FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

(03-12-2013, 08:56 PM)mikemac Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-12-2013, 03:38 PM)traditionalLUTHERANmom Wrote: [ -> ]If SSA isn't willed by the person experiencing it who wills it then? Just a question.

That is a very good question traditionalLUTHERANmom.  Especially considering some "sensitive" types are persistent in their choosing to identify themselves as people with same sex attraction.
(snip)

It was a silly question based on the premise that all things are positively willed by someone. Who "wills" themselves to be depressive or bipolar, to prefer blue over red, to like chocolate ice cream over strawberry? Do you "will yourself" to like women? If so, when did you start doing that? And can you stop?

(03-12-2013, 11:15 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-12-2013, 08:56 PM)mikemac Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-12-2013, 03:38 PM)traditionalLUTHERANmom Wrote: [ -> ]If SSA isn't willed by the person experiencing it who wills it then? Just a question.

That is a very good question traditionalLUTHERANmom.  Especially considering some "sensitive" types are persistent in their choosing to identify themselves as people with same sex attraction.
(snip)

It was a silly question based on the premise that all things are positively willed by someone. Who "wills" themselves to be depressive or bipolar, to prefer blue over red, to like chocolate ice cream over strawberry? Do you "will yourself" to like women? If so, when did you start doing that? And can you stop?

For me to like a woman is the natural order.  What she asked is not how you are taking it.  And what she asked has been implied, no, it has been out right said by a couple of other people in this thread already.  Not who wills it.  But what.

If everything exists for a reason, then it's only natural for someone to wonder how this mess happened, and to be disturbed by it.    It's tempting sometimes for people who don't have access to the sacraments, and who are disturbed by the mess, to jump to conclusions in the process of trying to figure it out.  She might have been talked out of the Dimond Brothers' take on SSA pretty easily if people hadn't mobbed her.  It's quite amazing that she had the grace to even ask any questions at all, considering her abhorrence for the 'lavender mafia'.  It just shows how emotional this issue is.

Vox Wrote:

(03-13-2013, 12:05 AM)mikemac Wrote: [ -> ]It was a silly question based on the premise that all things are positively willed by someone. Who "wills" themselves to be depressive or bipolar, to prefer blue over red, to like chocolate ice cream over strawberry? Do you "will yourself" to like women? If so, when did you start doing that? And can you stop? 

For me to like a woman is the natural order.  What she asked is not how you are taking it.  And what she asked has been implied, no, it has been out right said by a couple of other people in this thread already.  Not who wills it.  But what. 

I don't understand what you're saying here. She asked a question, and you say what she asked has been implied? Someone implied a question -- the question being "who wills that a person desire someone of the same sex?"?

If you're implying that it's Satan who wills it, then the same can be said for any sort of brokenness, concupiscence, tendency toward sin, disordered desires, disease, death, suffering, etc. No reason to zero in on homosexuals as if they're greater sinners than anyone else because they're not. "For all have sinned, and do need the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). If you've committed one sin, you're as guilty as they are -- or maybe more guilty, if the homosexuals in question are chaste and otherwise don't sin:  Epistle of St. James 2:10 and 14 "And whosoever shall keep the whole law, but offend in one point, is become guilty of all...  For judgment without mercy to him that hath not done mercy. And mercy exalteth itself above judgment. " And if homosexuality is something that is positively willed by Satan, it doesn't mean that it is positively willed by the homosexual suffering from SSA and that he should be blamed for it anymore than someone suffering from cancer should be blamed for suffering from something positively willed by Satan. No need to blame them for desires they don't wish to have.

Whatever the case, some folks suffer from SSA, and such people need to be treated with charity. Whether they act on the impulse or not, they have same sex attractions, which is the same as saying they are homosexual. Some people are "open books" and others are more private; some like groups and would benefit from support from a group; others are loners. People shouldn't assume that what's good for them is what others should do (and they'd better not accuse other of being "modernist" for being different than they are). What the catechism teaches on homosexuality can be found here: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm

So glad I missed most of the Lutheran theology; I read back a few pages, and was sorry. Lutherans hate us. I know we're supposed to love everybody, but I find it very hard when I spend a day caring for my forebear's graves (and others' graves which were damaged by a recent storm) knowing when they were buried, they were spat upon as idol-worshipers and the like by these very people. For which I forgive these particular Prots, but do not care to listen to their errant theology.

SSA is a disorder, but so are so many other things. What about cleptomaniacs? Anorexics? Babies born drug addicts? God didn't make us like this originally; we were corrupted by Original Sin, but have the gift of the Holy Spirit and the Church to help us attain SALVATION, as per http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congre...ns_en.html

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH Wrote:12. ...What, then, are homosexual persons to do who seek to follow the Lord? Fundamentally, they are called to enact the will of God in their life by joining whatever sufferings and difficulties they experience in virtue of their condition to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross. That Cross, for the believer, is a fruitful sacrifice since from that death come life and redemption. While any call to carry the cross or to understand a Christian's suffering in this way will predictably be met with bitter ridicule by some, it should be remembered that this is the way to eternal life for all who follow Christ.

It is, in effect, none other than the teaching of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians when he says that the Spirit produces in the lives of the faithful "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, trustfulness, gentleness and self-control" (5:22) and further (v. 24), "You cannot belong to Christ unless you crucify all self-indulgent passions and desires."

16. ...The human person, made in the image and likeness of God, can hardly be adequately described by a reductionist reference to his or her sexual orientation. Every one living on the face of the earth has personal problems and difficulties, but challenges to growth, strengths, talents and gifts as well. Today, the Church provides a badly needed context for the care of the human person when she refuses to consider the person as a "heterosexual" or a "homosexual" and insists that every person has a fundamental Identity: the creature of God, and by grace, his child and heir to eternal life.

This '86 CDF letter to Bishops is actually pretty edifying for everyone, though it's titled "..Pastoral Care of Homosexuals". A careful reading suggests that the pastoral care for SSA sufferers (the reason for the letter!) is not because it's a new issue (not at all!), but due to our current cultures, and (for Catholics) particularly due to infiltrators with an agenda against the Church! It does refer to "homosexual advocacy groups" in the Church and how those should be avoided or stamped out, but it also suggests what a useful group (pastoral care) would be like.

I'd assume that the Church should (and some do) provide such pastoral care for many disorders (not enough imo :grin: ), such as adulters, gamblers, alcoholics, habitual criminals, and allows for these groups as the priest requests and as the Bishop allows. I think mikemac's issue is with the Gay Pride groups that this letter to Bishops certainly disapproves of ("gay camps" where temptation is not only there, but encouraged, by heretics within the Church). —But the letter also allows for [priest-led] groups that might truly help, at the Bishops' discretion. There are obviously problems, but the Letter puts the problems in the Bishops' laps, and if we know of problems (eg, orgies in the Nave, or even Catholic meetings outside the parish which lead to known sexual encounters), we have to report them. (I couldn't report my gay BFF's "gay camp" because he's too humiliated to go through with it, and I'm not a direct witness. But if I had a penis you can bet I'd bust that camp UP!

The Church is saying those with SSA need and most especially require our charity, but those who cross the line and form an anti-Church "group", protesting so they can have "freedoms", are forbidden. (That's all in the letter!) And if you go back a bit, I'm sure you could press (hard) for excommunication, which I believe is necessary (though priests don't like to do it).

While I'm suddenly nervous about losing Pope BXVI (well, with having what seems like two Popes  :( ) I do believe the Church (even Vatican II, or especially V2!) gives all Catholics the tools to help our fellow Catholics; to be the Church Militant. We have to get a little more proactive (and no, not a witch hunt! But being aware of what's happening in our diocese, or at least parish) to make the rules the Church has in place work effectively. No Church-sponsored gay orgies, but the AA-type SSA program doesn't sound that bad, either, if one feels inclined to go.

Yeah that's my main issue StCeciliasGirl.  But I still don't think people with SSA should be broadcasting it in this forum.  Especially in these troubling times with so much of it infiltrated into the Church.  I think individuals with SSA should keep it between them selves, their confessor and their closest friends.  A public forum is not the proper venue to help someone with SSA.  You know, by how accepting and even encouraging some have been in this thread some outsiders that read this thread could be going away with the idea that the entire Catholic Church is accepting of gay priests and the homolobby.  Which is not true.  If the next Pope does not take swift action against gay priests and the homolobby then that's exactly what non-Catholics will think.  It will be hard for them not to.         

(03-13-2013, 03:19 AM)mikemac Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah that's my main issue StCeciliasGirl.  But I still don't think people with SSA should be broadcasting it in this forum.  Especially in these troubling times with so much of it infiltrated into the Church.  I think individuals with SSA should keep it between them selves, their confessor and their closest friends.  A public forum is not the proper venue to help someone with SSA.  You know, by how accepting and even encouraging some have been in this thread some outsiders that read this thread could be going away with the idea that the entire Catholic Church is accepting of gay priests and the homolobby.  Which is not true.  If the next Pope does not take swift action against gay priests and the homolobby then that's exactly what non-Catholics will think.  It will be hard for them not to.         

Don't know how that could be since not a single person in this thread that I'm aware of is "accepting of gay priests and the homolobby" and I'm pretty sure that everyone posting here wants a lot done about the lavender mafia. Being accepting of homosexuals is a different matter -- and it is CATHOLIC TEACHING that they be accepted and loved. Most people are smart enough to differentiate among homosexuals, practicing homosexuals, and "the homolobby." It's not that hard.

You're playing a moving target here, first talking about homosexuals, then about gay priests and the "homolobby."

Mikemac, we need a counterwitness to those who promote active homosexuality  and same sex marriage given the media saturation they enjoy.  Will silence provide that counterwitness?  The time is past for that.  I strongly defend anyone who wishes to keep his struggle with same sex attraction private.  I also think that keeping it private is normally the prudent choice.  Sometimes, however, a witness is appropriate.  It depends on the circumstances.  In any case, it helps men with SSA to know other men with SSA who are striving to be faithful Catholics.  It's also a sign of contradiction to our culture.

This forum is semi-public, in the sense that most of us do not share our identities.  (I share mine in my profile.)  For many traditional Catholics who struggle with same sex attraction, this is an ideal place to discuss, prudently, some aspects of that struggle.  It is precisely because we do not walk around saying "I have SSA" that we might seek some support here.

I think your stance is mixture of principle (partially justified, partially mistaken) and rank hatred.  As Vox pointed out, it is also incoherent (probably because it is so mixed).  I think you are doing yourself and others spiritual damage.

For a truly balanced discussion of SSA as a  spiritual struggle, I strongly recommend two talks given by an Orthodox layman named "Steve the Builder" at Ancient Faith Radio.  He stresses that SSA is one passion among many and discourages a sense of victimhood and specialness that can lead many men with SSA to justify sinning.  I think that's the right approach.  I link to them below.

Part one:  http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/steveth...y_part_one

Part two:  http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/steveth...y_part_two

(03-13-2013, 03:19 AM)mikemac Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah that's my main issue StCeciliasGirl.  But I still don't think people with SSA should be broadcasting it in this forum.  Especially in these troubling times with so much of it infiltrated into the Church.  I think individuals with SSA should keep it between them selves, their confessor and their closest friends.  A public forum is not the proper venue to help someone with SSA.  You know, by how accepting and even encouraging some have been in this thread some outsiders that read this thread could be going away with the idea that the entire Catholic Church is accepting of gay priests and the homolobby.  Which is not true.  If the next Pope does not take swift action against gay priests and the homolobby then that's exactly what non-Catholics will think.  It will be hard for them not to.         

It's hardly broadcasting when the forum is anonymous. 

(03-13-2013, 09:45 AM)ImpyTerwilliger Wrote: [ -> ]For a truly balanced discussion of SSA as a  spiritual struggle, I strongly recommend two talks given by an Orthodox layman named "Steve the Builder" at Ancient Faith Radio.  He stresses that SSA is one passion among many and discourages a sense of victimhood and specialness that can lead many men with SSA to justify sinning.  I think that's the right approach.  I link to them below.

This is very important. One of the issues associated with the psychological problems inherent in SSA is feeling sorry for one's self. To be sure, SSA is a big cross to bear, but God only allows big crosses in his childrens lives because they need those crosses to achieve sanctity (NOTE: I am not saying God causes SSA).