Cardinal Tobin discusses the Catechism’s language on homosexuality

[tafan2]

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

I will ask you the same as I asked another poster. Provide an alternative explanation as to why homosexual acts are sinful. Do so in a language people with SSA won’t have difficulty with.

 

[Wesrock]

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.

I agree with your post, but this section here gives me an opportunity to expand on something

Gluttony is taking a natural good appetite to excess and letting it overrule reason. A desire to eat steel or other inedible and harmful materials are different because it’s not just about pursuing an appetite beyond reason, but about the appetite being ordered to objects contrary to what the appetite should be ordered towards.

Lust is a disorder insofar as it’s an appetite taken to excess and beyond reason, but the object of the appetite can still be rightly ordered. Same sex attractions are different insofar as the object of the appetite is contrary to its natural ends.

Nothing in the above is any commentary on the moral goodness or worthiness of any person. I understand the distinction will seem cold to some, but I think it could only be taken as insulting if taken out of context and by rejecting Catholic moral teaching.

 

[Magnanimity]

What is a word that means less-than-the-best? A word that signifies that might do.

 

[Magnanimity]

Sure, but I was trying to draw the distinction between how we identify her acts and her fundamental inclinations to love another romantically.

 

[AlNg]

he basically called St John Paul II and the Catechism homophobic.

Is it OK or is it wrong for a Roman Catholic to be homophobic?

 

[Magnanimity]

That’s a good question, but as you’ll see from my original post above, I note my reticence at the term altogether, whether describing the acts or the inclinations.

But I think you’re making a better point that deserves a better response. Did you intend to use the word “immoral” or “disordered?”

 

[edward_george1]

I think the problem is that you’re saying that any attraction is a fundamental aspect of who a person is. If you’d read my comments on identity and on how sexual attraction is not the totality of our identity, you’d see that I’ve already addressed this. If I may be so bold, the only one who’s conflating the person with their inclinations in this discussion is you. I’ve made the distinction, and you’ve told me it’s not good enough. I’m not sure how to do it better, to be quite honest. The Catholic reckoning of this is honestly a far more honest account of reality than either side of the debate outside of Catholicism. It seems that one either believes, á lá Westboro Baptist Church, that those with a same-sex attraction are horrible, awful, evil creatures, destined for eternal hellfire, or else one believes that sexual orientation is so fundamental to the person that that’s the only way he should be identified, and to hell with any suggestions to the contrary.

The Church has a far more sophisticated view of this–there is a person, his inclinations, and his acts. Read what I said in quoting my earlier post, I’ve already laid all of that out. Person=good, created in the image of God, worthy of respect. Inclinations=rightly or less rightly ordered depending upon what moral object they lead one to act toward. Acts=right or less right, depending upon the object, intention, and circumstances of each. It’s a lot less simple than “this person is gay, that’s the fundamental truth of his reality.” People are not quite that simple, and if we really love and respect them, we do a disservice by reducing them to their sexual orientation. And read the comments as well of those who point out that the Catechism actually softens the blow on this one point. I think the way the Catechism is worded is authentic, precise, and compassionate, and to alter it would be to distort what is already a very good account of human nature in general and this issue in particular.

 

[Wesrock]

What is a word that means less-than-the-best? A word that signifies that might do.

And then we’d have displeasure expressed at saying some people’s identities are better than the others using your wording.

 

[edward_george1]

What does “homophobic” mean? A fear of those who identify as homosexual? It tends to be thrown out as a pejorative term against those who disagree with the prevailing culture’s insistence that homosexual acts are not immoral.

I think any serious discussion of this can’t resort to name-calling in either direction, and “homophobic” is a prime example of name-calling that more or less ends the prospects we might have for rational debate.

 

[phil19034]

What is a word that means less-than-the-best? A word that signifies that might do.

But what does “less than the best” even mean?

Here’s the thing (which I said before). Same sex attraction is linguistically akin to having blindness, deafness, or even cancer.

It’s a big part of our personal experience of life, but should define us as people.

Even people who are born blind were not created blind by God. Being born blind or born deaf doesn’t make it any less of a disorder.

In a way, you can really compare same sex attraction to being born deaf. There are many deaf people who actively say they would be against finding a cure for deafness because it means there is something wrong with them as people.

To me, this is really silly. When people have a hard time seeing, most don’t reject glasses.

If a deaf person doesn’t want to receive a cure for deafness, that’s on them. Living a deaf lifestyle isn’t sinful but deafness is still a disorder (regardless if that offends some members of the deaf culture).

Same thing with same sex attraction. It is a disorder regardless if that offend members of the gay culture. But the significant difference between being deaf and gay is that living out a homosexual lifestyle is objectively sinful with there is NOTHING sinful with deafness.

Finally, homosexuality and the attraction are also disordered because they are ordered towards sin not towards procreation. Just like a deep seated inclination towards masturbation, pedophilia, etc are all disordered too because they are ordered towards sin.

 

[prayerrider]

As is the increase in the boldness of the homosexual cause even in the Church even in the midst of sexual scandal.

Oh and they are getting bolder, brother!
I’m not surprised to hear this news, not at all. It’s all about changing Church teaching, incrementally.
As soon as the homosexual attraction is normalized, they’ll start in on normalizing homosexual intercourse. Anyone who doesn’t see that coming is in some serious denial. And it’s not a new or original strategy; it’s been successfully employed in secular society and in one Protestant church after another.

 

[Magnanimity]

I think the problem is that you’re saying that any attraction is a fundamental aspect of who a person is. If you’d read my comments on identity and on how sexual attraction is not the totality of our identity

I think what I’m saying is worse than you believe, Fr. As I said to another poster above, the desire for the vocation of a family is, for many of us, a very deep desire indeed. And one’s vocation does count toward self-identity, absolutely. Part and parcel of this vocation would be the romantic love that a person desires to express to another. I’m well aware that this desire isn’t the totality of the identity of said person. But it’s no less deep for not being the totality. Are you following me here? I hope you would grant everything above in the case of the heterosexual person as being legit (not disordered). The place where it turns “disordered” for the church is where she orients her love. If she orients it toward another female, it ispo facto takes a turn toward disorder, is this how you would phrase it? So the SSA is the disorder, not the desire for the vocation, not even the desire for romantic love, and not the desire to raise children. We are taking about some of the most fundamental desires that all humans have! It’s basic stuff.

So, on these basic desires and orientations (which I’ve already agreed aren’t the “totality” of the person) we want to say that the orientation to same-gender is a “disorder.” Have I got that right? Is this how you would phrase it all?

 

[Magnanimity]

I think of the continuum of all actual families as a gradation, going from very nearly ideal, the. To a little less than ideal, then to a good bit less than ideal and all the way down to dysfunctional. I see it as a gradation of the good present in various family-dynamics.

What would be at the top? We would place at the top the ideal as presented by the church—heterosexual couple, in a deeply loving relationship giving rise to their own offspring and raising them in a home full of faith, charity and service.

Then we go down in grade to a family-dynamic less good than this. What would it be? Perhaps all the same but let’s take away the intense love between the couple and day that they are friendly with each other and tolerant toward each other, but there’s not much love between them.

And somewhere within this gradation, we have to fit all kinds of things—heterosexual couple that is barren but decides to adopt children, same couple situation but they opt against adopting children, single-parent homes, homosexual couple that adopts and raises children in a loving and supportive environment, same couple-situation but they opt for no children and simply volunteer as lifetime “big sisters.” And on and on it goes. There are so very many different ways to have a family. And I have no problem admitting that various goods are missing from some of them. So they would be “less than” other family-situations.

But do any of these situations incline me to call them “disordered?” No. Less-than-the-best? Yes. Less than ideal? Yes.

Does that make sense @tafan2?

 

[Magnanimity]

I’m completely fine with that. There is a gradation in goods and in sins, so too there appears to be a gradation in family-dynamics. But acknowledging this gradation does not commit one to the troublesome language of “disorder.“

 

[neophyte]

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?

You mean, besides that it’s a good idea to speak the truth?

I have lots of urges that are intrinsically disordered, as do most of us. I’m glad that people didn’t pander to my disordered desire to be left to wallow in them, and “dude, that’s totally -----'d up!” was something I desperately needed (and continue to need) to hear.

 

[prayerrider]

Interesting idea. It might appease, in the short term. But how long will
CCC 2357 go unchalleged?

 

[Magnanimity]

True enough, but what if your friends used that expression to talk about your desire for the vocation of a family? Your desire to romantically love a partner and the desire to undyingly love your children? Would it be ok then for them to say that your inclination is disordered? That there is something seriously wrong with you?

 

[prayerrider]

homosexuality and the attraction are also disordered because they are ordered towards sin not towards procreation. Just like a deep seated inclination towards masturbation, pedophilia, etc are all disordered too because they are ordered towards sin

This truth has been brought up again and again on these forum. The usual answer is the victim card. Which isn’t a rebuttal at all, of course. There is no rebuttal to truth.

 

[Magnanimity]

But what does “less than the best” even mean?

Less good, either qualitatively or quantitatively.

See below my responses to Edward George and tafan on what makes it different when we are incorporating the “disorder” into the deep desire for the vocation of a family.

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).

 

[goout]

edward_george1:

I think the problem is that you’re saying that any attraction is a fundamental aspect of who a person is. If you’d read my comments on identity and on how sexual attraction is not the totality of our identity

I think what I’m saying is worse than you believe, Fr. As I said to another poster above, the desire for the vocation of a family is, for many of us, a very deep desire indeed. And one’s vocation does count toward self-identity, absolutely. Part and parcel of this vocation would be the romantic love that a person desires to express to another. I’m well aware that this desire isn’t the totality of the identity of said person. But it’s no less deep for not being the totality. Are you following me here? I hope you would grant everything above in the case of the heterosexual person as being legit (not disordered). The place where it turns “disordered” for the church is where she orients her love. If she orients it toward another female, it ispo facto takes a turn toward disorder, is this how you would phrase it? So the SSA is the disorder, not the desire for the vocation, not even the desire for romantic love, and not the desire to raise children. We are taking about some of the most fundamental desires that all humans have! It’s basic stuff.

So, on these basic desires and orientations (which I’ve already agreed aren’t the “totality” of the person) we want to say that the orientation to same-gender is a “disorder.” Have I got that right? Is this how you would phrase it all?

Think about what you are saying.
You are observing that fatherhood/motherhood is a vocation. Fine.
And then proceed to make an equivocation between homosexual romantic desire and the vocation of parenthood.

Do you see the ontological problem here? The love of a man and woman directly participates in the vocation of parenthood in a wholly unique way.