B
Bookcat
Guest
Helpful Quote: “the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.” (CDF Homosexualitas problema 3)
- Status
S
SMGS127
Guest
Alright whatever
.I’ll stick with the Catholic definition and you can stick with the Merriam-Webster definition.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
A disorder is not a sin. A disorder is a disorder. That means that it is not ordered to the purpose of nature and of God. A disorder could lead to a sin, but a disorder could like the thorn in Pauls flesh, be a source of greater dependence and trust in Gods healing grace.
B
Bookcat
Guest
Since we are on Catholic Answers site -
Quote from the Ask the Apologist - Catholic Answers Apologist staff:
May 23, '11, 6:56 pm
“For two men to live in a romantic relationship with one another, whether or not they abstain from sex, violates chastity because it does not conform to the sexual integrity to which mankind is called.”
Michelle Arnold
Catholic Answers Apologist
Question:
The Church does not say anything specifically about this. Can two gay men date, and even get married, but remain celibate and not sin?
Answer:
As to the question of same-sex marriage, the Church has spoken: It is not possibl**e (see link in original text). Since dating is a preparation for and discernment of marriage, it follows that those who cannot marry each other should not be dating.
Michelle Arnold
Catholic Answers Apologist
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=10859862&highlight=date#post10859862
(there is a link with in the text that one can follow but one needs to go to the original)
Quote from the Ask the Apologist - Catholic Answers Apologist staff:
May 23, '11, 6:56 pm
“For two men to live in a romantic relationship with one another, whether or not they abstain from sex, violates chastity because it does not conform to the sexual integrity to which mankind is called.”
Michelle Arnold
Catholic Answers Apologist
Question:
The Church does not say anything specifically about this. Can two gay men date, and even get married, but remain celibate and not sin?
Answer:
As to the question of same-sex marriage, the Church has spoken: It is not possibl**e (see link in original text). Since dating is a preparation for and discernment of marriage, it follows that those who cannot marry each other should not be dating.
Michelle Arnold
Catholic Answers Apologist
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=10859862&highlight=date#post10859862
(there is a link with in the text that one can follow but one needs to go to the original)
O
One_point
Guest
It is because it is inclined towards an immoral object that is actually/truly/capable of being judged objectively (as longing put it) to be disordered. Come to think of it there is no contradiction between the two meanings. If it is inclined towards immoral objects then it is always disordered, the intentions of the parties notwithstanding. Intentions (subjectivity)only come in to show the people are not sinning unless they themselves intentionally cause/perpetuate the condition. Hence probably no one is 'guilty" of being gay, but being gay is objectively disordered.
B
Bookcat
Guest
Correct. And we are not to act according anything that is “disordered” within us for any reason. Such an act would be to follow -to conform to the disorder.
Helpful Quote from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: “the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.” (CDF Homosexualitas problema 3)
S
SMGS127
Guest
The “object” that is disordered is homosexual sex acts, specifically. Every single papal statement specifically refers to sex acts. There is literally nothing in Magisterial teaching against same-sex romance of any kind, as long as it does not involve eros.
Also, Bookcat, can you please not spam another thread? It’s really annoying trying to respond to people when you post the exact same post fifty times. We get it; a NARTH supporter doesn’t think there’s anything good that can come out of a same-sex attraction; gee, I wonder why
.
S
SMGS127
Guest
Yes, it is disordered in its OBJECT of homosexual sexual acts.
S
SMGS127
Guest
Anyways, we are getting way off topic. Can we get back to One Point’s original question about romantic attraction/expression and whether that is exclusive to marriage? I still maintain that only eros is exclusive to marriage, out of the three loves of romance.
O
One_point
Guest
But contracts do involve an exchange of rights and property, so they do involve some form of possession as far as rights exchanged. It is just that what is exchanged is not the person himself directly but services (hence his time and effort/work) or property. Boyfriend and girlfriend do commit on the basis of eros. Otherwise as you say, there woud be no jealousy if someone cheated unless married. People could freely date other people until they proposed but we know it would not be possible to do this because it would interfere in the deepening of the friendship to a more exclusive one leadng to marriage.I addressed this earlier in the thread, but I will repeat myself so you don’t have to dig it up. Also, yes it is okay to call me S.
Two people in a romantic friendship do not have the right to the other’s attention, unlike a husband and wife. However, due to the storge commitment, they still can have an expectation of exclusivity. That is to say, either person can end the relationship at any time, as neither person has any right to the other. But they still make a promise of commitment out of storge love that, as long as the two are in a romantic friendship, is reasonable to expect that they will fulfill said commitment. It is the same way that, when a person signs a contract, they expect both parties to fulfill said contract. But they do not possess each other. They have no right to each other. And either can leave at any time. But contractual exclusivity is not the same thing as possession.
B
Bookcat
Guest
That is part of what the CDF was clearing up. It is not only the acts (the objects) but inclination itself. It is in itself “disordered”. The inclination within the person.
“the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.” (CDF Homosexualitas problema 3)
And as such it is not to be acted upon in interior or exterior acts.
Just as any other disordered inclination of other sorts. Both those common to fallen human nature as well as that which may be specific to a person.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
There is not going to be any way made unless you are able to acknowledge the Churchs advice that the inclination towards same sex attachment is disordered. In itself that inclination has no positive purpose other than as Pauls thorn in the flesh. A trial to be heroically endured and never acted upon. A trial to be offered up with the trials of our Lord on His road to Calvary. The inclination itself cannot be transformed into a quasi romantic third way like people are wont to do when they want so badly to indulge an illicit relationship. It is the backgate to sin.
S
SMGS127
Guest
Yes, boyfriend and girlfriend commit on the basis of eros. A romantic friendship commits on the basis of storge. It is the same thing as if two best friends committed to each other, moved in together, and granted medical/legal authority to each other. That is a storge commitment. And I highly doubt either one would be perfectly okay with the other just running off without notice to Europe to never be spoken to again. There is exclusivity in storge, it is just a non-possessive exclusivity. The romantic friendship social contract involves a promise to commit one’s current time to helping take care of the other, however necessary. It involves a promise of agape love. But again, neither has the right to the other. Either one can break the contract [peacefully] at any time with no theological consequences. Neither possesses the other. They do not seek unity with each other. Yet it is still an agape & storge romance.
In your opinion.
I am at no risk of sin when I do this, whatsoever. You may think I’m completely lying to you in describing my experiences, and that’s fine. But my experiences are true, and I am not at risk of sin. There is no sin found in sharing agape and storge love with a friend.
O
One_point
Guest
But the expectations of those two best friend, or ther terms of commitment do not involve forbidding or limiting romantic affairs with others. It is only that which is necessary to maintain the arrangement which is not romantic at all. The one you described has this expectation that the other will not be romantically involved with others. That is very different from the best friend scenario. The best friend scenario is no different from a brotherly or tribal pact or the old blood covenants: I have your back! If you are in a war, I will come in, or we will share all our property and so on. The expection of exclusivity has only to do with excluding that which contradicts the pact. For example, you cannot make a similar war pact with my enemy, what if he comes to make war with me? Who will you fight for? But it does not exclude pacts with those who have sworn that with me if they agree also to swear that with you. That is why marriage is totally exclusive for the Christian. The whole person is exchanged nothing is left to exchange with another. But the expectation that the other will limit his romantic dalliances to you, this exclusivity shows that it is a possessive arrangement and that precisely is possessed is that which cannot be given away to another in good faith without the consent of the partner. In other words, taking care of each other and sharing bills like friends does not give rights over the romantic life of the other. Hence asserting ownership (that is what you do when you assert this is exclusive) over it would be unfounded in any justice.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
B
Bookcat
Guest
Rather in the Teaching of the Catholic Church.
S
SMGS127
Guest
I think we will have to agree to disagree. I do not think romantic exclusivity is only a possession or eros romance. I think it can be a storge romance too. I think people are too harsh nowadays; our modernist Puritan culture has really expanded what people see as “sexual.”
I’ve had an entire relationship where I did this exact thing I am describing. Never had any temptation to go further. So no, there is literally zero occasion of sin.
S
SMGS127
Guest
The teaching of the Catholic Church is that the inclination of homosexuality is disordered in the object of same-sex sexual activity, not same-sex “attachments,” as LongingSoul put it. Going further into attachments is taking a rigorist moral approach to Catholic teaching, and is thus her opinion.
B
Bookcat
Guest
Not sure what was meant by “attachments” - she can clarify.
What I was getting at is that yes the “inclination” “itself” is yes disordered.
the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: “the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.” (CDF Homosexualitas problema 3)
And such is not only in regards to particular sexual sins.
S
SMGS127
Guest
Yes, the inclination itself must be seen as a disorder with respect to its object of sexual activity specifically.
- Status