College Course Lumps Homosexuality, Rape, Murder

[Seira]

Thats not the issue. The issue is why non-behaviors are included in a course about “deviant behavior” and the implication is that an attempt will be made to draw some connection between homosexuality and murder, rape, and robbery. Otherwise, why include something that isn’t behavior?

Exactly. Homosexuality & mental illness are not behaviors. People do not choose to be depressed. Having depression & anxiety disorders are not the same as **commiting an act ** such as murder, rape or robbery. Homosexuality & mental illness have the possibilty to put one in risk of committing a sin, but they’re NOT actual sins themselves. Murder, rape, & robbery ARE sins. That’s the difference. I do not consider murder, rape or robbery to be simply “out of the norm” behavior. They’re criminal behaviors. The stuff that gets you locked up. Homosexuality, mental illness, or addiction alone will not get you locked up (it used to in the days of mental institutions, but those were horrible places).

 

[didymus]

The class is “SWK 314” so I assume it’s advanced social work.
As a term of art it simply means outside the norm; both sex addicts and celibates, geniuses and the retarded &c.
I suppose including gays goes against the grain of current psych/social science orthodoxy which teaches nothing consensual is deviant. Tough

 

[Hokomai]

The university says the term “deviant” is used in the sociological sense, to mean “different from the norm.”

So as long as they so classify Catholicism as an indicator of their consistent and neutral sociological use of the term, there should be no problem. Oh, and within the Church, in which become a priest is outside the norm, the priesthood should also be classed as “deviant”, by this definition.

 

[Seeker1961]

In terms of sinfulness it should be lumped in with fornication and gay marriage should be compared divorced people remarrying. Lumping it in with rape and murder is incredibly uncouth and tasteless.

This kind of thing is not going to lead a gay person to seek the Church’s help or find Jesus.

 

[markomalley]

Fom the Franciscan website:SWK 314

DEVIANT BEHAVIOR focuses on the sociological theories of deviant behavior such as strain theory, differential association theory, labeling theory, and phenomenological theory. The behaviors that are primarily examined are murder, rape, robbery, prostitution, homosexuality, mental illness, and drug use. The course focuses on structural conditions in society that potentially play a role in influencing deviant behavior.
As far as whether or not behaviors manifesting themselves from homosexuality are deviant or not, that should be fairly obvious to any Catholic (even if you disagree with the Extraordinary Magisterium on that issue or not, the Church’s position is pretty unambiguous). As to the tendency,Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.

CDF, Letter, Homosexualitatis problema, 3 (1986)
​

So it seems that, according to the teachings of the Church, the inclination that manifests itself in homosexual acts belongs right there.

One other point:

[bibledrb]Gal 5:19-21[/bibledrb]

The words: πορνεία ἀκαθαρσία ἀσέλγεια would definitely include homosexual behaviors as a subset.

 

[fix]

Possibly. I often wonder why same-sex intercourse is singled out though. Its not considered worse than any other intercourse outside of marriage from a doctrinal standpoint.

Why do you think that? Where does the Church teach that all violations of the 6th commandment are of the same gravity and same effect on society?

 

[fix]

So as long as they so classify Catholicism as an indicator of their consistent and neutral sociological use of the term, there should be no problem. Oh, and within the Church, in which become a priest is outside the norm, the priesthood should also be classed as “deviant”, by this definition.

I would say the word implies outside the norm and unhealthy or wrong. That would not include the Church.

 

[Not_Sure_1]

Thats not the issue. The issue is why non-behaviors are included in a course about “deviant behavior” and the implication is that an attempt will be made to draw some connection between homosexuality and murder, rape, and robbery. Otherwise, why include something that isn’t behavior?

once again you are looking at it from your modern viewpoint, before queers lit the cops on fire during the riots in Greenwich Village, before queers became open, homosexuality was never described as identity, it was something one did, not something that one is.

Homosexuality is deviant behaviour, and I would count myself as horrible and uncharitable if I were to call a man struggling with same sex attraction a homosexual.

 

[Bill_Martin]

once again you are looking at it from your modern viewpoint, before queers lit the cops on fire during the riots in Greenwich Village, before queers became open, homosexuality was never described as identity, it was something one did, not something that one is.

Homosexuality is deviant behaviour, and I would count myself as horrible and uncharitable if I were to call a man struggling with same sex attraction a homosexual.

The problem is that the Church makes a clear distinction between homosexual orientation (not a sin) and homosexual acts (sinful). The university, and all Catholics for that matter, should make an effort to clearly delineate the two. The course title is causing confusion because of how it just uses the term homosexuality–which could mean either or both. I’d guess that 95% of the nation thinks that the Church declares homosexuality, the orientation, to be sinful. This is incorrect, but it leads to homosexuals being driven away from the faith due to a misunderstanding. Worse, it leads to Catholics actively driving them away.

 

[fix]

DEVIANT BEHAVIOR focuses on the sociological theories of deviant behavior such as strain theory, differential association theory, labeling theory, and phenomenological theory. The behaviors that are primarily examined are murder, rape, robbery, prostitution, homosexuality, mental illness, and drug use. The course focuses on structural conditions in society that potentially play a role in influencing deviant behavior.

That is the course description. People looking to be offended will be offended but they have no right to be. It is now possible to claim offense at anything that one disagrees with.

 

[rlg94086]

Thats not the issue. The issue is why non-behaviors are included in a course about “deviant behavior” and the implication is that an attempt will be made to draw some connection between homosexuality and murder, rape, and robbery. Otherwise, why include something that isn’t behavior?

So, just to be clear, you’d be okay if it said “homosexual acts” instead of homosexuality, correct?

 

[markomalley]

The problem is that the Church makes a clear distinction between homosexual orientation (not a sin) and homosexual acts (sinful). The university, and all Catholics for that matter, should make an effort to clearly delineate the two. The course title is causing confusion because of how it just uses the term homosexuality–which could mean either or both. I’d guess that 95% of the nation thinks that the Church declares homosexuality, the orientation, to be sinful. This is incorrect, but it leads to homosexuals being driven away from the faith due to a misunderstanding. Worse, it leads to Catholics actively driving them away.

As I mentioned above:

Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.

CDF, Letter, Homosexualitatis problema, 3 (1986)
​

This is not a situation where homosexual inclination is all hunky-dory as long as the pants stay zipped. The inclination itself is a disorder, though, if resisted, is, as you say, not sinful.

 

[GraceSofia]

I often wonder why same-sex intercourse is singled out though. Its not considered worse than any other intercourse outside of marriage from a doctrinal standpoint.

Bill Martin:

I have wondered the same thing. I don’t know either. My theory is that it’s because homosexual sex is something that “other” people do.

Perhaps because homosexual acts are always wrong; always against natural moral law, whereas heterosexual acts are sometimes good and sometimes sinful, depending.

 

[Hokomai]

I would say the word implies outside the norm and unhealthy or wrong. That would not include the Church.

So you would agree that it was not a neutral sociological term as claimed by the college, but rather a description of homosexuality as “unhealthy or wrong”?

 

[ProdglArchitect]

So you would agree that it was not a neutral sociological term as claimed by the college, but rather a description of homosexuality as “unhealthy or wrong”?

It is a Catholic college, and Catholicism teaches ACTING on those urges -is- unhealthy and wrong. Therefore, it makes perfect sense for it to be included. If people have problems with Catholic theology then they have no business going to a school which teaches based on it. This is simple logic, I don’t understand what all the fuss is about.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

It is a Catholic college, and Catholicism teaches that ACTING on those urges -is- unhealthy and wrong. Since this is a class which is studying deviant actions and how to deal with them it makes perfect sense for it to be included. If people have problems with Catholic theology then they have no business going to a school which teaches based on it. This is simple logic, I don’t understand what all the fuss is about.

Oops, I meant to edit my last post, sorry.

 

[fix]

So you would agree that it was not a neutral sociological term as claimed by the college, but rather a description of homosexuality as “unhealthy or wrong”?

I do not know how it would be used in the class. I am saying that the term describes behaviors that occur and are unhealthy and wrong.

 

[DCNBILL]

It is a Catholic college, and Catholicism teaches ACTING on those urges -is- unhealthy and wrong. Therefore, it makes perfect sense for it to be included. If people have problems with Catholic theology then they have no business going to a school which teaches based on it. This is simple logic, I don’t understand what all the fuss is about.

The fuss, I believe is that the secular world does not have a clue about the Catholic belief to hate the sin but love the sinner. Anytime the Church takes a stand against any immorality it is accused of being intolerant of people.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

It is a Catholic college, and Catholicism teaches ACTING on those urges -is- unhealthy and wrong. Therefore, it makes perfect sense for it to be included. If people have problems with Catholic theology then they have no business going to a school which teaches based on it. This is simple logic, I don’t understand what all the fuss is about.

It should get lumped with fornication and same sex marriage should get lumped with. divorceés and divorcés getting remarried not with rape and murder. What and how they lumped it can only be a bad thing.

 

[Dawnia]

There’s nothing quite like making a moutain out of a mole hill. I took the same class as a sociology major in college (although different college). Devient behavior does not necessarily mean bad behavior. What is the norm for one society is devient for another.

Here is the class description:

DEVIANT BEHAVIOR focuses on the sociological theories of deviant behavior such as strain theory, differential association theory, labeling theory, and phenomenological theory. The behaviors that are primarily examined are murder, rape, robbery, prostitution, homosexuality, mental illness, and drug use. The course focuses on structural conditions in society that potentially play a role in influencing deviant behavior.