For homosexuals, it is the exact same word (disordered) that was used by the APA, which they abandoned in 1973. This view of the APA was probably regularly used as a reason to discriminate and support laws that repress homosexuals.I definitely do see the phrase intrinsically disordered used as a form of reverse dog-whistle where it means one thing but is used to convey something else to the vast majority of people. The word disordered in the Catechism has nothing to do with mental disorded.
The word used by the Church in the authoritative Latin text is “inordinatus”, which means “wrongly directed”, in this context “not directed toward reproduction and unity between man and woman”. One can agree or disagree with this theology, but it has absoutely nothing to do with mental health, and nothing to do with the language used by APA.For homosexuals, it is the exact same word (disordered) that was used by the APA, which they abandoned in 1973. This view of the APA was probably regularly used as a reason to discriminate and support laws that repress homosexuals.
You can say it mean something different, but using the exact same word seems like a dog whistle for the homosexual community to me.
Different people will want different things. I think it is unwise to overgeneralize in this case.When it comes to the Eucharist, anyone who has mortal sin should not go up to receive Holy Communion. The Church doesn’t single out homosexuals on this. But it seems that some want an exception made just for them. Heterosexuals struggle with sin just as much as homosexuals do. And temptations for lust don’t go away with marriage. It would be showing favoritism for them over the other kinds of people with mortal sins if the Church made a special exception for them. And it would say something completed different about the nature of the Eucharist and would contradict the teachings of the gospel and the letters of St. Paul on it.
There isn’t anything more that the Church can do other than to say that people with mortal sin can go up to receive Holy Communion. There is no one who blocks the Holy Communion line. No one asks if there are any homosexuals in the pews. If someone is in a state of mortal sin only they would know about it unless they announced it to everyone.Different people will want different things. I think it is unwise to overgeneralize in this case.
From what I’ve read, some homosexuals would be content if the Catholic Church would stop their opposition to civil unions, some want a theology that doesn’t use the dog whistle term ‘disordered’ and some want full communion with the Church without having to change their lifestyles.There isn’t anything more that the Church can do other than to say that people with mortal sin can go up to receive Holy Communion. There is no one who blocks the Holy Communion line. No one asks if there are any homosexuals in the pews. If someone is in a state of mortal sin only they would know about it unless they announced it to everyone.
The Church uses the term “disordered” for every kind of sin. Homosexuals aren’t singled out with that. And the Church can’t change natural law or the sacrament of marriage.From what I’ve read, some homosexuals would be content if the Catholic Church would stop their opposition to civil unions, some want a theology that doesn’t use the dog whistle term ‘disordered’ and some want full communion with the Church without having to change their lifestyles.
Different things…
Yet every type of sin does not mean there must be a civil law against it.The Church uses the term “disordered” for every kind of sin. Homosexuals aren’t singled out with that. And the Church can’t change natural law or the sacrament of marriage.
I struggle with heterosexual lust and other kinds of sin. Why is it that I don’t feel the need to demand that the Church conform to me?
Civil law against what? So-called same-sex “marriage”? The ones who support this change in the civil law on marriage are boasting that they won the fight. They are telling us who disagree with it that the change is inevitable and telling us to deal with it or suffer the wrath of the government’s legal system. So why does it matter to them that the Church still won’t go with it?Yet every type of sin does not mean there must be a civil law against it.
Who was it that decided that humans would be male and female?And who is the arbiter of natural law?
God as revealed through his ChurchYet every type of sin does not mean there must be a civil law against it.
And who is the arbiter of natural law?
So, natural law is entirely a theological argument?God as revealed through his Church
Good point. I personally would prefer that there not be the vitriol towards the Catholic Church that it is clear some homosexuals feel and I think certain battles belong in the civil arena and the Church doesn’t need to engage so heavily on that particular issue, but that’s a personal opinion.Civil law against what? So-called same-sex “marriage”? The ones who support this change in the civil law on marriage are boasting that they won the fight. They are telling us who disagree with it that the change is inevitable and telling us to deal with it or suffer the wrath of the government’s legal system. So why does it matter to them that the Church still won’t go with it?
The definition of sodomy is : anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex; also : copulation with an animal it is hardly accurate to attach it to refused to welcome foreigners which is an inaccurate description.I do not believe the King James Version, or any English translation, is inspired. “Sodomite” is an English word, a highly-emotional words, a highly inaccurate word, based on the idea that homosexuality is the sin for which Sodom was destroyed. As Sodom also refused to welcome foreigners, it would be equally accurate to call opposition to immigration sodomy.
Ezekiel 16:49-50 declares, “Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me…” The Hebrew word translated “detestable” refers to something that is morally disgusting and is the exact same word used in Leviticus 18:22 that refers to homosexuality as an “abomination.” Similarly, Jude 7 declares, “…Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion.” So, again, while homosexuality was not the only sin in which the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah indulged, it does appear to be the primary reason for the destruction of the cities.
Sometimes what it says is undermined by those who cannot accept it.I invite anyone to look up the passage in which this city was destroyed, as well as subsequent references. Sometimes the Bible doesn’t say what we think it does.
According to your opinion but I disagree the idea of complying because others brow beat you into accepting what is wrong as if it were right is not sound.Finally, language is dynamic, not static. We poke fun at the idea of being politically correct, but the principle is sound.
Do you believe that your Westboro Baptist Church reference was charitable? It undermined what you wrote.There have been many words used to describe people that at one time were acceptable, but over generations of misuse and misunderstanding have become words that cut more than they describe. As a basic principle, if we follow the Golden Rule, we should abstain from unnecessarily insulting people by using more vile language, when more accurate, or more charitable language exists. The Catholic Church changes language in keeping with the principle of charity. If this is something one wants to reject, I would suggest there is always Westboro Baptist Church.
Nor do we devalue the disordered tendency. Your post is legalistic and as cold as ice. Today’s gay man or woman is the equivalent of the tax collector in the Gospels. Christ engaged the sinners in order to lift them to holiness and salvation.We value people because of the good in them, not because of their sin. If a burglar came into the Church, would we value his burgling skills? If a mentally ill person came into the Church, would we value their delusions?
If a chaste homosexual person comes into the Church, we would value his chastity but not the disordered tendency.
I have no idea what this means. ???Nor do we devalue the disordered tendency.
I do not understand what you consider legalistic or cold as ice but I do see the remark as ad hominem.Your post is legalistic and as cold as ice.
Equivalent? Your statement is a half truth. Christ never condoned the sinner but did in deed calls us to holiness and salvation. We are all sinners. The man in the Temple who stood in the back didn’t say my sin is o.k. No! he said have mercy on me a sinner.Today’s gay man or woman is the equivalent of the tax collector in the Gospels. Christ engaged the sinners in order to lift them to holiness and salvation.
Whenever I read some post which condemns or otherwise references same-sex attracted people I think the same thing: why the hard line? Why your deep concern with this particular sexual question, when there is so much else to pray for and work toward?
No one condemns the person but the sin.I shall pray for you.
Do you disagree that language is dynamic and changes? Do you still use the “n” word, or do you accept that this word too has become nothing but a slur. How about the word “fag”? No, I do not think my reference was uncharitable. The Catholic Church no longer uses the word “sodomite”. I do not think it unreasonable that faithful Catholics follow suit, not to follow society, but to follow the Church in its meaning of charity. It is only your opinion that my reference undermined what I say, just like it is my opinion that the use of derogatory terms undermines any sense of charitable outreach to those who need God’s mercy.According to your opinion but I disagree the idea of complying because others brow beat you into accepting what is wrong as if it were right is not sound.
Do you believe that your Westboro Baptist Church reference was charitable? It undermined what you wrote.
This is an interesting point. While the Catholic Church does not support same sex marriage, there is a recognition that in a pluralistic society, not all laws need reflect Catholic theology. In other words, since a theocracy is not a doctrinal necessity, there is no doctrinal necessity to forbid same civil sex marriage, though it will forever be immoral.Yet every type of sin does not mean there must be a civil law against it.
While it is important to pray for each other, I have noted that this last statement when combined with condemnation of another’s opinions is very condescending.Nor do we devalue the disordered tendency. Your post is legalistic and as cold as ice. … I shall pray for you.
That has been my experience also.While it is important to pray for each other, I have noted that this last statement when combined with condemnation of another’s opinions is very condescending.
No I don’t disagree. There are many words that no longer are used as they originally were.Do you disagree that language is dynamic and changes?
These words were slang that is words that are not considered part of the standard vocabulary of a language . What do you mean still? I never have used them.Do you still use the “n” word, or do you accept that this word too has become nothing but a slur. How about the word “fag”? No, I do not think my reference was uncharitable.