Homosexuality--Why the Arguments and Theories Don't Matter

[Deo_Volente]

…CONTINUED AND COMPLETED]

1. I finally understand what Jesus meant when He speaks of better to enter Heaven without a hand than burn in Hell with both hands. My sacrifice, my cutting off, is acting on same-sex attraction. And an eternity in Heaven after a celibate life on Earth is by far better than a life of sexual adventures followed by an eternity in Hell.

This will sound/read harder than I intend it to. But there’s no getting around it. A sacrifice is made of something useful, not of something useless. If one believes that homosexuality is a disorder, that homosexual acts are sin, refraining from homosexual acts does not become a special virtue, nor can it be considered a sacrifice. If I give up eating something I consider a poison, I do not make any special sacrifice thereby. If I refrain from sin, my sin does not become a sacrifice.

I understand your logic in saying/writing what you write. I also understand that the catechism’s (sometimes muddy) position on sexuality can lead one to make such statements which really make no sense. The catechism encourages homosexuals to see their sexuality (in its discussion of chastity) as something that can be whole or integrated, but nonetheless treats it like an incurable moral disease elsewhere (regardless of whether or not it is expressed. On the one hand, we are called to chastity which may entail actual sacrifice (how we express our sexuality)–on the other, homosexuals are told that the thing from which their sacrifice would spring is disordered. Of what good is such a sacrifice, then? What real meaning does it have?

This is one of the problems that I have with the Roman catechism’s understanding of homosexuality.

1. in the end, you (universal “you”) have to ask this question: What if the Church is wrong? If the Church is wrong, and it’s perfectly okay to be gay, what’s the end result? a life on earth without sex but an eternity in Heaven. But if those who say that the Church is wrong on this issue are, in fact, themselves wrong? what’s the result? eternity in Hell. That’s a pretty simple equation, isn’t it? [and yes, I did edit and post this on the masturbation thread.]

There’s a lot more that needs discussion here. But whether or not one has sex is not really the issue. The issue is whether or not it is possible for a homosexual to actually be chaste and not merely celibate if their sexuality, their relational capacity, is fundamentally broken (intrinsically or objectively disordered). Which is to say, is it possible for a homosexual to be an integrated human being?

Again, Michelle, I appreciate your convictions. But I feel there’s a lot more going on underneath these conclusions–and as such, they’re anything but conclusive.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is grace and mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Elizabeth502]

A sacrifice is made of something useful, not of something useless. If one believes that homosexuality is a disorder, that homosexual acts are sin, refraining from homosexual acts does not become a special virtue, nor can it be considered a sacrifice.

Clearly a person with SSA is sacrificing something he or she experiences as “good,” from a subjective perspective. That’s why he or she is exercising virtue.

The catechism encourages homosexuals to see their sexuality (in its discussion of chastity) as something that can be whole or integrated

The Catechism never describes homosexual behavior as whole and integrated. It describes it as disordered. You have repeatedly tried to make this assertion on other threads (implying that really, there is a “whole (homo)sexuality” in the Catechism which is somehow pure and should be supported). Rather, the Catechism asserts support for those afflicted, but does not glorify the affliction as having some “integrity” that is on a par with the integry of heterosexuality, whose integrity reflects the image of God, as scripture itself asserts. There is a huge difference between affirming individuals and affirming an individual’s sexual inclinations. It doesn’t matter what either the popular press has glorified as “a sexuality,” or what other churches recognize as a supposedly equivalent sexuality The way that people with SSA glorify God is not to indulge, physically, in their SSA. Just like the way that heterosexuals glorify God is not to engage in our many disordered attractions and inclinations, whatever those may be – sexual, non-sexual.

There’s a lot more that needs discussion here. But whether or not one has sex is not really the issue.

It most certainly is to a genuinely practicing Roman Catholic.

The issue is whether or not it is possible for a homosexual to actually be chaste and not merely celibate if their sexuality, their relational capacity, is fundamentally broken (intrinsically or objectively disordered).

Chastity = celibacy for all those Roman Catholics who are not in legitimate marital (unencumbered man/unencumbered woman) relationships. That means heterosexual singles, divorced persons, widowed persons who have not legitimately remarried, etc.

Which is to say, is it possible for a homosexual to be an integrated human being?

Fulfilling and complete relationships do not have to be eroticized. Same-sex friendships can be deep, spiritual, even physically affectionate (without being erotic or genital!). Friendships of all sorts and across all lines, both genders, all age-groups, enhance a person’s sense of self and full integration. To insist that all intimate friendships be eroticized would be to marginalize and dehumanize persons who, through physical incapacity after marriage, cannot engage in sexual relations with a spouse. It is not sexual activity which makes one a full human being. That is not the core of our humanity. Rather, our spiritual essence (God-given soul) is the core of our humanity – our status as children of God, all of us equally, without regard to our gender, orientations, whether bad or good. We are all potentially not just fully integrated human beings, but all commanded to be saints – a command of Jesus Himself. He didn’t say, “Be ye holy, except for homosexuals.”

Again, Michelle, I appreciate your convictions.

In which case it is not respectful to try to convert her to an Anglo Catholic understanding, vs. a Roman Catholic understanding.

But I feel there’s a lot more going on underneath these conclusions–and as such, they’re anything but conclusive.

No. The Roman Catholic Cathechism, for a practicing Roman Catholic, which Michelle has stated she desires to be, and is, is indeed conclusive.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Correction on my above post. This quote:

The catechism encourages homosexuals to see their sexuality (in its discussion of chastity) as something that can be whole or integrated

was DeoVolente’s quote, not mine. Too late to edit.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Hi, Elizabeth! Long time no speak. I’m glad you took the time to respond here.

Clearly a person with SSA is sacrificing something he or she experiences as “good,” from a subjective perspective. That’s why he or she is exercising virtue.

I hope you’re not seriously advocating subjectivism or relativism here, or are insinuating that because something makes us feel better about ourselves it is true or correct. You could not even bring yourself to write the word “good” in this context without scare quotes. Is it virtue to be taught that a thing is evil or disordered, to be further taught that an evil or disordered thing is not a worthy sacrifice, but then to be taught that something intrinsically or objectively disordered can be sacrificed? Or is it delusional?

I stand by my point. It may be unwelcome. But I stand by it.

The Catechism never describes homosexual behavior as whole and integrated. It describes it as disordered. You have repeatedly tried to make this assertion on other threads (implying that really, there is a “whole (homo)sexuality” in the Catechism which is somehow pure and should be supported). …]

You misconstrue my meaning. I made it a point not to talk about homosexual acts as much as what a homosexual orientation means within the context of the Roman catechism’s discussion of sexuality and chastity. To me, it is incumbent upon us to clarify what having a homosexual orientation means in this context and then to ask the question of whether or not and in what contexts (if any) acting on it is appropriate.

So let’s look at this.

1–Indeed, the catechism does not describe homosexual behavior as whole or integrated.
2–Indeed, the catechism describes homosexual behavior as disordered and depraved. Moreover, it describes the inclination as objectively disordered as well.
3–Never have I suggested that the catechism says that there is a whole homosexuality. I have only suggested that the integration of the individual’s sexuality within the individual is key to the catechism’s discussion of chastity and forming right relationships.

So far, you’re arguing my point for me. So tell me where the problem with my logic is:

This is what the catechism says about chastity, human integrity, and sexuality: "Chastity means the successful integration of sexuality within the person and thus the inner unity of man in his bodily and spiritual being. Sexuality, in which man’s belonging to the bodily and biological world is expressed, becomes personal and truly human when it is integrated into the relationship of one person to another, in the complete and lifelong mutual gift of a man and a woman.

“The virtue of chastity therefore involves the integrity of the person and the integrality of the gift.”

This is what the catechism says about sexuality: “Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman.”

This is what the catechism says about homosexuality: “The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial.”

What conclusions can we draw from these assertions?

–Can we say that a homosexuality is a viable sexuality according to the catechism? According to the catechism, homosexuality is a disorder of sexuality, which sexuality, if truly healthy, may be said to look more like heterosexuality than anything else. Additionally, homosexuality may be “deep-seated,” which presumably means “incurable” or “intractable” or some such.
–If a homosexual’s sexuality is disordered, in what way can the homosexual be chaste if being chaste means sexual integration, but integration of something disordered is undesirable? The catechism has no explicit answer here–it just says “Homosexual persons are called to chastity.” But chastity is fully realized in a heterosexual relationship, of which the person with a “deep seated” homosexual inclination is, the catechism implicitly assumes, incapable (if it did not make the assumption, it would no doubt suggest that homosexuals consider conversion therapy or some such).

And note, that it is chastity to which homosexuals are called, not celibacy–and it is so because celibacy is a behavior, not an orientation of the will. Nonetheless, the catechism remains unclear about how a homosexual’s broken sexuality is supposed to lead to individual wholeness. I see that as a serious deficiency in the catechism’s understanding of sexuality.

Either homosexuality is disordered and a sexuality so afflicted cannot be integrated, meaning homosexuals are not whole people unless their inclination be removed from them, or homosexuality is not in fact disordered.

[CONTINUED…]

 

[Deo_Volente]

…CONTINUED AND COMPLETED]

It most certainly is to a genuinely practicing Roman Catholic.

Again, you misconstrue my meaning. Let’s first understand what homosexuality means in the context of the catechism, and then we can talk about what is or is not licit with regard to behavior. Let’s first move from A to B to C before we get to D.

(By they by, though, I’m beginning to believe that you think all of my arguments are secretly about how everyone should have gay sex…because it’s just fine! I urge you to actually pay attention to what I’m saying and not jump to conclusions based only, I would presume, on the fact that I’m a Christian who is also gay. Which is to say, it seems that because you know I’m gay, all of my arguments are suspect and are really about how us gay folks should be allowed to indulge in all of our horrible vices. If that is indeed your position, I’m more sorry for you than I can express at this point–such an attitude is a living example of the conclusions I believe the catechism would lead us to make about gay folks. I.e., because homosexuals have an impaired relational faculty (their broken sexuality), how can they be said to be able to be in right relationship with the good, the true, or the beautiful? All they want is sin!)

Chastity = celibacy for all those Roman Catholics who are not in legitimate marital (unencumbered man/unencumbered woman) relationships.

Not so, Elizabeth. And wishful thinking will not make it so. The catechism expresses what you are trying to say as “chastity in continence.” Not celibacy.

Fulfilling and complete relationships do not have to be eroticized. Same-sex friendships can be deep, spiritual, even physically affectionate (without being erotic or genital!). Friendships of all sorts and across all lines, both genders, all age-groups, enhance a person’s sense of self and full integration.

Very true, Elizabeth. When have I written otherwise? (And, difficult as it may sometimes be–and I know I find it difficult–let’s pay attention to context here if your wont is to quote from another thread!)

To insist that all intimate friendships be eroticized would be to marginalize and dehumanize persons who, through physical incapacity after marriage, cannot engage in sexual relations with a spouse.

True!

It is not sexual activity which makes one a full human being.

True! (I would argue, however, that few things have a greater capacity to humanize than loving romantic physical intimacy with one’s beloved–and here I am speaking of an intimacy that is not, shall we say, orgasm-directed, but is directed toward sharing a life with someone one romantically loves and who reciprocates that love.)

Rather, our spiritual essence (God-given soul) is the core of our humanity

True! But let’s not forget in the meanwhile that the human being is soul and body.

He didn’t say, “Be ye holy, except for homosexuals.”

It’s strange non-sequiturs like this that make me think that, perhaps, neither of us have any idea of what the other is actually talking about…

In which case it is not respectful to try to convert her to an Anglo Catholic understanding, vs. a Roman Catholic understanding.

I wasn’t conscious of any such conversion attempt. I do not generally counsel Romans to swim the Thames, particularly not Romans who are happy being Romans. As I stated in the first part of my response to Michelle (did you read that part, I wonder?), I was offering a different perspective on her numbered conclusions. Is it rational to open a moral-theological can of worms, but then get upset with the guy who just says, “Hey, watch out, you’ve opened a moral-theological can of worms, it might not be as tidy as you think”?

As ever Elizabeth, thank you for the engaging discussion!

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is grace and mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Gertabelle]

All Christians are called to chastity – correct.

Michelleds stated that all are called to celibacy at times! She never said that all are called to celibacy all the time. Your whole thesis is a rebuttal to something she didn’t even say!

Moreover, celibacy is not a degree of chastity, but just a possible manifestation of the commitment to chastity, and one that is not necessarily good for all men at all times.

Celibacy is not good for all men at all times – yes, but fornication, adultery, and other sins against chastity are bad for all men at all times.

Being chaste is a way of describing a way of being in the right and appropriate loving relationship with everyone around us.

Beautifully stated. As a practicing Catholic (and former out, loud, and proud lesbian) I look to the Church to direct me in “right and appropriate” actions in my loving relationships with everyone around me. What is your source for what is right?

There are enough difficulties with trying to make the catechism’s view of homosexuality as a disorder jive with it’s understanding of chastity.

Not really. The Church is not using the term “disorder” as a psychiatric diagnosis. All sin is dis-ordered. That is, when we sin, the proper order of our lives has been disrupted. We are to grow so that God can be our all in all (as Mother Teresa used to say). When we sin, we have put ourselves and our desires above God and others.

The only reason you are having trouble “jiving” these things is because you are reading the word “disorder” to mean a psychiatric label… and because you can’t accept the teaching of the Church and continue to do what you want. So you say the Catechism is problematic, rather than your point of view.

In this alternative understanding, homosexuality is not a cross to bear. But attitudes toward homosexuals could represent a cross that a homosexual must bear–and we, as Christians, are called to bear it with them.

By that line of reasoning (and I use the term reasoning somewhat loosely) anyone could justify continuing their sins as the cross they must bear. Adulterers, abusive spouses, drug dealers — “It’s not my sin that’s the problem; it’s society’s or the Church’s attitudes towards my actions that’s the problem. And you Christians need to help me bear the cross of society’s unacceptance of my choise to deal drugs to children!”

Wow, weird world you want us to live in…

A sacrifice is made of something useful, not of something useless. If I give up eating something I consider a poison, I do not make any special sacrifice thereby. If I refrain from sin, my sin does not become a sacrifice.

Of what good is such a sacrifice, then? What real meaning does it have?

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
Sacrifice

2099 It is right to offer sacrifice to God as a sign of adoration and gratitude, supplication and communion: “Every action done so as to cling to God in communion of holiness, and thus achieve blessedness, is a true sacrifice.”

**2100 **Outward sacrifice, to be genuine, must be the expression of spiritual sacrifice: "The sacrifice acceptable to God is a broken spirit. . . . " The prophets of the Old Covenant often denounced sacrifices that were not from the heart or not coupled with love of neighbor. Jesus recalls the words of the prophet Hosea: “I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.” The only perfect sacrifice is the one that Christ offered on the cross as a total offering to the Father’s love and for our salvation.20 By uniting ourselves with his sacrifice we can make our lives a sacrifice to God.

I see nothing there that states that a sacrifice has to be anything other than something offered to God. Who are you say that a sacrifice has to be “useful”? Do you really think that anything you could give as an offering to God would be useful to Him? Seriously? We offer him our nothingness, and it is HE who makes it useful, not us.

Our job is offer Him everything – hold nothing back. Offer Him our successes and our failures, offer Him our generosity and our selfishness, offer Him our compassion and our meanness. If I offer Him anything “so as to cling to God” then it is a sacrifice.

Dude, you were completely wrong on this one!

The issue is whether or not it is possible for a homosexual to actually be chaste and not merely celibate if their sexuality, their relational capacity, is fundamentally broken (intrinsically or objectively disordered).

Again, you are trying to read the Catechism as if it were the DSM-IV (diagnostic manual for mental health). “Disordered” in the CCC does not mean “fundamentally broken” – it means not in the order of things as God designed them. Sexual relations outside of sacramental marriage is outside God’s ordering of human relationships.

'nuff said.

Gertie

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Gertabelle, thanks for your comments.

Michelleds stated that all are called to celibacy at times! She never said that all are called to celibacy all the time. Your whole thesis is a rebuttal to something she didn’t even say!

Frankly, Gertabelle, the point is not whether we’re called to celibacy every day or just on Wednesdays. The point is that we are not all called to celibacy. But we are all called to chastity, and that all the time.

Celibacy is not good for all men at all times – yes, but fornication, adultery, and other sins against chastity are bad for all men at all times.

True–and I think you’ll find that nowhere in this thread am I arguing for vice of any sort.

What is your source for what is right?

That old Anglican chestnut of the three-legged stool: Scripture, Reason and Tradition. (I would include Experience as a subset of Reason, by the by.) I also look to my bishop(s) for guidance.

Not really. The Church is not using the term “disorder” as a psychiatric diagnosis. All sin is dis-ordered. That is, when we sin, the proper order of our lives has been disrupted. We are to grow so that God can be our all in all (as Mother Teresa used to say). When we sin, we have put ourselves and our desires above God and others.

Agreed, Gertabelle. And nowhere have I indicated that the Roman church is using the term disorder as a psychiatric diagnosis. If it were, things would be a lot easier. But no. Rome understands the disorder of homosexuality as a moral disorder.

It’s interesting that you equate sin and disorder here…because the catechism tries not to do that. The inclination is disordered, not sinful–the action is both disordered and sinful.

The only reason you are having trouble “jiving” these things is because you are reading the word “disorder” to mean a psychiatric label… and because you can’t accept the teaching of the Church and continue to do what you want. So you say the Catechism is problematic, rather than your point of view.

Not quite, Gertabelle. Again, I’m conscious that the catechism isn’t referring to a psychiatric problem (at least not in the clinical/medical sense). My difficulty is this: the catechism states that chastity and the integration of the sexuality in the whole human person are, more or less, one and same. It says that the sexuality of homosexual peoples is intrinsically disordered. It then calls homosexuals to chastity. The question: how is a homosexual to integrate his or her disordered sexuality into the wholeness of his or her person without either needing to destroy it/repress it (making the question moot) or making it perfectly heterosexual? The catechism doesn’t answer this question. Do you see how what you think I’m saying is different from what I’m actually saying here?

By that line of reasoning (and I use the term reasoning somewhat loosely) anyone could justify continuing their sins as the cross they must bear. Adulterers, abusive spouses, drug dealers — “It’s not my sin that’s the problem; it’s society’s or the Church’s attitudes towards my actions that’s the problem. And you Christians need to help me bear the cross of society’s unacceptance of my choise to deal drugs to children!”

You’re consistently missing the point, Gertabelle. The cross we are called to carry is not our sin or our wayward inclinations, whatever they may be–the cross we carry is Christ’s commitment to self-giving love, which means moving into the position of the scapegoat, the position of the outcast and despised (according to the world) and bearing the hatred of the world for the sake of love. Do you see how this is very different from what you think I’ve said? Look at the story of the Good Samaritan: the powers of the world, the forces of “decency” and “uprightness” pass the wounded man by, but the Samaritan (who was an outcast himself) identifies with the wounded man, bears his burden with him, and brings him to healing. The Samaritan bore his cross. And helped the wounded man bear his.

(The conclusions that you jump to, Gertabelle, are really astounding.)

[CONTINUED…]

 

[Deo_Volente]

…CONTINUED AND COMPLETED]

I see nothing there that states that a sacrifice has to be anything other than something offered to God. Who are you say that a sacrifice has to be “useful”? Do you really think that anything you could give as an offering to God would be useful to Him? Seriously? We offer him our nothingness, and it is HE who makes it useful, not us.

Our job is offer Him everything – hold nothing back. Offer Him our successes and our failures, offer Him our generosity and our selfishness, offer Him our compassion and our meanness. If I offer Him anything “so as to cling to God” then it is a sacrifice.

Dude, you were completely wrong on this one!

What you’re saying here is really lovely, Gertabelle. But let’s look at this a little more closely.

In terms of the “usefulness” of sacrifice, I’m referring to what is sacrificed. And this has old precedent. In ancient cultures, luxury items were not sacrificed. A lovely hat never made its way to the altar of any sacrifice. Rather, what was sacrificed were usually herd animals, animals that were either important for food or labor: very useful things. What was sacrificed would be missed not because it was lovely or pretty or shiny or felt good, but because it’s absence to a person or community meant that much less food, that much less productivity, that much more hard work. That food, that productivity, that work–those are all useful things. Not, perhaps, from God’s perspective, but from man’s. But what is “useful” to God, insofar as such a thing can be said or discussed, is the interior disposition that the sacrifice both demands and instantiates that the Psalmist writes about when he says, “My goods are nothing” both compared to God and in God’s sight. Which is to say, “sacrificing these things that I value, that I call good, puts me in relationship to the truly Good, opens me to the actual Good.”

And the revolution in sacrificial thinking that Judaism eventually brings about is indeed the consideration of sacrifice as an interior disposition, as a way of being towards God and our neighbor. The contrite heart is the acceptable sacrifice. The broken spirit. Why? In part because the broken thing admits into itself what is outside itself. The hard heart is closed. The broken heart is open. The hard heart is useless. The broken heart is a vessel of grace.

We can certainly offer what we are to God–but we offer it to him because whatever is good in us and worth offering comes from God as it is. We can offer our brokenness, too, because it is through our brokenness that we can allow God to enter in. But I don’t think it’s proper to speak of refraining from what we believe or understand to be sin as a sacrifice. Do we commit a sacrifice when we do the things that we’re supposed to do or refrain from doing the things we are supposed to refrain from doing?

If I believe that homosexual acts are sinful, and I choose to refrain from homosexual acts, what sacrifice do I make? Does saying that I’m making a sacrifice mean that I’m now making a sacrifice? If there is a sacrifice involved, is it not my will, and not my actions, that is being sacrificed? Am I not saying, “by choosing to do what I believe to be right, refraining from the wrong, however tempting it may be, I submit and sacrifice my will to the will of God as I understand it?” And is that not then an example of the sacrifice of a contrite spirit? Yes! Indeed it is! But the sacrifice is not of homosexual acts uncommitted, but of the will.

As you can see, I was not saying that Michelle had nothing to offer to God. Far be it from me to say such a thing!

(Although we can get into a discussion of whether or not the homosexual’s will–being, according to the catechism, morally disordered–can be considered an acceptable sacrifice, for was the animal with the blemish ever acceptable? But this would just be an example of what I believe to be fallout from the catechism’s (mis)understanding of homosexuality. And indeed, by now I hope it’s clear that my original comment in this regard was made to provoke discussion in this very vein…)

Sexual relations outside of sacramental marriage is outside God’s ordering of human relationships.

Gertabelle, I think you’ll find that I was not embarked on a mission to justify “sexual relations” of any sort.

Thanks for the discussion, though!

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!