Cardinal Tobin discusses the Catechism’s language on homosexuality

[Thorolfr]

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)

What makes the ancient Greeks experts on love? And just out of curiosity, what kind of love did they consider existed between men who had sex with adolescent youth? According to Wikipedia, the older man, or erastes, was “to educate, protect, love, and provide a role model for his eromenos.” The Greeks called this practice paiderastia which means “boy love”.

Edit: According to Wikipedia, the words erastes and eromenos which were used to describe the two roles in these kinds of relationships are both derived from the Greek verb erô , erân , “to love”. So, the love in these relationships was therefore considered to be an example of eros.

 

[JMMJ]

I appreciate the Cardinal’s thoughts and remarks. He seems to understand that language has impact.

Regardless of what one believes regarding the Church’s teachings on homosexuality, it is a fact that the Church loses a lot of people as a result of the language used and/or the teachings themselves. Alienation isn’t what the Church is hoping for, at least I hope not. It will continue, with not only gay people leaving the Church, but also straight people who feel compelled to leave because they can’t support what the Church teaches and/or the language it uses.

In today’s world, for the average person, the word “disordered” to describe homosexuality of any kind (orientation, actions, etc) is inflammatory. We can argue day-in and day-out about whether it should be or not, but it doesn’t change the fact that it is.

If the Church wants gay people (or SSA people, for those who can’t bring themselves to use the word “gay”) to feel welcome in the Church, then it is common-sense to change the language to something less offensive. The teaching can stay the same, and as a result there will still be those who keep a distance from the Church, but many will at least take a second look or stick around to learn the teachings before deciding the Church is homophobic. That is what happens now. “Disordered”= “homophobic” to so many. The Church knows this. Why doesn’t it do something to fix it?

 

[goout]

goout:

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.

Umm, no.

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.

I directly addressed your proposition that the Church is not a clear teacher of the faith.
So…?

Happy Easter.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

I directly addressed your proposition that the Church is not a clear teacher of the faith

Yeah, with this statement:

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?

Then you said this:

Should the Church teach in imprecise ways, in deference to ignorance?

No one said the Church should be imprecise in deference to ignorance.

And you said:

and it shouldn’t water down the language to make it more acceptable to indifferent spirits.

I haven’t suggested watering anything down.

And you said:

What part of truth should we bend to the world’s liking with vague and imprecise language?

Again showing you don’t understand what is being said in this thread because no one is suggesting bending the truth.

And this, all in the same post by the way:

And when we do that, do you believe the world will be any less skeptical or combative about it?

When what is done? Bending the truth? Using vague and imprecise language? Watering down? Doing things in deference to ignorance?

Oh, those are things you’ve suggested, not me. So I suppose you already have the answer to your last question.

 

[theCardinalbird]

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?

An important question!

In answering this question, it is important to remember two things. One is pastoral care, and the other is truth. Both are needed when trying to aid someone in their faith. You need to have truth but also pastoral care and vice-versa. When looking at a question like this, I must say that the CCC is not saying the same sex attracted person is disordered but rather the attraction in and of itself is disordered or “missing the mark”. or how @edward_george1 said it:

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.

We must make a distinction between the person and the attraction.

This should not be controversial, as many people, if not everyone, has some sort of disordered inclination, and this inclination could be any temptation that leads to sin.

As a person who experiences same sex attraction, I am grateful that the Church is willing to use truthful language and is not trying to dance around the idea that I am not perfect. Part of this imperfection is that I experience an attraction that is not ordered correctly. Big whup. It’s not my identity, I ain’t perfect, and that includes my feelings.

I think the CCC should keep its language, and I would call on his Eminence Cardinal Tobin to examine the CCC more carefully

 

[PatK63]

To go further, God made man in His image and likeness. Male and female did God make man.
So if we want to get an idea what God’s image and likeness is look at a man, and wife and children or the family!

 

[Thorolfr]

In answering this question, it is important to remember two things. One is pastoral care, and the other is truth. Both are needed when trying to aid someone in their faith. You need to have truth but also pastoral care and vice-versa.

There is, however, honest disagreement about what the truth is. And I’m not talking about a disagreement between Christians and atheists. I went last night to a Maundy Thursday service at a Methodist church which has been very inclusive of LGBT people and there was still a lot of shock there about the recent vote in that denomination to enforce a more traditional approach on the issue of homosexuality. They foresee a likely breakup of that denomination over this issue, something which certainly grieves them. And I’m sure that both sides are very sincere in their differing views of what the truth is when it comes to the issue of homosexuality and Christian faith. And tonight, I heard a very powerful sermon, one of the best I’ve heard in years, that was given by an openly gay Lutheran pastor. I can tell that he’s very authentic and sincere in his faith and know that he doesn’t consider gay people in committed relationships to be sinning. The issue of homosexuality is an issue which is going to continue to divide Christians, all sincere in their beliefs, on both sides and in most denominations.

 

[theCardinalbird]

And I’m sure that both sides are very sincere in their differing views of what the truth is when it comes to the issue of homosexuality and Christian faith.

Perhaps. However, I am talking about the truth held by the Catholic Church for 2000 years. When I speak of pastoral care and truth, I am talking about pastoral care and the truth found in the Catholic Church. Yes there are people and denominations that are very sincere in their beliefs, whatever they may be, though I must say it is saddening that many denominations have different views on the truth as the Apostles (and Christ) willed for us to be of one mind, and therefore, one truth.

I’m a guy that believes there is only one truth. Quite frankly, I think the traditional teachings of the Church on homosexuality are correct and not outdated. Perhaps many churches chose to change with the times on this matter, however I am grateful the Catholic Church had not changed on this issue as it would be very confusing for me

 

[Tis_Bearself]

People in previous eras did used to be extremely unsympathetic to masturbation. It was considered the fast track to Hell, the gateway to many other sins, and a symptom of having something gravely wrong with you. Attitudes have changed over time, though it’s still a serious sin.

Unfortunately, same-sex attraction is unlikely to be treated like masturbation any time soon, for a couple reasons. One is that while most people, especially most men, have at some point in their life masturbated or at least had to fight off a strong urge to do so, the percentage of people, especially men, who have had to deal with a strong SSA is much lower. There are many people who just aren’t wired to have any appreciable SSA, and others who, if they felt a momentary twinge, would immediately shove it aside as taboo just like they would immediately flee from a thought of incest, bestiality or pedophilia. Another problem is that being gay has become politicized in a way masturbation never was, and people are alarmed by the idea that they might be forced to actively facilitate people having gay sex, for instance by having to rent them a wedding venue. It would be like if the law mandated that if somebody wanted to masturbate, you would have to give them a room and kleenex or you could get sued or have your work shut down.

 

[prayerrider]

The moment same sex attraction is recognized by the Catholic Church as equal-but-just-differently-ordered in the eyes if God, then the Catholic Church can no longer teach that sexual activity resulting from that attraction is inherently sinful–it’s equal, just different. Still, there will remain the sex outside of marriage issue. So a crescendo of overwhelming demand for same sex Catholic Church “marriage” will inevitably follow.
That’s exactly what some want. They don’t care if the result is no longer the Catholic Church, no longer a Church of Jesus Christ, but rather a schism into a more Romanized version of the episcopal church versus a faithful remnant of the Roman Catholic Church. Or perhaps they do care, somewhat, but will accept the collateral damage in order to satisfy their most unholy lust within a veneer of false moral theological “legitimacy.”

 

[JimG]

Perhaps many churches chose to change with the times on this matter, however I am grateful the Catholic Church had not changed on this issue as it would be very confusing for me

Yes. Many denominations changed with the times with regard to divorce, contraception, marriage permanence, homosexuality, masturbation, abortion, and other aspects of morality. But the Catholic Church held to the doctrines handed down for 2000 years.

 

[theCardinalbird]

what really matters is that we love one another and show great mercy to others just as Christ showed others

I agree with this statement. Part of loving someone is to tell them the truth. Christ wasn’t shy in telling the truth to sinners while being merciful and loving. Christ showed mercy to the woman caught in adultery. He didn’t stone her, he didn’t condemn her, but he told her to sin no more.

 

[theCardinalbird]

This is something people often forget. Many like to tell sinners to go and sin no more, but they often condemn them in such a way that runs counter to Christ’s teachings. Others go to the other extreme and choose to avoid telling people that they should sin no more and go as far as to encourage or say nothing about that behaviour, which also runs counter to Christ’s teachings.

In the case of people with SSA, we shouldn’t not talk about what the Church teaches. We should explain that all are called to chastity regardless if you have SSA or not. Sex is supposed to be part of marriage which will always be between a man and a woman. There should also be more talk on how to support those with SSA in the Church

 

[theCardinalbird]

Telling the LGBT community that they are intrinsically disordered only goes to spread hatred and homophobia.

You misunderstand the teaching.

The attraction, not the person, is intrinsically disordered. God created us good, but we are prone to temptation and sin. SSA is just another temptation and is not an identity. This does not contradict the understanding that those who have this experience are to be treated with compassion and respect.

Those who live chaste lives as homosexuals are one of the hardest crosses in the world and is something to be truly respected, admired, and honored

I agree

 

[theCardinalbird]

I would argue however that being homosexual is an identity, just how being Asian is an identity. One cannot change being Asian, one cannot change being homosexual. We all have many identities

I don’t think that my feelings for guys would constitute an identity. Just because I can’t change something about myself, doesn’t mean that thing defines who I am. It is a part of my experience on Earth as a fallen being, but I don’t think it is a good idea to say that this is who I am and therefore is a good aspect about myself.

My identity is being a child of God, which is good. Having same sex attraction is a temptation that is part of my experience that can lead me to sin. To say that this temptation is who I am, or is my identity is super confusing

 

[GospelOfMatthew]

I see what you mean and it makes sense. I don’t think it’s something to be ashamed of though

 

[theCardinalbird]

I don’t think it’s something to be ashamed of though

There is a difference between seeing something as a temptation and having shame about something. We all experience temptation because we are all fallen beings. Does this mean we should all be depressed/feel shame constantly because we are not perfect? No. It is simply reality that we are not perfect and experience temptations. Same sex attraction is just another one of those temptations. This temptation is just another of the million reasons why I need Jesus’ saving grace.

We should work towards removing the constant shame that puts us down and makes us avoid asking for help/going to confession when we fall. The guilt which is prompted by the spirit to make us aware when we sin is different from shame and is part of our conscience.

 

[edward_george1]

Very well said.

 

[Thorolfr]

People in previous eras did used to be extremely unsympathetic to masturbation. It was considered the fast track to Hell, the gateway to many other sins, and a symptom of having something gravely wrong with you. Attitudes have changed over time, though it’s still a serious sin.

Some of that kind of thinking seems over the top and a little ridiculous to me. I was reading an article about the history of masturbation which says that Thomas Aquinas believed it to be worse than rape or incest. According to the article, “During the Victorian age, masturbation was thought to lead to impaired morals, depression, social failure, epilepsy, tuberculosis, blindness, insanity, sterility, and early death.” No one nowadays believes that it has anything to do with all those diseases or with blindness, insanity or early death.

Another problem is that being gay has become politicized in a way masturbation never was

One of the reasons that being gay became politicized is that gay people were oppressed and subjected for a long time to unjust discrimination and violence. In the 19th century in Britain, people were still being hung for homosexual activity. Oscar Wilde was tried. In the 20th century, they were often subjected to police harassment and brutality. In some states they were arrested, sometimes even for having sex in their own homes. Homosexuals were among the groups of people who were lobotomized in mental institutions at one time and being gay was treated by doctors as a mental illness. During the Cold War, thousands of gay people were persecuted by Joseph McCarthy and his allies and were fired from their jobs. Many committed suicide. All of this led up to the riots at the Stonewall Inn in 1969 and gay people decided that they weren’t going to put up with being treated like this any more. Can you really blame them? Masturbation was never treated as a crime in the same way.

and people are alarmed by the idea that they might be forced to actively facilitate people having gay sex, for instance by having to rent them a wedding venue. It would be like if the law mandated that if somebody wanted to masturbate, you would have to give them a room and kleenex or you could get sued or have your work shut down.

Part of the problem with your analogy is that there is no job that involves giving rooms and Kleenex to people. If there was and the person who was doing that job refused to give rooms and Kleenex to some people while giving them to other people, that might be a problem. Also, renting a wedding venue to a gay couple doesn’t facilitate them having gay sex. They have probably already been having gay sex and will continue to do so regardless of whether they are allowed to get married in that particular wedding venue.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I understand fully why being gay became political. My mother lived in San Francisco before it was hip and I took my first trip there when Milk was still a supervisor. My hometown went heavily gay after that and it was a blessing as they keep up the properties.

However, having to provide wedding services for gay couples is a real problem for people who truly believe they themselves are committing a sin by doing this. I can see where it is scary and off-putting. There are also many gay-friendly businesses and venues to choose from, and no one is getting denied essential items like food or shelter, so it’s difficult for me to see how it benefits anyone to bring lawsuits forcing businesses that don’t want to work with you for a non-essential service to do so.