Cardinal Tobin discusses the Catechism’s language on homosexuality

[goout]

goout:

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?

Who is calling single parent house-holds disordered? I headed one of those at one time. Why are you making this equivocation?

So here we are, you and I, wrestling in the fog over terms which ought not cause confusion or chaos.

 

[Jbrady]

The language in the catechism is utterly simple. It’s precise.

Who’s responsibility is it to absorb simple concepts?

If the message is consistently and widely not being received as intended, then the responsibility would be with the sender, not the recipient. It also signals that the language may not be as simple or precise, or as unambiguous, as the sender thinks.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Who’s responsibility is it to absorb simple concepts?

Congratulations for proving my point. You still apparently don’t understand what I’ve, and others, have said in this thread. Perhaps my language isn’t precise enough.

No one in this whole thread has suggested watering anything down, or bending the truth. You are projecting some kind of boogeyman into this thread where none exists.

 

[Mark121359]

Just as the devil doesn’t care which sins we’re tempted to, I would say neither should the church.

This is one incredible statement. To say that the Church shouldn’t care about what sins we commit, is like saying that Christ shouldn’t care about what sins we commit. The devil cares about one thing. To keep you separated from God. He is extremely happy when we sin, and will go to great lengths to convince you that there is no such thing as sin. But the Church???

I’ll say this. There isn’t one single time when I leave that confessional, that I don’t thank our good Lord for the great Sacrament of Reconciliation. And I also thank Him for the fine priests who show such concern for the health and safety for my soul, and then provide me with sound and holy advice so that I can avoid repeating these sins again! I am profoundly grateful that the Church shows such concern about our sins!!!

 

[Magnanimity]

Who is calling single parent house-holds disordered? I headed one of those at one time. Why are you making this equivocation?

Just as we would not call many types of family-situations “disordered,” so too it seems we wouldn’t do so with SSA families. We can say they’re less than the best. But the language of “disorder,” although an attempt at precision by the church is simply received by the wider culture only negatively.

 

[Magnanimity]

This is one incredible statement. To say that the Church shouldn’t care about what sins we commit,

I was much more precise than that. I was not referring to sins we commit but rather, agreeing with Fr, I was talking about sins we are tempted to. When the CCC goes so far as to not merely name the homosexual act as “disordered,” but even calls the “inclination” (which is uncontrollable) disordered, it seemed to me that it went too far and is not helpful at all.

 

[LittleFlower378]

but even calls the “inclination” (which is uncontrollable) disordered

The inclination is disordered because it comes from original sin and the devil and not from God. God doesnt create a disorder. God may allow someone to be tempted by certain sins, but God is not the cause of the temptation. The inclination needs to be rejected.

Language is important and needs to be clear. The CCC is sufficient but as since Vatican II there are those that have an agenda to twist the Churchs teaching on things. Which in my opinion if there is a next Council, it will be crystal clear.

 

[Mark121359]

Cardinal Tobin endorses Fr. James Martin’s book; “Building a Bridge.” And in this book he called for the change of “objectively disordered” in the catechism, in favor of the replacement phrase “differently ordered.” This would represent a profound change in the Church’s teaching. Please read the following;

http://m.ncregister.com/daily-news/father-james-martin-proposes-an-alternate-catechism

The Disorder of “Differently Ordered”

Recently, it has come to light that some Catholics are seeking to change the wording in the Catechism of the Catholic Church by replacing the word “disordered” with the phrase “differently ordered.

www.crisismagazine.com

 

[JimG]

Many sexual sins are a result of disordered inclinations of one kind or another. Pedophilia, adultery, fornication, sodomy, masturbation, homosexuality, and a number of sexual fetishes arise from disordered inclinations to types of sexual acts which are not and can never be procreative in nature. Homosexuality is not unique in that regard. The problem is that if an act is something we like to do, we don’t want to call it disordered.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

The problem is that if an act is something we like to do, we don’t want to call it disordered.

The problem is made known by Cardinal Tobin’s answer to the accusation. It is a problem of communication. Not a problem with the teaching, but the way in which the teaching is being presented. It’s a practical problem, not a doctrinal problem.

 

[Thorolfr]

I see threads all the time from people struggling with masturbation but people don’t usually pile on and tell this person that this is a “disordered” inclination and something which “cries out to heaven for vengeance.” The responses tend to be more sympathetic. And they don’t usually tell this person that what they’re doing is similar to being a pedophile, either. Pedophilia and “disordered” are much more likely to show up in threads about homosexuality.

 

[Magnanimity]

Cardinal Tobin endorses Fr. James Martin’s book; “Building a Bridge.” And in this book he called for the change of “objectively disordered” in the catechism, in favor of the replacement phrase “differently ordered.” This would represent a profound change in the Church’s teaching. Please read the following;

I appreciate you pointing that out. I think I’m trying to carve out space somewhere between the (imo) unhelpful and possibly hurtful language of the CCC regarding homosexual inclinations and the view of Fr. Martin (also unhelpful) of simply claiming that it’s “different.” That is tantamount to ‘separate but equal’ language.

I do not see that all family-situations are created equal. I think it’s clearly the case the there are some family-situations that give rise to more goods than others. SSA families would be lacking in one gender for the set of parents, and the children of that home would be deprived of either masculinity or femininity in its parental role-models. And that good which would be lacking is not trivial. It’s important and substantial. This is similar to the good which is missing in a single-parent home.

So someone like Fr Martin seems to go too far, as well, in insisting that its merely a difference of orientation and preference, which has no wider ramifications for the home-life or the upbringing of children. I think it’s obvious that what is in the best interest of children raised in healthy homes is to have both genders present to them as adult role-models and leaders–for them to see both and learn to appreciate both genders, male and female, as embodying different aspects of the divine likeness. Fr Martin’s position seems to undermine this truth by simply thinking of it like we think about differing races (it trivializes the gender-distinctions).

However, having said all that, it still seems to me that the language of “disorder” goes too far. We don’t call single-parent homes disordered, though we acknowledge that they lack various goods which would ideally be there in a healthy home. The desire for the vocation for a family is deep, and the church undermines this desire in SSA folks by referring to their inclinations for romantic love that would form the bedrock of a loving family as “disordered.” I may be wrong about this. But so it seems to me at this moment… I think the church could be more nuanced and do better.

 

[phil19034]

SSA is different from masturbation in that the desire for romantic love is oriented toward another (rather than collapsing in on self).
Different from pedophilia in that the love is oreiented toward a human morally capable of making her own decisions on sexual-advances - an adult (kids have no such capability).

This is where you are incorrect.

Same sex attraction is FIRST and FORMOST sexual attraction…

Romantic love (which the Greeks call Eros) is supposed to take part inside of a valid marriage. Yes, it can develop first though the courting process, but full expression of this outside of marriage is sinful.

There are 8 kinds of love (according to the ancient Greeks), and it is true that it’s great for same sex attracted individuals to have Agape love, Philia love, Philautia love, Storge love & Pragma love but it’s not ok for them to seek Eros love, Ludus love, and Mania love (actually no one should seek Mania because it is the one type of love that is completely disordered)

So of the 8 types of love (5 of them are self giving which are focused on my Catholics). Same sex attracted people are good to pursue 5 of the 8 types of love (4 of the 5 self giving kind). Eros is the only one of the 5 types self giving love that they cannot participate in because it is sexual in nature.

Here is a good secular source that discusses the 8 types of love according to the ancient Greeks.

Learn the Different Types of Love (and Better Understand Your Partner) - LifeHack

Love. Ahhhhh… they say it makes the world go ‘round. But does it? Does it always make us feel all warm and fuzzy inside? Or does it sometimes cause us

www.lifehack.org

God bless

 

[Magnanimity]

The inclination is disordered because it comes from original sin and the devil and not from God. God doesnt create a disorder. God may allow someone to be tempted by certain sins, but God is not the cause of the temptation. The inclination needs to be rejected.

So, the scenarios I’ve been discussing in this thread bring up real-world situations in which a woman, say, has zero sexual attraction to men and significant attraction to women. But more important to her is the desire for the vocation of a family (to include a ‘beloved’ spouse and child-rearing). This desire is deep in her very core, as it is for most of us who want families. So, the starting point for this woman is this:

(1) deeply-held desire for the vocation of a family and (2) SSA

Now you can tell said woman that God didn’t create her that way, that these are just temptations from the devil, that her inclinations just need to be rejected, that if she wants to create a family then she just needs to find a way to be sexually attracted to men because that’s the only legitimate way to form families.

But, would you really tell yourself that this language above is going to resonate with her? What does “God didn’t create you that way” mean to a person who lives with these inclinations? As in, what difference does it make to her where the cause of these inclinations lies? The inclinations for SSA are there, period. But for her, she knows it’s not just the conjugal aspect that she desires. In fact, although she would prefer to be with a partner to raise children, what she really wants is a complete family-life: lover, beloved and children.

It seems to me that the church’s only response to such an individual is to tell that person to have a different vocation, whether or not she feels called to that vocation. The church tells her to set her mind and heart on a vocation of chastity–give up the deep desire for a family. To tell someone that they should ignore their heartfelt desire for a vocation does not seem to be in that person’s best interest. The church’s message is to normally affirm people in their inclinations towards vocations, but it balks at the idea of the SSA home. And I get it–it’s less than the best, imo. But, is it an “objective disorder?”

 

[Magnanimity]

Same sex attraction is FIRST and FORMOST sexual attraction…

Romantic love (which the Greeks call Eros) is supposed to take part inside of a valid marriage. Yes, it can develop first though the courting process, but full expression of this outside of marriage is sinful.

All I was responding to above was that poster’s attempt to claim that SSA is similar to masturbation and pedophilia. So, I pointed out the distinctions between all three. I’m sorry you got the impression from my post that I believe SSA is not sexual attraction. I don’t think that at all. It very obviously is just that–sexual attraction. Otherwise, it would merely be a same-gender friendship, which is ubiquitous.

 

[JimG]

The reality is that children result only from the procreation of a mother and a father. So if one wants a family, marry someone of the opposite sex and stay married for life, because that’s what marriage is. And children are the beneficiaries of that arrangement, having a mom and a dad. Children are not products or pawns, to be manufactured or moved around at the whim of adults.

 

[LittleFlower378]

Having a family is not a right but a gift.

Having children is not a right but a gift.

We cant just do whatever we want, because a family is a good. The end doesnt justify the means.

One cant give into disordered evil inclinations. To do so is a sin. There is such thing as objective truths.
Personally I have my own temptations and inclinations to evil and concupiscence, but if I were to give into these evil desires I would lose my relationship with God and my family. There is nothing nice or good about giving into sin. A person dealing with the disordered inclination of SSA, is to live chastely until one creates a habit of chastity and purity according to natural law, and then decide to settle down with someone of the opposite sex. SSA is not death sentence to natural marriage.

 

[Magnanimity]

Having a family is not a right but a gift.
Having children is not a right but a gift.

I’ll grant you this much—children are a gift from God. This is a repeated refrain in the Bible but especially in the Old Testament.

And yet, the creation of families and the raising of children is quite literally ubiquitous and utterly natural. The family is a transcendent reality, spanning times, places, cultures, religions, everything! So, families and child-rearing are at once gifts from God and simultaneously commonplace and everywhere—like humanity itself. Special and yet ever-present.

 

[prayerrider]

Amen, brother.
Now, if we can just change Church teaching so that homosexual intercourse is no longer sinful, than those who engage it will no longer need to confess it. Voila!

 

[niceatheist]

Perhaps they come here and see people they know and love described as “degenerates”.