Bishops adopt statement on pastoral care of homosexuals

[Belcanto]

By Jerry Filteau
Catholic News Service

BALTIMORE (CNS) – The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops Nov. 14 approved a statement on the pastoral care of homosexually inclined persons.

The statement reiterates church teaching that all homosexual acts are morally wrong but affirms the dignity of those with homosexual inclinations and says that experiencing such an inclination is not in itself sinful.

In Baltimore at their yearly fall meeting, the bishops approved the statement 194-37, with one abstention, after turning back a motion to send it back to the USCCB Committee on Doctrine, which drafted the document, for more consultation and revision.

The draft document the bishops received before the meeting was amended heavily before it came to a final vote.

In introducing the document Bishop Arthur J. Serratelli of Paterson, N.J., chairman of the doctrine committee, acknowledged that “there are aspects of our society that make it difficult for people to live according to the church’s teaching on sexuality.”

He said that cannot deter the church from carrying out its mission to teach the truth and to “promote sound, effective ministry to persons with a homosexual inclination.”

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0606489.htm

 

[Belcanto]

They covered this on NPR last night. The news correspondent said “this document was meant to clarify things, but it left things murky.” She went on to mention that the Church considers homosexual inclinations to be neutral, but the acts to be morally wrong. Apparently, it logically follows that an inclination to do something makes the act OK. In addition, last night they played a sound bit from a man from New Ways Ministry, about how this will make gay Catholics feel “unwelcome.” Would it really have been too much to ask to get someone from Courage to comment (David Morrision, for example), or are those who oppose the church the only ones whose opinions matter?

I’m going to have to leave for work soon, so I won’t be able to reply again until later on today. I’m looking forward to your thoughts.

Pax Tecum,
Jay

 

[manualman]

Perhaps the media feel that balance requires them to allow the church a turn to speak and then the opposition to have opportunity to comment. Not terribly unreasonable. It’s not the media’s fault that the USCCB is so terribly afraid to hurt anybody that their message is softened down to the point of ambiguity.

The media people apparently heard them say that the inclination is ‘neutral?’ But the act is wrong. Not quite. My understanding of church teaching is that the inclination (or SSA) is inherently disordered, but that the person experiencing an SSA is not committing a sin just because the temptation is there. Doing the deed, if you will, is actually consenting to the temptation and obviously sinful.

We need some straight talkers in the USCCB.

 

[HoppityRedux]

Perhaps the media feel that balance requires them to allow the church a turn to speak and then the opposition to have opportunity to comment. Not terribly unreasonable. It’s not the media’s fault that the USCCB is so terribly afraid to hurt anybody that their message is softened down to the point of ambiguity.

The media people apparently heard them say that the inclination is ‘neutral?’ But the act is wrong. Not quite. My understanding of church teaching is that the inclination (or SSA) is inherently disordered, but that the person experiencing an SSA is not committing a sin just because the temptation is there. Doing the deed, if you will, is actually consenting to the temptation and obviously sinful.

We need some straight talkers in the USCCB.

What does “inherently disordered” mean? Is it different from “disordered?”

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

What does “inherently disordered” mean? Is it different from “disordered?”

Yes I would say that it is different.

In this way, having lustful feelings for some of the opposite sex while unmarried could be seen as being disordered because in the right case, that of being married to this person, those feelings are not disordered.

Where as a same sex attraction can never be such, so they are inherently disordered.

At least thats how I see it.

 

[tequilamac]

What does “inherently disordered” mean? Is it different from “disordered?”

inherent

–adjective 1. existing in someone or something as a permanent and inseparable element, quality, or attribute: an inherent distrust of strangers.

In other words, to say that they are “inherently disordered” is to say that the disorder is a permanent and inseparable part of the homosexual. For the bishop’s to make this statement is a big step towards a case for homosexuality being genetic.

To say “disordered only” indicates a more temporary and less serious condition, one more easily changed and separated from.

The new wording is probably closer to the truth in my opinion.

 

[elijahson]

We need some straight talkers in the USCCB.

I agree…we also need some prophets

 

[Dale_M]

For folks interested, here is the online version of “Ministry to Persons with a Homosexual Inclination: Guidelines for Pastoral Care”
usccb.org/dpp/Ministry.pdf

Its 26 pages long and I’m about half way through it, but so far it is simply restating the Church’s established position.

 

[tequilamac]

I agree…we also need some prophets

I believe we have all the prophet we need in Christ.

 

[bellesjoy]

Before the adoption of this statement, Bishop Vasa asked for a delay for further consideration of information on the topic of homosexuality published by the Catholic Medical Association:

cathmed.org/publications/homosexuality.htm

His motion was not supported and the statement was adopted as noted. The hope was for inclusion in the statement of information and findings that would offer greater hope and assistance in the pastoral efforts to help those experiencing same sex attraction.

It might have been fruitful to do so, considering the that the USCCB had to revisit their recomendations for “safe environment” training for children last year, some of which were found to be not in the best interest of children and their familes.

The Catholic Medical Association is a source of support for Catholic teachings in accordance with Rome and their findings can offer hope to those who seek pastoral guidance within the Body of Christ.

 

[goofyjim]

Why must we consider SSA disordered? It is such an ingratiating term.

 

[batteddy]

…because it is literally dis- ordered. Mis- ordered.

Not necessarily in a psychological sense (though I believe in most cases that is true too) but in a philosophical sense: it is of its very nature and definition ordered toward a* wrong* End.

Sexual attraction exists for reproduction, primarily. It is ordered to the life-giving marriage covenant. Attraction ordered not towards this, but to a perversion of it, is this dis-ordered because it is not ordered towards the proper end.

An attraction or urge to something that should never be is a dis-ordered inclination because it is a predisposition towards something wrong.

 

[bellesjoy]

Why must we consider SSA disordered? It is such an ingratiating term.

See the CCC paragraph 2357 and 2358 for the references that provide the teaching to which we as Catholics are called to believe and accept. The term was not made up to be ingratitating but to describe two separate issues of this discussion and to provide teaching of the Church on this topic.

First is the quote that SSA is an inclination that is “objectively disordered”. Second is the more direct quotation that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”

 

[Walking_Home]

Ok—does anyone else have a problem with the following. How on earth can a child be brought up following the Catholic Faith----when the child has two same sex parents. What kind of position does that put the child in.

catholicnews.com/data/sto…ns/0606489.htm

The church “does not support the adoption of children by same-sex couples,” but it should not refuse baptism to such children if there is “a well-founded hope that the children will be brought up in the Catholic religion,” it says.

 

[luke2219]

inherent

In other words, to say that they are “inherently disordered” is to say that the disorder is a permanent and inseparable part of the homosexual. For the bishop’s to make this statement is a big step towards a case for homosexuality being genetic.

That is not right. The document is saying the inclinations are disordered not the person.
byscath:

In this way, having lustful feelings for some of the opposite sex while unmarried could be seen as being disordered because in the right case, that of being married to this person, those feelings are not disordered.

Where as a same sex attraction can never be such, so they are inherently disordered.

This is exactly right. But the words intrinsic and disordered are being applied to the inclination and not the person. The inclination toward sexual acts with the same sex can never be properly ordered. While an inclination for sexual acts with a member of the opposite sex may be properly ordered or may not be. The document does a good job of describing disorder.
The Document:

The homosexual inclination is objectively disordered, i.e., it is an inclination that predisposes one toward what is truly not good for the human person. Of course, heterosexual persons not uncommonly have disordered sexual inclinations as well. It is not enough for a sexual inclination to be heterosexual for it to be properly ordered. For example, any tendency toward sexual pleasure that is not subordinated to the greater goods of love and marriage is disordered, in that it inclines a person towards a use of sexuality that does not accord with the divine plan for creation. There is the intrinsic disorder of what is directed toward that which is evil in all cases (contra naturam). There is also the accidental disorder of what is not properly ordered by right reason, what fails to attain the proper measure of virtue (contra rationem).

The following paragraph in the document further expains that the inclination and not the person is disordered.

goofyjim:

                               Why must we consider SSA disordered?  It is such an ingratiating term.

To quote St. Thomas More in A Man for All Seasons: “It’s not a likeable [term]; it’s not a likeable thing.” It does cause great problems, though, as many see it as unkind toward those who experience SSA. But when the word disordered is understood as described by the document, it’s not so bad. We experience disordered desires as a result of original sin and SSA is nothing more than a manifestation of original sin. It is however one of the more difficult and painful manifestations to overcome.

 

[luke2219]

This document is to be HIGHLY praised for doing one thing very well. Except when quoting other sources, it NEVER called anyone homosexual or gay. It always used the words “persons with homosexual inclinations” or some variation. Homosexual was used as an adjective to describe acts and not people. This shows me that the writers of this document understand the issue well.

Homosexuality is a disordered attraction not a genetic trait. My sexual inclination is not who I am. I do experience homosexual inclinations but I **am not **a homosexual. No one is! God did not make a 3rd gender or some different type of people. People are not homosexual, inclinations are.

That is the very error of the prevailing culture and why Christians are seen as unaccepting of people with homosexual inclinations. In the prevailing idea of the culture, the inclinations are part of the person so much that it defines their very personhood. That idea is pure poison.

Even people who chose to define themselves as ‘gay’ are not gay or homosexual. And for Christians or anyone else to call them that does violence to them. It affirms them in an identity that is false. When the Christian say it they are effectively saying, “Yes, I see you’re gay and homosexual acts are wrong and I reject them, so I reject you.”

And for people like myself who experience SSA and choose to strive for chastity, it says, “You are a homosexual. Good for you trying to be chaste. You poor thing, I’m so sorry that you are a lesser type of person.” It gives a condescending pat on the head and a kick out the door.

I live in a culture that is screaming at me that I am gay and that I have to act out to be happy. I’ve felt like a sub-species of man all my life and when I hear someone call me a homosexual it confirms that indeed I am a sub-species. By the grace of God, I see now that it is not true. But this truth has not made it into the deepest parts of my heart yet and so everytime I hear a Christian say “a homosexual” or “the gays” I know they are talking about me and I feel the sharp pain of rejection.

I hereby ask all Christians, in the name of love and all that is good, true, and beautiful to never call anyone a homosexual or gay. It may be a mouthful to say “persons with homosexual inclinations” but the USSB did it every time in this document. People are dying because they don’t know the truth about this. It does violence to the human person and it advances the culture of death. In love, please, don’t call me a homosexual.

 

[tequilamac]

This document is to be HIGHLY praised for doing one thing very well. Except when quoting other sources, it NEVER called anyone homosexual or gay. It always used the words “persons with homosexual inclinations” or some variation. Homosexual was used as an adjective to describe acts and not people. This shows me that the writers of this document understand the issue well.

Homosexuality is a disordered attraction not a genetic trait. My sexual inclination is not who I am. I do experience homosexual inclinations but I **am not **a homosexual. No one is! God did not make a 3rd gender or some different type of people. People are not homosexual, inclinations are.

That is the very error of the prevailing culture and why Christians are seen as unaccepting of people with homosexual inclinations. In the prevailing idea of the culture, the inclinations are part of the person so much that it defines their very personhood. That idea is pure poison.

Even people who chose to define themselves as ‘gay’ are not gay or homosexual. And for Christians or anyone else to call them that does violence to them. It affirms them in an identity that is false. When the Christian say it they are effectively saying, “Yes, I see you’re gay and homosexual acts are wrong and I reject them, so I reject you.”

And for people like myself who experience SSA and choose to strive for chastity, it says, “You are a homosexual. Good for you trying to be chaste. You poor thing, I’m so sorry that you are a lesser type of person.” It gives a condescending pat on the head and a kick out the door.

I live in a culture that is screaming at me that I am gay and that I have to act out to be happy. I’ve felt like a sub-species of man all my life and when I hear someone call me a homosexual it confirms that indeed I am a sub-species. By the grace of God, I see now that it is not true. But this truth has not made it into the deepest parts of my heart yet and so everytime I hear a Christian say “a homosexual” or “the gays” I know they are talking about me and I feel the sharp pain of rejection.

I hereby ask all Christians, in the name of love and all that is good, true, and beautiful to never call anyone a homosexual or gay. It may be a mouthful to say “persons with homosexual inclinations” but the USSB did it every time in this document. People are dying because they don’t know the truth about this. It does violence to the human person and it advances the culture of death. In love, please, don’t call me a homosexual.

I disagree with the this part of the above statement:

“That is the very error of the prevailing culture and why Christians are seen as unaccepting of people with homosexual inclinations. In the prevailing idea of the culture, the inclinations are part of the person so much that it defines their very personhood. That idea is pure poison.”

I disagree with it because the USCCB in their document referred to homosexuality as inherently disordered. If they had continued to refer to it as they have in the past as simply disordered, what you said would be true. But now they have added the adjective inherently which by it’s very definition means that the inclinations are so much a part of therr very personhood as to be permanent, unchangeable and inseperable from the person. This description, inherently disordered, does not square with what you just said.

On the other hand there is in just practical moral terms a problem with always referring to people or groups as homosexual. We do not do that with heterosexuals. For instance we do not say there is a new initiative on the ballot that would increase the tax for heterosexuals, nor do we say the heterosexuals are staging a protest against same sex marriage. I have wondered since I was a little girl why our language has evolved into one of man, woman and homosexual. If we cling to homosexual as the common term, then we can skip using man and woman or men and women, or people or folks or anything and just write and speak everything with the two descriptions: heterosexual and homosexual. For instance we can say heterosexuals were late for work this morning when commute traffice jammed, or two heterosexuals were arrested after a B & E. In stead of saying two men or two women or people, we cna just say heterosexuals and homosexuals. And if people believe that is not accurate how about “multisexuality persons were late for work this morning”, or perhaps “people of different sexual inclinations protested outside the UN this morning”.

 

[luke2219]

I disagree with it because the USCCB in their document referred to homosexuality as inherently disordered. If they had continued to refer to it as they have in the past as simply disordered, what you said would be true. But now they have added the adjective inherently which by it’s very definition means that the inclinations are so much a part of therr very personhood as to be permanent, unchangeable and inseperable from the person. This description, inherently disordered, does not square with what you just said.

No. They said the inclinations are disordered, NOT the persons. The inclinations are inherently disordered. A desire for sex with a person of the same gender can never be ordered toward anything good and that is why it is inherently disordered. They actually point this out in the document. I guess I’ll post that here and let it speak for itself.
The Documet:

It is crucially important to understand that saying a person has a particular inclination that is disordered is not to say that the person as a whole is disordered. Nor does it mean that one has been rejected by God or the Church. Sometimes the Church is misinterpreted or misrepresented as teaching that persons with homosexual inclinations are objectively disordered, as if everything about them were disordered or rendered morally defective by this inclination. Rather, the disorder is in that particular inclination, which is not ordered toward the fulfillment of the natural ends of human sexuality. Because of this, acting in accord with such an inclination simply cannot contribute to the true good of the human person. Nevertheless, while the particular inclination to homosexual acts is disordered, the person retains his or her intrinsic human dignity and value.

The document makes it quite clear that the person is not disordered. The inherent nature of the disorderness of the inclinations doesn’t make the inclinations permanent or unchangeable or inseperable from the person.

Again. People with homosexual inclinations are not a distinct species of person as the popular culture claims. Affirming people in a false identity by calling them homosexual or gay is uncharitable.

 

[Rebecca_New]

I went to a culture and diversity training class, and homosexuals were listed as a minority-as if they were a race. I get very confused with this topic because I feel such compassion for their situation. This is not my cross, but as each one of us has a cross to bear, we can look at others and say “I could never bear that cross.” Just as Jesus carried the Cross to save us all, so we must pick up our cross. We are given the graces we need to carry the cross, and joy will be attainable in that way.

 

[HoppityRedux]

This document is to be HIGHLY praised for doing one thing very well. Except when quoting other sources, it NEVER called anyone homosexual or gay. It always used the words “persons with homosexual inclinations” or some variation. Homosexual was used as an adjective to describe acts and not people. This shows me that the writers of this document understand the issue well.

Homosexuality is a disordered attraction not a genetic trait. My sexual inclination is not who I am. I do experience homosexual inclinations but I **am not **a homosexual. No one is! God did not make a 3rd gender or some different type of people. People are not homosexual, inclinations are.

That is the very error of the prevailing culture and why Christians are seen as unaccepting of people with homosexual inclinations. In the prevailing idea of the culture, the inclinations are part of the person so much that it defines their very personhood. That idea is pure poison.

Even people who chose to define themselves as ‘gay’ are not gay or homosexual. And for Christians or anyone else to call them that does violence to them. It affirms them in an identity that is false. When the Christian say it they are effectively saying, “Yes, I see you’re gay and homosexual acts are wrong and I reject them, so I reject you.”

And for people like myself who experience SSA and choose to strive for chastity, it says, “You are a homosexual. Good for you trying to be chaste. You poor thing, I’m so sorry that you are a lesser type of person.” It gives a condescending pat on the head and a kick out the door.

I live in a culture that is screaming at me that I am gay and that I have to act out to be happy. I’ve felt like a sub-species of man all my life and when I hear someone call me a homosexual it confirms that indeed I am a sub-species. By the grace of God, I see now that it is not true. But this truth has not made it into the deepest parts of my heart yet and so everytime I hear a Christian say “a homosexual” or “the gays” I know they are talking about me and I feel the sharp pain of rejection.

I hereby ask all Christians, in the name of love and all that is good, true, and beautiful to never call anyone a homosexual or gay. It may be a mouthful to say “persons with homosexual inclinations” but the USSB did it every time in this document. People are dying because they don’t know the truth about this. It does violence to the human person and it advances the culture of death. In love, please, don’t call me a homosexual.

I’d say genetics is in the realm of natural science. How do you know homosexuality does not have a genetic component?