Among first synod discussions: changing harsh language, trying 'graduality'

[SuscipeMeDomine]

Meanwhile, I think they should change their attitude entirely about homosexuality. Promote gay marriage. How can something that’s inside you, and such an innocuous thing as being attracted to adults of the same sex, be intrinsically wicked.

Who said homosexuality was intrinsically wicked? If you hear “wicked” when people say “disordered” then that is the perfect example of the Church not communicating with the language she has adopted.

Take a look at what the Catechism says and you won’t see anything about “intrinsically wicked.”

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.

“Disordered” means just that – out of the proper order. You might look at a workaholic and say their desires are “disordered.” They don’t have the proper balance in life, there isn’t time for family, friends, recreation, etc., only work. That’s not saying the workaholic is evil, only that their priorities are not ordered properly or ordered to the right things.

 

[Rin]

‘Intrinsically disordered’ is doctrine, it is in the Catechism, so if doctrine is not going to be changed, how do you change the language?

Actually, ‘intrinsically disordered’ is a choice of words to describe doctrine, not necessarily doctrine in itself. Additionally, it should be remembered that something isn’t necessarily infallible doctrine just because it’s in the Catechism.

However, the term ‘intrinsically disordered’ is useful if the reader understands Aristotelian/Thomistic teleology. Most Catholics do not. Even fewer non-Catholics do. This makes the term anything but useful in relation to most people, who will often find the term offensive rather than clarifying, especially if the language of discourse is English.

A major problem with the use of the word ‘disordered’ in modern English is that people seem unable to understand that one can’t go from saying that homosexuality is ‘disordered’ (which, the way it is used in the Catechism, refers to not being ordered/directed towards its proper end, in this case reproduction and unification), to saying that homosexuality is ‘a disorder’ (which in modern English has the connotation ‘psychiatric condition’).

This is not a problem in my native language, where the word used to translate the Latin word ‘inordinatus’ does not have a noun form. Our word for ‘disorder’ in psychiatry does not even bear resemblance to it. It actually never occured to me that the wording in the Catechism could be misconstrued this way, until I encountered it on CAF.

If anything, this is reason alone to change this choice of words, at least in English, since it creates misunderstandings about what the Church actually teaches, among Catholics as well as non-Catholics.

 

[johnnyc176]

I live in Germany and the churches are virtually empty of anyone under 65. There are literally two or more generations missing. There are of course faithful Catholics of all ages but they are a tiny minority. There is no adult catechisis or any evangelism to speak of. My local parish church has been completely stripped of all Catholic decoration, statues, stained glass etc. The alter and tabernacle are a bare metal modernist design. I sincerely thought I was in a Lutheran church when I first entered, I kept telling my husband this is not a Catholic church we must be in the wrong building. To think that the synod would listen to the German Bishops when the church is collapsing here is scary. But I trust they are more likely to listen to bishops where the church is growing.

Bishop Vincent Nichols is also very wishy washy and liberal.

Well here is a timely article by Amy Welborn about the Church in Germany…

amywelborn.wordpress.com/2014/10/04/kaspar-german-bishops-and-the-church-tax/

That’s one thing But here’s the other thing to keep in mind as you hear Cardinal Kasper talk. And talk and talk.

(Well, first you should be wondering why the head of a national church that is dying should have this constantly-turned on microphone on this issue. Why are we even listening to him? Aren’t we supposed to be listening to the Church from places where it is actually alive and growing? What happened to We’re-not-a-Western-European-Church-We’re-a-Global-Church?)

Okay, back to Germany. Here’s how the German bishops responded to the growing exodus. Back in 2012, they issued a decree.

This decree declared that if you’re Catholic, and you un-register with the German government and don’t pay the church tax…you’re basically excommunicated. From, you know, the Eucharistic Table of the Lord. You can’t be buried out of the Church unless you’ve repented. Heck, you can’t even chair the social committee:

 

[Emily2014]

Take a look at what the Catechism says and you won’t see anything about “intrinsically wicked.”

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…
​

Personally hope they will upgrade the Catechism - not before time !​

 

[Weejee]

Who said homosexuality was intrinsically wicked? If you hear “wicked” when people say “disordered” then that is the perfect example of the Church not communicating with the language she has adopted.

Take a look at what the Catechism says and you won’t see anything about “intrinsically wicked.”

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.

“Disordered” means just that – out of the proper order. You might look at a workaholic and say their desires are “disordered.” They don’t have the proper balance in life, there isn’t time for family, friends, recreation, etc., only work. That’s not saying the workaholic is evil, only that their priorities are not ordered properly or ordered to the right things.

OOps. I goofed. It’s disordered.

I can’t see anything disordered about having an attraction to one’s own sex. So what?

I can see workaholic priorities as being really disordered, out of order, etc. Now *that’]*disordered.

 

[FollowChrist34]

I think this is kind of a silly suggestion, to change language to be kinder and gentler. And it does sound pretty “wishy washy liberal.” All of this has been going on for years in the liberal political arena (African American for black; “Ms.” instead of Mrs./Miss; “vertically challenged” for short, etc.). It’s like we time travelled back to 1975. Maybe it’s new just because we forgot it? Kind of like fashions come back every 50 or 60 years…this all sounds so old to me. That’s the most surprising and frankly disappointing part so far.

That said, I never say “shacking up” or living in sin. I do say people are “living together.” And I agree it sounds completely without judgment or consequence, nothing sinful at all. I actually would never say to a gay person I think homosexuality is “intrinisically disordered” but I have said I think it’s “unnatural”. Is that any better? I don’t have a problem with teaching being that it’s “intrinsically disordered”. This all seems a little ridiculous to me.

And I do also question why the German Church is playing such a prominent role. It is very weak and influenced by secularism, in many cases openly so. I thought we were supposed to be converting Europe, not the other way around?

 

[gracepoole]

I think this is kind of a silly suggestion, to change language to be kinder and gentler. And it does sound pretty “wishy washy liberal.” All of this has been going on for years in the liberal political arena (African American for black; “Ms.” instead of Mrs./Miss; “vertically challenged” for short, etc.). It’s like we time travelled back to 1975. Maybe it’s new just because we forgot it? Kind of like fashions come back every 50 or 60 years…this all sounds so old to me. That’s the most surprising and frankly disappointing part so far.

That said, I never say “shacking up” or living in sin. I do say people are “living together.” And I agree it sounds completely without judgment or consequence, nothing sinful at all. I actually would never say to a gay person I think homosexuality is “intrinisically disordered” but I have said I think it’s “unnatural”. Is that any better? I don’t have a problem with teaching being that it’s “intrinsically disordered”. This all seems a little ridiculous to me.

And I do also question why the German Church is playing such a prominent role. It is very weak and influenced by secularism, in many cases openly so. I thought we were supposed to be converting Europe, not the other way around?

Why is it ridiculous to acknowledge that language affects us? I understand that people are tired of being politically correct, largely because it means changing oneself and how one speaks and behaves. But there are times when it really is in the best interest of individuals and communities. The term doesn’t have to be used pejoratively.

And yes, describing homosexuality to gays and lesbians as “unnatural” is the same as describing it as “intrinsically disordered” – and both have inflammatory and ugly connotations, no matter what you mean denotatively.

Writers must always concern themselves with what is commonly referred to as audience awareness – know how to speak to different groups of readers or risk failure. It seems reasonable for the Church to consider the same concern.

 

[Weejee]

I think this is kind of a silly suggestion, to change language to be kinder and gentler. And it does sound pretty “wishy washy liberal.” All of this has been going on for years in the liberal political arena (African American for black; “Ms.” instead of Mrs./Miss; “vertically challenged” for short, etc.). It’s like we time travelled back to 1975. Maybe it’s new just because we forgot it? Kind of like fashions come back every 50 or 60 years…this all sounds so old to me. That’s the most surprising and frankly disappointing part so far.

That said, I never say “shacking up” or living in sin. I do say people are “living together.” And I agree it sounds completely without judgment or consequence, nothing sinful at all. I actually would never say to a gay person I think homosexuality is “intrinisically disordered” but I have said I think it’s “unnatural”. Is that any better? I don’t have a problem with teaching being that it’s “intrinsically disordered”. This all seems a little ridiculous to me.

And I do also question why the German Church is playing such a prominent role. It is very weak and influenced by secularism, in many cases openly so. I thought we were supposed to be converting Europe, not the other way around?

That’s exactly what I dread about the whole “Francis Effect.” Time travel back to the days of “the spirit of renewal.” Bleeeh! ( just lost my lunch.) :hypno:

 

[McCall1981]

I think this is kind of a silly suggestion, to change language to be kinder and gentler. And it does sound pretty “wishy washy liberal.” All of this has been going on for years in the liberal political arena (African American for black; “Ms.” instead of Mrs./Miss; “vertically challenged” for short, etc.). It’s like we time travelled back to 1975. Maybe it’s new just because we forgot it? Kind of like fashions come back every 50 or 60 years…this all sounds so old to me. That’s the most surprising and frankly disappointing part so far.

That said, I never say “shacking up” or living in sin. I do say people are “living together.” And I agree it sounds completely without judgment or consequence, nothing sinful at all. I actually would never say to a gay person I think homosexuality is “intrinisically disordered” but I have said I think it’s “unnatural”. Is that any better? I don’t have a problem with teaching being that it’s “intrinsically disordered”. This all seems a little ridiculous to me.

And I do also question why the German Church is playing such a prominent role. It is very weak and influenced by secularism, in many cases openly so. I thought we were supposed to be converting Europe, not the other way around?

We don’t actually know that the German Church is playing a big role. Since we just get these random blurbs of information, it’s hard to know what’s really going on. All we really know is that Germans were very loud as far as pre-Synod public interviews.

And keep in mind that out of 191 participants, only 2 are representatives from the German Church (Kasper and Marx).

 

[RosslynV]

That’s exactly what I dread about the whole “Francis Effect.” Time travel back to the days of “the spirit of renewal.” Bleeeh! ( just lost my lunch.) :hypno:

Be patient. Something positive will come out of this sinod

 

[FollowChrist34]

Why is it ridiculous to acknowledge that language affects us? I understand that people are tired of being politically correct, largely because it means changing oneself and how one speaks and behaves. But there are times when it really is in the best interest of individuals and communities. The term doesn’t have to be used pejoratively.

And yes, describing homosexuality to gays and lesbians as “unnatural” is the same as describing it as “intrinsically disordered” – and both have inflammatory and ugly connotations, no matter what you mean denotatively.

Writers must always concern themselves with what is commonly referred to as audience awareness – know how to speak to different groups of readers or risk failure. It seems reasonable for the Church to consider the same concern.

Well, I don’t think language alters truth - I am not a deconstructionist. I don’t think language changes people. Truth is truth, objectively so. I find the concept of cancer really ugly. Maybe we need to find another word for it. I honestly think homosexuality is unnatural. The Bible and Catholic doctrine concur with that view. Is Paul inflammatory and ugly? Risking failure? Not reaching his audience?

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 1:23 and traded the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed animals, and creeping things. 1:24 Therefore God also gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to uncleanness, that their bodies should be dishonored among themselves, 1:25 who exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

1:26 For this reason, God gave them up to vile passions. For their women changed the natural function into that which is against nature. 1:27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural function of the woman, burned in their lust toward one another, men doing what is inappropriate with men, and receiving in themselves the due penalty of their error. 1:28 Even as they refused to have God in their knowledge, God gave them up to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 1:29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, malice; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil habits, secret slanderers, 1:30 backbiters, hateful to God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 1:31 without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, unforgiving, unmerciful; 1:32 who, knowing the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but also approve of those who practice them.

As Paul goes, I go. When the Church is too politically correct for the Bible, I’m done. None of this is to say that I don’t believe in treating people charitably, but not at the cost of altering truth.

How long before the Bible is hate speech?

 

[McCall1981]

For the people saying it would be good to soften the language, how do you respond to the fact that Jesus called people “hypocrits”, “brood of vipers”, and “Satan” right to their faces?

Anyone?

 

[Sy_Noe]

I agree.

For the people saying it would be good to soften the language, how do you respond to the fact that Jesus called people “hypocrits”, “brood of vipers”, and “Satan” right to their faces?

Anyone?

I respond by saying people who prefer harshness also always like to bring up the time when Jesus overturned the money tables. But the Jesus I believe in was overall far more compassionate in words and tone and actions.

 

[McCall1981]

I respond by saying people who prefer harshness also always like to bring up the time when Jesus overturned the money tables. But the Jesus I believe in was overall far more compassionate in words and tone and actions.

Ok, He was indeed compassionate, but the Jesus we all believe in also called people those names to their faces, so these things were part of His overall actions. Why would it not be right for such things to be part of our overall actions?

 

[ProVobis]

I respond by saying people who prefer harshness also always like to bring up the time when Jesus overturned the money tables. But the Jesus I believe in was overall far more compassionate in words and tone and actions.

He was no doubt compassionate but Jesus’ actions were strong enough to attract attention all the way to Rome. They had to be considering that Christianity subsumed the entire Roman Empire within a couple of centuries, and along the way cleaning up its immoral ways. (There was a good PBS documentary on this, btw.)

 

[johnnyc176]

Ok, He was indeed compassionate, but the Jesus we all believe in also called people those names to their faces, so these things were part of His overall actions. Why would it not be right for such things to be part of our overall actions?

Fr. Barron mentions the tendency to ‘domesticate’ Jesus in the Catholicism dvd.

theinteriorlife.org/jreese/the-domesticated-jesus/

Somewhere we lost the idea of Christ the King. We lost the idea of the host of angels (read “army”) at His command. Christ the King was slowly replaced with the non-threatening, slightly androgynous “Jesus the Boyfriend” of popular “Christian” music. The Jesus that said “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” (John 6:53) has been remade into a Jesus that says, “Do whatever you want as long as you’re okay with it and feels like love.”

This whole worrying about what words to use is kinda silly imo. Hopefully that one gets forgotten about pretty quickly.

 

[Rin]

For the people saying it would be good to soften the language, how do you respond to the fact that Jesus called people “hypocrits”, “brood of vipers”, and “Satan” right to their faces?

Anyone?

I respond by pointing out that Our Lord seems to have reserved this kind of harshness for those who prided themselves on not being sinners and upholding the Law (while in reality they were sinners, just not openly), on not having anything to do with sinners and so on. They placed additional burdens on people, rather than lead them to God.

Ironically, the harshest language in our time seems to be reserved for those to whom Our Lord was gentle, while it is close to taboo in conservative circles to bring up the above. Times certainly don’t change.

 

[lux]

Sounds like political correctness to me.

 

[Joe_5859]

I can see why some may want to make the language more accommodating. But IMO doing that is 1 step closer to accepting a mortal sin as a venial sin, and eventually to not a sin.

Shacking up is a great example. That was the phrase when I was a kid, and everyone knew it was wrong, shameful, and therefore, not very common. It was changed to living together, which doesn’t even imply sex. Little by little it became an acceptable practice to all but the most strict of religious people. IMO couples living together without marriage is 1 of the biggest social problems we have. It lead to pregnancy without marriage which lead to abortions running wild.

I’m an older man and I’ve watched as our society fell apart,and this is a main cause. But I’m just a layman, I’m not clergy.

I can understand that point. Softening language can make it more difficult for people to recognize something is wrong. That said, I think there is a difference between the idioms of a local culture and the language that the Catholic Church chooses to use. And, to my knowledge, the Church never used the term “shacking up”.

I respond by pointing out that Our Lord seems to have reserved this kind of harshness for those who prided themselves on not being sinners and upholding the Law (while in reality they were sinners, just not openly), on not having anything to do with sinners and so on. They placed additional burdens on people, rather than lead them to God.

Ironically, the harshest language in our time seems to be reserved for those to whom Our Lord was gentle, while it is close to taboo in conservative circles to bring up the above. Times certainly don’t change.

Right. Jesus did not see the women caught in adultery who was about to be stoned and yell at her “Harlot! How could you contribute to the breakdown of a family in such a horrid way? For shame!”

In general, I think we need to avoid getting ahead of ourselves with regards to this synod. I know that I am certainly very curious. And our 24/7 news cycle makes it easy for us to hunger and thirst for news tidbits. But what we are observing is really the initial stages of a conversation. And already we have people talking about revising the Catechism! Slow down, people!

 

[Sy_Noe]

Ok, He was indeed compassionate, but the Jesus we all believe in also called people those names to their faces, so these things were part of His overall actions. Why would it not be right for such things to be part of our overall actions?

I think you and Provobis may have missed the point I was trying to make. It might help if you think of it in terms of the degree and frequency that we humans can come across as harsh. Compared to how often our Lord was. And besides CCC teaches Jesus was without sin. And he walked on water too. None of us are Jesus. Let the one without sin cast the first stone. So I hope that helps you understand better the point I was making. If not, I can’t explain it any better. God bless!