Cardinal Tobin discusses the Catechism’s language on homosexuality

[Magnanimity]

Homosexual disorders are bad. There is no good in them. Good may come of them, but they themselves are purely bad.

I would respectfully suggest to you that you read more St Thomas Aquinas. He has a very subtle view of human acts and just what it means for any act to be “bad.” And maybe some Aristotle would do too. For example, Aristotle says “Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim.” NE, opening line.

In a real way, no act can be “purely bad,” with possible exceptions being made for acts of psychopaths. Sinful acts are an admixture of some good with something lacking. But see Aquinas for more.

 

[John_Martin]

I would respectfully suggest to you that you read more St Thomas Aquinas. He has a very subtle view of human acts and just what it means for any act to be “bad.” And maybe some Aristotle would do too

I agree (not with you, but that Thomas be our teacher), for there are a lot of “feelings” in the positions here in this thread, but little consideration of what makes acts human when compared to the inclinations of the appetites (attraction) which are shared among all mammals. But humans “know” about and with their doing - ‘con’-‘science’, or the act is not human. And the knowing must be correct, or it is disordered. And there is no satisfaction in disorder, even if culture is persuaded to look away. https://softvocation.org/2018/05/24/knowing/
But, Magnanimity, I think Thomas has not finished teaching you - You have misunderstood.

John Martin

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Romantic love isn’t the only type of love.

 

[JimG]

I will grant you that having both genders (bc they are really different in important ways and should really be there for the kids,

Of course, both sexes are required for the creation of the kids, which is the whole purpose of sexual complementarity of the sexes.

 

[Magnanimity]

But, Magnanimity, I think Thomas has not finished teaching you - You have misunderstood.

Ha! That is very true. To be a student of Aquinas is an act spread over a lifetime. He’s just too genius and too voluminous to easily apprehend him. But I have not really incorporated him here. These thought are my own, but when a person speaks of the good/bad of various acts, I cannot help but to import Aristotle, Augustine and Aquinas.

 

[Magnanimity]

Of course, both sexes are required for the creation of the kids, which is the whole purpose of sexual complementarity of the sexes.

I was getting at something more substantial than the differences between the mere body parts making procreation possible. I was speaking of the differences between masculinity and femininity being real and not reducible to the different body parts—a soulful complimentarity, if you will.

Also, and this is neither far-fetched, nor far off. Same sex couples will be able to use their DNA to “create” their own babies. Not “naturally,” of course, but it will happen.

Arguments for the complimentarity of males and females need to go much farther than the mechanical stuff (body parts arguments) if Catholics want to contribute anything meaningful to these current cultural conversations. :v:t3:

 

[Thorolfr]

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

I don’t know any gay person whose identity is based solely upon their sexual orientation. If someone says that they’re gay, that is just one of many identities they might have all at the same time. Depending upon the circumstances, a person’s identity might be as someone’s father or someone’s son or as an American or as an alumnus of a certain university or as an environmentalist or as a member of a certain political party, or as a member of a certain religious faith such as Lutheran or Methodist or Catholic, etc.

If someone identifies as an American, it might, from a practical point of view, be only when they go to vote or have to take their passport out to enter the country. If someone identifies as gay it might only be in certain Internet forums or in a parade. Otherwise, for many people, their sexual orientation probably hardly ever gets brought up when they are at work or at Thanksgiving with their extended family or are in the many other situations they find themselves in every day. When they are with their family, their identity hopefully will be as cousin or uncle or nephew, etc., not as the gay family member. And none of these various political, national, or other kinds of identities in any way preclude someone from also identifying as a child of God. But when someone is at the border and needs to produce their passport to enter a county, child of God can hardly be the only identity they announce to the person at the border.

 

[AlNg]

What does “homophobic” mean?

According to the dictionary homophobic means:
unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality.

I notice that it is claimed that Cardinal Tobin:

called St John Paul II and the Catechism homophobic.

 

[Thorolfr]

Magnanimity:

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.

The problem with the term “disordered” is that many of those who hear this used in the context of discussions about people with SSA tend, it seems to me, to conflate this with the idea that these people have a psychiatric or psychological disorder like Bipolar disorder or OCD and that this means that they are “mentally ill”. But the “disorder” used in the Catechism to talk about homosexuality is based upon theology or philosophy, not upon psychiatry or medicine.

 

[goout]

In this thread there is a lot of what I would call equivocations. An appeal is made to certain goods and the terms that describe those goods. For instance “love”, “romantic love”, “family”, “marriage”.

And the attempt is to apply those goods in a universal ways that are not applicable.
Of course the word “family” can describe different arrangements whereby people live together in familial ways and lovingly care for one another.

But that’s not the issue. The issue is deception. Paul nailed this in Romans, where he recognizes the evils that we all struggle with, but at the same time points to the deeper issue: deception that detracts from truth and reason. Deception causes chaos to reign.

And the real problem here is not that gay people want to live fulfilling lives with a partner (who doesn’t?),
it’s the attempt to make things what they are not, and to call things what they are not.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

The problem with the term “disordered”

That is what is so “unfortunate” about the language. Explaining what is actually meant by this Catholic jargon completely misses the point of concern. The point is that only about 1% of even the Catholic population knows what disordered means in that context. The language is no where near self explanatory. In fact it has the opposite effect of being incredibly misleading. Cardinal Tobin probably doesn’t want to be on the jargon clean up crew every time someone brings this up.

Continuing to use this language today is like using the word retarted to describe someone who is scrupulous. It’s like saying, ‘well ya know Jimmy is a little slow in his theological development, a little scrupulous. It’s too bad he is retarted in this way.’ That might be a little insensitive to Jimmy, especially if you start doubling down on the language. ‘No Jimmy, you really are retarted, that’s the proper language to use to describe someone who is slow to develop.’

 

[goout]

Thorolfr:

The problem with the term “disordered”

That is what is so “unfortunate” about the language. Explaining what is actually meant by this Catholic jargon completely misses the point of concern. The point is that only about 1% of even the Catholic population knows what disordered means in that context. The language is no where near self explanatory. In fact it has the opposite effect of being incredibly misleading. Cardinal Tobin probably doesn’t want to be on the jargon clean up crew every time someone brings this up.

Continuing to use this language today is like using the word retarted to describe someone who is scrupulous. It’s like saying, ‘well ya know Jimmy is a little slow in his theological development, a little scrupulous. It’s too bad he is retarted in this way.’ That might be a little insensitive to Jimmy, especially if you start doubling down on the language. ‘No Jimmy, you really are retarted, that’s the proper language to use to describe someone who is slow to develop.’

I would propose that JP’s language, and the language of those who wrote the catechism, is precise. And if the language is misunderstood or not properly absorbed by the people, perhaps the people need to take some responsibility.

We have spent several decades now assuming that a Christian can live a dumbed-down life in all areas, and that pastoral sensitivity will make up for our “meh”.

Perhaps it’s a good thing that JP2 didn’t water down his thought or his words, but spoke as his vocation called him to do.

 

[Jbrady]

The problem with the term “disordered” is that many of those who hear this used in the context of discussions about people with SSA tend, it seems to me, to conflate this with the idea that these people have a psychiatric or psychological disorder

I would up that one. Too many people use it as a justification of their antipathy toward LGBT people. The phrase is used by homophobes in much the say way as “perfidious Jews” in the Good Friday liturgy was used by antisemites.

 

[goout]

It disturbs me that some clergy want to normalize degeneracy.

Let;s give Cardinal Tobin the benefit of good will.
I doubt it’s an attempt to normalize degeneracy.
I think it’s Peter in the courtyard, trying to do his best to follow the Lord when the world calls him out. We’ve all been in that situation.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

I would propose that JP’s language, and the language of those who wrote the catechism, is precise. And if the language is misunderstood or not properly absorbed by the people, perhaps the people need to take some responsibility.

I’m not sure if the problem is with the original language, or it’s translation into English. At any rate the Church is the teacher. It’s her responsibility to teach in a way that people can understand. And virtually no one understands. The concept that is at issue here is not a difficult one to understand. The fact that so many don’t understand, as opposed to disagreeing with something they understand, is evidence of a problem.

If a teacher losses 50% of her students because they don’t understand the teacher. Is the teacher doing a good job? Or are we going to lay all the blame on the students?

 

[Magnanimity]

Of course the word “family” can describe different arrangements whereby people live together in familial ways and lovingly care for one another.

Right, and at least part of the arguments I made yesterday were to get people to look at the wide variety of families today, acknowledge that they’re there (and there to stay) and then discontinue unhelpful language like “disorder.” We can say that the single-parent home is less than the best. But I don’t think we get to call it “disordered.”

it’s the attempt to make things what they are not, and to call things what they are not.

What do you mean by this?

 

[Jbrady]

If a teacher losses 50% of her students because they don’t understand the teacher. Is the teacher doing a good job? Or are we going to lay all the blame on the students?

Actually, that’s a good analogy. A lot of people, particularly the young, when they hear that phrase simply walk away from the Church. They don’t stick around for an explanation, and find any explanation hard to swallow should they hear one. Their LGBT friends and family members are near and dear to them, and they have zero tolerance for any antipathy toward them.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

A lot of people, particularly the young, when they hear that phrase simply walk away from the Church. They don’t stick around for an explanation,

That’s right. I mean we’re not talking about the Bread of Life Discourse here. There isn’t anything veiled, or theologically difficult to process. It’s a fairly simple concept.

 

[CTBcin]

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.

Excellent explanation of natural law and the natural ordering of marriage, Father!

 

[goout]

goout:

I would propose that JP’s language, and the language of those who wrote the catechism, is precise. And if the language is misunderstood or not properly absorbed by the people, perhaps the people need to take some responsibility.

I’m not sure if the problem is with the original language, or it’s translation into English. At any rate the Church is the teacher. It’s her responsibility to teach in a way that people can understand. And virtually no one understands. The concept that is at issue here is not a difficult one to understand. The fact that so many don’t understand, as opposed to disagreeing with something they understand, is evidence of a problem.

If a teacher losses 50% of her students because they don’t understand the teacher. Is the teacher doing a good job? Or are we going to lay all the blame on the students?

I find it hard to believe that such an enlightened culture cannot understand such simple language. The language in the catechism is utterly simple. It’s precise.

Who’s responsibility is it to absorb simple concepts? Should the Church teach in imprecise ways, in deference to ignorance?
For instance should the Church exhort it’s people to mere thoughts and prayers in regard to the hungry around the world, or should the Church clearly teach on the moral imperative to actually feed them? The CCC leaves absolutely no wiggle room on this issue, and it shouldn’t leave wiggle room, and it shouldn’t water down the language to make it more acceptable to indifferent spirits.

What part of truth should we bend to the world’s liking with vague and imprecise language?
And when we do that, do you believe the world will be any less skeptical or combative about it?