This is your understand, but I believe incorrect. The word “objectively” is not required if the meaning is as you say. It would be redundant. The church is focussing attention on the disorder in so far as the immoral acts to which it may be directed. There is a lot of baggage in attraction. The attraction to the “intrinsically disordered” things is the concern. Consider the class of acts that are prohibited in this section of the catechism. It is targeted.
Before I spend time replying, I want to understand your belief about the Catholic teaching on this subject.
That’s hardly a magisterial statement. Moreover, it brings up this question: surely the celibate can achieve “the sexual integrity to which mankind is called” without being in any sort of romantic relationship–so what does celibacy have in common with matrimony that a chaste same-sex relationship of beloveds cannot possess?
Incorrect. A disordered attraction is always to a disordered object. An attraction cannot be morally evaluated without reference to its object. I challenge you to explain to me how you can determine that an attraction or an inclination is disordered without any consideration of its object. What you are saying is that, when it comes to homosexuality, a homosexual will only ever be inclined in an immoral way regardless of whether or not the thing to which s/he is inclined is immoral. This is contrary to catholic teaching regarding concupiscence and desire.
Sorry, Longing, but you’re making a lot of assumptions here. It is not necessary for everyone to reproduce in order for the species to survive in a healthy way. Universal heterosexuality is hardly needful therefore; nor would it indefatigably lead to offspring for all people so inclined as, even now, not all who experience the heterosexual condition reproduce; nor, given the astounding diversity of nature, would universal heterosexuality be necessarily indicative of a completely natural state of affairs. Moreover, if the church were merely conforming herself to created nature, then certainly a return to polygamy would be more called for than an insistence on monogamy and marriage.
Again, the homosexual inclination is disordered only insofar as it is ordered to an intrinsically disordered act. That’s the catechism, Longing.
I tried to analyse this section of the catechism here, which addresses my understanding. I believe my reading is the same as Deo.
The catechism seems very clear to me: it makes a distinction between two things: an act and an inclination. The act it describes as immoral on account of it being intrinsically disordered (i.e., not open to life, biological sexual complementarity, etc.); the inclination to such an immoral object it necessarily describes as an objectively disordered inclination. The catechism is being quite specific.
No. I’m not saying it’s demonstrably licit, but it’s certainly not illicit. It would be a matter of prudential judgment and should probably include the counsel of a sympathetic and well-loved priest.
The error you make in your reading of Church doctrine and its an error many Protestants and new converts make… is that you are reading it through the Protestant lens which starts from a place of our salvation being assured by the act of Baptism. Catholicism permeates the Catholics view of everything in life and sees us as on a journey to salvation, cooperating with the Holy Spirit through the grace of baptism. We are not assured of salvation by our redemption and not free to embrace any perspective we like so long as we stop short of the 10 commandments.
I don’t believe any such thing, Longing.
I, too, believe that sanctification is a process of cooperation, and that we are not guaranteed salvation by virtue of our baptism.
This does not at all characterize my beliefs.
Be that as it may, the hermeneutic of “favorabilia sunt amplianda, odiosa sunt restrigenda” is a Catholic one. It’s a method of interpreting law (whatever kind of law it may be) that insists, in part, on a very close and restrictive reading of the law when it comes to things prohibited. It is not a matter of a thing being defined “by my own measures,” it is a matter of a binding thing being defined according to its strictest possible sense, otherwise we would risk (in the words of Matthew 23) binding “heavy burdens and grievous to be borne,” on our brothers and sisters while we ourselves “will not move them” to give them relief.
My objection, Longing, was to the romantic teleology implied in your question, not to the idea that we are on a journey of sanctification.
I posted my understanding of the relevant section of the catechism in a few spots, and did get to the issue of “objectively disordered”, along with a couple of other issues including the meaning and intent of “relations” and “disinterested friendships”. See the following:
I was responding to your assertion that I had everything wrong. That I’d misread the CCC and I didn’t know Church doctrine in the superior way that you do. I seem to remember that I’ve discussed with you before and been subjected to this same tactic. My gut is telling me not to waste time on addressing myself to you because you already have your opinion set in concrete as truth. I’m sorry but I have to be done with this topic and these threads as it just feels wrong to be entertaining such anti Catholic worldviews as Catholic.
As I said in the last post, I’m bowing out of this discussion. The English language has its flaws and ambiguities, but ‘objectively’, ‘disinterested’ and ‘romance’ are words that have pretty clear meaning the way they are used by the Church. I think it is far more honest to live life according to secular values than to try and change the Church teaching to fit with whatever we like.
I’m sorry you feel that way. I hoped you would respond to the content, rather than look to impugn motives (again).
I said you were confusing things, not that you had “everything” wrong. You wrote “The objectively disordered inclination to sexual attraction to same sex” [sic] and that seemed very confusing to me on a number of levels, but most particularly as the catechism does not speak of an inclination to an attraction.
Even according to your own bishops (as Rau here and Joie elsewhere have shown), it is a mistake to believe that the words “intrinsic” and “objective” in this context are synonyms. They are not. Intrinsic refers to something in itself, objective refers to something according to its goal, end or object.
How is an understanding of something anti-Catholic if your own Catholic bishops promote that understanding?
Like I asked Kamaduck, what is the purpose of the romantic attraction in causing an exclusive focuss on an individual similarly to men and women attracted to each other in a sexual way (as opposed to philial way)? When it is between the sexes as it should be its purpose is not ambiguous at all. it is to bring them together as men and women as people who must complete each other as mating partners. and we all know the purpose of mating. I have yet to see any of you challenge this for heterosexuals. you only challenge it when discussing gay people where the same thing suddenly gets a different ambiguous “could be” unknown purpose somewhere that you cannot quite put your finger on.
I’m not trying to prove anything. I’ve not claimed to have proven anything. I’m trying to understand specific church teaching. I think it means what I have said. I accept you see it differently. I read the catechism, and I read and referenced documents from Cardinal Ratzinger and from the Canadian and British Bishops in the process. I looked at the matter dispassionately; I have no personal stake in it.
Here is the thing: you looked at it from the angle of lust and could not find in your interpretation, (again not in full agreement with it) a teaching specifically ruling it out. My issue with you (and Kamaduck) is why we are focusing only on whether certain acts are lustful in themselves. Perhaps there are other ways of looking at things? For example, in each of the answers given at CAF linked by bookcat, you will notice that none of the answers went to whether or not they are specific violations of lust. they simply defined the purpose of dating and concluded it could not be served by couples who can in no way pursue that purpose. this is why I think it is narrow to just focus on the acts in question. that’s not the only way we find truth. are there other ways of answering the question besides the 6th commandment?
Did you find the Catholic Answers answer persuasive? Should the thread have ended at the moment that was presented? It included no reasoning or references to authoritative sources. We were trying to reach a conclusion that we could base on teaching - the Catholic Answers answer didn’t help with that.
If chaste lovers are immoral, then I’m afraid morality entered into the Catholic Church in the 19th century
