spathariossa Posted January 5, 2005 Posted January 5, 2005 [quote name='Monoxide' date='Jan 5 2005, 02:28 AM'] do i sense sarcasm? [/quote] No, you sense the opposite of sarcasm - sincerity. I really do feel that this thread's title and premise are bigotted. I really do feel that protestantism is a greater evil than homosexuality. I really do feel that referring to homosexuality as a disease smacks of protestantism. What about that is sarcastic?
Good Friday Posted January 5, 2005 Posted January 5, 2005 Oy. I don't know why I come back and visit. Nothing ever changes here. The meaning of "disordered" as used by the Church means contrary to the natural order -- it means that homosexuality is not the natural way of things. It does not, however, mean that it is a disease. One must be able to interpret what the Church is saying if one is going to presume to be a laptop theologian. Everything that is not the natural way of things is not a disease. Celibacy, for instance, is not the natural way of things -- nor is it a disease. Of course, homosexuality is not the same as celibacy, but just because it is not natural does not therefore mean that it is a disease. I can make that argument better, but it's late (or early, depending on how one looks at it) and I'm tired. I'm sure someone will counterargue, and then I will make the other, better argument tomorrow. (By the way, before one of the moderators get censor happy, nothing of the above contradicts Church teaching). Another example: the sin of using artificial contraception is disordered, it is not natural, but the temptation to use contraception does not mean that one has a disease. It means that one has sinful inclinations just like... everyone else. It's amazing to me that people who also commit sins are so ready to accuse another group of people who likewise commit sins of having a disease. Does our collective negligence toward the poor (even if you give, you are nevertheless probably still negligent because you are not giving enough, and I do include myself in this sweeping indictment) -- anyway, does our collective negligence to the poor indicate that we have a disease? Letting people starve to death is, indeed, disordered. Welcome to the diseased human race, yes?
Apotheoun Posted January 5, 2005 Posted January 5, 2005 Celibacy, as the Lord Himself indicated (Mt. 19:12), is neither disordered nor is it unnatural. Not everyone is called to the married life. God bless, Todd
Socrates Posted January 5, 2005 Posted January 5, 2005 The Catholic Church herself teaches that homosexual inclinations are intrinsically disordered (see the Catechism of the Catholic Church). This is not something I made up, nor is it protestant. While all sin is in a sense disordered, homosexual desires are disordered in a more serious way. Fornication is a sin, yet is not unnatural, and the heterosexual sex drive is not considered by the Church to be "intrinsically disordered." If you have a problem with this, your problem is with the Catholic Church. And, on another topic, while the orginal split of protestantism against the Church is evil, and we wish all protestants to return to the true Church (both my parents were converts from protestantism), there are many protestants ignorant of the truth of the Catholic Faith, who sincerely love Jesus and wish to follow him. We pray that they may find the True Faith. However, love of Christ and the scripture is hardly to be found in the liberal gay-rights movement, which is often vehemently and hysterically anti-Christian, and can only be described as Satanic to the core. Sorry if this offends any P.C. sensibilities, but I'm just telling it like it is.
spathariossa Posted January 5, 2005 Posted January 5, 2005 [quote name='Socrates' date='Jan 5 2005, 12:56 PM'] The Catholic Church herself teaches that homosexual inclinations are intrinsically disordered (see the Catechism of the Catholic Church). This is not something I made up, nor is it protestant. While all sin is in a sense disordered, homosexual desires are disordered in a more serious way. Fornication is a sin, yet is not unnatural, and the heterosexual sex drive is not considered by the Church to be "intrinsically disordered." If you have a problem with this, your problem is with the Catholic Church. And, on another topic, while the orginal split of protestantism against the Church is evil, and we wish all protestants to return to the true Church (both my parents were converts from protestantism), there are many protestants ignorant of the truth of the Catholic Faith, who sincerely love Jesus and wish to follow him. We pray that they may find the True Faith. However, love of Christ and the scripture is hardly to be found in the liberal gay-rights movement, which is often vehemently and hysterically anti-Christian, and can only be described as Satanic to the core. Sorry if this offends any P.C. sensibilities, but I'm just telling it like it is. [/quote] So which is more dangerous to a Christian: Anti-christian behavior on an excessive scale, or a heresy? Which is more tempting? I think that covers protestantism. As for homosexuality being intrinsically disordered - yes. But the point was that it isn't a disease. And a lot of the things being bandied about in this thread are bigoted and antithetical to the teachings of the Catholic Church.
cmotherofpirl Posted January 5, 2005 Posted January 5, 2005 dis·ease ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-zz) n. A pathological condition of a part, organ, or system of an organism resulting from various causes, such as infection, genetic defect, or environmental stress, and characterized by an identifiable group of signs or symptoms. [i]A condition or tendency, as of society, regarded as abnormal and harmful. [/i] Please look at the second definition. dis + ease = something out of kilter. dis + order = something out of place.
spathariossa Posted January 5, 2005 Posted January 5, 2005 (edited) [quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Jan 5 2005, 01:29 PM'] dis·ease ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-zz) n. A pathological condition of a part, organ, or system of an organism resulting from various causes, such as infection, genetic defect, or environmental stress, and characterized by an identifiable group of signs or symptoms. [i]A condition or tendency, as of society, regarded as abnormal and harmful. [/i] Please look at the second definition. dis + ease = something out of kilter. dis + order = something out of place. [/quote] The second definition only fits with homosexual behavior according to the Catholic church. SSA or homosexuality would not be included. disease: a condition of the living animal or plant body or of one of its parts that impairs normal functioning Hmmm...wow that fits just about everybody in some way or another. So why do we use this word only to refer to homosexuals on this board? Hmmm. Well maybe it is because despite the dictionary definition, the word carries with it something called a connotation. Main Entry: con·no·ta·tion Pronunciation: "kä-n&-'tA-sh&n Function: noun 1 a : the suggesting of a meaning by a word apart from the thing it explicitly names or describes Edited January 5, 2005 by spathariossa
cmotherofpirl Posted January 5, 2005 Posted January 5, 2005 I certainly don't. Alcoholism is a disease by the definition I used as well.
Socrates Posted January 5, 2005 Posted January 5, 2005 The common cold is a disease. Right now, I'm suffering from the common cold. I suppose that makes me a diseased individual. Lots of honorable people suffer from various physical diseases. Homosexuality is a moral disorder. This is worse than a physical disease in my book! You can quibble about the definitions of words all you like. This does not change the fact that homosexuality is a moral/psychological disorder (or "disease" if you will). We should seek to cure people of their diseases. One cannot seek a cure if the disease is not acknowledged? This is (true) compassion, not bigotry. Why do some (supposedly Catholic) people here seem so intent on saying (or implying) that homosexuality is somehow really not that bad? That goes against everything the Catholic Church teaches on this subject.
Good Friday Posted January 5, 2005 Posted January 5, 2005 The teaching of the Church is that homosexual orientation is [i]disordered[/i], not [i]diseased[/i]. If the latter term were acceptable for use by Catholics, I'm sure the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith would have used it. As it is, the burden is upon Catholics using the term [i]disease[/i] to explain why they are departing from the language of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on a sensitive issue that [i]should[/i] only involve precise theological language. Also, Socrates, the Church does not suggest that homosexuals should be "cured" of their "disease" -- and the suggestion that they should be cured is [i]precisely[/i] why I oppose the language of "disease." The Church teaches that homosexuals are called to chastity, which means that they are called to live celibate lifestyles with a homosexual orientation. The Church [i]does not teach[/i] what Protestants teach, that homosexuals must seek to change their orientation to a heterosexual orientation. This very Protestant concept finds no basis in Catholic teaching, not in the Catechism section that pertains to this topic nor in the letters of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. This concept has, rather, been introduced into Catholicism by the Catholic Medical Association and the Courage Apostolate -- but not by the magisterium. Therefore, it is at best a reformable theological opinion that homosexuality is a "disease" that must be "cured" -- given its lack of basis in Church teaching, and given the lack of support in valid scientific and medical circles, those who support such a "theological opinion" are treading on thin ice that may soon break and drop them into the frozen lake of uncharitability, bigotry and hatred. As for your statement that heterosexual fornication is not "intrinsically disordered" -- you're right, the Church does not call it that. But you know what? Intrinsically disordered or not, it will land you in hell just as quickly as homosexual behavior will, according to the Church, land homosexuals in hell. Intrinsically disordered or not, mortal sin is mortal sin -- it all cuts people off from the divine life, and it will all land people in everlasting punishment if they die without having confessed it. Thus, we can quibble over the definition of this sin or that sin all we want, but the truth is that the [i]effect[/i] of all of these sins we're discussing is the same: eternal punishment, eternal separation from God. So don't get all self-righteous with me about your sins not being "intrinsically disordered." That will make little difference when we're gnashing our teeth together in hell.
Guest Aluigi Posted January 5, 2005 Posted January 5, 2005 homosexuals are not required to change, but they CAN change. Courage is officially recognized supported and promoted by the Church. so long as they are chaste, it is good. they can share heavenly love (the kind St. Francis shared with St. Clare) with anyone they want (perhaps Hyper and John could work that out, i pray for them all the time), romantic love must only be directed at the opposite sex. they are called to chastity. the Catholic Church does not oppose psychologists who help them change, it is not contrary to the Church for them to change or for psychologists to help them change. however, even NARTH admits that 1/3 of the people that struggle with SSA will never change. i don't care why you think that is, i happen to think the research shows that is the more active they are in the lifestyle the less likely they are of being able to change. you may think these people simply are that way and must be chaste the rest of their life. that is fine. protestantism didn't introduce curing them. the Church used to condone burning them at the stake because she didn't know what else to do with people who did such things, and now she condones either their chastity or their "cure", whichever one fits their specific case. there are good reputable psychologists who deal in both the chastity and/or the cure schools of thought and apply them based on individual cases. To say no one can be cured is absurd, it has been shown to work. To say everyone can be cured is absurd, it has been shown that at least 1/3 can't be cured by the most prominent expert psychologists in the field (that hold to the school of thought that it is something that should be cured)
cmotherofpirl Posted January 5, 2005 Posted January 5, 2005 [quote name='Socrates' date='Jan 5 2005, 05:14 PM'] We should seek to cure people of their diseases. One cannot seek a cure if the disease is not acknowledged? This is (true) compassion, not bigotry. Why do some (supposedly Catholic) people here seem so intent on saying (or implying) that homosexuality is somehow really not that bad? That goes against everything the Catholic Church teaches on this subject. [/quote] Maybe because some people act like a homosexual is the devil incarnate. A person having homosexual intercourse committing mortal sin. So is a person committing heterosexual intercourse outside of marriage, murdering or raping, robbing etc. All of them get you into hell.
Kilroy the Ninja Posted January 5, 2005 Posted January 5, 2005 [quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Jan 5 2005, 05:21 PM'] Maybe because some people act like a homosexual is the devil incarnate. A person having homosexual intercourse committing mortal sin. So is a person committing heterosexual intercourse outside of marriage, murdering or raping, robbing etc. All of them get you into hell. [/quote] Amen to that Cmom!
Catholic_Pinoy Posted January 5, 2005 Posted January 5, 2005 [url="http://www.cathmed.org/publications/homosexuality.html"]http://www.cathmed.org/publications/homosexuality.html[/url] [url="http://www.couragerc.org"]http://www.couragerc.org[/url] [url="http://www.narth.com"]http://www.narth.com[/url] [url="http://www.drthrockmorton.com"]http://www.drthrockmorton.com[/url] [url="http://www.pfox.org"]http://www.pfox.org[/url] [url="http://www.lovewonout.org"]http://www.lovewonout.org[/url] [url="http://www.peoplecanchange.com"]http://www.peoplecanchange.com[/url] [url="http://www.newdirection.ca/research/spitzer.htm"]http://www.newdirection.ca/research/spitzer.htm[/url]
Good Friday Posted January 6, 2005 Posted January 6, 2005 [quote name='Aluigi']homosexuals are not required to change, but they CAN change. Courage is officially recognized supported and promoted by the Church.[/quote] First, that depends on your definition of "the Church." Courage has been endorsed by the Pontifical Council for the Family, but that does not mean that it has been "promoted by the Church." A pontifical council doesn't have any authority, it is not like one of the Sacred Congregations. Catholics routinely ignore information from the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity because there is a consensus that Cardinal Kasper's ecumenism is not authentically Catholic and seeks to undermine or compromise Catholicism. If Catholics can ignore one pontifical council, they can legitimately ignore all of them, yes? Also, many homosexuals, celibate Catholic ones included, would call into serious question the notion that homosexuals can change their orientation. Many medical professionals dispute the theory made popular by Protestants and now being propagated by the Catholic Medical Association that sexual orientation can change. Most medical professionals acknowledge the illusion of change in some cases, but they say that it is only an illusion caused by deep repression, and that eventually the orientation will resurface, commonly causing great pain to the individual who believed himself or herself to be rid of his or her undesired orientation. [quote name='Aluigi']the Catholic Church does not oppose psychologists who help them change, it is not contrary to the Church for them to change or for psychologists to help them change.[/quote] I didn't say that there was. What I said is that there is nothing in Catholic teaching [i]calling[/i] for such a change, and those who act as if there is (as Socrates did when he stated an obligation to help "cure" the "diseased") are in error about Catholic teaching and are actually embracing Evangelical Protestant ethical teaching. Currently, there is nothing in Church teaching one way or the other on changing one's sexual orientation. I pray to God that it remains that way. I am not amused, however, by people who act as if it is their Catholic duty to "cure" homosexuals of their "disease" -- the language of "cure" or "disease" is not even hinted at in any Catholic teaching regarding homosexual orientation. [quote name='Aluigi']however, even NARTH admits that 1/3 of the people that struggle with SSA will never change. i don't care why you think that is, i happen to think the research shows that is the more active they are in the lifestyle the less likely they are of being able to change. you may think these people simply are that way and must be chaste the rest of their life. that is fine.[/quote] I don't agree with NARTH's research in the first place. I think it is deeply flawed, and the vast majority of the medical and scientific community disagrees with the findings of NARTH and other allegedly medical organizations with connections to Christianity (and usually Protestant Christianity) that impede their ability to be impartial in their studies. However, if I did agree with NARTH's findings, I would still disagree with your statement that those who are more active in the "homosexual lifestyle" (whatever that is supposed to be) are less likely to be "cured" (I really hate that word, have you noticed?). If NARTH's research were correct, I would think it would have more to do with how deeply they were psychologically affected by the supposed factors that led to their homosexual orientation during key developmental periods (such as the absence of a father figure, the absence of same-sex peers, the lack of rough and tumble play, etc.) I would think it would have more to do with the formative years than with involvement in the "homosexual lifestyle" (again, whatever that means). [quote name='Aluigi']protestantism didn't introduce curing them.[/quote] Well, no . . . originally, it was medical opinion that homosexuality was a mental illness that could be cured. Over time, however, medical professionals came to realize that they were wrong about their classification of homosexuality as a mental illness, and they repudiated their original diagnosis and the treatment for homosexuality. The only folks who hung onto it were those who were deeply opposed to homosexuality on moral grounds -- as I've been saying, mostly American Protestants. Within Catholicism, this idea of "curing" homosexuality was introduced by the Courage Apostolate and the Catholic Medical Association (that's where I heard about it, how about you?). I actually almost pursued the treatment. I even had a session with one of the psychiatrists that the Catholic Medical Association referred me to. So I do have some idea of what I'm talking about, I have looked into it. [quote name='Aluigi']the Church used to condone burning them at the stake because she didn't know what else to do with people who did such things, and now she condones either their chastity or their "cure", whichever one fits their specific case.[/quote] Where do you get that the Church condones [i]either[/i] their chastity or their "cure"? I have not once, in all of the documents about homosexuality by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (and I have read them all), encountered any talk whatsoever of "curing" homosexuality. It's not in the Catechism, either. I have only encountered the call to chastity, but no talk of "curing" anything. Could you cite a source? [quote name='Aluigi']say no one can be cured is absurd, it has been shown to work. To say everyone can be cured is absurd, it has been shown that at least 1/3 can't be cured by the most prominent expert psychologists in the field (that hold to the school of thought that it is something that should be cured)[/quote] I think it's a bit too soon to say that "it has been shown to work." It has been shown to temporarily repress the homosexual orientation, but it has not been sufficiently shown to effect a permanent change. There have been many cases of people who thought they were heterosexual after their "conversion therapy" having their homosexual orientation resurface because the regression therapy they experienced didn't last. That usually causes them great emotional damage, and sometimes serious damage to their mental health. If they marry and have children after their "conversion therapy" and the homosexual orientation resurfaces, it usually causes great pain to everyone involved -- the homosexual individual, his or her heterosexual spouse, and especially their children. These problems with "conversion therapy" cause most medical professionals to take pause, but not the ones who are more influenced by their Judeo-Christian moral convictions than they are by their medical education. It's a pity that they're willing to sacrifice their professional integrity, the happiness of others and sometimes the lives of others for their "convictions," isn't it?
Apotheoun Posted January 6, 2005 Posted January 6, 2005 The homosexual condition is no different from any other pathological disorder, and the man afflicted with it may have to resist the temptations to act upon it throughout his life; but no one should make the homosexual condition, or any other concupiscential disorder into an ontological characteristic of the human person. All of the moral disorders suffered by human beings have their origin in the fall from grace, and as a consequence, grace is the only thing that can heal, perfect, and elevate man's will so that he can overcome concupiscence, and live as God intends. God bless, Todd
cmotherofpirl Posted January 6, 2005 Posted January 6, 2005 I think this thread too, has run its course. The end.
Recommended Posts