Bishop Gumbleton says that Church teaching on the subject of homosexuality is “evil”

[setter]

fix:

Back to my example. A married man looks at another women, briefly, and is attracted. He does not think if I could, I would… He simply is attracted to a woman he is not married to. Is such a scene different from a homosexual man who sees another man and is, briefly, attracted without giving in to lustful thoughts?

My question is in an individual case how can the “natural” opposite attraction be objectively disordered? The actions willed may be disordered, but is the attraction itself a disorder**?**

I cannot see how this would be the case since the “object” (non-disordered heterosexual attraction) is good in itself and remains so even if misused for an evil end.

1755 A *morally good * act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting “in order to be seen by men”).

The *object of the choice * can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil. (CCC)

1751 The object chosen is a good toward which the will deliberately directs itself. It is the matter of a human act. **The object chosen ** morally specifies the act of the will, insofar as reason recognizes and judges it to be or not to be in conformity with the true good. Objective norms of morality express the rational order of good and evil, attested to by conscience.

 

[mike182d]

Brendan:

If one sufferes from a disordered nature, and that would mean, oh, ALL of humaninty, one does have an obligation to resist the temptations that result from that disordered nature.

I guess I was thinking that there is more required of us than just resisting temptation. For instance, if a man happens to have a problem with lust, then it is not enough for him to just avoid lusting for sooner or later it will get to him. Rather, he must, by penance, fasting, prayer, etc., seek to *purify *his heart to rectify this disordered state.

As Christ says, sooner or later this will be done, either in this life or the next.

But, this isn’t sound theology I’m pulling from, just my own thoughts.

 

[mike182d]

Libero:

I honestly do not know what to make of this. People marry because of their emotions, their feelings for one another. What would you have me believe love is?

Well, yes, I’ll admit that people commonly marry because of their emotions but that is why the divorce rate is over 50% and their marriages end.

I would have you believe that love isn’t this fickle, fleeting emotion that we are slaves to, that comes and goes on a whim and we have no control over it. Love is a choice.

When Christ hung from the cross in the most immense pain a human being could ever possibly feel, do you think he “felt” in love? Do you think he was feeling those butterflies in his stomach when a man dates a girl for the first time?

 

[mike182d]

Libero:

I do not understand why people have to make the distinction.

To me, in saying that you love someone, but then adding that you “hate” their actions, you are actually sending in the image that you love them less. Why point it out?

“I love you, but not what you are - I hate that”

So, do you love pedophiles? Do you, then, also love when they molest children?

 

[setter]

fix:

Yes. I am trying to grasp the meaning of objectively disordered. I understand it to mean the “attraction” itself is not ordered to good.

In these recent example some have brought up individual cases between heterosexual people that would say the attraction is objectively disordered.

I will add these excerpts to hopefully clarify by contrast that the heterosexual attraction in itself is never objectively disordered, as is quite the opposite with SSA.

1. Explicit treatment of the problem was given in this Congregation’s “Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics” of December 29, 1975.

In the discussion which followed the publication of the Declaration, however, an overly benign interpretation was given to the homosexual condition itself, some going so far as to call it neutral, or even good. Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html

Homosexuals have a human nature with an intrinsic moral disorder. …Even if a homosexual refrains from sexual activity, the moral disorder is still present. This moral disorder is fundamental to human nature because sexuality is a fundamental part of human nature.

64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:qMWtHxsnBJAJ:www.catholicplanet.com/articles/article122.htm+homosexual+moral+disorder+&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=3

 

[fix]

Setter,

Thank you and please see post #92:

if you are talking about a specific instance of attaction, yes it would be objectively disorderer.

To be ‘objectively disorder’, in Moral Theology terms, means to have a false (dis) inclination towards (ordered) object (the particular woman)

** Since the object of that particular attraction is a woman to whom one is not married, that particular instance of attraction is disordered in it’s object, or objectively disordered**.

Now, the NATURE of the attraction, that of a male being attracticed to the female sex, is not disordered, and thus the NATURE of the attraction in not disordered.

The Nature of homosexuality, however, it essence, what is it at it’s core, is disordered. It is disordered in the object of it’s attraction, that of one’s own sex.

Does that help?

I am not picking on Brendan as he is very informed and I have learned much from his posts and will continue to learn much. I just want to have a correct understanding of this topic.

I do not want to take it out of context but it seems to say that the attraction, in the case of lust, is objectively disordered. Perhaps I am too dense, but is it accurate to say the attraction is disordered, or that one is willing the desire toward lust that is disordered? Does that make sense or am I totally confusing things?

 

[Libero]

So, do you love pedophiles? Do you, then, also love when they molest children?

Paedophiles are still humans, they are people, who often are plagued by their feelings, due to illnesses etc.

I would mantain that a paedophile deserves love and respect as a fellow human being, and that, I do not love, nor hate their actions, but rather resent them, and recognise them as actions that seriously harm children, and their victims.

Paedophillia must be stopped to protect the children who could become an innocent victim of it.

When Christ hung from the cross in the most immense pain a human being could ever possibly feel, do you think he “felt” in love? Do you think he was feeling those butterflies in his stomach when a man dates a girl for the first time?

I would not compare the love that Christ feels for us to that of a guy for a girl who has gone on a date with. They are very very different. And, I do not believe I know what Christ was feeling, I would like to think that he loved us, his persecutors, however, other feelings consumed him at that time and covered his love.

We have all been there - when we are so corrupted by feelings of anger (or another) that we do not let love shine through - and thus, become to regret our actions later on.

 

[Brendan]

fix:

I do not want to take it out of context but it seems to say that the attraction, in the case of lust, is objectively disordered.

No, The attraction of males to females, and vice verse, is correctly ordered. It can be disordere in specific circumstances, such as when a married man is attracted to a woman other than his wife. The active choice to engage in that attraction is lust, and the physical choice is called adultery.

Perhaps I am too dense, but is it accurate to say the attraction is disordered, or that one is willing the desire toward lust that is disordered? Does that make sense or am I totally confusing things?

The specific case attraction is disordered in object (another woman), so it is objectively disordered.

Which means, that if the order is acted upon, moral good is not the direct result.

 

[Brendan]

Libero:

I would mantain that a paedophile deserves love and respect as a fellow human being, and that, I do not love, nor hate their actions, but rather resent them, and recognise them as actions that seriously harm children, and their victims.

In the case of the lynchings, you expressed a need to understand the person before you could separate your love of the actions from the person committing them, why the difference here.
In the case of pedophilia, you stated you do not love the actions.

So can the lack of love for the actions occur apart from an understanding of why that person commits them?

Also, could you clarify your distinction between not hating the action and resenting the action?

Paedophillia must be stopped to protect the children who could become an innocent victim of it.

But if it is part of the person, would that not be a sign of not loving the pedophile, or at the very least, a claim that one loves the child more?

Would stopping or dissuading the pedophile from commiting this act be a sign of love for them?

 

[setter]

Brendan:

No, The attraction of males to females, and vice verse, is correctly ordered. It can be disordere in specific circumstances, such as when a married man is attracted to a woman other than his wife. The active choice to engage in that attraction is lust, and the physical choice is called adultery.

The specific case attraction is disordered in object (another woman), so it is objectively disordered.

Which means, that if the order is acted upon, moral good is not the direct result.

I disagree as I do not follow your logic. The attraction itself (OSA) remains good in itself as it remains unchanged in it’s “in conformity with the true good.” The object chosen (not one’s spouse) specifically by an act of the will (ex. lust) in no way alters the properly ordered human good of OSA.

1751 The object chosen is a good toward which the will deliberately directs itself. It is the matter of a human act. The object chosen morally specifies the act of the will, insofar as reason recognizes and judges it to be or not to be in conformity with the true good.

1754 The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent’s responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.

 

[Libero]

In the case of the lynchings, you expressed a need to understand the person before you could separate your love of the actions from the person committing them, why the difference here.
In the case of pedophilia, you stated you do not love the actions.

So can the lack of love for the actions occur apart from an understanding of why that person commits them?

Also, could you clarify your distinction between not hating the action and resenting the action?

I do not love the actions of either lynching or paedophillia, sorry if I gave the impression I did.

My belief is that in hating the actions of a person, you detract from the message of love you are trying to show them.
Hating, is to feel angry of aggressive towards something, an intense hostility towards something, whereas resenting something would be to regret the action, recognising that no good can come from it - perhaps regret is a better term.

But if it is part of the person, would that not be a sign of not loving the pedophile, or at the very least, a claim that one loves the child more?

Would stopping or dissuading the pedophile from commiting this act be a sign of love for them?

I am unsure of the psychology behind paedophillia, I would be quite sure that it is a result of something.

I think, that it would be more an act of love for the child, than an act of love for the paedophile, perhaps it is helping the paedophile, and rather just fulfilling a duty to protect the children.

 

[Brendan]

Libero:

I do not love the actions of either lynching or paedophillia, sorry if I gave the impression I did.

OK Good, I think we have fully agreed that the actions are seperate from the person and can be reacted to seperately.

This is progress.

My belief is that in hating the actions of a person, you detract from the message of love you are trying to show them.
Hating, is to feel angry of aggressive towards something, an intense hostility towards something, whereas resenting something would be to regret the action, recognising that no good can come from it - perhaps regret is a better term.

So that brings us to what it means to ‘hate’.

Websters defintion includes pretty much what you said, but also described it as intense ‘adversion’

Adversion is a ‘future tense’ word. To advert from. It describes future actions.

Regret is past tense, it describes a relationship to past event.

In the case of the pedophile, would dissuading him from commiting paedophillic acts be adversion or regret?

I am unsure of the psychology behind paedophillia, I would be quite sure that it is a result of something.

I think, that it would be more an act of love for the child, than an act of love for the paedophile, perhaps it is helping the paedophile, and rather just fulfilling a duty to protect the children.

Good, now is helping the pedophile a sign of love?

 

[mike182d]

Libero:

I would mantain that a paedophile deserves love and respect as a fellow human being, and that, I do not love, nor hate their actions, but rather resent them, and recognise them as actions that seriously harm children, and their victims.

This sounds more like a game in semantics; like saying “I really, really, really dislike someone” to avoid saying “I hate someone.” In essence, they’re the same thing. You cannot resent something you like. Rather, you resent things you dislike or…dare I say…hate?

Paedophillia must be stopped to protect the children who could become an innocent victim of it.

In theory, had a child not objected, would it be any less a crime against nature? If the older man and the young child had both consented, would it then be ok and not as objectionable?

I would not compare the love that Christ feels for us to that of a guy for a girl who has gone on a date with. They are very very different. And, I do not believe I know what Christ was feeling, I would like to think that he loved us, his persecutors, however, other feelings consumed him at that time and covered his love.

Throughout the whole of the New Testament - nay the Bible - is the comparison of Christ’s love for us to that of a marriage and love between a man and wife. The love Christ had for His bride, the Church, is supposed to be reflected in the love for a man for his bride in marriage. Ergo, the love that defines marriage isn’t a “feeling” anymore than Christ’s crucifixion, death, and resurrection was the product of a “feeling.” Christ taught us what love is and its right there on the crucifix. Its the world that tells us love is what “feels good” not God.

We have all been there - when we are so corrupted by feelings of anger (or another) that we do not let love shine through - and thus, become to regret our actions later on.

You mean like Christ calling the Pharisees “broods of vipers” or “whitewashed tombs that are clean on the outside but rotten on the inside” or the love of Christ when He made his own whip, flipped over tables and chased the money changers out of the Temple?

Love isn’t always sitting in a circle, holding hands, singing Kumbaya.

 

[fix]

Brendan:

No, The attraction of males to females, and vice verse, is correctly ordered. It can be disordere in specific circumstances, such as when a married man is attracted to a woman other than his wife. The active choice to engage in that attraction is lust, and the physical choice is called adultery.

Is it not the attraction to a particular sin that is not ordered correctly?

The specific case attraction is disordered in object (another woman), so it is objectively disordered.

Which means, that if the order is acted upon, moral good is not the direct result.

If the attraction itself is not ordered to the good because the woman is not his wife, why would the attraction between non married persons not also be disordered?

 

[fix]

setter:

I disagree as I do not follow your logic. The attraction itself (OSA) remains good in itself as it remains unchanged in it’s “in conformity with the true good.” The object chosen (not one’s spouse) specifically by an act of the will (ex. lust) in no way alters the properly ordered human good of OSA.

That is how I read it as well, but I am open to correction.

 

[Orionthehunter]

I have read the entire sermon by the Bishop (I assume that everyone else who commented in this thread did too to insure that their comment addressed the Bishop’s sited paragraph in context esp. if they were inclined to call the Bishop “evil”, “an idiot” or other derogatory comments lest they “bear false witness” against a Bishop-certainly a grave offense).

A person could reasonably interpret the thrust of the Bishop’s sermon was that we are called to love all God’s children, even the sinful (possibly especially the sinful). Furthermore, we fail to follow this call when we chose words and actions that don’t express that we value everyone as God’s children even though we abhor their sinful acts.

Then within the context of his entire sermon, he talked about how we don’t show love when we call a person living a homosexual life “an abomination”. I think everyone understands the Catholic teaching that we are to love the sinner and hate the sin. However, calling a person “an abomination” infers hate on the sinner when we should be saying the person’s acts are “an abomination.” An analogy would be my teen daughter. Sometimes she tells lies. I don’t call her a liar. I say she is lying to me. The same applies to an active homosexual. No matter the gravity of the sinful lifestyle, this person is not “an abomination” as they are still made in God’s image which means they have more good in them than evil.

Then within this context:

1. One can dismiss the Bishop’s context regarding Church teaching he inadvertently and unintentionally misrepresented the Catechism as it teaches that the behavior is “intrinsically disordered” and does’nt say the person is "intrinsically disordered.
2. The Bishop could be chastised for misinterpreting and misrepresenting the Catechism as he did as most on this thread believe he did.
3. Or, finally, one could also be very critical of the Bishop’s words because they don’t foster “right thinking” consistent w/ Church teaching.

Personally, after reading many of the “concepts” attributed to this Bishop in this thread and assuming they are true in context, I have alot of problems with his views and probably some of his actions. But, referring to a Bishop as an “idiot” is certainly disrespectful or (especially one who is older and may have diminished clarity of thought and reason) as “evil” is over-the-top and presumes a knowledge and clarity of his heart that as Fr. Corapi said is beyond the capacities of even those close and intimate with the Bishop personally much less people on this forum.

 

[setter]

A person could reasonably interpret the thrust of the Bishop’s sermon was that we are called to love all God’s children, even the sinful (possibly especially the sinful). Furthermore, we fail to follow this call when we chose words and actions that don’t express that we value everyone as God’s children even though we abhor their sinful acts.

It only takes a little bit of rotten fruit to spoil the entire pie.

Then within this context:

1. One can dismiss the Bishop’s context regarding Church teaching he inadvertently and unintentionally misrepresented the Catechism as it teaches that the behavior is “intrinsically disordered” and does’nt say the person is "intrinsically disordered.

1. The Bishop could be chastised for misinterpreting and misrepresenting the Catechism as he did as most on this thread believe he did.

1. Or, finally, one could also be very critical of the Bishop’s words because they don’t foster “right thinking” consistent w/ Church teaching.

But, referring to a Bishop as an “idiot” is certainly disrespectful …

Choice #3 is probably the closest answer based on this bishop’s established and well documented track record of heterodoxy.

I agree, we should alsways respect the office and person of the clergy while offering charitable critque and not following the error of his ways.

 

[irenaeus1]

The statement “How evil” made by the bishop was in the immediate context and reference to the recent church document on homosexuality and its reference to the intrinsic disorder of homosexual orientation. The document did not state that the church’s teaching on the subject was a result of a lack of charity. So if his statement was not critical of official church teaching, but rather merely the poor and uncharitable treatment that some church members extend to those with SSA, he only has himself to blame for the miscommunication. Why?… because he explicitly stated, “… even as our own church document says they’re disordered, “intrinsically disordered.” Well, that statement is true, so how can it be considered evil? The church has been extremely careful in making the distinction between the person that experiences SSA and homosexual activity. It is the behavior that is an abomination, not the orientation.

BTW, this one statement does not constitute him being an idiot. He’s done plenty more to demonstrate this.

In Christ,
Irenaeus

 

[Brendan]

Orionthehunter:

I I think everyone understands the Catholic teaching that we are to love the sinner and hate the sin.

I think most of us understand that. I do wonder if +Gumbleton does.

He has certainly given many homilies on how he loves the sinner, but what about the last part. When will he give a homily on how much he hates that particular sin?