Yet that is what is happening. I have chosen to not let things like this upset me because that leads to nothing but bad stuff like anger. Now that I no longer let these things bother me I am more at peace. A gay person living how they choose is not bothering me or anyone in any way what so ever that I can see.
No, they want to change the doctrine of the Church to allow gay marriage and an approval of their lifestyle and making it as normal as anyone else’s.
No reason not to find another word or phrase for “disordered”, “intrinsically disordered” and “objectively disordered”. The last of these terms is only used once in the Catechism (in referring to SSA) but the other 2 are used many times throughout the Catechism, across a wide range of topics. Any change in language would not alter the substance of what is being said.
The word is not specific to homosexuality. It is widely used in the Catechism. Access a .pdf copy of the catechism and do a search. You may find it illuminating.
You are begging the question “what does normal mean?”. I would argue that it is not normal for two men to engage in ejaculatory acts, given an exchange of gametes is intrinsic to the act, yet utterly flawed in light of the non-complementary nature of the participants, and the very biological nature of exchanging gametes.
Yes, except you said “sacraments and service.” Mass is not just Communion. This is the very point that your combining the two terms above misses. Yet you are not alone in this. We have pretty much gotten to the point that we just equate these two and that is part of the problem. Receiving communion is expected if one goes to Mass. I do know several adults that come to Mass with their spouse that are not Catholic that regularly do not receive communion.
I read the article, they didn’t ask for the Church to say gay sex is not a sin.
As the article gave us no evidence that they were not in favor of chastity I suggest we regard them with charity and assume they are in accordance with Church teachings unless given evidence otherwise.
The CCC on that thing is not very clear.
Excommunication is a medicinal punishment.
The church has been on the retreat for 80 years leaving us all - whatever viewpoint we are anxious to protect - high and dry.
Joie de Vivre said:
are you sure about that?
Yes, for Catholic marriage, infertility is not an impediment. Impotence is an impediment.are you sure about that?
Interesting. Is that spelled out somewhere? NM, I found a source.
Making it clear that it essentially refers to an act would not help that much due to human psychology.
And I could read Chaucer without any kind of gloss as a teenager, just because I could doesn’t mean it is normal for many adults. The CCC was put together in the 1980s by men in at least their 60s and directly translating the Latin which can make it difficult to parse sentences. The word disinterested is rarely if ever used in the present day the way the Catechism uses it. Usage of the word disordered suffers from he fact that while disorder and disordered have substantially different meanings they are often misunderstood to be the same word as they do not have truly separate words for it like other languages . People often misunderstand the word disordered to mean disorder as in menal disorder, I have had numerous arguments with people on this forum who sincerely believe that the Catechism says homosexuality is a mental disorder.
I understand your point, but I don’t think the comparison between the CCC’s language and Chaucer is the best. That’s quibbling though. I think there’s a possibility people are making it harder than it has to be. i can’t reread all your quotes at the moment, but did you suggest an alternative word that would be as succinct?
This is exactly why I think it should be changed.
The primary audience for the CCC is the Bishops around the world. The CCC is not a textbook but more of a reference manual. A reference manual for the Church should use the language of the Church and the philosophy of the Chuch just as a reference manual for psychologists (such as the DSM) should use the language of psychology and social science. “Disordered” has a very specific meaning in philosophical and theological terms. Bishops and theologians understand that and “speak” that language.
Even in everyday parlance, “disordered” does not mean mentally ill. A disorder can certainly stem from a psychological condition, but it can also be medical, moral or economic. You don’t infer that someone with a blood disorder, for example, is mentally ill. Why would mention of a disordered sexuality have to include that connotation?
I am curious as to how this will play out. Rhetoric has already been turned down a lot. I cannot see where it could go lower, except to go silent. The facts will remain either way.