Karl Keating's E-Letter of June 29, 2004

mikworld · #1 Jun 29, '04, 2:33 pm

"No one is born homosexual, just as no one is born an alcoholic."
-Karl Keating: June 29, 2004

Karl,
By this reasoning, one could state that no one is born heterosexual. I support the churches teachings 110%, but to say that an individual is not born homosexual is a statement we cannot be authorized to make, as it trivializes the nature of the heterosexual individual.
Is it not the definition fo heterosexuality the attraction to the opposite sex, and homosexuality the attraction to the same sex? If these attractions are not innate, and the sociologist is correct in saying that culture determines sexual preference, then how do we define absolute truth?
God Bless,

Justin

jag009 · #2 Jun 29, '04, 3:01 pm

Have you ever noticed the attitudinal difference between those who convert to the Catholic faith and those who abandon it and convert to some other faith? - Karl Keating

Yes, I have!! One of the best places to see the attitude of those converting to the faith is in the RCIA classes. I totally agree that a person converting to the faith brings the best of his former faith with him. (Don't start with me!! by "him" I am including ALL genders!) It also, at times, brings out the lacking knowledge of the faith by those born into the faith. By this I simply mean there are a lot of people born into the faith with no real knowledge of the faith. But if they hang around the RCIA teams very long all of that changes!

God bless ALL PEOPLE OF CHRISTIAN FAITH! Study the Bible.....read the Catechism...... Like a line of dominos, one block after another will fall and what you have left is the CHURCH! It's truly amazing!

The Grace of God be with you all...

larryo · #3 Jun 29, '04, 3:18 pm

Karl, regarding your comments on homosexuality, I totally agree. Of course, that implicitly means that I agree ith Church teaching as set forth in the Catechism. To those homosexuals and their enablers who claim that homosexuals are "born that way" or that God made them such, I would ask them about those who are born with genetic disorders, such as Tay-Sachs Disease or Sickle-Cell Anemia. Should the parents of such children not seek a cure? Should the medical profession not engage in research to eradicate these disorders? Although I don't believe that homosexuality is a genetic disorder, it is a psychological disorder and treatment should be sought. The Catholic organization, Courage, can be very helpful and, in many cases, the inclination to homosexual behavior can be reversed. Whatever influences may have contributed to a person's perceiving himself to be homosexual is irrelevant to the individual's responsibility to live a moral life. And that means no homosexual acts, period! Scripture and Church teaching makes it clear that unrepentant, practicing homosexuals have little or no hope of enjoying eternal life in heaven.

cslick · #4 Jun 29, '04, 3:27 pm

2. Your friend says he always sensed that he was a homosexual, but his "always" would not have extended backward past puberty. Pre-adolescents, almost by definition, are unaware of internal sexual impulses. At best your friend has retrojected his present state into his earliest years, in order to justify himself.--Karl Keating.

I'll have to say, this is the first time I find myself disagreeing with something Karl said. I've known a lot of homosexuals and they all indicate that they had an attraction to men from their very earliest memories. Whether or not this is the same thing as a post-pubescent sexual attraction seems irrelevant. I don't think it would be fair to describe this feeling as simply "retrojection" when these men have specific recollections of being attracted to men from a very early age. I, for one, had a crush on Wonder Woman (Lynda Carter) when I was three years old, so, I can certainly see what they're talking about.

Of course, having an attraction to men from an early age does not diminish the Church's teaching on what homosexual men should do with those urges and temptations. Having a temptation does not mean that we are compelled to act on it.

PASCENDI · #5 Jun 29, '04, 4:35 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by jag009

(Don't start with me!! by "him" I am including ALL genders!)

The Grace of God be with you all...

Both SEXES

Gerard · #6 Jun 29, '04, 5:10 pm

Hello to Karl and All !

CROSS vs. CRUCIFIX
Fundamentalists and Evangelicals say that the Catholic crucifix freezes salvation history at Good Friday. Their bare cross, on the other hand, takes that history all the way through Easter. The absence of a corpus symbolizes the risen Christ.

No, it doesn't. All it can mean is that Christ is not on the cross. But where is he? Moldering away in the tomb? That's what the skeptic would say, and he'd have a point.

If you want a symbol for the Resurrection, it can't be either the crucifix or the bare cross. It must be the empty tomb. I have never seen a church feature a representation of the tomb on its steeple.

Yes, both the crucifix and bare cross "point" toward the Resurrection, but they do not artistically show it. The crucifix shows Good Friday. The bare cross shows--what? The situation on Palm Sunday, as the Romans tidied up Golgotha in anticipation of whoever would be sent their way next? One could argue that way.

The bare cross, as an artistic symbol, is vague. The crucifix, pointing to a narrow sliver of time, is closer to a snapshot. This is why the crucifix is more appropriate for Mass: Mass is the re-presentation of Calvary, so why not show that moment on the cross?

Here In Our Local Parish, Saint Andrews, Coral Springs Florida,
We have The Main Church Room and The Chapel separted by about 10 or more huge Sliding Glass Doors. When Mass is celebrated it doesnt matter where you are sitting since you can here and see the Main Altar from behind the glass doors if you are sitting in the Chapel area. This separates the Main congregation from the children to keep down any destractions. In this "Chapel" area is where we have Adoration and Novena and Benediction as well. Each area has an Altar, 1 in the Main area of the Church, and the other altar in th "Chapel Area".
My comment is that in the Main Church Area, we have The Cross with Christ Corpus on it. In the "Chapel Area" we have the Cross with the Risen Lord on it in His Glory, with his Wounds. I just thought I would mention the Risen CHrist on The Cross being it was not mentioned in this original posting. PLease shar any comment on this!

God Bless you all - My Brothers & Sisters in Christ.
Vincent Gerard Cipriani
Coral Springs, FL

lslhernandez · #7 Jun 29, '04, 5:33 pm

Dear Mr. Keating,
Your e-letter regarding homosexuality came at the perfect time! I have family friends who are not practicing Catholics. The mother has been trying to answer questions from her daughters about God without any luck.Their 9 year old daughter has often expressed a desire to know more. The family sees me ( a catetchist) and my son as a link to building a relationship with God. But, as soon as I brought up Catholic Faith Formation ( which the daughter was willing to try) her mother said yes and her dad said no! "The Catholic Church doesn't like gays" was the term he gave his daughter. Unfortunately, in that household, if the parents both don't agree to something, it's a "no".The father has a brother who is gay, and even though they have been in our church and seen my son recieve his sacraments, they still feel negative about being Catholic. My husband and I both know that it's the lack of knowledge of the faith that keeps them from pursuing more and that they read and listen to the negative issues the Catholic Church has had in the past.I have been racking my brain trying to come up with things to say, offering up novenas and prayers for their conversion. Now, with your e-letter I have a tool to help me.Thank-you! Also, the cross and the crucifix-again words that I needed to hear.
God Bless You!

Lillian

eddio · #8 Jun 29, '04, 7:15 pm

I believe that Karl is outside his area of expertise when he writes about the etiology of homosexuality.His comparison of homosexuality to kleptomania is way off base.Sexuality is an integral, powerful and pervasive part of our humanity.The urge to steal that is experienced by one with that disorder is totally different from the complex interplay of physical, psychological and spiritual aspects of our sexuality. I have worked with many homosexuals in my work as a social worker. I have never met one who chose to have a homosexual orientation.

**Karl Keating** · #9 Jun 29, '04, 7:41 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by cslick

2
I'll have to say, this is the first time I find myself disagreeing with something Karl said. I've known a lot of homosexuals and they all indicate that they had an attraction to men from their very earliest memories. Whether or not this is the same thing as a post-pubescent sexual attraction seems irrelevant.

Actually, it is relevant. Homosexuality is defined as SEXUAL attraction to one of the same sex. A young child's attraction to an adult (teacher, TV character, neighbor) is not sexual. The sexual component comes after puberty. Many boys are attracted to adult men they admire--say, Cub Scouts to their pack leaders. This doesn't indicate any element of homosexuality.

What seems to happen in the case of homosexuals is that the early, pre-pubescent attraction doesn't mature in the right way. It becomes, after puberty, a sexual attraction to men. Most of those former Cub Scouts develop an attraction to girls, and this supersedes their (non-sexual) attraction to certain men. For some reason, this process is short-circuited in those who end up as homosexuals.

**Karl Keating** · #10 Jun 29, '04, 7:54 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by eddio

I believe that Karl is outside his area of expertise when he writes about the etiology of homosexuality.His comparison of homosexuality to kleptomania is way off base.Sexuality is an integral, powerful and pervasive part of our humanity.The urge to steal that is experienced by one with that disorder is totally different from the complex interplay of physical, psychological and spiritual aspects of our sexuality. I have worked with many homosexuals in my work as a social worker. I have never met one who chose to have a homosexual orientation.

First of all, I don't have any area of expertise. I never have claimed to be an expert in anything.

Second, homosexuality and kleptomania differ in many ways, but they are alike in being (chiefly) psychological disorders.

Third, of course you never met anyone who chose to be a homosexual. You also never met anyone who chose to be a kleptomaniac. People don't choose to become either of those; they just become them.

Fourth, homosexuals may not choose their condition, but they choose whether or not to engage in homosexual practices.

Salena · #11 Jun 29, '04, 8:10 pm

Karl,
I agree with what you are saying because I have a sister, who after being married three years and giving birth to a son, decided she was homosexual and left her husband for another woman. Although she has been living this life for about twelve years I am convinced she has a real problem and she should at least try to get help.
But I did work with a lesbian woman who had male features. She had a mustache, hair on her chest, and a deep voice, but she has a vagina and breast. Is it not possible that her body is messed up more than her mind? She is almost like 1/2 man 1/2 woman. I know another lady just like her who is also a homosexual. I believe these people are different and have a real physical problem and are probably confused as to what gender that actually are. My sister and people like her are another story!!

canaria · #12 Jun 29, '04, 8:36 pm

I desagree. God gives us the freedom to speak as He gives the freedom to think and communicate our experiences and our thoughts to others. That is one of the definitions of communion. I agree with Karl 100% because scripture says: homosexuals will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven. It's that clear, and surely not an statement, but scripture from the Bible. If we say that God created everybody iqual it is just that and no going around the bush. We are the ones who to hide sin make it into an open discussion, but if we put limits to each other freedoms then the church could became just a social club where we will let in only those who are like us and not those who God calls to be included into his Kingdom and form part of His body. The rules are clear, eather we obey or not the choice is ours.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikworld

"No one is born homosexual, just as no one is born an alcoholic."
-Karl Keating: June 29, 2004

Karl,
By this reasoning, one could state that no one is born heterosexual. I support the churches teachings 110%, but to say that an individual is not born homosexual is a statement we cannot be authorized to make, as it trivializes the nature of the heterosexual individual.
Is it not the definition fo heterosexuality the attraction to the opposite sex, and homosexuality the attraction to the same sex? If these attractions are not innate, and the sociologist is correct in saying that culture determines sexual preference, then how do we define absolute truth?
God Bless,

Justin

mikworld · #13 Jun 29, '04, 9:35 pm

I would like to elaborate on my comment about sociology. I just got out of Intro Soc. at the university I attend, and one thing a sociologist claims is: "Sexual attraction is determined by culture, and is not a biological, innate impulse." -Paraphrase of my Soc. Professor
What the sociologist is trying to say is that being attracted to anyone, either of opposite sex or same sex, is determined culturally. That is to say there exists a cultural bias stating that only attractions between the opposite sex may be fostered, when sociologists believe that cultures simply develop based around accepted values, and the basis of the current culture happens to be Christian.
Now, don't get me wrong, I disagree with the sociological perspective on many levels, but what we are saying about a homosexual not being born with those tendencies contradicts our very selves.
If one is not born with a tendency to be homosexual, then one is not born with the tendency to be heterosexual. Hence the laws of attraction are learned, and cannot be applied since the this viewpoint denies absolute truth. (Absolute truth meaning that one truth exists above all others. Similar to the one God among many gods.) The statement we are making says that even the correct attraction is not innate or natural, and has no right or wrong on the basis that cultures have the power to determine the most appropriate sexual conduct.
The problem pops up when we open Genesis. "Male and female He created them." God created man and woman to be just that, man and woman. He designed us to be attracted to eachother. This is the way the world works.

2331 "God is love and in himself he lives a mystery of personal loving communion. Creating the human race in his own image . . .. God inscribed in the humanity of man and woman the vocation, and thus the capacity and responsibility, of love and communion."114 -Chatechism of the Catholic Church

I would say this: Male and female are indeed hardwired to be attracted to eachother, and homosexuality most likely results in the unbalance of chemicals in the brain. Because we have no way to prove this, it can only be a theory. I say that we cannot undermine the truth and validity of the natural order of man and woman by denying humankind's innate capacity for attraction to the opposite sex.
Lets keep talking.
God Bless,

Justin

**Karl Keating** · #14 Jun 29, '04, 9:47 pm

Your sociology professor seems to be a simple relativist. If sexual attraction were a matter of cultural conditioning, we would expect large portions of some cultures to be homosexual. There is no history of such a thing. (We also would expect large portions of some cultures to be asexual, with people conditioned not to take an interest in sex at all. Again, there are no historical examples.)

Sexual distinctions clearly have to do with reproduction, and that tells us that sexuality is, by design, heterosexual. It isn't clear why a few people end up having homosexual tendencies, but such tendencies are contrary to the biological construction of the sexes.

The Church teaches that homosexuality is a disorder--and a serious one. There are many kinds of disorders: physical, emotional, mental, psychological, and so on. Most of them have no moral dimension or consequences. Some do, and homosexuality is one such because the impulse inherent in it prompts one to engage in immoral sexual practices.

Your professor may subscribe to the notion that "whatever is is good," at least so far as things occur "naturally" (that is, without compulsion). The Christian can't accept this because he knows about original sin and the fallen state of human nature.

I hope you'll keep a healthy skepticism while at school. You will find much truth in your classes and much error. If, after four years, you learn to distinguish the two well, you may count your education a success.

mikworld · #15 Jun 29, '04, 10:04 pm

Thanks for your response Karl.
I hope you didn't miss the line that said: I don't agree with the sociological perspective.
The only reason that I used that perspective is to show how screwed up it really is, and that the Christian perspective from truth and historical reference defeats much crazy thought in the world. I think we agree on that much!

Please address the thoughts on sexuality as something innate. As I read previous posts on this thread, it seemed like attraction as a learned thing was being communicated. The whole reason I responded with sociology came from that thought.
Karl, in your opinion, is attraction innate or learned? If so, please provide a basis for that understanding. (I for one think that attraction to the opposite sex is bound by the natural order which God has created the world with, and is hence a part of our being.)
Thanks!
God Bless,

Justin