Is heterosexuality a disorder?

[Newbie2]

The physical acting out on homosexual impulses is gravely “disordered”. I don’t believe that means the same as homosexual impluses themselves, i.e. (same sex attraction), are indicative of a disorder, per se. It’s complicated, like most everything else in human life. The point is, persons of the same sex shouldn’t HAVE sex with each other, whether they desire it or not. You can call the desire a disorder, if you like, but the Church does NOT. The church says that to act upon those desre is a mortal sin. Whether or not it is caused by a disorder is not really the point. There are small percentages per capita of people who are drawn in some way to theft, adultery, murder, or other sexual perversions, such as pedophilia, etc. Most of even that small percentage of people only have passing thoughts, or at worst, some temptation that they are able to overcome without too much difficulty. The one who go on and act on those impulses have committed grave mortal sins. There will be even a smaller subset of those who cross the line into action who are found to be mentally ill in some way, and therefore suffering from a “disorder”. So let’s say 1 in 10 murderers have an actual mental disorder which prevented their conscience from overriding their impluses, and that was the reason they murdered. It would be an interesting statistic. (I have no idea what the actual ratio or number is), but it would change the fact that ALL murders are gravely disordered action, and mortal sin. Whether or not one has a disorder, may be a mitigating factor in the evaluation of a defendent by a jury, but it is not license to the free man to be a murderer. The existence in mankind of a disorder may be an important circumstance to judgement or punishment, but is not in and of itself a justification for illegal (or immoral) action.

Blessings,

Steven

And that’s the crux, isn’t it? For the most part, folks don’t have homosexual sex without having the desire to do so…

Agreed, it’s complicated…cases where teens are “experimenting” and confused about their sexuality…heck, even adults who are confused and are led in the wrong direction…

It begs the question as to whether a sinful predisposition can be disordered, and this applies to all types of sin, as has been mentioned. The liar is predisposed to lie, perhaps. Lying is the disorder of truth, but is his or her predisposition to lie disordered?

I guess in a sense, after the fall, we all are disordered in many things. In regard to the question in the OP, heterosexuality is not a disorder, but our inclination to sin in matter of sexuality is a disorder.

I can see where the confusion sets in. Heterosexuality in itself is neither sinful nor disordered. Homosexuality in itself is neither sinful nor disordered. To deny that some people are oriented by no fault of their own toward members of their own sex denies reality. As Steven said, it is the acts which are disordered, not the orientation or “inclination”. Due to the fall, we are all inclined to sin; heterosexuals with members of the same sex and homosexuals with members of the opposite sex. This in no way suggests that heterosexuality is disordered.

Quite to the contrary, Heterosexuality is ordered toward procreation, marriage, family, and at times chastity, all of which are goods intended by God. Violaton of one’s heterosexuality violates these goods. As such, heterosexuality is not in any way disordered. Homosexuality is ordered toward chastity, which is also in this context a good. Violation of this chastity violates this good.

 

[TimothyH]

All sexuality today is distorted due to sin.

They said to him, “Then why did Moses command that the man give the woman a bill of divorce and dismiss (her)?” He said to them, "Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. (Matthew 19:7-8)

Notice Jesus’ reference to the way it was “from the beginning.” This reference would have been recognizable to the Pharasees, who were scholars of Scripture, as a reference to Genesis 1:1. Jesus takes the Pharisees, and us, back to the way it was “In the beginning” before sin entered the world.

And Jesus’ response to the Pharisees is my response to the inquiry made by the original poster. In the beginning it was not so. God created our first parents with perfect, self-sacrificing, selfless love for each other. They did not lust. They did not try to appropriate each other for their own enjoyment. They did not have a desire to be satisfied by another but to sacrifice themself for the other and to satisfy the other.

And Jesus gives us a way to get back to the way it was “In the beginning” before sin and lust entered the world.

-Tim-

 

[Spirithound]

Let me add that calling heterosexuality a disorder is not at all the same thing as saying that it’s a sin or that marriage or sexuality are bad. It is only to point out how things-as-they-are-now are not ideal.

Speaking precisely, you are correct that a disorder is not the same as a sin. However, a disorder is a condition for which any indulgence is a sin. In this way, homosexuality is a disorder, and any indulgence in homosexuality is a sin. On the contrary, there is a scenario in which indulging in one’s heterosexuality is not a sin, namely as you’ve pointed out, with one’s opposite-sex spouse.

But what of our human urge to engage in sexual intercourse with every attractive member of the opposite sex? The proper name of this appetite is the sexual drive, not specifically heterosexuality, and the proper adjectival phrase is “not properly ordered,” not “disordered”. In this way we recognize that within the sexual appetite lies a licit outlet for it, even though there are also other improper outlets present.

 

[TimothyH]

I can see where the confusion sets in. Heterosexuality in itself is neither sinful nor disordered. Homosexuality in itself is neither sinful nor disordered. To deny that some people are oriented by no fault of their own toward members of their own sex denies reality.

Same sex attraction is disordered even if it is not acted on. Same sex attraction goes against how God ordered things AKA disordered. No one is denying the reality of same sex attration or stating that it is their own fault.

It’s important that Catholics understand what the Church teaches on same sex attraction before we make statements about it. The The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

*2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 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. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. *

The Church does not deny that same sex attraction exists but acknowledges that it does. The Church goes futher and states that those who experience the very real condition of same sex attraction need our help, prayers, compassion, respect and understanding.

The Church also clearly teaches that the desire is disordered - counter to the way God ordered the world, yet not in-and-of itself a sin. The act is a sin. The desire is disordered.

-Tim-

 

[Newbie2]

Same sex attraction is disordered even if it is not acted on. Same sex attraction goes against how God ordered things AKA disordered. No one is denying the reality of same sex attration or stating that it is their own fault.

It’s important that Catholics understand what the Church teaches on same sex attraction before we make statements about it. The The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 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. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

The Church does not deny that same sex attraction exists but acknowledges that it does. The Church goes futher and states that those who experience the very real condition of same sex attraction need our help, prayers, compassion, respect and understanding.

The Church also clearly teaches that the desire is disordered - counter to the way God ordered the world, yet not in-and-of itself a sin. The act is a sin. The desire is disordered.

-Tim-

I agree that “It’s important that Catholics understand what the Church teaches on same sex attraction before we make statements about it.” So where does it say in the CCC that “Same sex attraction is disordered even if it is not acted on.”?

Your quote, my emphasis: "141 tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”

“Same sex attraction goes against how God ordered things AKA disordered. No one is denying the reality of same sex attration or stating that it is their own fault.”

Is it? Did God create people with a disorder, then? We cannot really explain SSA through original sin as a cause, because all of us have original sin and yet very few of us experience SSA.

I’m not in disagreement with you in principle, but you’ve not shown that SSA is considered to be a disorder, just that homosexual acts are disordered…of which we totally agree. If we are to do proper apologetics, we need to be able to support our assertions with documentation. I’m pretty sure that there are other sources that refer to homosexual orientation as disordered, but I cannot think of any off the top of my head.

I thought that the CCC did say that homosexual inclinations are disordered, (i.e. that Steven’s post was mistaken) but it appears not, at least not in what you referenced.

 

[chrysostim83]

Some of the other posters seem to have a different definition for “heterosexuality” than the original arguments required. They feel it means something like sexual complementarity or the sexual differentiation of the human species into male and female, rather than (as I defined it) the characteristic of being sexually attracted predominantly to members of the opposite sex. Obviously, according to the first definition, “heterosexuality” is perfectly in order as well as necessary to the survival of the human race and so forth. But it still seems possible to maintain that according to the second definition, heterosexuality is a disorder.

Aside from the objections that relied on shifting the definition of “heterosexuality,” a couple more problems have emerged. First, FCEGM suggests that it’s enough for it to be ordered if a sexual attraction is for a member of the opposite sex: this is not only absurd on the face of it, but in direct contradiction to the teaching contained in “Ministry to Persons with a Homosexual Inclination” (see page 5-6, starting near the bottom) which goes all the way back to St. Thomas Aquinas.

Another suggestion is that a disorder must be such that any indulgence in it is wrong. This won’t work either, since the inclination to bite one’s nails is a disorder (clearly it’s not necessary for anything, it’s unnatural as Aristotle taught, and it’s pretty unhealthy to boot), yet it would be strange to say that every indulgence in it is a sin, since, for example, someone who happened to have the inclination could be hired to bite his or her nails on film for a commercial without necessarily sinning.

Finally, to answer Mumble140’s question about the purpose of this thread, I was just curious about the responses people would come up with. What’s come out so far is that people don’t really know how to deal with the concept of disorder (there’s hardly any reason why they should, since it seems to be strictly reserved for homosexuals), and that those who are the most willing to call homosexuals disordered (excuse me, I meant to say homosexual inclinations) are also the most ready to take offense when the tables threaten to be turned.

 

[Lady_Marchmain]

What seems to me possibly disordered here is not heterosexuality, but a rather obsessive, twisted and possibly scrupulous and/or neurotic misunderstanding of a perfectly simple and natural state of being.

 

[Edward_H]

We’ve lost our ability to think.

All acts of O are D; Some acts of E are D.

We waste a lot of God’s time in this forum with infantile questions because many here really don’t believe in Truth or in any truth.

 

[Spirithound]

I agree that “It’s important that Catholics understand what the Church teaches on same sex attraction before we make statements about it.” So where does it say in the CCC that “Same sex attraction is disordered even if it is not acted on.”?

Is it? Did God create people with a disorder, then? We cannot really explain SSA through original sin as a cause, because all of us have original sin and yet very few of us experience SSA.

2358 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. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

This was quoted in the post you responded to. I’m not sure whether we can philosophically say that God created people with a disorder, however look around you. People have disorders, and many of the physical ones are from birth.

We can say that SSA has OS as its cause, if we recognize that OS does not necessarily lead to SSA. Just as some people are more pre-disposed to commit different sins than others.

 

[Spirithound]

Another suggestion is that a disorder must be such that any indulgence in it is wrong. This won’t work either, since the inclination to bite one’s nails is a disorder (clearly it’s not necessary for anything, it’s unnatural as Aristotle taught, and it’s pretty unhealthy to boot), yet it would be strange to say that every indulgence in it is a sin, since, for example, someone who happened to have the inclination could be hired to bite his or her nails on film for a commercial without necessarily sinning.

Biting one’s nails is a disorder of a different domain from homosexuality. Homosexuality is a spiritual disorder, but as you’ve pointed out, there is no spiritual aspect to biting one’s nails.

 

[Newbie2]

This was quoted in the post you responded to. I’m not sure whether we can philosophically say that God created people with a disorder, however look around you. People have disorders, and many of the physical ones are from birth.

We can say that SSA has OS as its cause, if we recognize that OS does not necessarily lead to SSA. Just as some people are more pre-disposed to commit different sins than others.

Good thoughts.

 

[FCEGM]

FCEGM suggests that it’s enough for it to be ordered if a sexual attraction is for a member of the opposite sex: this is not only absurd on the face of it, but in direct contradiction to the teaching contained in “Ministry to Persons with a Homosexual Inclination” (see page 5-6, starting near the bottom) which goes all the way back to St. Thomas Aquinas.

What you seem not to see is that what is disordered is not the heterosexuality involved in a sexual attraction to a person of the opposite sex; heterosexuality is a good as it is ordered the propagation of the species - this is obvious. “MPHI” teaches that homosexual inclinations are inherently disordered; it does not say the same regarding heterosexuality because there is nothing inherently disordered about propagating one’s species through the covenantal union established in Genesis. Even in the disorder of concupiscence in expressing one’s heterosexuality there is still the inherent goodness of attraction to the opposite sex since it “inclines a person towards a use of sexuality that [DOES] accord with the divine plan of creation”.

 

[StevenFrancis]

Heterosexuality is ordered toward procreation, marriage, family, and at times chastity, all of which are goods intended by God. Violaton of one’s heterosexuality violates these goods. As such, heterosexuality is not in any way disordered. Homosexuality is ordered toward chastity, which is also in this context a good. Violation of this chastity violates this good.

These are the kinds of expressions of these principles that we need more of. I wrote quite a bit of material to say this very thing, and in re-reading didn’t even reach the crystalization of the point as stated here by Newbie2.

Thanks and blessings,

Steven