Fr. James Martin

[EmmaSowl]

EmmaSowl:

Does “term” = “labeling” to you?

No. Misuse of term, beyond its intended scope.

And by what authority have you decided that the Church’s “intrinsically disordered” term is misused?

Therefore, diabetes “diagnosis” now replaced with “cure”.

So, if someone suffers from diabetes, we’d say “He’s been diagnosed with diabetes,” but once the person had it under control, we’d say “He’s been diagnosed with cure”?

 

[OraLabora]

And by what authority have you decided that the Church’s “intrinsically disordered” term is misused?

Not the Church’s.

“He’s been diagnosed with cure”?

Sigh. He’s been cured of diabetes

 

[EmmaSowl]

EmmaSowl:

And by what authority have you decided that the Church’s “intrinsically disordered” term is misused?

Not the Church’s.

Clearly not. But what is the authority you use which is greater than that of the Church?

He’s been cured of diabetes

Okay. Fine. Not arguing that the application of terms should not be updated if conditions change. Of course a change in condition requires a change of terms for clarity’s sake. But I’m talking about when conditions haven’t changed.

 

[27lw]

So, it seems to me that the problem is not the word diabetes, or the diagnosis of a person using that word. It seems to me that what you are objecting to is the fact that the insurance companies won’t recognize that some people are treated so effectively, that they are essentially cured of it. So the problem is the insurance companies’ refusal to recognize the cure, not the initial diagnosis (labeling).

 

[Polak]

Fortunately labeling gays as “disordered”

Bishop Paprocki explains this term very well. He says it often gets misunderstood. Aside from the urge or action being disordered, not the person, he says people often take the word disorder in the psychiatric sense, and believe the Church suggests the person is mentally ill. Paprocki says this isn’t the case. The term disordered is to be taken as ‘against the natural order’.

 

[OraLabora]

I understand the Church’s terminology. I am quite convinced however, that most LGBQT do not. Moreover it is difficult to separate the “disorder” from the person with the “disorder”, just as it is difficult to separate “diabetes” from “being a diabetic”.

If the Church wants to reach out to the LGBQT, which is its evangelical mandate, then she needs to speak in plain language, not with ecclesiastical nuances.

It means meeting them where they’re at and in welcoming and clear language.

 

[Anesti33]

I understand the Church’s terminology. I am quite convinced however, that most LGBQT do not. Moreover it is difficult to separate the “disorder” from the person with the “disorder”, just as it is difficult to separate “diabetes” from “being a diabetic”.

If the Church wants to reach out to the LGBQT, which is its evangelical mandate, then she needs to speak in plain language, not with ecclesiastical nuances.

It means meeting them where they’re at and in welcoming and clear language.

She does speak in plain language.

The specified audience for the Catechism is bishops. The book uses very precise terms when teaching about very complex theological matters. It should not be read in a vacuum or it will be misinterpreted and misunderstood. The book was designed to be the basis for local Catechisms and really isn’t designed to be read by rank-and-file laypersons.

It is very important, when writing on moral theology, to use specific terms such as “gravely disordered”. This signals certain things to moral theologians who can interpret the terminology. It would be an injustice to soften the terms or attempt to water them down just because they are misunderstood.

 

[27lw]

I guess, what would you have the church say? I can see that it’s important to be welcoming but it’s a perennial problem to welcome sinners while making them see how sinful they are

 

[OraLabora]

I guess, what would you have the church say?

Post #205.

 

[Anicette]

The specified audience for the Catechism is bishops.

I don’t completly agree.

Catechism target and should be read by bishops, but also all serious catholic should have an copy in their home after their Bible.

I believe that the Cathechism was written to create a doctrinal unity over all the local existing catechismsI It also cut all attempt to create news one, in order to subverse some doctrine (particaularly on moral topics).

So why not use shorter or slightly different local version, but in doubt the official version should prevails.

 

[Anesti33]

It is kind of like everyone having a copy of the DSM or PDR in their home, when there are publications such as Living with Depression or What You Should Know About Diabetes.

The PDR and DSM are written in a specific format, for a technically knowledgeable audience. They instruct a physician how to diagnose and treat disease. They use specific terminology that doctors will recognize and use.

People complain about terminology in the Catechism because they don’t understand it and it isn’t targeted to them as an audience. They have no standing to say how it is used.

 

[Montrose]

People complain about terminology in the Catechism because they don’t understand it and it isn’t targeted to them as an audience. They have no standing to say how it is used.

Then they can use the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Its in a question and answer format. Very easy to read and understand.

 

[OraLabora]

It is kind of like everyone having a copy of the DSM or PDR in their home, when there are publications such as Living with Depression or What You Should Know About Diabetes .

The Catechism itself states that it is of value to the laity. Although the Prologue does say its principal target is bishops and catechists, it also says “It is also useful reading for all faithful Christians” (my translation from my French copy).

The Compendium is more directed to the laity, it is similar in style and scope to the Baltimore Catechism, but that does not mean that the CCC itself should not be read by the laity.

 

[Maximian]

Actually it is an interesting fact that he “wrote in the dust”. It has often been taken that he was writing down the sins of the accusers, and that each was able to read what applied to him.

 

[27lw]

I understand the Church’s terminology. I am quite convinced however, that most LGBQT do not. Moreover it is difficult to separate the “disorder” from the person with the “disorder”, just as it is difficult to separate “diabetes” from “being a diabetic”.

If the Church wants to reach out to the LGBQT, which is its evangelical mandate, then she needs to speak in plain language, not with ecclesiastical nuances.

It means meeting them where they’re at and in welcoming and clear language.

How is the Church going to spring it on them that she views this kind of behavior as problematic?
Seems like lgbtqq people might be more upset at the bait and switch tactic?
I think I might be.

 

[OraLabora]

How is the Church going to spring it on them that she views this kind of behavior as problematic?
Seems like lgbtqq people might be more upset at the bait and switch tactic?
I think I might be.

I think many faithful have a highly reductive way of looking at the « rules ». You need a relationship with Christ first, recognizing that communion with this perfect man and Lord is a desirable state of being. As such the teachings of the Church become an ideal to strive for, not a set of rules to follow. The Church does have a duty to present to us the Christian ideal, in a loving manner, and exposing the tool to reach it: sacramental grace and always reinforcing God’s love for us, even when we fail. It is only when we love someone that we feel remorse for falling short of being loving.

Too many Catholics seem to want people to perfect themselves before entering the Church.

Imagine for an instant that the Church said being left-handed was a disorder, and writing with your left hand was a sin. (Sadly, it was the case for a long time in schools! My father was left-handed and was caned for writing with his left hand in school).

Imagine if we said, “sorry, you need to rid yourself of your left-handed writing before joining; it’s not a sin to have this disorder, but it’s a grave sin to write with your left hand”. How many southpaws would want to join the Church? The Church will have been reduced to an exclusive club for the already righteous. How many LGBGQT would want to join if we reduce the Church to a private club requiring adhesion to a difficult set of rules upon joining

Now if instead the Church said “it’s the ideal to be right handed as the natural order of the world is geared to right-handedness. If you’re left-handed, come anyway! We’ll teach you about Christ, and through his sacraments you will gradually become better at writing with your right hand. Even on days you have trouble and revert to your left hand, through Christ’s representative, the priest, you will be encouraged to keep trying and perfect your right-hand writing skills”.

Christian perfection may never be attained, but it’s something to strive for.