Is promoting homosexuality "social justice"?

[Corki]

There isn’t a thing such as ordered concupiscence, everything that is a moral evil e.g. a man engaging in sex with a woman who is not his wife (CCC1755) or lying (CCC1753) is intrinsically disordered. I doubt most Catholics realize that fornication is intrinsically disordered.

Concupiscence is only the temptation. An unmarried man may be tempted to have sex with a woman. This temptation is not disordered. In fact, it is a biological imperative that hopefully nudges him to find a good wife. It is only disordered if he were to act on it or if the temptation was to have sex with someone inappropriate such as a married person. Fornication is disordered not because it is sexual but because of the context (unmarried). Fulfilling the temptation to have sex with someone would not be disordered if one was to wait until the wedding night. Homosexual attraction is disordered because of what it IS, not the context. There is no context where fulfilling those desires would be unsinful.

From the very paragraph you referenced (CCC 1755).

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.

The disorder is “of the will”. The disorder is in the action, the choice to act, not the temptation.

There are many other instances of concupiscence that are not disordered as long as the temptation is not succumbed to, at least not immediately. If I was tempted to have a hamburger last Friday, it would be a temptation to sin. But it’s not disordered to desire a hamburger. All that was needed was to delay giving into that temptation until Saturday.

All concupiscence does not involve action that is objectively evil. Much of what we are tempted to do involves objective good that is acted upon inappropriately such as sex (unmarried vs. with a spouse) or eating a hamburger (on a lenten Friday vs. another weekday).

 

[SuperLuigi]

I’m more than receptive to anyone’s needs, heterosexual or otherwise. But somehow, for some reason, gay people never seem to be the ones who attempt to mandate that gay people can’t identify themselves as gay when evangelizing .

Why would that be a problem?

People are more likely to listen to those they can identify with.

 

[SMGS127]

Why would that be a problem?

People are more likely to listen to those they can identify with.

I agree.

Some people on this thread have been making the case that it is outright harmful for gay people to identify with their attractions, no matter the reason. I was merely making the point that this was a ridiculous assertion, as identifying oneself with one’s orientation helps connect people, which makes evangelizing easier, much as identifying with one’s gender helps connect people to other people of that gender or identifying with one’s heritage helps connect people to other people of that heritage.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I did; homosexuality is objectively disordered insofar as it is attraction to acts which are intrinsically disordered and is not disordered insofar as it is not attraction to acts which are intrinsically disordered.

If it is “…not disordered insofar as it is not attraction to acts which are intrinsically disordered”…then we are not talking about homosexuality.

Homosexuality is merely one form that concupiscence may express itself as (which is not to say that homosexuality is only concupiscence).

How about the"near occasion of sin" in relation to homosexuality?

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Concupiscence is only the temptation. An unmarried man may be tempted to have sex with a woman. This temptation is not disordered. In fact, it is a biological imperative that hopefully nudges him to find a good wife. It is only disordered if he were to act on it or if the temptation was to have sex with someone inappropriate such as a married person. Fornication is disordered not because it is sexual but because of the context (unmarried). Fulfilling the temptation to have sex with someone would not be disordered if one was to wait until the wedding night. Homosexual attraction is disordered because of what it IS, not the context. There is no context where fulfilling those desires would be unsinful.

From the very paragraph you referenced (CCC 1755).

The disorder is “of the will”. The disorder is in the action, the choice to act, not the temptation.

There are many other instances of concupiscence that are not disordered as long as the temptation is not succumbed to, at least not immediately. If I was tempted to have a hamburger last Friday, it would be a temptation to sin. But it’s not disordered to desire a hamburger. All that was needed was to delay giving into that temptation until Saturday.

All concupiscence does not involve action that is objectively evil. Much of what we are tempted to do involves objective good that is acted upon inappropriately such as sex (unmarried vs. with a spouse) or eating a hamburger (on a lenten Friday vs. another weekday).

If it is “…not disordered insofar as it is not attraction to acts which are intrinsically disordered”…then we are not talking about homosexuality.

How about the"near occasion of sin" in relation to homosexuality?

Homosexuality is no more exclusively about gay sex than heterosexuality is about hetero sex. There’s more to sexuality than just sex, it also iinfluences how we connect on an interpersonal level.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Concupiscence is only the temptation. An unmarried man may be tempted to have sex with a woman. This temptation is not disordered. In fact, it is a biological imperative that hopefully nudges him to find a good wife. It is only disordered if he were to act on it or if the temptation was to have sex with someone inappropriate such as a married person. Fornication is disordered not because it is sexual but because of the context (unmarried). Fulfilling the temptation to have sex with someone would not be disordered if one was to wait until the wedding night. Homosexual attraction is disordered because of what it IS, not the context. There is no context where fulfilling those desires would be unsinful.

From the very paragraph you referenced (CCC 1755).

The disorder is “of the will”. The disorder is in the action, the choice to act, not the temptation.

There are many other instances of concupiscence that are not disordered as long as the temptation is not succumbed to, at least not immediately. If I was tempted to have a hamburger last Friday, it would be a temptation to sin. But it’s not disordered to desire a hamburger. All that was needed was to delay giving into that temptation until Saturday.

All concupiscence does not involve action that is objectively evil. Much of what we are tempted to do involves objective good that is acted upon inappropriately such as sex (unmarried vs. with a spouse) or eating a hamburger (on a lenten Friday vs. another weekday).

One problem with the language of “intrinsic disorder” is that almost no-one apart from theologians trained in the scholastic tradition correctly grasps its meaning. One author, who sets out passionately to defend the terminology, argues that the reason we call same-sex sex intrinsically disordered is because there is no “positive reordering of the sexual faculty to what is true, good, and beautiful,” and never can be, between same-sex partners. In contrast, a man having sex with a woman who is not his wife “is acting in a disordered way – but not intrinsically so,” because “his desire for the opposite sex, which is designed for the good of marriage, can become ordered to that end” if he later decides to marry.

But that isn’t what the term means. If it were, Thomas Aquinas would not have said that “all sex between men and women outside marriage is intrinsically disordered,” nor would the Catechism of the Catholic Church list fornication as an example of an intrinsically disordered act (1750-6), and neither would it claim that “lying” and “calumny” are intrinsically disordered (1753), since a liar can later choose to order his speech toward the truth. Without getting into a technical discussion of the history of the term, the main point of claiming that an act is intrinsically disordered is simply to highlight that “it is always wrong to choose” (1755). The clearest statement of the Catechism’s teaching on homosexual acts is therefore not the claim that such acts are “intrinsically disordered,” but the claim that, “under no circumstances can they be approved” (2357).

source

If it is “…not disordered insofar as it is not attraction to acts which are intrinsically disordered”…then we are not talking about homosexuality.

Sexuality isn’t just about sex, that goes for heterosexuality and homosexuality. Sexuality also affects how we interact with people.

How about the"near occasion of sin" in relation to homosexuality?

How about it?

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace and Peace!

Concupiscence is only the temptation.

Corki, I think you need to re-examine your understanding of Concupiscence. To begin with, it is not in itself temptation, but desire: desire for a particular (if only sensual) good. What the doctrine of concupiscence (since Trent) affirms is that human beings only ever desire the good–the difficulty is that since the fall, we have a tendency to appropriate the good to ourselves in inappropriate ways given that the “lower appetites” are divorced from reason and therefore have a difficult time apprehending what the good may actually be in any given circumstance and what a right relationship to it may actually look like.

Moreover, it is not the case that we confuse evil for good when we have a difficult time apprehending what the good might be. It is more the case that we have a difficult time apprehending whether or not a particular lesser good (such as pleasure) should be subordinated to a greater good (such as chastity).

(See newadvent.org/cathen/04208a.htm.)

Moreover, context is not what determines concupiscent desire. The concupiscent desire that an unmarried man may have for a woman who is not his wife is, in fact, disordered, if he desires her sexually–because sexual desire is only properly ordered to one’s spouse. That is not to say that such a desire is sinful…nor is it to say that such a desire will not, in fact, lead to sin by eventually constituting a temptation. But even here, there are so many movements of the soul: to find a woman attractive and to rejoice in her beauty is one thing; to desire to appropriate that beauty to oneself in a sexual act is another. The former represents a right ordering of concupiscence, the latter a disorder. Clearly the former is not even remotely close to either temptation or sin. The latter, however, may very well represent a temptation, and, if indulged by the will either through fantasy or through act, will be actual sin.

When we speak of homosexual desire, we may speak in similar terms: for a man to find another man attractive and rejoice in his beauty is one thing; to desire to appropriate that beauty in a sexual act is another. The former is ordered, the latter disordered. Same principle.

To assert, as you seem to here, that one cannot even speak of concupiscence constructively in the case of homosexuals is to say that homosexuals, like other people, are capable of misappropriating sensual goods, but unlike other people, are actually incapable of desiring the good, even inappropriately. What you assert here is that homosexuals, unlike other people, desire what cannot be good. That is to say, what you assert is that homosexuals are moral monsters that, unlike other people, are not quite human, because while concupiscence is always a desire for a good, homosexuals will always desire what is actually evil, at least when it comes to issues of attraction, romantic love and affection.

All concupiscence does not involve action that is objectively evil. Much of what we are tempted to do involves objective good that is acted upon inappropriately such as sex (unmarried vs. with a spouse) or eating a hamburger (on a lenten Friday vs. another weekday).

Again: concupiscence is a desire for a sensual good. Sensual goods are, in fact, objectively good. They may be lesser goods, but they’re good. We pursue those goods inappropriately, in part, when we prefer them to higher goods (such as fidelity to one’s spouse in the one case or following the disciplines of Mother Church in the other). And we contemplate committing objectively evil acts in order to appropriate the goods we desire because we believe those acts are the best ways to obtain the goods we seek. It is never the case, though, that we desire those evil acts in themselves. How many times have people throughout the ages mused, “I thought doing (blank) would give me pleasure, and, you know, it did in the moment. But it was completely fleeting, and now I feel awful”? The pleasure they desired was a sensual good that was inappropriately pursued, the consequences of which are living into varying degrees of awfulness.

So. Concupiscence is a desire for a sensual good. Homosexual desire and heterosexual desire are both examples of concupiscent desire–they both represent a sensual delight in the object of their attractions which, in both cases, are objective goods (i.e., human beauty). Both desires admit of disordered expressions according to the catechism (any homosexual act on the one hand, any heterosexual act with someone not one’s spouse on the other). A desire for a disordered expression or act is an objectively disordered desire, that is, a desire that is disordered according to the object/act desired is an objectively disordered desire. But both homosexual and heterosexual desires also admit of ordered expressions according to the catechism (chastity).

I fear that a lot of reformation theology regarding concupiscence and sin has crept into many Catholics’ understandings of concupiscence and sin, to the degree that they unthinkingly and unknowingly may find themselves believing in the classical protestant idea of the “total depravity” of humanity, in contrast to the traditional Catholic teaching that “nature is wounded but not destroyed.” The effect being that they are willing to affirm and actually do affirm (mostly unknowingly I would hope) that some people (unlike most people) are totally depraved.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[SuperLuigi]

I agree.

Some people on this thread have been making the case that it is outright harmful for gay people to identify with their attractions, no matter the reason. I was merely making the point that this was a ridiculous assertion, as identifying oneself with one’s orientation helps connect people, which makes evangelizing easier, much as identifying with one’s gender helps connect people to other people of that gender or identifying with one’s heritage helps connect people to other people of that heritage.

To be so rigid like is ridiculous! Identifying with others has won over numerous souls for Christ! :yup:

 

[Corki]

Again: concupiscence is a desire for a sensual good. Sensual goods are, in fact, objectively good. They may be lesser goods, but they’re good.

ok, up until this point. Not all sensual goods are objectively good.

So. Concupiscence is a desire for a sensual good. Homosexual desire and heterosexual desire are both examples of concupiscent desire–they both represent a sensual delight in the object of their attractions which, in both cases, are objective goods (i.e., human beauty).

Heterosexual desires are ordered toward an objective good. This desire can be rightly or wrongly expressed. Homosexual desires are ordered toward something that is not objectively good. They cannot be expressed in any way that is right. If someone chooses to act upon that desire, it is always wrong.

If concupiscence includes the concept that the desire must be ordered toward an objective good, then homosexual desires or temptations are not concupiscence at all. They are desires ordered toward a violation of an “exceptionless moral norm”.

Rau’s post above said it more precisely than I did.

The language of “disorder” is a bit messy. Fornication, lying, gay sex - are all described as “intrinsically disordered” - meaning “always wrong to choose”. In respect of homosexual acts, the Catechism might have been better to rest on the statement “under no circumstances can they be approved.” I understand that most contemporary theologians speak simply about “moral absolutes” or “exceptionless moral norms.” Homosexuality is the only area in which the language of disorder is maintained in popular writing.

Ref: spiritualfriendship.org/2013/…homosexuality/

 

[JimG]

. . . .
So. Concupiscence is a desire for a sensual good. Homosexual desire and heterosexual desire are both examples of concupiscent desire–they both represent a sensual delight in the object of their attractions which, in both cases, are objective goods (i.e., human beauty). Both desires admit of disordered expressions according to the catechism (any homosexual act on the one hand, any heterosexual act with someone not one’s spouse on the other). A desire for a disordered expression or act is an objectively disordered desire, that is, a desire that is disordered according to the object/act desired is an objectively disordered desire. But both homosexual and heterosexual desires also admit of ordered expressions according to the catechism (chastity).

Of course, human nature is fallen, not totally depraved, as a result of original sin. I think that the bolded part of your post in parentheses above is just the point that Corki has been making.

 

[JimG]

Naturally, people with similarities tend to be more amenable with one another. Nothing wrong with that. I would love it it people would identify themselves as oriented toward stamp collecting or coin collecting or reading particular genres of books rather than by their sexual temptations, as a means of social discourse.

 

[Rau]

Naturally, people with similarities tend to be more amenable with one another. Nothing wrong with that. I would love it it people would identify themselves as oriented toward stamp collecting or coin collecting or reading particular genres of books rather than by their sexual temptations, as a means of social discourse.

Perhaps this creates an opportunity for iPhone App developers?

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

ok, up until this point. Not all sensual goods are objectively good.

What sensual good is not truly good? Is there such a thing as a good that is not objectively good? Are you suggesting that the good is actually or can be merely relative? When people seek pleasure in whatever form, what they’re seeking is an actual good. That they may be seeking it to the detriment of a good of a greater or higher order good does not change the fact that the sensual good they’re seeking is actually completely good, it’s just being apprehended wrongly or inappropriately.

Heterosexual desires are ordered toward an objective good. This desire can be rightly or wrongly expressed.

Heterosexual desire, as a species of concupiscence, is, like all concupiscence, capable of leading us astray. The basic fact of heterosexual desire is: I’m attracted to people of the opposite sex as a function of my sensual appetite delivering up to my reason as goods worthy of desire sensual fragments which correspond with the opposite sex. That’s it. Reason orients that attraction to ends (chastity within or without marriage) that are greater than the sensual enjoyment of the body of the opposite sex. That’s heterosexual concupiscence.

Homosexual desires are ordered toward something that is not objectively good. They cannot be expressed in any way that is right. If someone chooses to act upon that desire, it is always wrong.

If a homosexual is attracted to the beauty of a human body, in what way is that attraction not good? Is it not possible for that homosexual person to rejoice in the beauty of someone of the same sex, even to gain pleasure from that beauty, without desiring to appropriate it to themselves via a sexual act? Don’t heterosexuals do that all the time? For instance, don’t heterosexuals have friends of the opposite sex that they find physically attractive, but they choose not to indulge desires to appropriate that beauty through sex for the sake of the friendship?

So I disagree with this idea that homosexual desire is indefatigably oriented to something evil–not only because of what that idea says about concupiscence in homosexual folks (i.e., they’re not human because unlike other humans they desire evil), but because it’s plain wrongheaded. The basic fact of homosexual desire is not I’m attracted to homosexual acts, but: I’m attracted to people of the same sex as a function of my sensual appetite delivering up to my reason as goods worthy of desire sensual fragments which correspond with the same sex. The catechism suggests that reason would order that attraction to chastity.

I understand that the catechism understands homosexuality solely in terms of an orientation to an act. I don’t think that’s a very accurate understanding of what homosexuality actually is, and I think it leads us to an understanding of homosexual folks as people who, contrary to everyone else in the world, are oriented to desire things that are actually evil.

Moreover, if a homosexual’s sexuality cannot be expressed in any right way, then chastity is impossible for a homosexual, because chastity is an expression of sexuality. If it is your thesis that a homosexual’s sexuality must be abolished, elided, or erased in order for them to actually be chaste, then you are suggesting that there is, in fact, something in a homosexual person that is totally depraved and that must be destroyed in order for them to approach living anything like a human life, even though by repressing (instead of integrating) their sexuality, they are repressing an important part of their humanity. And that flies in the face of Trent on concupiscence, and it flies in the face of lived human experience.

It follows, therefore, that there must, in fact, be a way for a homosexual as a homosexual to live a life of chastity. Or if we must understand homosexuality as “an attraction to an act,” then we must come up with another term to describe the affections of those who are attracted to people of the same sex.

If concupiscence includes the concept that the desire must be ordered toward an objective good, then homosexual desires or temptations are not concupiscence at all. They are desires ordered toward a violation of an “exceptionless moral norm”.

Concupiscence is the idea that desire is oriented to a good, but that we have trouble recognizing how to pursue that good in moral ways, particularly when it comes to choosing greater and competing goods that do not have the immediate pleasurable appeal of the sensual good. We fall into sin when we misapprehend the good that we should desire or seek to appropriate goods in inappropriate ways (as a consequence of the divorce of reason from the sensual appetite in the fall). As humans, our sensual appetites deliver to reason things that they apprehend as good. They do not deliver to reason things that they apprehend as evil. Homosexual desire is a form of concupiscence; if it is not, then it cannot be described as a desire that actual humans can have.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[djames99]

Maybe I missed it, but what specifically is her position. What’s the point she’s trying to make.?

Social justice is being served when society, mandated by God, shows disdain and applies shunning because of sins a person obstinately commits, which are crimes against Him. One can actually count on it happening, and thank God for it.

It’s not going to go away, because if ever mankind should relent to it, we turn our allegiance away from God and accept the god who is the master of this trickery. But this is the goal of the exercise. The person is a pawn in a greater plan.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Sexuality isn’t just about sex, that goes for heterosexuality and homosexuality. Sexuality also affects how we interact with people.

Like shaking hands or hugging…??

How about it?

(“near occasion of sin” )

Pretty much defined the dangers of homosexual “attraction” as you like to call it.

 

[SMGS127]

(“near occasion of sin” )

Pretty much defined the dangers of homosexual “attraction” as you like to call it.

What do you propose Zoltan? Gays and lesbians stay permanently away from members of their own gender?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

What do you propose Zoltan? Gays and lesbians stay permanently away from members of their own gender?

I never said that.

What I propose it that gays and lesbians who are or want to be Catholic leave their “disorder”
behind and assume the identity of a celibate single person.

Now before you go ballistic…look at some facts.

Homosexuality is viewed by the vast majority of humans as unnatural. (Religious teachings aside) Right, wrong, tolerated, or understandable…it is still not acceptable. That puts gays and lesbians in a distinct minority.

There are several single persons in my parish who do good work with kids, RCIA and parish councils. Are they gay or lesbian (just because they are single)??? Who cares…who knows.
None of these folks have proclaimed their homosexuality Oh, I suppose I could be suspicious of some of them…but why? It is really none of my business and I don’t care.
My objection would be to a person who proclaims to be homosexual and then goes about re-defining Church teachings for the purpose of acceptance of their disorder.

At the risk of being labeled a bigoted, sexist, homophobe…I would have more love and respect for a person who said that they USED to be homosexual but now are a celibate, single Catholic.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

I never said that.

What I propose it that gays and lesbians who are or want to be Catholic leave their “disorder”
behind and assume the identity of a celibate single person.

LGBT identity and devout celibate Catholic aren’t mutually exclusive.

Now before you go ballistic…look at some facts.

Homosexuality is viewed by the vast majority of humans as unnatural. (Religious teachings aside) Right, wrong, tolerated, or understandable…it is still not acceptable. That puts gays and lesbians in a distinct minority.

There are several single persons in my parish who do good work with kids, RCIA and parish councils. Are they gay or lesbian (just because they are single)??? Who cares…who knows.
None of these folks have proclaimed their homosexuality Oh, I suppose I could be suspicious of some of them…but why? It is really none of my business and I don’t care.
My objection would be to a person who proclaims to be homosexual and then goes about re-defining Church teachings for the purpose of acceptance of their disorder.

:doh2:

At the risk of being labeled a bigoted, sexist, homophobe…I would have more love and respect for a person who said that they USED to be homosexual but now are a celibate, single Catholic.

That just makes you look ignorant because homosexual is about orientation and being a celibate Catholic wouldn’t make you any more or less “homosexual”.

 

[Rau]

At the risk of being labeled a bigoted, sexist, homophobe…I would have more love and respect for a person who said that they USED to be homosexual but now are a celibate, single Catholic.

Do you object simply to one revealing their sexual inclinations (“homosexual”), or are you misusing the word “homosexual”? You do understand that one can be “homosexual” and “celibate”?

I note in passing that there are those who use the terms “gay” and “homosexual” in a manner that goes beyond the inclination to also imply the embracing of same sex relationships. [If one starts with a view that same sex relationships are perfectly fine for a homosexual person, then I suppose that is understandable usage.] This does create some confusion in casual discussion.

 

[Rau]

My objection would be to a person who proclaims to be homosexual and then goes about re-defining Church teachings for the purpose of acceptance of their disorder.
…

By “re-defining”, I think you probably mean “disputing” and creating arguments to the contrary?

I assume you object to such “false teachings”, pretty much regardless of who put thems? That the protagonist has such a personal stake in the matter does not really make it, or the person arguing the case, that much worse does it? It’s not that surprising that the person driven to argue a case is personally involved.

It is far better to focus on the arguments than on the person raising them.