New Rules for Gay Clergy -- Catholics only.

[Globalnomad]

I would equate him to the flamboyant homosexuals on T.V. I know this is stereotypical, but I can't help but feel that way. I don't believe that you are born gay, because commiting homosexual acts is a sin, so why would God make you inclined towards a particular sin?

Crosscarrier, in all love and friendliness, yes, you ARE letting yourself fall victim of a stupid stereotype. If you knew enough real-people homosexuals, you would know that the TV images are as far from real life as porn is from real married sex. (I have known about twelve, three of them very well. Most of them were absolutely "normal" people who either kept their homosexuality under control, or at least absolutely discreet. Only two - my hairdresser and a fashion designer friend - were true to the stereotype. But even they lived in faithful, long-term relationships. None of that uncontrolled promiscuity that is part of the gay stereotype.)

As for the other point - does God not "allow" us to become inclined (through our genes or childhood conditioning, no fault of our own) to a great many particular sins? What about violent-tempered people? People with an inclination for gambling, for greed? Addictive personalities (alcohol, drugs, sex)?

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

are you kidding? this isn't doctrine, but rather making a distinction between 'really gay' and just 'playing gay' and it doesn't speak to the science at all. Read it carefully. "seems with reason", "because of some kind... pathological condition" - this vague language is used because it is a scientific question.

It is a scientific question. However, current science tends to agree with it.

I looked over the relevant section of the article you posted. Its understanding of genetics is flawed, and its theological language is careless.

 

[geocajun]

It is a scientific question. However, current science tends to agree with it.

I looked over the relevant section of the article you posted. Its understanding of genetics is flawed, and its theological language is careless.

the article has references to the doctors research, and its a medical institution. Might I ask what qualifies you to state the research paper is wrong or inadequite without even so much as a justification for these charges?

 

[marciadietrich]

This fits so nicely into my "90-99 percent will say it is homosexuality" statement Go read the story again. Now, at what point did a homosexual act occur? None, right?

Hi again,

I have to say wrong. I mean just because they didn't succeed doesn't mean there was no homosexual act committed. In the case of homosexual sex, it isn't just fornication it is both that and also wrong for the homosexual aspect - the homosexual act itself is considered as disordered, where fornication the act is only wrong for not being within marriage.

The act of homosexual lust. When a man lusts in his heart for a woman he has committed adultery in his heart, but homosexual lust isn't a homosexual act? Also, attempting rape would have the same dual aspect to it, it isn't just attempting rape but also attempting a homosexual act in that rape.

It would seem hard to argue that the account of the men of Sodom wanting to gang rape the angels wasn't considered more offensive for the homosexual aspect, especially when they were given the offer of Lot's daughters in the men's place ... they weren't just going to rape, it was going to be a homosexual rape and nothing else would appease them.

Now, I don't think all people who are homosexual are equivilent to the men of Sodom (presented as the worst of the worst), and we are all sinners and there are just some worse than others.

 

[NPH]

Well, since we're drifting off-topic by delving too deep into 'what went on at Sodom' how about we agree to disagree? I'd rather not rebut each other on this until we start feeling we're talking past each other, and one person has already left this thread with their feelings damaged.

What matters most is whether homosexual men can fulfill the duties of the priestly life and whether this potential new policy allowing them to try will work. If we agree that all are sinners and must struggle daily with sin in our lives then there is no difference between those with hetero- or homo-sexual inclinations. Too often the justification used against homosexuals is that they are more inclined to other sins (not even necessarily true, particularly when applied to individuals) but in that case we are pre-judging people for things they haven't even done. We could just as easily say that heterosexual men are more inclined to abuse female children and so we shouldn't allow them to protect those young girls.

In the end, the Magesterium will decide one way or the other. If it chooses to allow homosexual priests then the matter is settled. If it chooses to disallow them then the matter is settled.

 

[Ave Maria]

I know this is slightly off topic but could those of you who are willing, please keep me in your prayers? I am seriously depressed because of this subject in general.

 

[NPH]

I know this is slightly off topic but could those of you who are willing, please keep me in your prayers? I am seriously depressed because of this subject in general.

I'll certainly be praying for you Holly! It is a difficult subject especially for those that are involved personally.

 

[marciadietrich]

Well, since we're drifting off-topic by delving too deep into 'what went on at Sodom' how about we agree to disagree? I'd rather not rebut each other on this until we start feeling we're talking past each other, and one person has already left this thread with their feelings damaged.

Sure ... and I don't mean to offend anyone by that side-line conversation, just I have a different view than you do on that particular subject.

What matters most is whether homosexual men can fulfill the duties of the priestly life and whether this potential new policy allowing them to try will work. If we agree that all are sinners and must struggle daily with sin in our lives then there is no difference between those with hetero- or homo-sexual inclinations.

I think we already have had homosexual priests regardless of policy. It is better that they make a policy that might work to ensure that the priests are committed to the vows they make upon entering the priesthood, committed to holiness ... and that would be for the heterosexual men as well.

In the end, the Magesterium will decide one way or the other. If it chooses to allow homosexual priests then the matter is settled. If it chooses to disallow them then the matter is settled.

I pray they will be guided by the Holy Spirit in their decisions, even this one which is more disciplinary than doctrinal.

Marcia

 

[marciadietrich]

I know this is slightly off topic but could those of you who are willing, please keep me in your prayers? I am seriously depressed because of this subject in general.

Praying for you of course.

I hope anything I have said you would not take personally. God bless and keep you.

Marcia

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

the article has references to the doctors research, and its a medical institution. Might I ask what qualifies you to state the research paper is wrong or inadequite without even so much as a justification for these charges?

We studied this issue in my genetics seminar.

The big error that stands out is their assertion that identical twins will express genetic factors identically. Most traits have an interplay between genetic and environmental factors. To demand that a trait show 100% genetic heritability is an extreme demand, especially considering that this biology. This is something that someone who understands genetics wouldn't say unless they were trying to play on people's ignorance.

Theologically, their statement that homosexuality is a sinful inclination is technically incorrect. It is an inclination towards sin but is not inherently sinful in and of itself. Since I don't think they intended to get into the fine points of terminology here, I assume that this is an honest mistake.

 

[Globalnomad]

Friends, I think you should read this message, that came in only today on another list I sometimes visit (Christian - not Catholic - not gay-specific - not USA).



Sorry friends - I am deleting this message. I have just realised that, even anonymously, I have no right to publish somebody's words on another board without their consent. It's a matter of principle. I know thousands of people do it every day... and this was a very heart-rending and worthy case... but it's still a principle that I believe in (even though I forgot it for a couple of hours).

I'll try and ask the person concerned for their permission and re-post the messaage if I get it.

 

[kimber1]

thanks for sharing that . see these people need compassion and love not hurling stones

 

[marciadietrich]

The big error that stands out is their assertion that identical twins will express genetic factors identically. Most traits have an interplay between genetic and environmental factors. To demand that a trait show 100% genetic heritability is an extreme demand, especially considering that this biology. This is something that someone who understands genetics wouldn't say unless they were trying to play on people's ignorance.

That is what I understand, autism studies of identical twins does not show 100% both having autism (it is a high correlation, but well short of that). And even of those who are both autistic it is usually not on the same level of disability and often a great disparity of disability. So likely genetic factors (and not one gene but several involved) plus something environmental.

I didn't read Jason's link but you should have a show that it is a significantly higher relation in identical twins than what you would see in fraternal twins, and also other siblings, to show a genetic basis. Basically soemthing like an 75- 80% correlation in identical twins, 35-40% in fraternal twins and 20-25% in other siblings would be a pattern showing a strong genetic component. If there is no difference between identical and fraternal twins (and/or other siblings) then that would seem to rule out any serious or strong genetic component.

 

[geocajun]

Marcia, I'd like it if you read it and gave me feedback on it http://www.cathmed.org/publications/homosexuality.html

Also, I was talking to some folks about autism over the weekend and they indicated it had to do with metabolism? is that true?

 

[geocajun]

We studied this issue in my genetics seminar.

I had no idea you were so qualified. If you've attended a seminar course, then certaintly you are more qualified than the doctors who wrote that paper. Sorry I doubted you.

The big error that stands out is their assertion that identical twins will express genetic factors identically. Most traits have an interplay between genetic and environmental factors. To demand that a trait show 100% genetic heritability is an extreme demand, especially considering that this biology. This is something that someone who understands genetics wouldn't say unless they were trying to play on people's ignorance.

I suspect you are quoting them out of context - that you are speaking to genetic predipositions, while they are speaking to the fallacious "gay gene" theory. Then you go on to assume they have an evil intention.

Theologically, their statement that homosexuality is a sinful inclination is technically incorrect. It is an inclination towards sin but is not inherently sinful in and of itself. Since I don't think they intended to get into the fine points of terminology here, I assume that this is an honest mistake.

I disagree - the inclination does not make one culpable of the sin, but that doesn't mean it isn't marked by sin (sinful).

 

[Globalnomad]

I disagree - the inclination does not make one culpable of the sin, but that doesn't mean it isn't marked by sin (sinful).

Geocajun, technically you may be right (depending on the semantics), but for Christ's sake drop it! Drop it at least until the day dawns, if it ever shall, that society is going to make us feel just as guilty for a sinful inclination to laziness (which is the vice that has tainted MY life, for example) as for a sinful inclination to harmful sexual pratices. Don't you SEE that you - and others - are brandishing a selective truth in a way that brings pain, psychological harm, and spiritual despair to many fellow human beings??? Who are no more sinful than you and me, and every other human being since the Original Sin???

 

[geocajun]

Geocajun, technically you may be right (depending on the semantics), but for Christ's sake drop it! Drop it at least until the day dawns, if it ever shall, that society is going to make us feel just as guilty for a sinful inclination to laziness (which is the vice that has tainted MY life, for example) as for a sinful inclination to harmful sexual pratices. Don't you SEE that you - and others - are brandishing a selective truth in a way that brings pain, psychological harm, and spiritual despair to many fellow human beings??? Who are no more sinful than you and me, and every other human being since the Original Sin???

I don't say it out of malice globalnomad, but rather out of a genuine persuit of knowing the truth. I don't think tap dancing around terminology is a good approach, but rather is an indication that one is too emotionally attached to a topic to really consider the abstract. I cannot in good conscience watch folks manipulate reality to conform to some sense of political correctness without standing up and saying something.
Homosexuality should be discussed openly, honestly, and with candor for the sake of souls.
This reminds me of an argument some parents had with a priest who was telling kids about "dark angels" - they felt the kids would be harmed more than helped by this knowledge, and thus it should not be taught. They were wrong for that, and so is the idea that discussing the reality of the moral quality of evil inclinations is some sort of damaging topic to the faith of those with the inclination.

 

[Ave Maria]

I'll certainly be praying for you Holly! It is a difficult subject especially for those that are involved personally.

Yes, it most definitely can be. Thankfully, I have let God know of my feelings about this and that I want to be in complete obedience to Him and He is beginning to give me more peace about this.

Praying for you of course.

I hope anything I have said you would not take personally. God bless and keep you.

Marcia

Thank you Marcia. And no, I haven't taken what you said personally.

God Bless You All,
Holly

 

[Globalnomad]

I don't say it out of malice globalnomad, but rather out of a genuine persuit of knowing the truth. I don't think tap dancing around terminology is a good approach, but rather is an indication that one is too emotionally attached to a topic to really consider the abstract. I cannot in good conscience watch folks manipulate reality to conform to some sense of political correctness without standing up and saying something.
Homosexuality should be discussed openly, honestly, and with candor for the sake of souls.

Geocajun, perhaps you and I are not as far from each other on this topic than it appears. Perhaps the difference between us is simply that your experience has been mostly of people who take homosexuality too lightly, justify homosexual lifestyles in order to make things "lite", etc. That often happens today in the West, as a (partly healthy) reaction against the centuries of terrible, unfair demonizing.

I come from the opposite end. I have seen too many homosexuals driven to despair and suicide, or driven to rebellion against all that is good and holy, by being made to feel like "freaks" or incurably evil.

So both of us are concerned with truth and with saving souls. I am trying not to be too accommodating when it is not appropriate to be accommodating. Will you - and others - also try to be careful of what you say, so that you don't hurt people unnecessarily and drive them to despair, into the arms of Satan?

 

[Cat59]

Firstly, Holly, prayers going up for you too from me
Secondly...
/genetics researcher hat on
Can I just clear the whole genetics thing up? Most behavioural geneticists (and I have the dubious pleasure of having worked with many of them) are not looking for single genes to contribute to behavioural traits. They look for what is known in the trade as several genes of small effect or for a muliple gene combination that leads to a predisposition to certain things, such as impulsivity, attention span. It is that sort of genetic predisposition that is being talked of in terms of homosexuality, not a single gene.
(Incidently, my family are part of the autism research project in the UK as subjects (they have my genes and I want them back!!- j/k) and there is increasing evidence that there is a high heritability in certain forms of autism.)
Anyway, to study this subject, geneticists do several different types of studies- family, adoption and twin studies, the latter of which give a measure called "Heritability" which gives a sense of the contribution of genes and environment to the behavioural trait in question.
To cut a long boring story short, it is calculated by looking at identical twins and non identical twins and working out whether they share the trait in question.
As identical twins share 100% of their genes and non identical 50% on average, that allows for statistical calculation.
The higher the heritability, the greater the contribution of genes to the condition in question.
/genetics researcher hat off

Homosexuality should be discussed openly, honestly, and with candor for the sake of souls.

I agree, but the evidence is strong that there is a contribution to sexuality from our genes. And there is evidence that more things that cause problems for us have genetic contribution, eg alcoholism, addiciton, anger. Is this new? No! We have accepted for a long time that people have different talents, different difficulties, different crosses to bear. We may not have known why, but phrases such as "he's got his father's temper" are not new...
What worries me about a blanket denial of the evidence about the heritability of sexuality is that if we deny truth because it doesn't fit into our view, all that does is cause others to disregard everything else we say. And it alters nothing. Didn't Jesus himself reminded us in the parable of the talents that is not what we are given that is important, but what we do with it? Those who have been handed a favourable hand via the genetic pool will have much more expected of them!
The good news is, whatever our difficulties, Jesus will carry them with us if we ask him to and He will also give us the grace to overcome them. It is important that those who feel burdened by all this remember that fact.

Reference for heritability of sexuality:
Pillard RC and Bailey, JM (1998) Human Biology. 70(2):347-65, Human sexual orientation has a heritable component. [Review]