For those who believe homosexuals can change their orientation....

[francisca]

As has been explained previously (cf #176) the word “disordered” as used in the Catechisms does not mean the same in vernacular as it does in the Catechisms, in the vernacular it is closer to imbalance which is not the same as a psychological disorder.

The word disordered in CCC has its implication in the area of science.

In many documents, the church include natural law in the ethic of human sexuality. You can’t argue separation between moral and nature of human sexuality just based on your opinion of one word which handrianus nor you have ever backed your intepretation with ANY evidence to support such oppinion. I strongly disagree with handrianus opinion (post 176) regarding what the said word constitute in the said CCC.

If you think that you can separate morality from factual science, then we should not argue about the morality of condoms, after morning pills, stem cell research, and so on.

Morality and human nature can’t be separated.

 

[francisca]

No, I’m saying that specifically in paragraphs 2357 and 2358 that it is not the same, inordinata is also used when referring to lust, masturbation and divorce none of which are mental disorders

In the church documents masturbation, lust, devorce are moral disorder.

The church use different language for homosexuality: it is intrinsicly disordered condition, contrary to natural law.

They are of two different categoies.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

The word disordered in CCC has its implication in the area of science.

In many documents, the church include natural law in the ethic of human sexuality. You can’t argue separation between moral and nature of human sexuality just based on your opinion of one word which Hadrianus nor you have ever backed your interpretation with ANY evidence to support such opinion. I strongly disagree with Hadrianus’ opinion (post 176) regarding what the said word constitute in the said CCC.

If you think that you can separate morality from factual science, then we should not argue about the morality of condoms, after morning pills, stem cell research, and so on.

Morality and human nature can’t be separated.

[vatican.va/archive/catechism_lt/p3s2c2a6_lt.htm#ARTICULUS%206%C2%A0%20SEXTUM%20PRAECEPTUM](CCC in Latin), it’s all right there. What do you want us to do, cite a Latin dictionary?

In the church documents masturbation, lust, divorce are moral disorder.

The church use different language for homosexuality: it is intrinsically disordered condition, contrary to natural law.

They are of two different categories.

it uses the same word for all four. All four are sins against chastity and contrary to natural law.

 

[michelleds]

I’ve tried to follow this most recent twist in this thread. Let’s see if we can boil down the disagreements, I think they might actually stem from a language difference rather than a theological difference, but I can’t tell.

Agree or Disagree?

1. the Church views homosexuality as a disorder, not an alternative sexuality/orientation
2. by “disorder” in the CCC, the Church is using this as a *theological *term of art rather than as a *psychological *term or art. In other words, “disorder” in the CCC is used as being contrary to the order of the Natural Law rather than contrary to the order of the mental faculties of the brain
3. homosexuality is contrary to the natural law
4. the Church recommends chastity for homosexuals
5. the Church does not recommend for or against therapy (psychiatric, cognitive, reparative, etc). if the person in question finds it helpful, fine; there is no requirement, however

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Michelleds,

1)- Agree

2)- Agree

3)- Agree

4)- I’ll agree if you take the third word out … I think it is a typo…

Thanks for keeping everything orderly.

God bless

I’ve tried to follow this most recent twist in this thread. Let’s see if we can boil down the disagreements, I think they might actually stem from a language difference rather than a theological difference, but I can’t tell.

Agree or Disagree?

1. the Church views homosexuality as a disorder, not an alternative sexuality/orientation
2. by “disorder” in the CCC, the Church is using this as a *theological *term of art rather than as a *psychological *term or art. In other words, “disorder” in the CCC is used as being contrary to the order of the Natural Law rather than contrary to the order of the mental faculties of the brain
3. homosexuality is contrary to the natural law
4. the Church recommends chastity for homosexuals
5. the Church takes does not recommend for or against therapy (psychiatric, cognitive, reparative, etc). if the person in question finds it helpful, fine; there is no requirement, however

 

[michelleds]

4)- I’ll agree if you take the third word out … I think it is a typo…

I edited #5

 

[Hadrianus]

I’ve tried to follow this most recent twist in this thread. Let’s see if we can boil down the disagreements, I think they might actually stem from a language difference rather than a theological difference, but I can’t tell.

Agree or Disagree?

1. the Church views homosexuality as a disorder, not an alternative sexuality/orientation
2. by “disorder” in the CCC, the Church is using this as a *theological *term of art rather than as a *psychological *term or art. In other words, “disorder” in the CCC is used as being contrary to the order of the Natural Law rather than contrary to the order of the mental faculties of the brain
3. homosexuality is contrary to the natural law
4. the Church recommends chastity for homosexuals
5. the Church does not recommend for or against therapy (psychiatric, cognitive, reparative, etc). if the person in question finds it helpful, fine; there is no requirement, however

Agreed to all the above. In #4 I’m sure you meant 'requires".

NB Regarding Natural Law: In fact, the Church considers homosexual acts to be both against nature, ie contrary to the correct biological use of the reproductive organs, and contrary to Natural Law. Natural Law as defined by St Thomas is that by which rational beings participate in the divine eternal law. Thus all sins, that is all choice of actions which are evil are against the Natural Law. Leo XIII elaborates on this in his excellent encyclical “LIbertas.” Which I highly recommend. It is vital to make this distinction because people so often get bogged down into debates over the meaning of natural law; many mistakingly believing that merely what happens in nature is “Natural Law.” Natural Law in the theological sense refers to the right use of reason for the proper end of the human person.

 

[michelleds]

Agreed to all the above. In #4 I’m sure you meant 'requires".

yes. sorry, too much time has passed to edit the origianl…should’ve caught what Tom was referring to but i found the actual typo (extra word) in 5 and fixed that.

 

[Hadrianus]

PS A note on “orientation.” The Church has no opinion on this as a purely clinical term. If the term orientation is used one must add that she views it as an objectively disordered orientation.

 

[Hadrianus]

yes. sorry, too much time has passed to edit the origianl…should’ve caught what Tom was referring to but i found the actual typo (extra word) in 5 and fixed that.

Not to worry; I think we all know what you meant

 

[BrandtMT]

There is no such thing as a Homosexual Catholic. Yes many Huge gay men have turned straight. If you heard of a gay Catholic you must be referring to a gay Christian, that is There are Gay protestants. We openly do not agree with homosexuals, nor do we shun them. We just do not accept them into the priest or brotherhood.

 

[francisca]

I’ve tried to follow this most recent twist in this thread. Let’s see if we can boil down the disagreements, I think they might actually stem from a language difference rather than a theological difference, but I can’t tell.

Agree or Disagree?

1. the Church views homosexuality as a disorder, not an alternative sexuality/orientation

Agree.

1. by “disorder” in the CCC, the Church is using this as a *theological *term of art rather than as a *psychological *term or art. In other words, “disorder” in the CCC is used as being contrary to the order of the Natural Law rather than contrary to the order of the mental faculties of the brain

Agree to the first sentence. The second sentence I agree too, BUT the term “disordered, contrary to natural law” include in it the facts of science, not necessarily ONLY psychology, or mental faculty of the brain only. Rather, “the natural law” as in CCC/ Genesis, can be seen some of its fenomenon in science, eventhough not in all entirety. Thus the term “disordered, contrary to natural law” do refer to some facts of “natural fenomenon as seen by science” to some extent. Surely CCC aproach is theological, not psychological. I do agree with this. I don’t agree that it (human being as seen from theological perspective) is completely separated from real life natural human being being as seen from scientific perspective. In fact this is the reason why our science needs ethics and morality.

1. homosexuality is contrary to the natural law

Agree.

1. the Church recommends chastity for homosexuals

Agree.

1. the Church does not recommend for or against therapy (psychiatric, cognitive, reparative, etc). if the person in question finds it helpful, fine; there is no requirement, however

Agree.

 

[francisca]

PS A note on “orientation.” The Church has no opinion on this as a purely clinical term. If the term orientation is used one must add that she views it as an objectively disordered orientation.

You said in the above post that “the church has no opinion on orientation”

In otherwords you disagree with point 1: that the church views homosexuality as disordered, NOT as an alternative sexuality/ orientation.

Make up your mind, you just agreed with it in one post earlier (your post 319).

Make up your mind. Do you agree with point 1 or not?

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

I’ve tried to follow this most recent twist in this thread. Let’s see if we can boil down the disagreements, I think they might actually stem from a language difference rather than a theological difference, but I can’t tell.

Agree or Disagree?

1. the Church views homosexuality as a disorder, not an alternative sexuality/orientation
2. by “disorder” in the CCC, the Church is using this as a *theological *term of art rather than as a *psychological *term or art. In other words, “disorder” in the CCC is used as being contrary to the order of the Natural Law rather than contrary to the order of the mental faculties of the brain
3. homosexuality is contrary to the natural law
4. the Church recommends chastity for homosexuals
5. the Church does not recommend for or against therapy (psychiatric, cognitive, reparative, etc). if the person in question finds it helpful, fine; there is no requirement, however

Agreed, it isn’t a valid sexuality
Agreed
Agreed
Agreed
Agreed

There is no such thing as a Homosexual Catholic. Yes many Huge gay men have turned straight. If you heard of a gay Catholic you must be referring to a gay Christian, that is There are Gay protestants. We openly do not agree with homosexuals, nor do we shun them. We just do not accept them into the priest or brotherhood.

Another drive by posting brought to you by someone who apparently hasn’t read the Catechisms

You said in the above post that “the church has no opinion on orientation”

In otherwords you disagree with point 1: that the church views homosexuality as disordered, NOT as an alternative sexuality/ orientation.

Make up your mind, you just agreed with it in one post earlier (your post 319).

Make up your mind. Do you agree with point 1 or not?

It’s like him saying glass can be both permeable and semi-permeable while specifying the former is valid when it is a sheet and the latter when broken. He isn’t contradicting himself.

 

[michelleds]

all right then! it would appear that the five of us “regular” attendees at this thread are in agreement with the main points. there is just this one point of contention which Francisca has brought forth.

Francisca, I am having some difficulty tracking your argument, so I’m going to re-word it–tell me if i’ve got what you are saying correct, okay?

You’re saying that if something is contrary to Natural Law, then it is necessarily contrary to science? and you are further saying that man must be seen from a scientific perspective?

I’ll allow someone better versed in Natural Law to respond more fully, but if that’s what you’re saying, then I think that you are mistaken in your understanding of “Natural Law”.

Quote:
2. by “disorder” in the CCC, the Church is using this as a theological term of art rather than as a psychological term or art. In other words, “disorder” in the CCC is used as being contrary to the order of the Natural Law rather than contrary to the order of the mental faculties of the brain

Agree to the first sentence. The second sentence I agree too, BUT the term “disordered, contrary to natural law” include in it the facts of science, not necessarily ONLY psychology, or mental faculty of the brain only. Rather, “the natural law” as in CCC/ Genesis, can be seen some of its fenomenon in science, eventhough not in all entirety. Thus the term “disordered, contrary to natural law” do refer to some facts of “natural fenomenon as seen by science” to some extent. Surely CCC aproach is theological, not psychological. I do agree with this. I don’t agree that it (human being as seen from theological perspective) is completely separated from real life natural human being being as seen from scientific perspective. In fact this is the reason why our science needs ethics and morality.

 

[francisca]

How am I mistaken?

Do you think that theological perspective and science are completely separated?

Do you agree with Handrianus that “The Church does not have any opinion regarding “orientation”?” (Handrianus post 321)

If you think that the church doesn’t agree with the term “orientation”, despite she never use the word, rather it is an implication of her teaching and tradition, then how can we say that theology has no implication with biological psycological man?

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

How am I mistaken?

Do you think that theological perspective and science are completely separated?

Do you agree with Handrianus that “The Church does not have any opinion regarding “orientation”?” (Handrianus post 321)

If you think that the church doesn’t agree with the term “orientation”, despite she never use the word, rather it is an implication of her teaching and tradition, then how can we say that theology has no implication with biological psycological man?

It’s not either black or white, there can be varying degrees of overlap.

You missed a very important qualifier “…as a purely clinical term.”

 

[SirJack]

The natural law shouldn’t be thought of as the being the same as laws of nature (that is, the laws of physics).

Basically we believe that God has placed in us an awareness of right and wrong, according to the natural law. (There is more to it, naturally, but that’s a quick précis.)

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Francisca,

I am honestly not aware of any definitive position taken by the Church concerning ‘orientation’. While I am aware of numerous condemnations of homosexual behavior - this is not an ‘orientation’ issue.

If there is a definitive position, would you please give the citaton?

Thanks and God bless

How am I mistaken?

Do you think that theological perspective and science are completely separated?

Do you agree with Handrianus that “The Church does not have any opinion regarding “orientation”?” (Handrianus post 321)

If you think that the church doesn’t agree with the term “orientation”, despite she never use the word, rather it is an implication of her teaching and tradition, then how can we say that theology has no implication with biological psycological man?

 

[Hadrianus]

In the 1986 Letter on Homosexual Persons, Cardinal Ratzinger twice uses the term orientation with regard to homosexuality. cf para 3 and para 11.