Homosexuality Intrinsically Disordered?

[Prodigal_Son]

OP: How does Girl #2 feel about your relationship? What does she want? That’s important to know too.

“Girl #2.” Hehe. Just don’t mention “Girl #3”, or we’ll have a bunch of straight guys crashing this thread, and crowding round to watch.

 

[SoulSolace]

When answering the Pharisees regarding divorce, Jesus indeed gave a clear definition of marriage as follows;

Matthew 19 [4] Who answering, said to them: Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, Made them male and female? And he said: [5] For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh.

Notice he specifies that they were made both male and female for the purpose of marriage.
He could’ve left that part out, but I suppose he left it in for a reason.

God bless you in your journey and your struggles.
Attraction can be a powerful thing to overcome, but with God’s help, it can be done.

 

[johnmann]

We aren’t ordered exclusively towards heterosexuality. The Church says that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” Acts, not orientation. Our sexual organs are obviously ordered towards procreative sex which is exclusively heterosexual. Sex that’s not open to procreation is wrong because God apparently doesn’t like it. It’s not something we can wish or reason away. When you get to meet God, ask him why he didn’t like it when sex was only unitive.

 

[johnnyt3000]

Even if you end up believing that to act on these feelings physically would be a sin, that does not negate the very real connection you share. It’s clear you are not motivated by lust or perversity and do not let anyone, Catholic or not, claim that you are.

You didn’t just justify homosexual acts did you? It would depend on how you “act on these feelings physically” to be sin. If it was a hug then okay that’s fine we all hug each other especially out of love. But if you act on sexual temptation then that is sin regardless of how you believed you were “motivated” whether you see it as “love” or not, homosexual acts are sinful period.

 

[johnnyt3000]

We aren’t ordered exclusively towards heterosexuality. The Church says that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” Acts, not orientation. Our sexual organs are obviously ordered towards procreative sex which is exclusively heterosexual. Sex that’s not open to procreation is wrong because God apparently doesn’t like it. It’s not something we can wish or reason away. When you get to meet God, ask him why he didn’t like it when sex was only unitive.

Do you know what Divine Command is? It ask’s “Does God command it because it is good?” Or “Is it good because God commands it?” It’s not that “God apparently doesn’t like it”, think of biology, we have our sexual organs so we can reproduce, that’s what they’re for. Now think morality, if we learn to abuse our sexuality what’s next? Well look at everything sexually disordered that has happened because of the fall, rape, pornography, contraception, and abortion. God doesn’t just apparently command this or that for no reason, He commands things for our well being and for the well being of all humanity.

 

[johnmann]

Do you know what Divine Command is? It ask’s “Does God command it because it is good?” Or “Is it good because God commands it?” It’s not that “God apparently doesn’t like it”, think of biology, we have our sexual organs so we can reproduce, that’s what they’re for. Now think morality, if we learn to abuse our sexuality what’s next? Well look at everything sexually disordered that has happened because of the fall, rape, pornography, contraception, and abortion. God doesn’t just apparently command this or that for no reason, He commands things for our well being and for the well being of all humanity.

Except that sex is also unitive in purpose. If we achieve only one of the two goals of sex, that’s an abuse? We’re told that it is, so it is but it’s not logically necessary.

 

[Rau]

…For something so essential to our humanity, is there anywhere that Jesus says that? Specifically that sex has to be procreative?

Is sex essential to our humanity? What does this say for the single persons living a chaste life?

The Catholic Faith does not rely solely on things Jesus said (and which have been recorded). He created a Church to carry on his work. He gave it teaching authority.

The procreative nature of sex is somewhat intrinsic to the act (if it is not interfered with). Consider men - sex without ejaculation is not complete. But what point is ejaculation in a same sex relationship? The physiology is not so obvious in women, but even in this case, the female sex response is tuned to procreation - the female climax draws semen towards the cervix.

 

[Rau]

I think the greatest evidence that we are not ordered exclusively to heterosexuality …

I don’t think we would speak of a “person” being ordered to something. Usually it is an act, or a behaviour that is “ordered”. Which causes me to ask…

What do you mean by “we are not ordered exclusively to heterosexuality…”?

It is plain that we do not all experience heterosexual attractions. For some, the prospect of a heterosexual encounter is as repulsive as a homosexual encounter is to others. So plainly - some of us are very different from the majority. Is this what you refer to?

Or are you asking something about what God intends, or what God regards as proper and fitting?

It may be tempting to deduce an answer to the latter on the basis of the former realities. But recognise also that the former reality - in so far as attractions are concerned - sits in stark conflict with the bodies of the homosexually attracted persons. Their attractions and their bodies are “at odds” with each other. Something is amiss with that picture. Should persons be guided by their bodies or their deep-seated desires?

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

I don’t think we would speak of a “person” being ordered to something. Usually it is an act, or a behaviour that is “ordered”. Which causes me to ask…

What do you mean by “we are not ordered exclusively to heterosexuality…”?

It is plain that we do not all experience heterosexual attractions. For some, the prospect of a heterosexual encounter is as repulsive as a homosexual encounter is to others. So plainly - some of us are very different from the majority. Is this what you refer to?

Or are you asking something about what God intends, or what God regards as proper and fitting?

It may be tempting to deduce an answer to the latter on the basis of the former realities. But recognise also that the former reality - in so far as attractions are concerned - sits in stark conflict with the bodies of the homosexually attracted persons. Their attractions and their bodies are “at odds” with each other. Something is amiss with that picture. Should persons be guided by their bodies or their deep-seated desires?

Relationships aren’t just about sex.

 

[Rau]

Relationships aren’t just about sex.

Quite so, but the poster to whom I responded posited:

*I think the greatest evidence that we are not ordered exclusively to **heterosexuality **is the fact that you, and a great many others, were created by God **homosexual *or bisexual.

While these orientations may and do lead to (and influence) relationships which are not sexual, the formation of a “special and intimate and exclusive relationship”, consistent with the orientation, is most usually accompanied by sexual desire. [Hence my reference to the inconsistency of body and orientation in my last post.] There may be exceptions.

I cannot see sense in understanding the bolded terms as not encompassing the ‘sex partner’ preference - but I agree they mean more than that. While one’s orientation influences more than sex partner preference, it makes no sense to exclude that from the meaning of the term - they mostly go together. And, a lesbian preferring a man as sexual partner is not real.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Except that sex is also unitive in purpose. If we achieve only one of the two goals of sex, that’s an abuse? We’re told that it is, so it is but it’s not logically necessary.

Short answer: Once you separate the unitive and procreative aspects of sexuality by an act of will, then sex doesn’t genuinely unite people.** This rules out contraception. Now, gay people don’t separate these aspects by an act of will, but the procreative aspect is not available to them, which has the same result. The result is that lovemaking becomes excessively focused on pleasure and personal fulfillment.

God’s command is not arbitrary.

** Perhaps it would be better to say “does not reliably unite people”.

 

[Vico]

Short answer: Once you separate the unitive and procreative aspects of sexuality by an act of will, then sex doesn’t genuinely unite people.** This rules out contraception. Now, gay people don’t separate these aspects by an act of will, but the procreative aspect is not available to them, which has the same result. The result is that lovemaking becomes excessively focused on pleasure and personal fulfillment.

God’s command is not arbitrary.

** Perhaps it would be better to say “does not reliably unite people”.

The unitive aspect is also not present, because that requires the conjugal act by which a married couple “becomes one flesh”. CIC
Can. 1061 §1 A valid marriage between baptised persons is said to be merely ratified, if it is not consummated; ratified and consummated, if the spouses have in a human manner engaged together in a conjugal act in itself apt for the generation of offspring. To this act marriage is by its nature ordered and by it the spouses become one flesh.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I think the greatest evidence that we are not ordered exclusively to heterosexuality is the fact that you, and a great many others, were created by God homosexual or bisexual.

To me, that is much stronger evidence than interpretations of scripture or teachings of the church.

I know that virtually no one else on this form will agree with me, but that’s okay.

Of course, by your logic, the fact that individuals steal, kill, commit adultery or child abuse, lie and self-mutilate means that those individuals were created by God to be that way. Your logic bears with it some rather disturbing conclusions about God - not that that likely makes a difference to you as long as your poor logic can be used to rationalize what you want to believe.

We were created by God to be free moral agents who are responsible for our choices. The fact that individuals make poor moral choices means that God has made us free. He didn’t determine us to be a certain way - we choose to make ourselves by our choices. Those choices are those for which, as free moral agents, we will be held accountable.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

1. Potentially Useless Background Part of My Post:

This is more than a little–weird for me? I recently fell in love with a woman. We are both Catholic. Met doing charity work! Neither of us ever considered ourselves gay or bi or anything, but we both care very deeply for the other. We’re both being chaste, and truthfully the fact that we have such a strong relationship without sex I believe just affirms how much we authentically care for the other.

Let me just clarify. I was that jerk who would crack gay jokes, not thinking that someone in the room could be gay. I thought gay people couldn’t possibly actually love each other, it had to be lust. i.e. bullet train to Hell sorta thing.

…so this has been really humbling. Thanks be to God for that, I am obviously quite the sinner.

2.) QUESTION!

Not surprisingly I’ve been having doubts about the church’s teaching on homosexuality. I’ve watched Theology of the Body, read Encyclicals, of course read the Bible etc. It’s been a several months.

I’m looking for a document/bible verse/anything really that shows that we are ordered exclusively** towards heterosexuality. Something that shows that even an act intending to be unitive between a loving monogamous homosexual couple is disordered and wrong.

Sidenote:

If someone wants to use Romans 1:26-27 please explain

1. Why Paul uses the same Greek word for nature in 1 Corinthians 11:13-16
2. Why that particular passage is about homosexuality and not a pagan ritual orgy.

Many thanks in advance for any and all assistance and mercy!

Just a few particulars. I would recommend Raymond F. Collins (a Professor of New Testament) Sexual Ethics and the New Testament (2000).

He consistently brings to light what Paul and other the NT authors actually conveyed by their words in context.

He agrees that homosexual behavior was a known fact of the ancient world, and goes on to note that there was a Jewish consensus against such behavior well before the time of Christ (pp. 90-1, 137). Even non-biblical Jewish writings as far back as 250 BC distinguished the Jews from Gentiles by the fact that Jews did not engage in homosexual activity (102-3, 132, 134-5, 138). Collins stresses that Paul was aware of this consensus and built on it in his own writing (137).

Secondly, while it is self-evident that Paul’s generation did not know the Medieval formulation of the natural law, it is equally true that natural law theory goes back significantly before Christ to the Stoic idea of a “law of nature.” Roman writers later took over this idea. Cicero 50 years before Christ wrote one classic expression of it in De Legibus. Professor Collins observes that two Jewish contemporaries of Paul, Philo of Alexandria a philosopher and Flavius Josephus an historian, as well as Paul himself speak about “nature” (physis in Greek) with regard to homosexual activity (136, 144 n30). Philo and Josephus speak about homosexual acts as being against the laws of nature, and Paul also speaks (Rom 1:26-27) about them as being para physin, which is correctly translated as “against or contrary to nature” (136-7, 144 n31). Collins goes on to say that by using the word physis these three were bringing themselves into dialogue with the philosophers of the time who emphasized a law of nature in their sexual ethics (136, 191). Further unlike most OT, Rabbinic, and Classical authors who discuss and proscribe only male homosexual activity Paul includes a rejection lesbian activity as well in Romans (140, 145 n41).

In the classical world kata physis means “according to nature” or “normal.” “Normal” is especially common in medical literature. Para physis means “against nature” or “abnormal.” These phrases are used in the classical world in ethical judgments “above all with reference to sexual failings.” Normal sexual intercourse is kata physis while abnormal is para physis. [Gerhard Kittle, ed., *Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 10 vols. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm R. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1968-74), vol. IX, p. 262-263.]

According to Collins, it goes beyond the evidence of Paul’s words to claim his writings merely forbid certain actions while making no reference to one’s inclinations (142). Paul’s use of physis means what is natural by God’s creative intent in human beings (142, 192). This coincides with Jesus’ vision of sexuality–that from the beginning it is heterosexual and within marriage (27, 32, 187).

Regarding the word arsenokoitai (1 Cor 6:9), Collins’ conclusion, based upon studies of the word, is that Paul may have coined the word arsenokoitai and etymologically it means “bedding down with a man” (89). The Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek lexicon indicates that this neologism of Paul’s seems to be a Greek translation of the Hebrew miškab zakûr used in rabbinic texts based on Lv 18:22, i.e., “lying with a man as with a woman” (99 n70).

 

[polytropos]

The Church’s position on homosexuality is derived from both the Old Testament and the letters of Saint Paul.

The Church’s position is also derived from natural law arguments, which have antecedents (for example) in Aristotle.

God’s covenant with His Church is also consistently likened throughout the Bible to a spousal marriage, where the Church is the bridge of Christ. While it might be possible to try to read some of the direct prohibitions against homosexuality as historically contingent statements (I am not really qualified to assess this, though it seems doubtful to me), the true difficulty that homosexuality poses seems to be that its acceptance would require a rejection of that covenental understanding of the Church. That strikes much more deeply at the structure and substance of Christianity.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Just a few particulars. I would recommend Raymond F. Collins (a Professor of New Testament) Sexual Ethics and the New Testament (2000).

He consistently brings to light what Paul and other the NT authors actually conveyed by their words in context.

He agrees that homosexual behavior was a known fact of the ancient world, and goes on to note that there was a Jewish consensus against such behavior well before the time of Christ (pp. 90-1, 137). Even non-biblical Jewish writings as far back as 250 BC distinguished the Jews from Gentiles by the fact that Jews did not engage in homosexual activity (102-3, 132, 134-5, 138). Collins stresses that Paul was aware of this consensus and built on it in his own writing (137).

Secondly, while it is self-evident that Paul’s generation did not know the Medieval formulation of the natural law, it is equally true that natural law theory goes back significantly before Christ to the Stoic idea of a “law of nature.” Roman writers later took over this idea. Cicero 50 years before Christ wrote one classic expression of it in De Legibus. Professor Collins observes that two Jewish contemporaries of Paul, Philo of Alexandria a philosopher and Flavius Josephus an historian, as well as Paul himself speak about “nature” (physis in Greek) with regard to homosexual activity (136, 144 n30). Philo and Josephus speak about homosexual acts as being against the laws of nature, and Paul also speaks (Rom 1:26-27) about them as being para physin, which is correctly translated as “against or contrary to nature” (136-7, 144 n31). Collins goes on to say that by using the word physis these three were bringing themselves into dialogue with the philosophers of the time who emphasized a law of nature in their sexual ethics (136, 191). Further unlike most OT, Rabbinic, and Classical authors who discuss and proscribe only male homosexual activity Paul includes a rejection lesbian activity as well in Romans (140, 145 n41).

In the classical world kata physis means “according to nature” or “normal.” “Normal” is especially common in medical literature. Para physis means “against nature” or “abnormal.” These phrases are used in the classical world in ethical judgments “above all with reference to sexual failings.” Normal sexual intercourse is kata physis while abnormal is para physis. [Gerhard Kittle, ed., *Theological Dictionary of the New Testament

, 10 vols. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm R. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1968-74), vol. IX, p. 262-263.]

According to Collins, it goes beyond the evidence of Paul’s words to claim his writings merely forbid certain actions while making no reference to one’s inclinations (142). Paul’s use of physis means what is natural by God’s creative intent in human beings (142, 192). This coincides with Jesus’ vision of sexuality–that from the beginning it is heterosexual and within marriage (27, 32, 187).

Regarding the word arsenokoitai (1 Cor 6:9), Collins’ conclusion, based upon studies of the word, is that Paul may have coined the word arsenokoitai and etymologically it means “bedding down with a man” (89). The Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek lexicon indicates that this neologism of Paul’s seems to be a Greek translation of the Hebrew miškab zakûr used in rabbinic texts based on Lv 18:22, i.e., “lying with a man as with a woman” (99 n70).

Very helpful breakdown. Thanks!

One thing to add: in Plato’s Laws, he also specifically refers to homosexual acts – and there is no question he is lumping together adult-with-adult acts in the same boat as pederasty – as against nature. I haven’t looked it up, but I would guess that “para physis” is used in that case, too.

For the ancients, it was assumed, I think, that sodomy was against nature. But this didn’t end the conversation, for them, since some ancients argued that it was fine to do things against nature – in fact, if I recall correctly, the Cynics specifically lauded doing things against nature.

 

[One_point]

1. Potentially Useless Background Part of My Post:

This is more than a little–weird for me? I recently fell in love with a woman. We are both Catholic. Met doing charity work! Neither of us ever considered ourselves gay or bi or anything, but we both care very deeply for the other. We’re both being chaste, and truthfully the fact that we have such a strong relationship without sex I believe just affirms how much we authentically care for the other.

Let me just clarify. I was that jerk who would crack gay jokes, not thinking that someone in the room could be gay. I thought gay people couldn’t possibly actually love each other, it had to be lust. i.e. bullet train to Hell sorta thing.

…so this has been really humbling. Thanks be to God for that, I am obviously quite the sinner.

2.) QUESTION!

Not surprisingly I’ve been having doubts about the church’s teaching on homosexuality. I’ve watched Theology of the Body, read Encyclicals, of course read the Bible etc. It’s been a several months.

I’m looking for a document/bible verse/anything really that shows that we are ordered exclusively** towards heterosexuality. Something that shows that even an act intending to be unitive between a loving monogamous homosexual couple is disordered and wrong.

Sidenote:

If someone wants to use Romans 1:26-27 please explain

1. Why Paul uses the same Greek word for nature in 1 Corinthians 11:13-16
2. Why that particular passage is about homosexuality and not a pagan ritual orgy.

Many thanks in advance for any and all assistance and mercy!

What shows we are ordered exclusively towards heterosexuality is our objective human nature, centrally, our bodies. If you want a verse you need look no further than Genesis: In his own image, created he man, male and female he created them. He then brings them together and orders them to be fruitfuil and multiply. Exactly what about homosexual affairs is either 1) objectively complementary, male and female or 2) fruitfuil or ordered towards fruitfulness?

Our natures are an objective reality beyond our subjective feelings and desires. Our bodies reveal we are heterosexual by nature. It is why homosexual feelings are disordered. They contradict that clear fact of our nature objectively discernible to any reasonable person.

One has a body designed for sexual union with a man, but she has feelings that tell her to use it instead for sexual union with a woman in an inherently sterile/fruitless manner. The feelings she has clearly contradict the design of her nature. They are therefor disordered, not following the order of her own nature. Do they have one designer? Clearly not because they are in direct contradiction to each other. So the question is which of those two did God design and where did the other one come from?

These feelings they are part of the weakness of the flesh that is caused by original sin. We all, all of us, have these disordered feelings. we call then the flesh. What you have to understand is that humans are not a perfectly “healthy” creature. Since original sin, we are all ailing in one form or another. The worst thing about propagandists of this gay agenda (Yes there is an agenda to force everyone to say homosexuality is not disordered! we are not living in a cave this is a clear fact for everyone who has access to media), the worst thing is that they operate under this false assumption that anything you do not deliberately will (like feelings) is God-designed. That is false. I have anger issues, personally. And I can assure you I do not chose the intense feeling of rage that occurs occasionally. I understand it is a symptom of PTSD and not my fault (at lest not all the time anyway) but I do not believe that my anger is designed by God. You should not be fooled into believing disordered feelings are designed by God.Feelings are neutral but can manifest in a way clearly contradictory to God’s design and our own objective good. God will never punish you for something you did not chose, any more than a parent will punish their child for missing class because they had a headache. But God offers healing (we call it grace) and help to resist it.

For example, as a good Catholic, finding yourself in your current situatin. Srely that is an occasion of sin for you and for this woman you say you have fallen in love with. Is it wise to continue that friendship? True love is willing the highest good of another, which is heaven and salvation. Is your continued association likely to help or hinder that? For example, you are now questioning whether homosexuality really is against God’s will. I’m not saying you will, but that is already sign that you may begin on a path that may not end up with you as a catholic or as an orthodox catholic. In any case, I will pray for both you and this woman to both be healed and set free from this and other bondages of this world and all of us too. I know many may be offended by my post, but that is not my intention.

 

[sw85]

I wish I had some concrete advice. The only real “official” Catholic understanding of homosexuality is the passage you quoted from the catechism. It doesn’t leave much leeway and can feel disheartening. The Church’s position on homosexuality is derived from both the Old Testament and the letters of Saint Paul. Both sources can be interpreted a million different ways. The Episcopal Church reads those passages very differently than the Catholic Church.

Just to correct this really quickly – the Church’s “official” position is rooted as well in its understanding of the natural law, and has enjoyed the morally unanimous consent of the bishops, the faithful, and all Popes and councils that have weighed in on the matter since literally the beginning of the Church. There are very few teachings which are more authoritative than this one.

As for Scripture, the Catholic Church alone interprets Scripture authoritatively – the latest Episcopalian reading-of-the-moment has exactly zero authority.

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

My $.02: I look at homosexuality as a form of mental illness. For which we must have compassion as we do for victims of other mental illnesses that people can be born with. Such as autism, retardation, schizophrenia, etc., which are all different manifestations of intrinsically disordered minds.

 

[HappyCatholic01]

Of course, by your logic, the fact that individuals steal, kill, commit adultery or child abuse, lie and self-mutilate means that those individuals were created by God to be that way. Your logic bears with it some rather disturbing conclusions about God - not that that likely makes a difference to you as long as your poor logic can be used to rationalize what you want to believe.

We were created by God to be free moral agents who are responsible for our choices. The fact that individuals make poor moral choices means that God has made us free. He didn’t determine us to be a certain way - we choose to make ourselves by our choices. Those choices are those for which, as free moral agents, we will be held accountable.

This was pointed out on page one, and usually gets ignored. The existence of something in creation is not a sign of it being the end result of God’s desire for that individual.

Also often ignored is the stressing of compassion for those with a homosexual inclination, but not the numerous other inclinations that people have supreme difficulty in controlling - alcoholism, the rampant use of pornography, pedophilia, or any other drive that is not ordered towards god’s plan for the individual.

Note that in the topics that discuss a hsuband or no-married man abusing pornography, the tone is generally much for harsh and critical than the topics discussing someone struggling with homosexual tendencies. Why is that?