Conversion of Beaubourg?

John Paul II's idea: Homosexuals are called to chastity.
My idea: ♂♂+♀♀ => ♂♀+♂♀

Update, Lazarus Sunday:

New Catechism:

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 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.

Tradition, by the mouth or pen of Bishop Stephen Tempier who was bishop here in Paris:
http://enfrancaissurantimodernism.blogspot.fr/2012/01/capitula-xix-xxii-explicit.html

ch. xx: n. 1 / n. 166. Quod peccatum contra naturam, utpote abusus in coitu, licet sit contra naturam speciei, non tamen est contra naturam indiuidui.

This thesis was condemned laetare sunday of late 1276 or early 1277 (depending on whether we use the then or the present system for delimiting one year from another).

The concept of "deep-seated homosexual tendencies" seems to coincide with that of "peccatum, contra naturam speciei, non contra naturam indiuidui."

What does St Thomas say about spells?

ST, III Suppl. Question 58. The impediments of impotence, spell, frenzy or madness, incest and defective age, Article 2. Whether a spell can be an impediment to marriage?
http://newadvent.org/summa/5058.htm#article2

Reply to Objection 4. Witchcraft sometimes causes an impediment in relation to all, sometimes in relation to one only: because the devil is a voluntary cause not acting from natural necessity. Moreover, the impediment resulting from witchcraft may result from an impression made by the demon on a man's imagination, whereby he is deprived of the concupiscence that moves him in regard to a particular woman and not to another.

Or, in previous article, on impotence:

Reply to Objection 5. A man cannot have a perpetual natural impediment in regard to one person and not in regard to another. But if he cannot fulfill the carnal act with a virgin, while he can with one who is not a virgin, the hymeneal membrane may be broken by a medical instrument, and thus he may have connection with her. Nor would this be contrary to nature, for it would be done not for pleasure but for a remedy. Dislike for a woman is not a natural cause, but an accidental extrinsic cause: and therefore we must form the same judgment in its regard as about spells, of which we shall speak further on (2).

Confer St Paul, Romans 1:
http://drbo.org/chapter/52001.htm

[20] For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable. [21] Because that, when they knew God, they have not glorified him as God, or given thanks; but became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened. [22] For professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. [23] And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man, and of birds, and of fourfooted beasts, and of creeping things. [24] Wherefore God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness, to dishonour their own bodies among themselves. [25] Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. [26] For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. [27] And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error. [28] And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient; [29] Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers, [30] Detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, [31] Foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy. [32] Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.

With a comment, directed against Calvinism:

[26] God delivered them up: Not by being author of their sins, but by withdrawing his grace, and so permitting them, in punishment of their pride, to fall into those shameful sins.

Other known causes for such sins are over consumption of material comforts, a k a gluttony.

If then homosexual tendencies are in any psychological sense "deep-seated", a pastor ought perhaps to enquire if it is gluttony or idolatry (opening up to spells) which is deep-seated.

But as for the sense that perfection should take, except when God allows it, the devil's work is not stronger than God's and so a homosexual converting to Christian life and to grace and to fasting should not be considered because of his past barred from marriage. If idolatry can turn a heterosexual homosexual, obviously Christianity can turn a homosexual heterosexual.

I have indeed been in discussion of this question and said: even if a gay man would fall in love with another man, that does not mean he cannot at all marry a woman and do his marital duties to her, and I got the answer - clearly more heterodox than of homosexual affection - that "in an overpopulated world, there is no reason for people not in love with each other to make children together": root of his stance was anyway that sham prediction bout our world becoming unliveable because we are supposedly too many.

I do not say this because of myself, I have a past of heterosexual affections, and unless some evil pastor unjustly excommunicates me, I see no difficulty of doing my duty to my wife if only I get one. Unless recent frailties which I attribute to envies about this which I already said back in the MSN Group Antimodernism, and to pastors abusing their authority and delivering me to evil, insofar as they can, and to the changes for more gluttony due to sleep privations, should prove fatal.

Some people say of men opposed to alcohol prohibition "he is a drunkard". Some say of men who oppose too much parental control over young marriages "he wants to get a wife by deceiving a girl". Some say of men opposed to psychiatry "he is mad". And some have said of me, because I do not find §2358 fully orthodox, because I do not want to bar homosexuals from marriage, which is heterosexual, "he is homosexual".

Especially since some hold dearly to John Paul II being until he recently died Pope, and I used this - interpreted as "homosexuals are by individual nature impeded from marriage" - as one proof he was a non-Pope. If Benedict XVI wants to not be condemned as succeeding a non-Pope - not at all implying I have any right to do the condemnation of a Pope as losing papacy, he might want to interpret those passages above cited as meaning something other and clearly different from "homosexuals are by individual nature impeded from marriage". Furthermore he would want to interpret last paragraph of as something other than "homosexual pairs are encouraged to fidelity and chastity of sooner or later monastic kind". As much as "sacramental grace" should not exclude the grace of marriage - as said above a heterosexual relation, which is given "in remedium concupiscentie" among other goods./HGL