good and natural.

[quote]Lust is objectively disordered. Homosexual attraction is objectively disordered. To argue that they aren't in the same category is ludicrous. While St Thomas would argue degrees, he would not argue that they are in separate categories.[/quote]

Murder is objectively disordered. Yelling spitefully for no good reason at someone who deserves respect and has not earned the yelling is objectively disordered. Are you going to tell me they're in the same category? One's most likely going to be a mortal sin, the other will probably be a venial sin.

Lust is willed, homosexuality is not. There is that positive and negative aspect that you don't seem to take into account...

[quote]Yet you, Todd and others argue that homosexual tendencies MUST be a mental disorder but leave other objectively disordered inclinations alone. You've provided nothing but opinion as to why. [/quote]

What have I left behind? I think your analogies are bad. It doesn't lend to good discussion to use a bad analogy.

Also, I did respond to lust...as you've proved in responding to me...

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Socrates' post='992499' date='May 29 2006, 07:33 PM']
Yes, that would indeed be a distraction, and completely fallacious, as the Church has in no way changed its teachings on the unnatural sin of homosexuality.
[/quote]
So ... just to be clear, are you saying that none of the Church's more recent statements on homosexuality should have any bearing on this discussion? Because hot stuff didn't say the Church has "changed its teachings" but rather that the Church's understanding has grown ... something you say is "completely fallacious." Do you believe the Church's understanding on the topic of homosexuality has not grown? Are more recent statements on the topic irrelevant?

Zach, I'm a little slow to get what you're arguing here, so I'd appreciate a bit of clarification.

So I see the natural order of things as being the total, free, fruitful, faithful gift of love within a marriage. That's the natural order. Anything that diverges from that order: unnatural.

Somehow, from what I'm reading (and please correct me if I'm reading you wrong) you've got lust as being a perversion of the natural and homosexuality as a perversion of the unnatural ... I just don't get where you're coming from with that. My take on it would be that both are perversions of the natural order. In neither situation is the human person viewed rightly, per the natural order.

I've been reading this thread for a while, and there seems to be an unwillingness on some people's part to equate lust and homosexuality as both being perversions of the natural order. If I had to guess at the reason for this reluctance, I'd guess it's because all of us here have experienced lust, but not homosexual attraction. Lust, therefore, is a sin that's known, that feels, somehow, "right" or closer to the natural order of things ("at least my thoughts are wrongly directed toward someone of the [i]opposite[/i] sex") ... while homosexuality is "other" -- something we can't understand, therefore it's not only a perversion but "unnatural".

Maybe I'm wrong in my assessment ... I guess I just don't see the same distinction you seem to.

[qfnol31]

I think that both homosexuality and lust is a perversion of a natural thing. That I do agree with.

[Franimus]

Face it Cam: Socrates was right in Post #152. Especially the top part about your misinterpretation of the CCC. Also, I do not think that calling a statement of yours "slanderous" is an attack against you. Rather, it is a valid "attack" on the "slanderous" content of your statements.

I also agree with the last part of Sojourner's statement, although I do admit the possibility of a [i]slight[/i] distinction between lust and homosexual lust. Personally, I think that a homosexual who acts on his or her homosexual tendancies would be as equally culpable as a heterosexual who acts on his or her heterosexual tendancies, and that a heterosexual committing a homosexual act would be the most culpable. I suppose you could say I believe in "sinful relativism," that is, the sinfulness of an act is relative to many factors, especially the gravity of the sin, the knowledge of the sin, and the willingness (or pressure) or commit the sin (this is another topic, however, which should be continued in another thread).

[Cam42]

[quote name='Franimus' post='992694' date='May 30 2006, 12:33 AM']
Face it Cam: Socrates was right in Post #152. Especially the top part about your misinterpretation of the CCC. Also, I do not think that calling a statement of yours "slanderous" is an attack against you. Rather, it is a valid "attack" on the "slanderous" content of your statements.

I also agree with the last part of Sojourner's statement, although I do admit the possibility of a [i]slight[/i] distinction between lust and homosexual lust. Personally, I think that a homosexual who acts on his or her homosexual tendancies would be as equally culpable as a heterosexual who acts on his or her heterosexual tendancies, and that a heterosexual committing a homosexual act would be the most culpable. I suppose you could say I believe in "sinful relativism," that is, the sinfulness of an act is relative to many factors, especially the gravity of the sin, the knowledge of the sin, and the willingness (or pressure) or commit the sin (this is another topic, however, which should be continued in another thread).
[/quote]


Since nobody else will actually prove my position wrong.....would you care to try?

[Laudate_Dominum]

[color="#FF0000"]If anyone has any questions as to why this thread was closed feel free to PM me or another of the mods. Peace.[/color]

[dUSt]

What an immense waste of time this thread was.

Seems to me nobody is arguing over church teaching.
Seems to me everyone is arguing over the definition of "mental disorder", which doesn't have anything to do with the church.

Here's the rebuttal to everyone's arguments:[url="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&defl=en&q=define:mental+disorder&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title"]CLICK[/url]

Thank you and goodbye.