Homosexuality And Original Sin

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

One gets tangled in the meaning of words. If the person experiences no attraction to the opposite sex, and is sexually, attracted to the same sex, that is an unusual situation. Their sexual orientation would be labelled homosexual.

I do not mean to tangle words. I am being honestly curious.

The true definition of homosexuality is same-gender sexual conduct. A homosexual is a person who defines himself or herself by the participation in or desire to participate in such conduct.

It seems to be suggested that homosexual desire, inclination or orientation WITHOUT the conduct is harmless and acceptable. If that is the case then I see a person who does not participate in such conduct as a normal individual…until he/she does participate and becomes a homosexual.

 

[Rau]

I do not mean to tangle words. I am being honestly curious.

The true definition of homosexuality is same-gender sexual conduct. A homosexual is a person who defines himself or herself by the participation in or desire to participate in such conduct.

It seems to be suggested that homosexual desire, inclination or orientation WITHOUT the conduct is harmless and acceptable. If that is the case then I see a person who does not participate in such conduct as a normal individual…until he/she does participate and becomes a homosexual.

Though that is somewhat a definitional debate.

A strong inclination to something imtrinsically evil is evidently a “threat”, at least to one’s moral well-being. But we know it is not sin.

Your comments tend to suggest a preference to “close your eyes” to the unusual sexual orientation so long as the behaviour to which it is inclined is not exhibited (ie. It is resisted) On that basis, you call the “individual” normal, despite the situation under the surface.

I think it is evident that a persons’s sexual orientation is real. Upon inspecting our bodies, my conclusion is that it is normal for man to desire woman - the body and desires are then in harmony. When man desires man, and simultaneously experiences no desire for woman - I think that situation is sufficiently noteworthy to have a descriptor. Is the debate about what word to use?

 

[JimG]

It would seem that sexual orientation is a rather recent social construct.

 

[Rau]

It would seem that sexual orientation is a rather recent social construct.

The ready preparedness to “define a person” by that orientation is rather recent.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Then why was it removed? Tell me… and Rau would be happy to know also.

I maintain that the Church has never accepted or taught that homosexuality was innate. Therefore the phrase “They do not choose their homosexual condition.”** is in conflict with Catholic teaching**

Where did you find the reason that phrase was removed? Rau and I would like to know.

The phrasing I showed is definitely in conformance with Catholic teaching in its first draft, the problem was that it confused a lot of people in deciphering who had the right to know.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

The phrasing I showed is definitely in conformance with Catholic teaching in its first draft, the problem was that it confused a lot of people in deciphering who had the right to know.

So the error was one of confusion.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Though that is somewhat a definitional debate.

I think it is both logical and intuitively sound.

A strong inclination to something imtrinsically evil is evidently a “threat”, at least to one’s moral well-being. But we know it is not sin.

Yes…we know it is not a sin…but we are called to avoid the occasion of sin.

Your comments tend to suggest a preference to “close your eyes” to the unusual sexual orientation so long as the behaviour to which it is inclined is not exhibited (ie. It is resisted) On that basis, you call the “individual” normal, despite the situation under the surface.

Not exactly…we are “POTENTIAL” murderers until we commit murder.

I think it is evident that a persons’s sexual orientation is real. Upon inspecting our bodies, my conclusion is that it is normal for man to desire woman - the body and desires are then in harmony. When man desires man, and simultaneously experiences no desire for woman - I think that situation is sufficiently noteworthy to have a descriptor. Is the debate about what word to use?

No. But I would be careful with the term “sexual orientation”. Today that is a highly ambiguous term loaded with hidden false assumptions.

An “orientation” describes the perspective of a subject toward an object. A sexual orientation therefore describes a person (subject) by the object toward which they are sexually attracted: a homosexual is someone oriented toward someone of the same sex, a bisexual toward both sexes, a pedophile toward children, a sado-masochist toward giving or receiving pain, etc…

By definition, there are an unlimited number of potential sexual orientations. The “gay” community, however, arbitrarily recognizes only four orientations: heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, and transgendered (i.e. transvestites and transsexuals). Why?

Because to recognize other orientations, pedophilia, for example, would draw attention to the importance of distinguishing between orientation and conduct, when a major purpose of sexual orientation theory is to legitimize and protect homosexual conduct
by obscuring this distinction.

 

[Rau]

…Yes…we know it is not a sin…but we are called to avoid the occasion of sin.

Which we do mostly through actions and behaviour.

Not exactly…we are “POTENTIAL” murderers until we commit murder.

A man persistently taunted by a desire to murder, persistently attracted to the idea of murder, is a man with a condition Zoltan. We would give that condition a name.

By definition, there are an unlimited number of potential sexual orientations. The “gay” community, however, arbitrarily recognizes only four orientations: heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, and transgendered (i.e. transvestites and transsexuals). Why?

Because to recognize other orientations, pedophilia, for example, would draw attention to the importance of distinguishing between orientation and conduct, when a major purpose of sexual orientation theory is to legitimize and protect homosexual conduct
by obscuring this distinction.

Interesting as that may be, it sheds little light in the subject at hand, and perhaps more points to the desire of some to see homosexuality and related conditions as good and normal variants of humans, while emphasizing the distinction with universally unacceptable conditions such as Paedophilia.

For me, it is pretty clear that the orientation has an existence quite apart from the actions. As the Church says, for many it is a “trial”, and those affected deserve respect and compassion. These statements apply to all those affected, not just those who have sinned.

 

[Thorolfr]

The words “They do not choose their homosexual condition.” were removed because they opposed Catholic teachings. As such, Catholic and non-Catholic who are quoting those words, are using an old Catechism that is outdated and which contains errors. They should throw away that version of the Catechism and get a copy of the Second Edition to ensure that what they quote is in harmony with Catholic doctrines and teachings.

So there are different editions of the “fullness of Truth” and the Catholic Church does teach error sometimes?

 

[Rau]

So there are different editions of the “fullness of Truth” and the Catholic Church does teach error sometimes?

Personally I’d concur with the statement in question, however it is not a matter of faith and morals, and neither this or anything else that is taught is changed whether it is included or not included.

The “fullness of Truth” is not available to any of us yet - God’s revelation is not a single-shot affair. So yes, there are evolving “editions” of Truth, but they are not in conflict. In this, you point out the error in Zoltan’s post. If you’ve read the document Zoltan posted, you’d know that statement is not in conflict with the Church teaching.

The answer to the 2nd part of your question is of course…no.

 

[Rau]

…An “orientation” describes the perspective of a subject toward an object. A sexual orientation therefore describes a person (subject) by the object toward which they are sexually attracted: a homosexual is someone oriented toward someone of the same sex, a bisexual toward both sexes, a pedophile toward children… etc…

…The “gay” community, however, arbitrarily recognizes only four orientations: heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, and transgendered (i.e. transvestites and transsexuals). Why?

Because to recognize other orientations, pedophilia, for example, would draw attention to the importance of distinguishing between orientation and conduct, when a major purpose of sexual orientation theory is to legitimize and protect homosexual conduct
by obscuring this distinction.

In regard to pedophilia, I read [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia]:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia]

• It is discovered, not chosen;
• The cause is not known;
• There is no evidence that it is curable;
• People who commit child sex abuse sometimes exhibit the condition, but such abusers are not necessarily pedophiles unless their primary or exclusive sexual “interest” is prepubescent children.

Given the above, it is not surprising that pedophilia is regarded as a psychiatric condition. The person experiencing it might be drawn to engage with (abuse) a child which would be unacceptable to everyone.

The following is interesting:

*"…pedophilia has been described as a disorder of sexual preference, phenomenologically similar to a heterosexual or homosexual sexual orientation. These observations, however, do not exclude pedophilia from the group of mental disorders because pedophilic acts cause harm, and pedophiles can sometimes be helped by mental health professionals to refrain from acting on their impulses which cause harm to children.

In response to misinterpretations that the American Psychiatric Association considers pedophilia a sexual orientation because it renamed the disorder pedophilic disorder in its DSM-5 manual, the association stated: “’exual orientation’ is not a term used in the diagnostic criteria for pedophilic disorder and its use in the DSM-5 text discussion is an error and should read ‘sexual interest.’”*

The last paragraph suggests a delicate dance around issues of “political correctness”.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

So there are different editions of the “fullness of Truth” and the Catholic Church does teach error sometimes?

If and when an “error” occurs, the Church corrects it as soon as possible.

A good example was the publication of the Youth Catechism (YOUCAT) in 2011.

An excerpt from the CNA/EWTN New article:

"The publisher of the Italian-language edition of a youth catechism has pulled it from production because of a translation error implying the Catholic Church's approval of contraception.

"The book ‘YouCat’ was presented officially at a Vatican press conference on April 13. Nuova Citta, the catechism’s Italian publisher, has pulled the Italian copies to fix the error, the Associated Press reports. "The catechism, which teaches readers in a question-and-answer format, addresses fertility regulation in Question 420. "The Italian-language edition asked ‘Can a Christian couple have recourse to contraceptive methods?’ It answered ‘Yes, a Christian couple can and should be responsible in its faculty of being able to give life.’

"Father Joseph Fessio, SJ, the head of Ignatius Press, which is publishing ‘YouCat’ in English, said that the Italian version incorrectly translates the German word ‘empfängnisregelung.’ While the word literally means ‘birth regulation’ and can signify natural family planning, it is also sometimes used to refer to ‘birth control’ through contraceptive means. "The Italian version of the youth catechism wrongly rendered the German word as ‘metodi anticoncezionali,’ meaning 'contraceptive methods.’

"The Catholic Church has always opposed the use of contraception. In the official Catechism of the Catholic Church, its use is described as ‘intrinsically evil.’ " ‘The problem did not originate with the German text,’ Ignatius Press President Mark Brumley said in a statement on the publisher’s website, ‘at least not if the Italian translation is based on the same German text as that on which Ignatius Press based its translation.’ "The English and German versions of the youth catechism did not contain the error made in the Italian translation.

“Fr. Fessio told the AP the translation error was “an embarrassment” but not a change in Church teaching.” (CNA/EWTN News)

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

A man persistently taunted by a desire to murder, persistently attracted to the idea of murder, is a man with a condition Zoltan. We would give that condition a name.

Indeed we would…and strongly admonish him to NEVER act on his desire and attraction.

This is what troubles me about the pastoral nature of the Church on this issue. Those with homosexual tendencies must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.

While I have no argument with that, the call to chastity on their part should be more strongly emphasized.

Interesting as that may be, it sheds little light in the subject at hand, and perhaps more points to the desire of some to see homosexuality and related conditions as good and normal variants of humans, while emphasizing the distinction with universally unacceptable conditions such as Paedophilia.

That is a twist.

For me, it is pretty clear that the orientation has an existence quite apart from the actions. As the Church says, for many it is a “trial”, and those affected deserve respect and compassion. These statements apply to all those affected, not just those who have sinned.

I am glad you understand the “distinction”. Many do not.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

In regard to pedophilia, I read [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia]:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia]

• It is discovered, not chosen;
• The cause is not known;
• There is no evidence that it is curable;
• People who commit child sex abuse sometimes exhibit the condition, but such abusers are not necessarily pedophiles unless their primary or exclusive sexual “interest” is prepubescent children.

Given the above, it is not surprising that pedophilia is regarded as a psychiatric condition. The person experiencing it might be drawn to engage with (abuse) a child which would be unacceptable to everyone.

The following is interesting:

*"…pedophilia has been described as a disorder of sexual preference, phenomenologically similar to a heterosexual or homosexual sexual orientation. These observations, however, do not exclude pedophilia from the group of mental disorders because pedophilic acts cause harm, and pedophiles can sometimes be helped by mental health professionals to refrain from acting on their impulses which cause harm to children.

In response to misinterpretations that the American Psychiatric Association considers pedophilia a sexual orientation because it renamed the disorder pedophilic disorder in its DSM-5 manual, the association stated: “’exual orientation’ is not a term used in the diagnostic criteria for pedophilic disorder and its use in the DSM-5 text discussion is an error and should read ‘sexual interest.’”*

The last paragraph suggests a delicate dance around issues of “political correctness”.

Forgive me Rau, I should not have brought up Pedophilia. We are off on a tangent…let’s save it for another thread.

I DO agree with your final statement.

 

[Rau]

…This is what troubles me about the pastoral nature of the Church on this issue. Those with homosexual tendencies must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.

While I have no argument with that, the call to chastity on their part should be more strongly emphasized.

The call to chastity is pretty uniform in the catechism across all threats to it, and the CCC is abundantly clear about the evil of homosexual acts.

The clause you quote above appears to acknowledge the nature of the condition, the limitations it imposes on one’s capacity for an intimate life relationship and the trial it represents to many who experience it. I don’t think any of that is misplaced.

 

[LongingSoul]

Same sex attraction is an inclination to same sex acts. Thus, such sexual attraction is ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil – and it is the “object” of the inclination (those acts) which makes the inclination disordered. Thus, the inclination is described as “objectively disordered”.

I don’t feel that this accurately reflects the Churchs reason for using that particular language to explain the inclination towards same sex relations. It seems like a tautology to say that it is objectively disordered because the object is disordered.

The word objectively in all the dictionaries I perused, describe observing a thing without bias of any sort. It describes a fact that can be known through reason by all people, at all times, anywhere. So using the phrase ‘objectively disordered’ describes the inclination in an anthropological way rather than a theological way. The moral judgement of those inclinations is absent. A ‘disorder’ meaning outside the order of nature. Not ordered to fecundity and survival of species.

If the word ‘disorder’ can be interchangeable with the word evil, that would explain why homosexuals dislike the term ‘objectively disordered’ so much. I don’t believe that that’s the case though.

 

[Rau]

I don’t feel that this accurately reflects the Churchs reason for using that particular language to explain the inclination towards same sex relations. It seems like a tautology to say that it is objectively disordered because the object is disordered.

The word objectively in all the dictionaries I perused, describe observing a thing without bias of any sort. It describes a fact that can be known through reason by all people, at all times, anywhere. So using the phrase ‘objectively disordered’ describes the inclination in an anthropological way rather than a theological way. The moral judgement of those inclinations is absent. A ‘disorder’ meaning outside the order of nature. Not ordered to fecundity and survival of species.

If the word ‘disorder’ can be interchangeable with the word evil, that would explain why homosexuals dislike the term ‘objectively disordered’ so much. I don’t believe that that’s the case though.

It is no wonder that Church representatives commonly remark that they should re-examine the wording in the CCC on this subject - not to change the meaning of what is being said, simply to express it better - using more accessible and straightforward language.

Of interest is that the phrase “objectively disordered” appears exactly once in the CCC, whereas I think disorder/ed/s appears some 31 times. If the meaning is meant to be the “ordinary language” one you state above, I’d have no quibble with that statement either, so long as the inclination which is disordered is understood to be an “inclination to same sex sexual acts”.

From the 1986 Letter to the Bishops from the CDF:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html
*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. *

SSA contradicts nature’s (or as Aquinas would have it, the soul’s) natural inclination to the goods of married love and procreation.

SSA (understood to be an attraction to intrinsically disordered acts) is one step removed from an evil itself. It is “disordered” only because those acts are intrinsically disordered. SSA is not itself a moral disorder or a moral evil, but an inclination to such a thing.

Regardless, the range of interpretations we are discussing is (in my mind) 2nd order given I find either meaning is acceptable. [SSA is all the things we are considering “objectively disordered” might mean!]

Your commentary on “disorder”:
A ‘disorder’ meaning outside the order of nature. Not ordered to fecundity and survival of species

is really only pertinent in this context. Something is disordered if it is not directed to the good. The word arises throughout the Catechism eg:

1863 Venial sin weakens charity; it manifests a disordered affection for created goods;

1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just.

1761 There are concrete acts that it is always wrong to choose, because their choice entails a disorder of the will, i.e., a moral evil.

2317 Injustice, excessive economic or social inequalities, envy, distrust, and pride raging among men and nations constantly threaten peace and cause wars. Everything done to overcome these **disorders **contributes to building up peace and avoiding war:…

2424…The disordered desire for money cannot but produce perverse effects.

I believe various groups object to the word “disordered” in the context of homosexuality because to them it connotes a mental defect. Of course, were they to (correctly) understand “intrinsically disordered” as meaning “intrinsically evil”, they would object to that also!

 

[Sarah_B_Good]

Indeed we would…and strongly admonish him to NEVER act on his desire and attraction.

This is what troubles me about the pastoral nature of the Church on this issue. Those with homosexual tendencies must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.

While I have no argument with that, the call to chastity on their part should be more strongly emphasized.

That is a twist.

I am glad you understand the “distinction”. Many do not.

Do you have any support for your interpretation of the catechism (priest, scholar, anyone…) other than your own reasoning? I’ve never heard any Catholic authority interpret the Catechism in this manner.

 

[Rau]

Do you have any support for your interpretation of the catechism (priest, scholar, anyone…) other than your own reasoning? I’ve never heard any Catholic authority interpret the Catechism in this manner.

Sarah - I didn’t read him to be providing interpretation - just seeking the inclusion of a stronger statement about chastity than the one that is there. Could you elaborate on your point? **

 

[Sarah_B_Good]

Sarah - I didn’t read him to be providing interpretation - just seeking the inclusion of a stronger statement about chastity than the one that is there. Could you elaborate on your point? **

Perhaps I should have quoted more than just his last post, but it seems very clear from his comments on this thread that he believes the Catholic Church teaches that homosexual orientation is chosen. I would say that assertion conflicts with Catholic teaching, certainly as I have understood it.

And what is this “emphasis on chastity” really about? Is the catechism really so unclear about it? Is the argument, “well, I guess I can’t disagree with all that talk of compassion, yada, yada, but shouldn’t we just eliminate that part in order to put the emphasis on chastity? That’s the part of the Church’s teaching on homosexuality that’s actually important.”