Homosexuality Intrinsically Disordered?

[Prodigal_Son]

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?

I’m all for gentleness in both cases, but…

Men who look at straight porn aren’t often made to feel evil for their mere appreciation of the female form (aside from the porn). Gay men and women, in contrast, have to deal with large (though decreasing!) portions of the Christian who do not believe that they have the power to act virtuously, and moreover often believe that the very attraction to people of the same sex is evil.

So I don’t think the extra compassion for gay people goes amiss. (Although you mention the temptation to pedophilia, which is similar to gay temptation in being an objective disorder, but makes those who suffer from it feel even more isolated, I imagine. If there were any way to show people who unwillingly suffer from pedophilia real compassion, this would seem to be a VERY good and very Christian idea.)

 

[Brendan]

PAUSE. The permanently impotent cannot validly marry if the impotence precedes the wedding?! Can you give me a link or reference?! I never knew that!

Canon 1084.1 Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have sexual intercourse, whether on the part of the man or on that of the woman, whether absolute or relative, by its very nature invalidates marriage.

Canon 1084.2 If the impediment of impotence is doubtful, whether the doubt be one of law or one of fact, the marriage is not to be prevented nor, while the doubt persists, is it to be declared null.

Canon 1084.3 Without prejudice to the provisions of canon 1098, sterility neither forbids nor invalidates a marriage.

 

[Setimet]

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P3Y.HTM

Emphasis mine. Hope you find the information you’re looking for . Feel free to PM me if you have any specific questions!

Thank you for the reference. I think I was confused. I thought impotence and sterility were synonymous. I noticed two points beneath it is “Sterility neither prohibits nor nullifies marriage, without prejudice to the prescript of can.1098” (1098 is about being malicious deceived by a partner to enter into a marriage contract)

So…basically the church is very clear that sterility does not prohibit marriage

P.S. Regarding girl she feels exactly the same way. …and I loled/true story at whoever joked about “girl three”

 

[Vico]

Thank you for the reference. I think I was confused. I thought impotence and sterility were synonymous. I noticed two points beneath it is “Sterility neither prohibits nor nullifies marriage, without prejudice to the prescript of can.1098” (1098 is about being malicious deceived by a partner to enter into a marriage contract)

So…basically the church is very clear that sterility does not prohibit marriage

P.S. Regarding girl she feels exactly the same way. …and I loled/true story at whoever joked about “girl three”

No need to be puzzled. The married man and woman must be capable of becoming one flesh, which does not require fertility, but is ordered to creation of children.

See post 32 for the canon law: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12128637&postcount=32

 

[Rau]

No need to be puzzled. The married man and woman must be capable of becoming one flesh…

See post 32 for the canon law: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12128637&postcount=32

“Becoming one flesh” - who has defined what that phrase means? Arguably, a couple become one flesh when they conceive a child - the child is (literally) the one flesh.

More metaphorically, it suggests “become a team”, a single functioning “unit”.

But it seems to commonly be used to mean “engage in coitus”, and the mutual right to possess each other’s body.

 

[One_point]

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”.

What is meant by saying gay couples don’t separate the two by an act of will? I think you may have used the wrong description? Unless there is rape involved, do not them all gay couples, persons who mustubate and contraceptive using couples all separate the two by an act of the will. By deliberate engaging in sexual activity that is inherently sterile. They just go about that separating in different ways, intefereing with the body eliminating the natural prtner or using an unnatural partner. For rape it is the rapist whose act of will does it and not the victim.

 

[Vico]

“Becoming one flesh” - who has defined what that phrase means? Arguably, a couple become one flesh when they conceive a child - the child is (literally) the one flesh.

More metaphorically, it suggests “become a team”, a single functioning “unit”.

But it seems to commonly be used to mean “engage in coitus”, and the mutual right to possess each other’s body.

The Church defined it in Can. 1061 §1 “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.”

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Originally Posted by naomily View Post
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.

The Church’s position on homosexuality is **Catholic because it is true, not true because it is Catholic. **

This is expressed in the words of the bishop, St. Cyril of Jerusalem: “The Church teaches fully and unfailingly all the doctrines which ought to be brought to men’s knowledge, whether concerned with visible or invisible things, with the realities of heaven or the things of earth.”

In other words, the conclusion that homosexuality is intrinsically disordered is is based on the truth, not just on Catholic teaching.

Yet, saying that makes this conclusion all the more controversial.

If it were based simply on Catholic teaching, opponents could say: “You Catholics are entitled to your opinion, but that is not binding on others.” Instead, we are saying that truth is the reason that homosexuality is intrinsically disordered.

If you acknowledge that truth exists, then we can discuss and even argue about whether or not Zoltan or the Catholic Church correctly understands the truth of this matter. But if you deny that there is such a thing as truth, that is,** the truth**, not just my truth or your truth, then the matter becomes merely an exercise of raw political power in terms of who has more votes to impose an agenda, and that is what makes it ultimately tyrannical.

 

[Rau]

The Church’s position on homosexuality is **Catholic because it is true, not true because it is Catholic. **

This is expressed in the words of the bishop, St. Cyril of Jerusalem: “The Church teaches fully and unfailingly all the doctrines which ought to be brought to men’s knowledge, whether concerned with visible or invisible things, with the realities of heaven or the things of earth.”

In other words, the conclusion that homosexuality is intrinsically disordered is is based on the truth, not just on Catholic teaching.

Yet, saying that makes this conclusion all the more controversial.

If it were based simply on Catholic teaching, opponents could say: “You Catholics are entitled to your opinion, but that is not binding on others.” Instead, we are saying that truth is the reason that homosexuality is intrinsically disordered.

If you acknowledge that truth exists, then we can discuss and even argue about whether or not Zoltan or the Catholic Church correctly understands the truth of this matter. But if you deny that there is such a thing as truth, that is,** the truth**, not just my truth or your truth, then the matter becomes merely an exercise of raw political power in terms of who has more votes to impose an agenda, and that is what makes it ultimately tyrannical.

Only homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. The homosexual inclination is objectively disordered and not sinful.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Only homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. The homosexual inclination is objectively disordered and not sinful.

Homosexuality is defined as same-gender sexual conduct. By extension, a homosexual is defined as anyone who engages or desires to engage in such conduct.

Therefore, the statement: “Homosexuality is intrinsically disordered” would be true…would it not?

 

[Rau]

Homosexuality is defined as same-gender sexual conduct. By extension, a homosexual is defined as anyone who engages or desires to engage in such conduct.

Therefore, the statement: “Homosexuality is intrinsically disordered” would be true…would it not?

It is very important to distinguish the non sinful inclination from the sinful acts, and thus to use language that cannot give the wrong impression.

Engaging in homosexual acts is not at all a prerequisite to be homosexual.

The catechism, when speaking of disorders, is careful to focus on “acts” and the “inclination”, for just this reason.

 

[EasterJoy]

Homosexuality is defined as same-gender sexual conduct. By extension, a homosexual is defined as anyone who engages or desires to engage in such conduct.

Therefore, the statement: “Homosexuality is intrinsically disordered” would be true…would it not?

I am going to guess and it is certainly possible that the inclination to same-sex attraction is often (although not always) only one feature typical among many that could be linked to a certain hormonal make-up or a certain collection of physical structures in the brain, a human make-up that leaves the person no more or less inclined to serious sin than is typical of a human being. The point is, however, that a sin is not less serious in those who might be less culpable because of their temperament or brain type–and more to the point, there may be no having the rest of the make-up without having this unfortunate inclination to cope with.

Let us say someone has an atypical amount of the hormone testosterone. They might be more moody and more prone to act out anger in a physical way. They might also be bolder, more courageous, physically stronger, and so on. If such a person is not insane, they are morally bound to avoid the serious sins that anger can leave someone prone to. That doesn’t mean such a person is more “intrinsically disordered” than anyone else. It is just as correct to say that such a person is more intrinsically ordered towards courage than a typical person is. Each of us is a coin with two sides.

It may be that the disorder is in concentrating too much on a person’s sexual orientation at the expense of every other part of their nature, many aspects of which might facilitate some virtue or useful talent in atypical strength, once the person has their difficult side mastered.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Homosexuality is defined as same-gender sexual conduct. By extension, a homosexual is defined as anyone who engages or desires to engage in such conduct.

Therefore, the statement: “Homosexuality is intrinsically disordered” would be true…would it not?

Homosexual refers to sexual actions as much as disinterested refers to apathy.

 

[sirach2v4]

Your logic is flawed my friend.

It is not a fact that God created a person homosexual. To have a feeling to do something doesn’t define a persons ontologicaly. That is not the core of their being. If I- let’s say for the sake of argument- have anger issues and feel thast I need to kill Mary Poppins and any other person that annoys me, and then decide I will act on it, will that prove that God created me a serial killer. No, I think not.

Homosexuality flies in the face of reason and the natural law which are standards of truth which even intelligent atheists would be able to comfortably accept as being authoratative.

My two denarius.

Once again I call attention to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the deposit of faith, which also includes the following paragraph

1735 Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors.

I continue to point out in these threads on homosexuality that all homosexual acts may not be mortal sins, as specified by paragraph 1735. This paragraph is about God’s mercy and no one, NO ONE, can pre-judge how God assesses the sinfulness of someone with a homosexual inclination.

I have sought clarification on this paragraph from priests and even here in the “ask an apologist” forum, and, so far, I haven’t seen a reply. Until someone can convince me that this words are not to be taken in their ordinary meaning, then I cannot see how homosexual acts can be universally condemned by mankind.

Certainly there are psychological and social factors, inordinate attachments, and, I think, a lot of duress when one is living with an incurable attraction to members of the same sex.

I mean, I don’t even see anyone who comments on the half-dozen or so posts where I have previously explained this.

Biblically, there’s the whole issue that we are not bound to the law – not to circumcision or sacrificing animals or observing laws of ritual uncleanness, etc. So, no one has given the Biblical argument why these aspects of the oral Torah, mentioned in Leviticus, are still operative.

In the literal aspect, individuals who are exclusively homosexual do NOT lie with a man AS WITH A WOMAN – because they are incapable of relations with a woman.

Outside of Catholicism, in Judaism, orthodox teachers emphasize that non-Jews are not even supposed to try to observe the law, with its positive laws and with its negative laws – what Jews are supposed to do and what Jews are not supposed to do --because the Sinai covenant WAS WITH THE ISRAELITE PEOPLE ALONE. They were selected among the nations to be God’s people. Anyone can read this directly in the Bible.

And, does it not also say in the Torah that no one is to add to it or take away from it? Isn’t expanding it to Catholics violating the same Torah which says not to do that?

Yes, Pope Benedict rolls his eyes and dismisses these kinds of arguments – because he can not and could not explain them away. No one wants to be the Pope who says that he won’t approve of homosexual acts, but he cannot absolutely condemn them, in people who have such strong carnal inclinations.

I have an open mind, trust me. But, 1735 is in MY catechism. Isn’t it in yours?

 

[One_point]

Once again I call attention to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the deposit of faith, which also includes the following paragraph

1735 Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors.

I continue to point out in these threads on homosexuality that all homosexual acts may not be mortal sins, as specified by paragraph 1735. This paragraph is about God’s mercy and no one, NO ONE, can pre-judge how God assesses the sinfulness of someone with a homosexual inclination.

I have sought clarification on this paragraph from priests and even here in the “ask an apologist” forum, and, so far, I haven’t seen a reply. Until someone can convince me that this words are not to be taken in their ordinary meaning, then I cannot see how homosexual acts can be universally condemned by mankind.

Certainly there are psychological and social factors, inordinate attachments, and, I think, a lot of duress when one is living with an incurable attraction to members of the same sex.

I mean, I don’t even see anyone who comments on the half-dozen or so posts where I have previously explained this.

Biblically, there’s the whole issue that we are not bound to the law – not to circumcision or sacrificing animals or observing laws of ritual uncleanness, etc. So, no one has given the Biblical argument why these aspects of the oral Torah, mentioned in Leviticus, are still operative.

In the literal aspect, individuals who are exclusively homosexual do NOT lie with a man AS WITH A WOMAN – because they are incapable of relations with a woman.

Outside of Catholicism, in Judaism, orthodox teachers emphasize that non-Jews are not even supposed to try to observe the law, with its positive laws and with its negative laws – what Jews are supposed to do and what Jews are not supposed to do --because the Sinai covenant WAS WITH THE ISRAELITE PEOPLE ALONE. They were selected among the nations to be God’s people. Anyone can read this directly in the Bible.

And, does it not also say in the Torah that no one is to add to it or take away from it? Isn’t expanding it to Catholics violating the same Torah which says not to do that?

Yes, Pope Benedict rolls his eyes and dismisses these kinds of arguments – because he can not and could not explain them away. No one wants to be the Pope who says that he won’t approve of homosexual acts, but he cannot absolutely condemn them, in people who have such strong carnal inclinations.

I have an open mind, trust me. But, 1735 is in MY catechism. Isn’t it in yours?

Homosexuality is designated a grave sin both in the old and new testaments. It is certainly an obligation of the new covenant of Christians as well as the old.

 

[One_point]

Only homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. The homosexual inclination is objectively disordered and not sinful.

What does this mean, intrinsically disordered versus objectively disordered? Perhaps if someone explained what they mean when they distinguish these two as different in meaning then the confusion would be much less.

 

[SoulSolace]

Once again I call attention to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the deposit of faith, which also includes the following paragraph

1735 Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors.

I continue to point out in these threads on homosexuality that all homosexual acts may not be mortal sins, as specified by paragraph 1735. This paragraph is about God’s mercy and no one, NO ONE, can pre-judge how God assesses the sinfulness of someone with a homosexual inclination.

I have sought clarification on this paragraph from priests and even here in the “ask an apologist” forum, and, so far, I haven’t seen a reply. Until someone can convince me that this words are not to be taken in their ordinary meaning, then I cannot see how homosexual acts can be universally condemned by mankind.

Certainly there are psychological and social factors, inordinate attachments, and, I think, a lot of duress when one is living with an incurable attraction to members of the same sex.

I mean, I don’t even see anyone who comments on the half-dozen or so posts where I have previously explained this.

Biblically, there’s the whole issue that we are not bound to the law – not to circumcision or sacrificing animals or observing laws of ritual uncleanness, etc. So, no one has given the Biblical argument why these aspects of the oral Torah, mentioned in Leviticus, are still operative.

In the literal aspect, individuals who are exclusively homosexual do NOT lie with a man AS WITH A WOMAN – because they are incapable of relations with a woman.

Outside of Catholicism, in Judaism, orthodox teachers emphasize that non-Jews are not even supposed to try to observe the law, with its positive laws and with its negative laws – what Jews are supposed to do and what Jews are not supposed to do --because the Sinai covenant WAS WITH THE ISRAELITE PEOPLE ALONE. They were selected among the nations to be God’s people. Anyone can read this directly in the Bible.

And, does it not also say in the Torah that no one is to add to it or take away from it? Isn’t expanding it to Catholics violating the same Torah which says not to do that?

Yes, Pope Benedict rolls his eyes and dismisses these kinds of arguments – because he can not and could not explain them away. No one wants to be the Pope who says that he won’t approve of homosexual acts, but he cannot absolutely condemn them, in people who have such strong carnal inclinations.

I have an open mind, trust me. But, 1735 is in MY catechism. Isn’t it in yours?

The words of Jesus himself reflects the Old Testament teaching, though he was answering the Pharisees regarding divorce, he specified the reason that mankind was created as male and female; 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. 6 Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh.

 

[Rau]

What does this mean, intrinsically disordered versus objectively disordered? Perhaps if someone explained what they mean when they distinguish these two as different in meaning then the confusion would be much less.

Courtesy of Deo Volente:

• The catechism uses two words to describe two different things when it comes to the “disorder” of homosexuality: “intrinsically” and “objectively.” In this context, these two words are not synonyms, but carefully chosen descriptors. The catechism describes homosexual genital acts as “intrinsically disordered” while describing the homosexual inclination to those acts as “objectively disordered.” The difference is this: “intrinsic” describes a thing in itself and is appropriate to describe an act while “objective” describes the object of a desire (or an inclination for a particular act or thing) and is appropriate to describe a desire or an inclination. That is: homosexual genital expression is seen as having no intrinsic moral value and is thus intrinsically disordered, therefore any inclination which has as its object homosexual genital expression will be disordered according to its object–i.e., it will be objectively disordered.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12132676&postcount=161

 

[Rau]

Once again I call attention to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the deposit of faith, which also includes the following paragraph

1735 Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors.

I continue to point out in these threads on homosexuality that all homosexual acts may not be mortal sins, as specified by paragraph 1735. This paragraph is about God’s mercy and no one, NO ONE, can pre-judge how God assesses the sinfulness of someone with a homosexual inclination…

What are you trying to demonstrate ,or repudiate, by reference to 1735?

1735 says nothing at all about the morality of any act. Nothing about whether the faithful should strive to avoid immoral acts, or to confess immoral acts. Whether a sin is mortal, whether or not one’s unconfessed act will see them lost, is not anything that humans can answer. This is God’s exclusive domain. This is what it means to “not judge”.

Homosexual acts are gravely immoral. Beyond that - God will judge.

 

[JamalChristophr]

I’m not, nor do I believe, anyone on this thread is condemning the persons who may be acting out homosexual behavior. It is true- there are circumstances that can mitigate this sin, but I do believe that a person with same-sex attraction should try their level-best to live in harmony with God’s Will, which is to say, with God’s Law. I realize for many it’s extremely difficult. But with God’s Grace, all things are possible!

Though I don’t know a lot about it. Groups like “courage” seem to be a great means for people with same-sex attraction to strive for holiness in all aspects of their lives.

couragerc.net/courage/about/