How does the church define 'disordered'?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eugenius
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

Eugenius

Guest
Can someone give me a clinical definition of what the church means by ‘disordered’ when referring to people with SSA (same sex attraction)? In my opinion the term is ambiguous and could be interpreted several ways. I think most people immediately apply a negative connotation, but this might not necessarily be the intent of the church.
 
First, the Church never refers to persons as disordered but does refer to actions as disordered. Note that the distinction is crystal clear in Church documents but almost universally ignored by dissenters. Second, the order of an inclination is a relation to its object. If an inclination is toward an appropriate object, the inclination is rightly ordered; if toward an inappropriate object, disordered. The inclination to eat food is a rightly ordered inclination of the faculty of nourishing the body; but the inclination to eat paint or screws is disordered because its object is not appropriate for nourishing the body (it is a psychiatric disorder known as pica). The inclination to engage in sodomy is disordered because its object is not appropriate for the faculty of procreation and union with the spouse. Hence the Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics reads, “For according to the objective moral order, homosexual relations are acts which lack an essential and indispensable finality” and “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and can in no case be approved of” (8); furthermore the Letter on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons reads, “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” (3). Hope that helps.
 
Can someone give me a clinical definition of what the church means by ‘disordered’ when referring to people with SSA (same sex attraction)? In my opinion the term is ambiguous and could be interpreted several ways. I think most people immediately apply a negative connotation, but this might not necessarily be the intent of the church.
I don’t think “disordered” is “clinical” to begin with.

The traditional Christian ethical teaching that homosexual acts are intrinsically immoral and the homosexual inclination is objectively disordered: “that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and can in no case be approved of” (CDF, 1975) and that the homosexual orientation itself is “objectively disordered” (CCC, no. 2358) So along with “disordered” we also hear “intrinsic moral evil.” These are not medical terms but religious or moral and ethical in nature.

"Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered to an intrinsic moral evil, and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder. Homosexuality has been called a deviation, an irregularity, a wound. The fact that an act is called an intrinsic evil tells us two and only two things.

First, it tells us why an action is wrong — because of the “object” of the acting agent’s will. To identify the object of an action, one has to put oneself in the shoes of the one acting, and to describe the action from his perspective. The object is the immediate goal for which that person is acting; it is the proximate end of a deliberate decision

Second, the fact that an act is *intrinsically *evil tells us that it is always wrong to perform that type of act, no matter what the other circumstances are. A good motive cannot make an act with a bad object morally permissible. In other words, we may never do evil so that good may come of it. To echo an example used by both Pope John Paul II and St. Thomas, a modern-day Robin Hood should not hold up a convenience store at gunpoint in order to give the money to a nearby homeless center. Robin Hood’s good motive (altruistic giving) does not wash away the bad object or immediate purpose of his action (robbery)."

I posted an essay here that is borrowed from several sources: Richard John Neuhaus, Kathleen Curran Sweeney, Robert P. George, M. Cathleen Kaveny and Fr. Raniero Cantalamessa, just to try and sort it all out. An article by Andrew J. Sodergren, M.S.from the John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family titled “Causes of Homosexuality: A Christian Appraisal of the Data” is also on the site and offers the best overview of homosexuality and the Church that I have ever read.

I think all disordered means is that it doesn’t align with the rest of God’s ordered creation. So blindness at birth would be a form of “disorder.” It is intended (I believe) to be a neutral term but can be stoked to the highly inflammatory, so I tend to avoid it when explaining Church Teachings or make very sure of the context when I use it. For example to give other examples of “disorder,” say congenital blindness where there is no will involved.

“Whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia or willful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where men are treated as mere tools for profit, rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others of their like are infamies indeed. They poison human society, but they do more harm to those who practice them than those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are a supreme dishonor to the Creator.”

Most of those mentioned above are evil; some are “disorders,” particularly the “insults to human dignity” where you will find some who willingly practice some of those acts and encourage others to do as well.

Hope some of this helps.

dj
 
Can someone give me a clinical definition of what the church means by ‘disordered’ when referring to people with SSA (same sex attraction)? In my opinion the term is ambiguous and could be interpreted several ways. I think most people immediately apply a negative connotation, but this might not necessarily be the intent of the church.
And then I ran across this today, which is a reply, perhaps to the next thought from someone searching for a “clinical” definition of “disordered.” It presupposes a question like, “Well if you can’t assign any scientific or clinical description to the term but only some mumbo-jumbo about God’s’ creation, what the hell does all this really matter? Look at the seeds of homophobic hatred you spread…” Perhaps I’m just being paranoid, so pardon me. But the quote below gives an answer:

"To appreciate Dante it is not, of course, necessary to believe what he believed, but it is, I think, necessary to understand what he believed, and to realize that it is a belief which a mature mind can take seriously. The widespread disinclination today to take Hell and Heaven seriously results, very largely, from a refusal to take this world seriously. If we are materialists, we look upon man’s life as an event so trifling compared to the cosmic process that our acts and decisions have no importance beyond the little space-time frame in which we find ourselves.

If we take what is often vaguely called a more spiritual attitude to life,' we find that we are postulating some large and lazy cosmic benevolence which ensures that, no matter how we behave, it will all somehow or other come out right in the long run. But here Christianity says No. What you do and what you are matters, and matters intensely. It matters now and it matters eternally; it matters to you and it matters so much to God that it was for Him literally a matter of life and death.’"
Dorothy L Sayers, Introductory Papers on Dante
 
Can someone give me a clinical definition of what the church means by ‘disordered’
It’s not a clinical term and doesn’t have a clinical definition.
Disordered means that it is inconflict with the Natural Law.
 
Can someone give me a clinical definition of what the church means by ‘disordered’ when referring to people with SSA (same sex attraction)? In my opinion the term is ambiguous and could be interpreted several ways. I think most people immediately apply a negative connotation, but this might not necessarily be the intent of the church.
Youll find some insight here:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html
 
Can someone give me a clinical definition of what the church means by ‘disordered’ when referring to people with SSA (same sex attraction)? In my opinion the term is ambiguous and could be interpreted several ways. I think most people immediately apply a negative connotation, but this might not necessarily be the intent of the church.
If by clinical, you mean ‘medical’, then there is no such answer. The Church is not a medical authority, claims no such expertise, and offers no such teaching or commentary in the medical field.

The Church uses the term “disorders”, sometimes “disorders of the will”, in the context of moral evils, in statements such as these:

ccc37 The human mind, in its turn, is hampered in the attaining of such truths, not only by the impact of the senses and the imagination, but also by disordered appetites which are the consequences of original sin.

ccc1753 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.

ccc1755 There are some concrete acts—such as fornication—that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.

ccc1768 The upright will orders the movements of the senses it appropriates to the good and to beatitude; an evil will succumbs to disordered passions and exacerbates them.

ccc2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure.


The Church also speaks of a class of acts which are “Intrinsically disordered” (see above 1755). These are acts which are “irremediably” evil in the sense that there is no motivation for such an act, or circumstance in which such an act can be chosen, that would make the act moral. There are many such acts: Lying, calumny, fornication, etc. and** homosexual acts **- that is, sexual acts between two persons of the same sex. While the term intrinsically disordered is often used, the term “intrinsically evil” is more common, but the meaning is the same - “acts which are always wrong to choose”.

The term “objectively disordered” is a less common term and I have only encountered it in the context of same sex attraction. 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”.

Note that these terms are not descriptions of people. Note also that while engaging in an intrinsically disordered act is sinful, experiencing same sex attraction is not.
 
All people are disordered to the extent that we choose our will over God’s will. The CCC cites several examples of “intrinsically disordered” including lying, slander, masturbation, homosexual acts, etc. The point is our obedience to God is in part determined by the extent to which we seek to order our desires and will to objective truth…the only source of that truth known to mankind is embodied in the Church that Jesus gave us.
 
All people are disordered to the extent that we choose our will over God’s will.
That may or may not be, but the Church does not use the word in that way. I make this comment in light of the limited awareness by the OP of the topic area, and the regularity with which this subject is misunderstood and poorly portrayed by some.
The CCC cites several examples of “intrinsically disordered” [ACTS] including lying, slander, masturbation, homosexual acts, etc. The point is our obedience to God is in part determined by the extent to which we seek to order our desires and will to objective truth…the only source of that truth known to mankind is embodied in the Church that Jesus gave us.
 
Note to Moderators: Should not this thread fall under “moral theology”?
 
It should not fall anywhere. It is more than 4 years dormant and should not be resurrected.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top