Living as a gay Catholic man......

[Baelor]

Are you asserting that experiencing lust(hetero or otherwise) is no big deal and people should give up hope of overcoming that disordered inclination?

That is misleading. It is pretty clear that the Church views homosexuality as a disorder. Having heterosexual thoughts is not intrinsically disordered in the same way that having homosexual ones is; one fits into a larger ordered pattern (marriage) while the other does not.

 

[manualman]

I find the idea that loving someone (and I mean really loving, not lusting) will cause them to lose their soul. Isn’t God love? Do you really think that when you die God will say “good job throwing him away - love is good, but only sometimes.”

It’s a matter of presuppositions. (and I think you left out a word or two in there, but I suspect I get the message anyways).

Love desires the best for the beloved. If you sincerely believed that someone you loved was engaged in inherently self destructive behavior, would you encourage him to keep doing it? Do it WITH him? Sometimes love requires us to confront those we love with things they don’t want to hear. In this specific instance, the penitent did not “throw away” his gay lover, he had to remove himself from the relationship in order to control his own appettites. Precious few alcoholics are instantly ready to go hang out in bars and tell others about the dangers of alcohol abuse, are they? Are they ‘throwing away’ their former drinking buddies? I say no.

 

[manualman]

That is misleading. It is pretty clear that the Church views homosexuality as a disorder. Having heterosexual thoughts is not intrinsically disordered in the same way that having homosexual ones is; one fits into a larger ordered pattern (marriage) while the other does not.

I disagree. Having “lustful thoughts” (by definition, lust sees the other as an object to be exploited, not a person to be treasured) is disordered whether you are SSA or hetero. It’s a form of scapegoating to assert that one is worse than the other. It makes people feel better if somebody else’s sins are ‘worse’ than their own.

But really it’s beside the point. Kind of like those threads about “Is it a worse sin to use contraception when fornicating…” Who cares how the deck chairs are arranged on the Titanic?

 

[Baelor]

I disagree. Having “lustful thoughts” (by definition, lust sees the other as an object to be exploited, not a person to be treasured) is disordered whether you are SSA or hetero.

Let us focus on a particular subset of lustful thoughts that is, in my opinion, the topic of conversation in this thread: sexual thoughts towards others. The Church teaches that these thoughts may not be entertained or sought out.

Heterosexual thoughts like these are intrinsically of a different type than homosexual ones, the former pointing toward an action that is permissible at all while the latter not.

Thus, to say that “lustful thoughts” (i.e. sexual thoughts) are disordered is simply wrong according to Catholic understanding. Have sexual desire is not intrinsically disordered.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Grace & Peace!

…

How surprising that you surfaced in this thread, Mark. Not!

Your post is another tortuous offering from you to explain the homosexual condition, more of the same message and method illustrating that
Homosexuality is a concupiscence that is oh-so-different, oh-so special, incomparable to any departure from the 90% of human experience, and

There is something wrong or lacking in the language of the Church’s moral teaching in the catechism on the homosexual condition and behavior.
Homosexuals have a negative reaction as a listener to the word “disorder” as used by the Church because it is personalized by the listener who has said condition. To them, the Church is saying that he or she is disordered. Catholics who are struggling with homosexuality issues need to realize that the “disorder” is meant by the Church in a philosophical sense, referring to the purpose of sexual activity in the natural order, and not as a description of the person in psychological or medical terms. Legal philosopher John Finnis points to the language of the catechism on the subject as, “This is a moral doctrine, a teaching about what is right (or wrong), good (or worthless and harmful), and choiceworthy (or sinful).” Father John Harvey describes it as, “But if one has a sexual-genital attraction to another person of the same sex, it can never lead to a morally good act between the two individuals, but rather it will always lead to an immoral act. That is why it is called an objective disorder.”

By the way, I read the your “source” who goes by the user name of Sinner, a subscriber to a blog site called Renegade Trads. It draws like minded bloggers who identify as open minded Catholics “committed to the idea that doctrinal orthodoxy and traditional aesthetics can be combined with a tolerant, pragmatic realism, an individualist, free-thinking, psychosexually integrated personality, …”

In fact, the current main blog with that link in fact features an article “First Things: Creating the Illusion of ‘Chaste’ Gays.”

I am sure you did not miss that the OP is Catholic, who presently identifies as gay and chaste. Of course, it would be better if the OP sees the wisdom of not identifying as ‘gay’ because the political term does not really go together with ‘chaste.’

Briefly, I would like to direct the next sentences to SacredHeartFan, the OP: Consider the title of the cited article above, on the illusion of ‘chaste’ gays. Elsewhere, you indicated your preference to use ‘gay’ to identify what and who you are. Your homosexual inclination is not what and who you are. Words indeed have power. Words cannot change reality but they can change how people perceive reality. Life would be a little bit simpler for you if you skip the qualifiers.

Back to you Mark. The substance of your posting serves as not so indirect persuasion to Catholics struggling with homosexuality issues to disregard the catechism, an example, this sentence from you:

I would argue that it’s the language of “objective disorder” that invites such comparisons. And I and others would further argue that that language is problematic, to say the least.

Mark, this is the reason I find your posts troubling in this forum. To me, they appear to facilitate in inculcation of views that justify living a homosexual life, which are against Catholic teaching.
,

 

[texasmavs1985]

That is misleading. It is pretty clear that the Church views homosexuality as a disorder. Having heterosexual thoughts is not intrinsically disordered in the same way that having homosexual ones is; one fits into a larger ordered pattern (marriage) while the other does not.

I don’t know about the whole thing concerning the Church views it as a “disorder”. I was raised as a protestant who converted over to Catholicism not believing that at all. I may not completely agree with the whole same sex marriage thing because I personally am sick and tired of people making this a political topic in addition to being criticized for my views as a Christian by those who think that marriage should be only within the Church. Do I discriminate against those who are homosexual, no. They’re humans just like heterosexuals. I can throw every scripture in the bible that is against homosexual actions but that does not constitute for me to hate them.

 

[Baelor]

They’re humans just like heterosexuals. I can throw every scripture in the bible that is against homosexual actions but that does not constitute for me to hate them.

I agree.

 

[triumphguy]

Very good article by Most Rev. James D. Conley, S.T.L.,

He starts:

I spent a very enjoyable evening last week talking about human sexuality … in a bar.

Not every bishop can say that.

archden.org/index.cfm/ID/8277?CFID=47710817&CFTOKEN=25531692

 

[slotty]

If you keep God’s word and follow it, you will still make it to heaven.

However since you’re gay, you are called to chastity.

It’ll be hard, but we all have burdens to carry.

You my friend misunderstand chastity.

Abstaining from sexual relations does not equal chastity

We are all called to chastity in marriage, in the priesthood, in consecrated life or in being single.

 

[SacredHeartFan]

Briefly, I would like to direct the next sentences to SacredHeartFan, the OP: Consider the title of the cited article above, on the illusion of ‘chaste’ gays. Elsewhere, you indicated your preference to use ‘gay’ to identify what and who you are. Your homosexual inclination is not what and who you are. Words indeed have power. Words cannot change reality but they can change how people perceive reality. Life would be a little bit simpler for you if you skip the qualifiers.
,

Ok, another clarification for everyone: I don’t walk up and introduce myself, “Hello, I’m Jude. I’m gay.”
However, after a certain amount of time spent with individuals you can notice it. I am not a “flamming” (pardon my slang) person. I am actually quite the butch opposite of the gay stereotype. Spending time with me, you will notice I’m not checking out girls or talking about how “hot” Mila Kunis is. So if the question comes up in conversation, “Hey Jude, are you gay?” There is no point in my denying where my attractions lay.

 

[bejonama]

If we’re all being honest here, I HATE that analogy. I know you mean well in trying to find a common ground, and I commend you for putting forth quite a bit more effort that many people in trying to understand our situation. Here is the problem I have with that analogy: In my mind, I have a set of three different “gays.” 1.) “Born This Way Gay” (that would be an individual such as myself, who cannot explain nor comprehend where their attractions came from) 2.) “Situational Gay” (individuals whose same sex attractions were most likely cause by some traumatizing event(s) i.e. A woman becoming a lesbian because of sexual abuse by her father or other male figure) 3.) “The Attention Gay” (individuals who may not even experience SSA at all, but label themselves gay for acceptance into a community, because they were rejected by others)
Alcholism comes with situation. Whether that be emotional, or addictive, or whatever the case may be, one does not simply come out of the womb craving alcohol. There is no horomone released during puberty to make a person feel the need to drink alcholic beverages. So the analogy to alcholism is completely null when it comes to “born this way gays.”

And yes, I use and accept the term gay. Gay is what I was taught and its just what I am. I’m not big on the EXACT definitions of words. Especially over something as trivial as that.

As the mother of both an alcoholic son and another with ssa I actually think that the analogy works better than you give it credit for. Neither of my sons experienced any serious trauma, both of them have an overly close relationship with me and and an almost non existent one with their father; my ssa son, definitely had a predisposition, in retrospect he showed signs of ssa from a fairly young age, two of my bils are alcolholics and my son with alcoholism, began drinking at a similar age unbeknownst to us. I absolutely believe that if we had had better knowledge and more awareness of both conditions, we could have made a difference in their lives. My son with alcoholism is working towards improving his life, it’s easier in a way because the world agrees that it is something worth abstaining from. My son with ssa is unfortunately completely fooled by the lies that the world feeds him. He believes absolutely that he was born to be this way and he is embracing it. I continue to love and cry and pray and hopefully avoid the mistakes we made with the rest of our children.

 

[Suegra]

One of my problems with some of those in the very politically active LGBT “movement” is that it reduces people to their sexual attractions or activities. To me, it’s insulting - as if they were depicting people with SSA to be no more than animals, without the choice or intellect to act, or not, on their urges.

God give us free will, but most people these days seem to behave as if their feelings are what matter, not their will, much less what the Church teaches. .

Sacred Heart Fan, I feel truly blessed that I came across your original post tonight. It has helped me understand.better the struggle that chaste and celibate Catholics with SSA experience. May God strengthen you daily in your faith.

---

P.S. About 4 years ago I met a man who (having just barely met me about 5 minutes before) proclaimed that he was openly homosexual. I found it distasteful to have someone discussing his sex life with me on 5 minutes’ acquaintance. I realized later that it was a litmus test to see if I was someone he wanted to know. (I guess not, because I’ve not been on the guest lists for social activities where he’s been present.)

People are so much more than their sexual activities or attractions.

But, I think if I hadn’t been so startled, I would have responded, “Really? I’m openly heterosexual. What’s your point?”

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Before I respond to manualman’s questions, I wanted to address your post, InSearch.

Your post is another tortuous offering from you to explain the homosexual condition, more of the same message and method illustrating that
Homosexuality is a concupiscence that is oh-so-different, oh-so special, incomparable to any departure from the 90% of human experience, and

If that’s really what you think I’m saying, then you have no idea what I’m saying. You may not be reading closely. You may be complicating the issue with a whole host of ready-made assumptions which I can only guess at based on our previous interactions.

There is something wrong or lacking in the language of the Church’s moral teaching in the catechism on the homosexual condition and behavior.

There is in fact something wrong in the RCC’s moral teaching in the catechism regarding the homosexual condition–that the inclination is an objective disorder. You can say that only if you posit that the inclination is ordered toward sexual activity or if you posit that the sexual appetite in a male is ordered to a female body and that the appetite in females is to a male body: two appetites, two wills, two natures, two orientations toward two different goods relative to the sex of the person. If you go down the path of the former, *you *are the one advocating that homosexuality is oh-so-special, oh-so-different (heterosexuality in itself is not ordered to sexual activity, otherwise, again, two heterosexuals on a date would be in a near occasion of sin and merely indulging their lusts). If you go down the path of the latter, then not only do you end up with two human natures, one for males, one for females (theologically problematic in its own right), but you also wind up with a situation in which homosexuals desire an evil relative to their nature in complete contradiction to the RCC’s teaching regarding concupiscence…and you wind up saying that homosexuality is oh-so-special and oh-so-different because you wind up saying that it’s that much more depraved.

Regarding moral strictures on what homosexuals or anyone else can do or how they may behave, sexually or otherwise, I have no problem acknowleding that Rome has the authority to say “thou shalt do” or “thou shalt not do” in any given circumstance.

Catholics who are struggling with homosexuality issues need to realize that the “disorder” is meant by the Church in a philosophical sense, referring to the purpose of sexual activity in the natural order, and not as a description of the person in psychological or medical terms.

That’s all well and good, InSearch, and I’ve no doubt you’re right. But the term and the philosophical matrix in which it is used also have moral and theological implications regarding the most basic assumptions of how we understand human desire and our capacity for grace.

By the way, I read the your “source” who goes by the user name of Sinner, a subscriber to a blog site called Renegade Trads.

Indeed, and I find that his use of the moniker “A Sinner” is an act of humility, not (as I think you’re cynically suggesting), an ironic act. I’d encourage you to read his work. It’s passionately traditional in its outlook, thoughtful, thought-provoking, and faithfully engages the tradition. If I were ever to convert to Roman Catholicism, it would be because of the witness of the folks at places like the Renegade Trad blog and the Vox Nova online magazine: folks who don’t see engagement with their tradition as an act of faithlessness.

Of course, it would be better if the OP sees the wisdom of not identifying as ‘gay’ because the political term does not really go together with ‘chaste.’

It seems that we both agree that your objection to how the OP refers to himself is grounded in a concern for a political and polemical purity as opposed to other considerations or concerns.

The substance of your posting serves as not so indirect persuasion to Catholics struggling with homosexuality issues to disregard the catechism, an example, this sentence from you:

If I were arguing that anyone should disregard the catechism, I wouldn’t bother to engage with it and treat it as the important thing that it is.

You seem to confuse the struggle to understand, engage, or wrestle with something as a worthless attempt to wriggle through or around it in order to disregard it in the end: why struggle when you can just accept what’s good for you? For some, maybe for you, that’s the way their faith works, and I admire them for it. For others, that’s decidedly not how their faith works. It’s tiresome and saddening to me that it seems like all of your misunderstandings of my points and all of your arguments against your misunderstandings always seem to come down to some version of this: you suggesting that I’m deviously trying to infect others with what you perceive to be my faithlessness. I don’t think that’s why people bother to wrestle or engage with something that they don’t think is important. For some, the struggle actually constitutes their faith.

Mark, this is the reason I find your posts troubling in this forum. To me, they appear to facilitate in inculcation of views that justify living a homosexual life, which are against Catholic teaching.
,

I’m not trying to inculcate anything, InSearch. I’m trying to engage with something.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Ok, another clarification for everyone: I don’t walk up and introduce myself, “Hello, I’m Jude. I’m gay.”
However, after a certain amount of time spent with individuals you can notice it. I am not a “flamming” (pardon my slang) person. I am actually quite the butch opposite of the gay stereotype. Spending time with me, you will notice I’m not checking out girls or talking about how “hot” Mila Kunis is. So if the question comes up in conversation, “Hey Jude, are you gay?” There is no point in my denying where my attractions lay.

If you and the new friend are having that conversation after spending some time interacting, why not say, with a genuine smile, “No (or not gay). Just not attracted to the opposite sex.”

It depends, of course, if you want to engage further. Obviously, the exchange of personal information about each other comes up in different ways.

This is simply a suggestion on my part. If you want to control the message that you want others to receive, you can consciously work at saying what is true about you and not perpetuate the use of a term that inaccurately brands or gives the wrong impression.

God bless.
,

 

[manualman]

Grace & Peace!

Before I respond to manualman’s questions, I wanted to address your post, InSearch.

No fair, I was waiting longer!

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Thanks for the questions, manualman.

Why do you think SSA is not inherently self destructive? I’ve heard this assertion before and don’t comprehend it. How can one say that the desire to do something disordered is not itself disordered?

Here’s part of the crux of the issue: either people with SSA are attracted to the same sex and this is what defines their SSA, or they are compelled to want to have sex with people of the same sex. There’s a huge qualitative difference here.

You wouldn’t say that heterosexuals, by virtue of their heterosexuality are compelled to have sex outside of marriage. You’d say that heterosexuals are attracted to the opposite sex. But with homosexuals, why is the assumption made that they are compelled, by virtue of their homosexuality, to have sex outside marriage? Why not settle for the basic analogous description–that homosexuals are attracted to the same sex? Because that seems to be the most universally accurate description

Heterosexuality is a result of concupiscence?

THE WHOLE PICTURE

I think the metaphor of the meaning-picture is most illustrative here. And it may provide a response to your other questions/issues as well.

Let’s assume there’s a picture. A happy couple, a male and a female in a rural setting. It’s a very beautiful picure, for any number of reasons. Let’s say the picture shatters. Somone comes along and picks up some of the pieces and says, “Look! This picture was of a man!” Another person comes along and says, “Look! This picture was of a woman!” Someone else comes along and says, “No no no! You’re all wrong! See, in the reconstructed picture of the woman, you can see she’s holding someone’s hand–this isn’t the complete picture at all! It goes with the picture of the man! And if you re-arrange it all in the right way…look! It’s a picture of a man and of a woman in a rural setting!”

APPETITE AND THE WHOLE PICTURE

This scenario is roughly analogous to what we’re talking about. Generally speaking, an appetite is geared to The Whole Picture, which usually looks like an act. When I’m hungry, I want to eat. Now, “to eat” is the Whole Picture, but the fragments of the picture are all of the various foods I like to eat. So I have a craving for a burger. I eat the burger. My appetite is not burger-oriented. It’s eating-oriented. Let’s say I’m really groggy, but hungry. I see something that looks burger shaped. I think: Oh, this must be a burger! I’ll eat it! But it turns out to be a paperweight. I’m sad. I go to the dentist. My appetite is no more paper-weight oriented than it is burger-oriented, but in the case of the paperweight, I thought I was pursuing a good fragment (food), but my senses were all wonky I wound up eating something not good at all. If I knew it was going to knock out my teeth when I bit into it, if I knew it wasn’t a burger, I wouldn’t have tried to eat it! A paperweight doesn’t constitute any of the sensual fragments of The Whole Picture of eating–my senses have to be out of whack, or I have to be deceived in order to try and eat the paperweight.

(CONTINUED TO PART 2 OF 3)

 

[Deo_Volente]

(PART 2 OF 3)

SEXUAL IDENTITY AND THE WHOLE PICTURE: A UNITARY VISION

The same principle is at work with the sexual appetite. The Whole Picture here is the marital act: male+female+marriage+sex. Notice that The Whole Picture is not lust infected, it’s not prurient, it’s not utilitarian. The Whole Picture represents the living out of a very important and sacred relationship–one could argue that all human relationships represent aspects of this very important and sacred relationship (and one can see in the catechism’s linking of sexuality to our ability to form proper relationships as evidence of this observation). But let’s not go too far afield just yet.

Unfortunately, we’re fallen people, and our nature is wounded, but not destroyed. It’s harder for us all to pursue The Whole Picture because the thing in us that should put the picture together (Reason) has become divorced from the thing in us that seeks out and is drawn toward the picture’s fragments in the world.

So what we have here is a vision of sexual identity which everyone shares: The Whole Picture. That’s the only thing which really satisfies everyone’s sexual appetite. One appetite, one picture.

Again, though, we are drawn by our lower natures to fragments of The Whole Picture. You could say a heterosexual male is drawn to the fragments of the picture which look like a female, and he tries to put those fragments together in a way which makes sense according to his Reason’s apprehension of The Whole Picture. For this male, being attracted to a female isn’t wrong or bad or evil–because the female body forms a fragment of the good Whole Picture. However, the female body isn’t the Whole Picture. If this male pursues a female body as if it were, he’ll wind up with a picture that isn’t whole in the least.

In this vision of sexual identity, a homosexual has the same Whole Picture as a heterosexual. You could say a homosexual male is just drawn by the lower appetite to the fragment of the Picture which corresponds to his own sex. For a such a person, it’s not wrong or bad or evil to be attracted to a male–a male body forms a fragment of the good Whole Picture. However, the male body is not the Whole Picture. If this male pursues a male body as if it were the Whole Picture, he’ll wind up with a picture that isn’t whole in the least.

Now, our hypothetical heterosexual male can eventually fall in love and get married to a female, have sex and come to an experiential and actualized appreciation, vision and understanding of The Whole Picture. He and his wife can model that Whole Picture–imperfectly, granted, since they’re imperfect and might find themselves, like everyone else (including their homosexual male friend) pursuing the fragments of the Picture in ways that don’t actually resemble the Picture (porn, adultery, lust, etc.). But the Picture represents the vision of human relationship toward which their own relationship tends.

Our hypothetical homosexual male can eventually fall in love with but cannot get married to the male with whom he falls in love because that’s not what The Whole Picture looks like. That may prove difficult for him to understand or abide by at first. BUT! It’s because of The Whole Picture in the first place that he was able to fall in love and form this relationship because it’s the Picture which informs all such loving and human relationships in one way or another. He won’t necessarily have the experiential apprehension of the Whole Picture that his heterosexual male friend can have, but he has Reason, and he is still related to the Whole Picture and can still participate in the vision of human relationships which the Whole Picture bodies forth and represents.

Loving the Whole Picture as he does, he (and other unmarried folks), will not have sex(!), but will still love, fall in love, and even have that love returned should he meet someone special. He (and other unmarried folks) can remain drawn to the fragments of the good to which he is attracted (they are good after all!), but he (and those other unmarried folks) will not confuse a fragment with the Whole Picture, will not pursue a fragment as if it were the whole, but will respect the integrity of the Picture and participate in the goodness of the Picture to the extent to which he is able, integrating the sensual fragments to which he is drawn with the Whole Picture. That is chastity for him (and other unmarried people, homosexual or heterosexual). And this is also the work of any married couple–though their relationship to the Picture may have changed in a very important way by virtue of their marriage, allowing them, perhaps, to apprehend the Picture more clearly, but it’s still their job to integrate the sensual fragments to which they are drawn into the Whole Picture.

So. In this vision of the sexual appetite, we are *all *being drawn to something which looks like male+female+marriage+sex because that looks most like human flourishing and fulfillment for human beings. Our lower appetites are drawn to fragments of this picture–one person drawn to the female fragments, another to the male. And we may assemble those fragments imperfectly and thus deviate from the Whole Picture here and fall into sin. But the fragments we pursue are part of the Whole Picture. In this way of thinking (which to my reading of the catechism is consonant with its discussion of sexuality generally), heterosexuality or homosexuality represent different attitudes toward the good fragments of the Whole Picture. They are not, therefore, The Whole Picture. So it’s more accurate to think of them in terms of concupiscence (not sin, but can lead to sin) than it is to think of them in terms of a unitary, all-embracing human sexuality shared by both men and women. Because that unitary sexuality shared by both men and women is the Whole Picture.

(CONTINUED TO PART 3 OF 3)

 

[Deo_Volente]

(PART 3 OF 3)

SEXUAL IDENTITY AND TWO PICTURES: A BINARY VISION

However. When you start to understand heterosexuality as that all-embracing human sexuality, then the Whole Picture as we’ve been discussing it kind of flies out the window. Instead, the vision represented by this point of view sees two pictures: a male and a female. Males should follow the sensual fragments which relate to the female picture, Females should follow the sensual fragments which relate to the male picture. Because males and femals don’t share the same picture, since there is a difference between the male-body-good which the female pursues and the female-body-good which the male pursues, you can start to postulate that there are two different goods (not a unitary or unitive good) which the sexes pursue. Because there are two goods which are being pursued, there must be two wills or human natures which are oriented to their separate and relative goods.

COMPLETE CORRUPTION

This naturally leads us to the conclusion that, with respect to desire and attraction, a female-body represents an evil for a female and a male-body is an evil for a male. Why? Because only the female-body picture is good for the male and only the male-body picture is good for the female.

Which leads us to this: a male who is attracted to other males is drawn to evil. The sensual fragments to which such a male’s lower appetite is drawn cannot be assembled into the female-body picture because the fragments he is drawn to assemble are all wrong. Unlike others who are drawn to good fragments, but who assemble them poorly and thus fall into sin, the homosexual male doesn’t even have good fragments to misassemble. He is only attracted to what is evil for him.

TEACHING ON CONCUPISCENCE

But Roman Catholic teaching regarding concupiscence says (using the language we’ve been using so far) that the fragments to which we are drawn are *good *according to our nature, we just have a hard time assembling them in the right way because our lower appetites are divorced from our Reason as a result of the fall. This results sometimes in falling into sin. But the idea that homosexuals are objectively disordered suggests that the fragments to which they are drawn are not at all in keeping with their nature, and are therefore evil. Meaning: a homosexual’s concupiscence is entirely depraved. There is no precedent for such an understanding of concupiscence in the whole of traditional catholic moral theology.

CONCLUSION

So. For SSA to be objectively disordered, that is, for the object of a same-sex attracted person’s desire to be evil according to the person’s fundamental human nature, we must believe one of two things: 1) that same sex attraction represents an inclination to an act rather than to someone of the same sex; or 2) that males and females are fulfilled by different sets of goods and, subsequently, have different human natures. But the problem is: neither option works…unless you start radically redefining terms for the first option (in order to make heterosexual concupiscence identical with the vision of a single human sexuality, a vision which the catechism appears to embrace) or radically change the traditional understanding of concupiscence in the second option and skew it in a more protestant direction in order to allow for the existence of an absolutely corrupt human nature. Both options are related. And both options do violence to catholic doctrine.

I hope all that goes some way to explaining what I was trying to say…

Why is it absurd to suppose that men and women are different, that those differences are more than just physical attributes?

It’s not absurd to suppose that they’re different. They are. It is absurd, though, to posit a difference which sees them as having two separate human natures and two separate relationships to the good. Such a profound difference would make the Incarnation of Christ as a man problematic for the salvation of women. What was not assumed was not redeemed, and if such a profound difference between men and women truly exists, then we can only assume that a woman’s nature was not completley redeemed. That’s ridiculous, though.

There’s as much danger in overlooking difference in this context as there is in over-emphasizing it.

Hopefully all the above responded in one way or another to your questions/concerns.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Baelor]

If you go down the path of the former, *you *are the one advocating that homosexuality is oh-so-special, oh-so-different (heterosexuality in itself is not ordered to sexual activity, otherwise, again, two heterosexuals on a date would be in a near occasion of sin and merely indulging their lusts).

Heterosexuality is ordered toward ordered sexual activity, i.e. heterosexual activity. That does not mean that every interaction between heterosexual people is a near occasion of sin or itself is directly leading to sexual activity. Non sequitur.

If you go down the path of the latter, then not only do you end up with two human natures, one for males, one for females (theologically problematic in its own right),

The Church does recognize that males and females are fundamentally different. How is this “theologically problematic?”

but you also wind up with a situation in which homosexuals desire an evil relative to their nature in complete contradiction to the RCC’s teaching regarding concupiscence…

Homosexual thoughts are disordered because they involve something intrinsically evil and disordered – sexual intercourse that is fundamentally unable to be procreative or unitive on any level.

There are different aspects of sexuality.

You wouldn’t say that heterosexuals, by virtue of their heterosexuality are compelled to have sex outside of marriage. You’d say that heterosexuals are attracted to the opposite sex. But with homosexuals, why is the assumption made that they are compelled, by virtue of their homosexuality, to have sex outside marriage? Why not settle for the basic analogous description–that homosexuals are attracted to the same sex? Because that seems to be the most universally accurate description.

You are missing the point – sexual thoughts of a heterosexual nature are directed toward an activity that is intrinsically permissible, i.e. sex, upon which moral constraints exist. Sexual thoughts of a homosexual nature are directed toward an activity that is an inversion the essence of sex under any circumstance.

 

[Baelor]

…For this male, being attracted to a female isn’t wrong or bad or evil–because the female body forms a fragment of the good Whole Picture. However, the female body isn’t the Whole Picture. If this male pursues a female body as if it were, he’ll wind up with a picture that isn’t whole in the least.

It is not wrong or evil. But it is ordered in a way that homosexual desires are not – ordered sex requires two sexes, one penis, and one vagina. Note the importance of the consummation of marriage in Catholic theology.

You could say a homosexual male is just drawn by the lower appetite to the fragment of the Picture which corresponds to his own sex.

I do not remember this in Catholic teaching, and I do not understand why I should make this connection. Could you explain?

You are correct, though, in noting that such thoughts are not evil.

But Roman Catholic teaching regarding concupiscence says (using the language we’ve been using so far) that the fragments to which we are drawn are *good *according to our nature, we just have a hard time assembling them in the right way because our lower appetites are divorced from our Reason.

Citation of this?

This results sometimes in sin. But the idea that homosexuals are objectively disordered suggests that the fragments to which they are drawn are not at all in keeping with their nature, and are therefore evil.

The fragments to which they are drawn are not in keeping with natural law in the context of sexual intercourse. That a heterosexual single male wishes for sex right now is fundamentally different from a homosexual single male wishing for (gay) sex right now because gay sex is a perversion of sex at a biological level whereas actual sex is not, even though it may be problematic on a different level (i.e. not being within the confines of marriage).

It is not accurate to say that the only reason gay sex is wrong is that it is not taking place within marriage. The causality is actually the reverse: marriage between members of the same sex is not permitted because that union, manifested through sexual intercourse, is illusory.

1. that same sex attraction represents an inclination to an act rather than to someone of the same sex;

This is attempting to unweave inextricable issues. Part of marriage is sex. Part of long-term romantic relationships is marriage. Thus, part of long-term romantic relationships is sex according to Catholic teaching. Catholic teaching does not permit recreational dating; romantic engagement is meant to be directed toward the possibility of marriage.

Homosexuality, if it involves romantic attraction to gay sex, is disordered. Homosexuality, if it involves romantic attraction to members of the same sex, is disordered.

1. that males and females are fulfilled by different sets of goods and, subsequently, have different human natures.

The Church recognizes this as fact.

It’s not absurd to suppose that they’re different. They are. It is absurd, though, to posit a difference which sees them as having two separate human natures and two separate relationships to the good. Such a profound difference would make the Incarnation of Christ as a man problematic for the salvation of women.

Why? Justify this statement.