Cardinal Tobin discusses the Catechism’s language on homosexuality

[CTBcin]

On the Today Show:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ca...guage-very-unfortunate-on-homosexuality-45966

I do see the challenges of being a pastor for those with same-sex attractions, but I’m not sure how I feel about what the Cardinal is saying. I’d like to know what his solutions are.

 

[phil19034]

What he said is very unfortunate.

He had the opportunity to educated people about what the Catechism truly teaches on this subject and what the words mean. Instead, he basically called St John Paul II and the Catechism homophobic.

Lord have mercy on us.

 

[Magnanimity]

I hate to come across as terribly “liberal” on this, but the article (and the cardinal) have a point at least in the sense of pointing out CCC [2358] “The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, [emphasis mine] constitutes for most of them a trial.”

It’s one thing to call the acts themselves “intrinsically disordered.” I’m not sure I love the word “disordered” but ok. However, the writers of this section of the CCC went further and said that the inclination itself is “objectively disordered.” I’m not sure that’s helpful at all. It’s probably more harmful than good. The causes of same-sex attraction are…whatever they are. It hardly matters. The fact is, like the CCC acknowledges, the numbers of those who experience this “inclination” are “not negligible.”

So, how can it be a good idea to tell people that their basic sexual urges (which are almost certainly beyond their control) are themselves disordered? I don’t really know anything about this particular cardinal, but I would think the church could do better than this language to describe a person’s intrinsic tendencies. It comes across like an attack of the person (and not just her behavior). What good purpose is served by saying that the attraction itself is disordered? Isn’t it enough to say the moral acts are the things that are disordered?

 

[buffalo]

Unfortunate for who?

 

[Hoosier-Daddy]

It is disordered. God did not order it as a natural law. It isn’t unfortunate it is accurate. And ahead of it’s time. Is it unpopular and have a bad connotation in modern times? Sure. But it is indeed disordered.
I suppose everyone would want to change the language of the CCC if they could. Then we would have millions of different versions.

I find it so odd that as SS"M" has swept the earth, that these issues have only deepened in the Church. This “slippery slope” that many scoffed at is real. As is the increase in the boldness of the homosexual cause even in the Church even in the midst of sexual scandal.

 

[edward_george1]

I come away from reading Cardinal Tobin’s remarks with great concern for His Eminence’s reading comprehension.

NOWHERE, and I repeat NOWHERE, does any magisterial document make any reference to any persons being “intrinsically disordered.” The concept of “intrinsically disordered persons” does not exist in the Catholic moral tradition, in any way, shape, or form. That language does not appear anywhere in the Catechism’s discussion of homosexuality.

To quote, well, me, from this thread:

Here’s the very basic, bottom line, distilled from the Catholic moral tradition:

PEOPLE are created fundamentally good and in the image and likeness of God, and as such have a dignity due them in virtue of that.

INCLINATIONS and ATTRACTIONS can be rightly ordered or they can be disordered.

To ACT upon a disordered inclination is sinful.

In the case of same-sex attraction, it is an inclination or an attraction, and since it is contrary to the ordering of the sexual faculty, it is a disordered inclination. Sexual attraction exists so that we will pair up and mate. To have an attraction to other than the opposite sex is contrary to this ordering, since we cannot procreate with people of the same sex. That is why sexuality exists. To say that same-sex attraction is a disordered inclination is not to say that the person with it is a disordered person. I repeat: NOWHERE does the Church’s moral tradition talk about a disordered person. A person may have disordered inclinations, and will sin by acting upon them, but no one is ever considered a disordered person.

Same-sex attraction is NOT an identity. The only identity we ought to identify with is that we are children of God made in his image. It DOES NOT MATTER what the origin of same-sex attraction is; even the Catechism is silent on this matter. What does matter is that people with a same-sex attraction are to be treated with a respect due to the dignity that is theirs as children of God created in his image. This means that we would NOT call it a God-given identity. The only God-given identity is that we are made in his image. To say that someone’s identity is their sexual orientation ignores the rest of the human person and what makes them good, and so is demeaning to them. If you want to truly treat those attracted to the same sex with dignity, don’t reduce their identity to their attractions.

-Fr ACEGC

 

[Wesrock]

What good purpose is served by saying that the attraction itself is disordered? Isn’t it enough to say the moral acts are the things that are disordered?

No. The attraction is disordered. The attraction is ordered to something other than and contrary to its natural ends/purpose, therefore it is disordered. It doesn’t mean having the attaction is immoral. Actions are immoral.

 

[Weserthy]

If there is a way they can suggest changing the language to make it “less hurtful” while still getting the point across that homosexual inclinations and acts are disordered, then let someone suggest what language to use. However, I suspect those complaining about the language in the Catechism are not really interested in this and instead have other goals in mind.

I remember Fr. Martin suggesting changing the language of “intrinsically disorderd” to “differently ordered”, which is actually even worse, being as it implies that homosexual attractions are not in fact disordered, but just “different” from heterosexual attractions. But hey, at least he tried, even if he perhaps gave away more of his internal thoughts than he meant to.

 

[edward_george1]

To add to what I said in the above, an inclination or an attraction is disordered insofar as the moral object toward which it leads one is disordered. So if I have a disordered attraction to chocolate, such that I want to eat twelve pounds of it at every meal, then acting upon that disordered inclination is the sin of gluttony. A rightly-ordered attraction to chocolate (or any food, really) would have me be moderate in taking food. An inordinate sexual attraction, whether for people of the same-sex, for many people, for people who are not one’s spouse, etc., when acted upon makes one guilty of sin. Only when the marital act is carried out within its rightful context and still ordered so as to be open to life and for the union of the spouses is it a rightly ordered moral act.

 

[phil19034]

objectively disordered

The inclination is “objectively disordered” for the same reason blindness & deafness are “objectivity disordered.”

God does not create these situations. They are a result of factors external to God’s creation.

To call it something else would imply that God created people with same-sex attraction, blindness, deafness, and other disorders; which goes against Catholic theology.

Let’s also remember, the Catechism is more of a legal document than a pastoral one.

It’s better to use precision language (even if it must be explained) in the Catechism than pastoral language which leaves room for incorrect interpretation.

God Bless

 

[Magnanimity]

It is disordered. God did not order it as a natural law.

We derive our understanding of natural law from nature, from the world. In nature, there are humans who have same-sex attraction. It’s just the way it is. Again, I don’t see how it’s helpful to anything to tell these people that the inclination itself is “disordered.” I see that actions can be disordered. But inclinations that are beyond one’s control? Those can be disordered? I’m not even sure what that means.

 

[Wesrock]

God does not create these situations. They are a result of factors external to God’s creation.

To call it something else would imply that God created people with same-sex attraction, blindness, deafness, and other disorders; which goes against Catholic theology.

I do not want to distract from the topic at hand, but I don’t think this it is consistent with Catholic theology to say that the factors are external to God’s act of creation. If a nature fails to instantiate correctly, it’s because of an interaction of secondary causes, but it still happens internally in the natural order of the world as created by God.

 

[edward_george1]

That’s not what “natural” as in “natural law” means though. You’re conflating the post-modern scientific understanding of “nature” with that of the classical use of the word.

When we speak of “natural law” and “natural ordering” and things being according to something’s “nature,” we’re talking about how the thing was ordered to be. We are not speaking here of how something might exist in the wild. If you want to use that meaning of the word, you have to start being okay with cannibalizing one’s mate or young, since that happens in nature, and it’s just how it is.

When we speak of the natural ordering of the human person and speak of this in reference to sexuality, we are talking about how the human person, made in the image and likeness of God, is made male and female, to compliment one another, so as to bring forth life from their mutually complimentary act. A man and a woman of themselves are incomplete for the bringing forth of life; they must act together to achieve this. Our sexuality is ordered for expressing love in a life-giving way, in imitation of our Creator, uniting the two into one singular biological unity which is capable of procreation.

In short, nature here doesn’t mean “in the wild, this exists;” it means “this is how it is reasonable to say things are put together.”

For more on what natural law is (and isn’t), check out the excellent book by J. Budzieszewski entitled What We Can’t Not Know.

 

[Magnanimity]

The attraction is disordered. The attraction is ordered to something other than and contrary to its natural ends/purpose, therefore it is dis ordered.

I’m tempted to respond to these comments in a way that would get me far afield from my own response (e.g., the nature of the conjugal act not always having to be open to life), but I’ll refrain.

Sexual attractions are bound up in romantic love, the desire for it. So, to tell someone that her attraction (which is inextricably united to her desire for romantic love) is “disordered” is to say nothing helpful.

What would be a proper analogy here…? Maybe infertility? Would it be helpful to a friend of yours who was infertile for you to constantly refer to her “objective disorder?” What purpose would you be serving in doing so (other than possibly being hurtful)? Her infertility is hardly her ‘fault’ and in a similar way, same-sex attraction is hardly a culpability.

 

[Mark121359]

From the OP’s article;

Tobin endorsed a 2017 book, “Building a Bridge,” by Fr. James Martin, SJ, which has also called for the Church to amend the language with which it discusses homosexuality.

And therein lies the problem!

 

[Wesrock]

I am glad the Church and clergy has in recent years has been concerned with charity in talking about these issues, especially in light of improved understanding of these situations, but there’s a difference between being charitable and watering down language to the point where there’s only moral ambiguity, where language is watered down such that it becomes absurdly difficult to articulate Catholic moral theology. We believe in God, and we believe God created a natural order and human nature and, as part of that, the moral law.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

The attraction is disordered. The attraction is ordered to something other than and contrary to its natural ends/purpose, therefore it is dis ordered.

I’m tempted to respond to these comments in a way that would get me far afield from my own response (e.g., the nature of the conjugal act not always having to be open to life), but I’ll refrain.

Sexual attractions are bound up in romantic love, the desire for it. So, to tell someone that her attraction (which is inextricably united to her desire for romantic love) is “disordered” is to say nothing helpful.

What would be a proper analogy here…? Maybe infertility? Would it be helpful to a friend of yours who was infertile for you to constantly refer to her “objective disorder?” What purpose would you be serving in doing so (other than possibly being hurtful)? Her infertility is hardly her ‘fault’ and in a similar way, same-sex attraction is hardly a culpability.

Infertility is a health disorder, yes, and up to nine months ago my wife and I had come to terms with being infertile for seven years and thinking we’d never naturally have children, so I’ve been there.

Disordered doesn’t mean immoral.

 

[Magnanimity]

NOWHERE, and I repeat NOWHERE, does any magisterial document make any reference to any persons being “intrinsically disordered.”

With all due respect, this sounds like a distinction that makes no difference. When you tell a woman that her same-sex attraction, which is at her core of who she is–her desire for romantic love–is itself disordered, how are you not, in some way, attacking who she is? You’re effectively saying, “No, I’m not saying that you yourself are disordered, I’m just saying that this fundamental aspect of you which is inextricably bound together with your desire for romantic love–that’s the thing that’s disordered…” I’m not sure how great she’ll feel about that.

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

God does not create these situations. They are a result of factors external to God’s creation.

To call it something else would imply that God created people with same-sex attraction, blindness, deafness, and other disorders; which goes against Catholic theology.

I do not want to distract from the topic at hand, but I don’t think this it is consistent with Catholic theology to say that the factors are external to God’s act of creation. If a nature fails to instantiate correctly, it’s because of an interaction of secondary causes, but it still happens internally in the natural order of the world as created by God.

Sorry, but I think you are making the same error that Father George (the “Bat Priest”) addresses in the post after mine.

The point is, these issues are environmentally created (whether inside the womb or outside) and are ultimately the effect of Orginal Sin. There are not part of God’s active will, though they are part of his permissive will.

God Bless

 

[Wesrock]

edward_george1:

NOWHERE, and I repeat NOWHERE, does any magisterial document make any reference to any persons being “intrinsically disordered.”

With all due respect, this sounds like a distinction that makes no difference. When you tell a woman that her same-sex attraction, which is at her core of who she is–her desire for romantic love–is itself disordered, how are you not, in some way, attacking who she is? You’re effectively saying, “No, I’m not saying that you yourself are disordered, I’m just saying that this fundamental aspect of you which is inextricably bound together with your desire for romantic love–that’s the thing that’s disordered…” I’m not sure how great she’ll feel about that.

Sounds like you’d like to deny original sin and humanity’s wounded nature altogether. We all have our disordered inclinations.