Cardinal Tobin discusses the Catechism’s language on homosexuality

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

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 you are making the same error that Father George (the “Bat Priest”) address in the post after mine.

The point is, these

God Bless

I’m having trouble finding the post you’re referring to. Are you able to link to it or PM me what he wrote so I don’t clutter the topic?

Edit: Do you mean the “in the wild” versus “a thing’s nature” distinction? I’m well aware of that and write with that in mind. It doesn’t conflict with what I wrote.

 

[edward_george1]

Well, read everything else I had to say after that, especially the part about how same-sex attraction (or any attraction or inclination) is not an identity.

The devil doesn’t care what sins we commit or which one’s we’re tempted to. He just cares that we identify with sin so as to despair of our identity as sons and daughter of God, created in his image and likeness. That’s what any movement which seeks to replace our proper human dignity with an identity solely based upon sexual attraction has lying at its heart.

-Fr ACEGC

 

[phil19034]

If I say that cancer is a disorder, am I saying that everyone with cancer are disordered people?

Of course not. Same sex attraction is a disorder the SAME WAY cancer is.

 

[Magnanimity]

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.

I don’t think so. I get the point you’re trying to make, but believe me, my shelf is full of natural law texts. I’m Aristotelian-Thomistic to my very core. But yes, nature itself is the thing that guides us–that’s what makes the law “natural.” It’s what is repeatedly observed in the world… It doesn’t come down from “on high,” it’s not de fiat–it’s in the world, in the Aristotelian sense. The ought’s are derived from the is’s.

Of course, i don’t deny that theology informs our understanding of natural law (so that we can move beyond Aristotle and get to something like St Thomas), but still, it’s from nature–that’s the origin. Even your argument from complimentary comes from the natural order (you import theology in, and that’s fine), but the complimentary of the genders is natural, physical and in nature.

But, this may be getting too much into the N.T. weeds to address my primary question.

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? 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?

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

Wesrock:

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 you are making the same error that Father George (the “Bat Priest”) address in the post after mine.

The point is, these

God Bless

I’m having trouble finding the post you’re referring to. Are you able to link to it or PM me what he wrote so I don’t clutter the topic?

Edit: Do you mean the “in the wild” versus “a thing’s nature” distinction? I’m well aware of that and write with that in mind. It doesn’t conflict with what I wrote.

Post 13

Cardinal Tobin discusses the Catechism’s language on homosexuality Moral Theology

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…

 

[signit]

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.

That’s exactly one of my points of disagreement with the term.

A person who has OCD has a mental disorder. It’s not too much of a stretch to say that that person, who has a disorder, is disordered. So, you could say that someone with same-sex attraction, which is “disordered” according to Catholic teaching, is themself disordered.

And in addition, calling same-sex attraction a disorder causes confusion with mental disorders, as someone could misinterpret the statement as saying that the person has a mental disorder or is mentally ill. Some conservative Christians still believe it’s a mental disorder, but the Church doesn’t specifically teach that it is.

 

[Magnanimity]

Infertility is a health dis order, 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.

All analogies break down at some point. That one was off-the-cuff. The sameness in the two situations subsists in (1) describing something beyond the person’s control and (2) it not being helpful at all to describe someone’s uncontrollable tendencies as “disordered.” You’re saying that you can’t think of a better way for the church to describe these tendencies than “disordered?”

 

[Wesrock]

I saw that… I didn’t make the error Father George speaks to. There are no factors external to God’s act of creation, which is how your post was worded.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

Infertility is a health dis order, 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.

All analogies break down at some point. That one was off-the-cuff. The sameness in the two situations subsists in (1) describing something beyond the person’s control and (2) it not being helpful at all to describe someone’s uncontrollable tendencies as “disordered.” You’re saying that you can’t think of a better way for the church to describe these tendencies than “disordered?”

I’m comfortable with it for my own issues and for discussion of physical health and morality. Give me an alternative.

 

[Magnanimity]

The devil doesn’t care what sins we commit or which one’s we’re tempted to. He just cares that we identify with sin so as to despair of our identity as sons and daughter of God, created in his image and likeness.

These are good points. Just as the devil doesn’t care which sins we’re tempted to, I would say neither should the church. The lady with same-sex attraction is made in God’s image and likeness too, as you would acknowledge. So she, the divine image-bearer, has an inclination beyond her control, which is tied up in her desire for romantic love, and that inclination is “objectively disordered?”

All I’m asking Fr, is can’t we do better than this language? She doesn’t know where the inclination came from, and perhaps her desire is to be obedient to the church and simply live a chaste life, for the church–this organization that calls her love-inclinations “objectively disordered…” There’s got to be a better way.

 

[phil19034]

You’re saying that you can’t think of a better way for the church to describe these tendencies than “disordered?”

If you can come up with a more precise word, in English, I’m sure people would appreciate it.

But I don’t think one exists.

Also, let’s remeber that the true purpose of the Catachism of the Catholic Church is to use a reference book when writing local Catechisms, like the US Catholic Catechism for Adults

http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-te...sm/us-catholic-catechism-for-adults/index.cfm

God Bless

 

[Wesrock]

edward_george1:

The devil doesn’t care what sins we commit or which one’s we’re tempted to. He just cares that we identify with sin so as to despair of our identity as sons and daughter of God, created in his image and likeness.

These are good points. Just as the devil doesn’t care which sins we’re tempted to, I would say neither should the church. The lady with same-sex attraction is made in God’s image and likeness too, as you would acknowledge. So she, the divine image-bearer, has an inclination beyond her control, which is tied up in her desire for romantic love, and that inclination is “objectively disordered?”

All I’m asking Fr, is can’t we do better than this language? She doesn’t know where the inclination came from, and perhaps her desire is to be obedient to the church and simply live a chaste life, for the church–this organization that calls her love-inclinations “objectively disordered…” There’s got to be a better way.

I really don’t see the difficulty here. It sounds like she’s a perfectly good and holy person, so far as we can be, with a disordered appetite. Disordered desires and appetites are part and parcel of our understanding of original sin.

 

[tafan2]

So in this language you desire, where it “it should be " enough to say the (im)moral acts are the things that are disordered”, how will you explain why it is immoral?

 

[Magnanimity]

Well that in itself is just silly. No one should be making their sexuality the core of who they are.

Yeah, it seems you’re not the only one here misunderstanding what I mean by “core,” so let me clarify.

For married folks, that is their vocation–family love. This vocation has, at its core, the desire to give one’s love to another, romantically. That is all that I mean. Just as a heterosexual can claim, with no shame, that her desire to love her husband romantically is at the “core” of her calling–her vocation–so too anyone’s desire for romantic love could be described to be at the core of who they think they are. What is deeper and more at the core of us than the desire for love?

 

[irenaeus1]

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 seem to be having difficulty with humanity’s concupiscence as a result of the Fall. All mankind has a disordered inclination to sin. How does it help to know this??? Well, unless one understands that they need to be rescued, one does not recognize their need for a savior. This is precisely why Paul opens his letter to the Romans explaining the great peril people are in so that they realize what God has done for them.

 

[Magnanimity]

Y’all keep replying and I’ll get to them in turn–gotta go hop on the train (with tunnels that take away cell service). I appreciate the dialogue!

 

[1Lord1Faith]

I really don’t see the difficulty here

Many people with SSA, and others without, do see the difficulty. They are saying there is a problem with the way the teaching is being perceived. If the Church won’t listen to them, maybe the Church can see that most people with SSA have abandoned the Church because of the way it talks about them.

The irony in all this is that the very same paragraph in the CCC which calls people with SSA objectively disordered also says:

”They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust…”

Respect and sensitivity. Is the Church listening to what gay and lesbian people are saying here. Is the Church being respectful and sensitive? I don’t think so.

 

[Genesis315]

As has been mentioned, various other acts, inclinations, and desires in the Catechism are called disordered. Such disordered inclinations of the flesh are called concupiscence. This is nothing new.

To be fair to the Tobins and Martins of the world, people with homosexual inclinations are treated differently in the CCC. The Catechism sections on people with homosexual inclinations were purposely written to soften the blow and and be extra compassionate. No other sin or people with inclinations is treated that way in the Catechism. Nor are other sinners or those with concupiscence treated as a special class of people. Instead of the intended effect, however, it seems to have made them feel unfairly singled out. Honestly, I can see where they are coming from.

What if the CCC just got straight to the point and left it at that? Here’s my attempt to cut out the parts in CCC 2357-9 that single people out:

Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, the Church teaches and has always taught that homosexual acts are sins of grave depravity. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

 

[Finn]

With all due respect, this sounds like a distinction that makes no difference.

It makes all the difference in the world & I suspect many who try to erase the distinction understand this.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

I really don’t see the difficulty here

Many people with SSA, and others without, do see the difficulty. They are saying there is a problem with the way the teaching is being perceived. If the Church won’t listen to them, maybe the Church can see that most people with SSA have abandoned the Church because of the way it talks about them.

The irony in all this is that the very same paragraph in the CCC which calls people with SSA objectively disordered also says:

”They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust…”

Respect and sensitivity. Is the Church listening to what gay and lesbian people are saying here. Is the Church being respectful and sensitive? I don’t think so.

Again, this sounds like people want to be Christian but deny original sin. What alternative language would you use to express that same sex attraction is an attraction ordered contrary to the proper expression of conjugal love in human nature?