So…
If someone is Catholic and married and they repeatedly have affairs or “fall in love” with another person, that is considered a “disordered” love too, right?
Yes, but for a different reason. A good discussion of marriage can be found
here. From it:
Marriage or wedlock is said to be true by reason of its attaining its perfection. Now perfection of anything is twofold; first, and second. The first perfection of a thing consists in its very form, from which it receives its species; while the second perfection of a thing consists in its operation, by which in some way a thing attains its end.
Now the form of matrimony consists in a certain inseparable union of souls, by which husband and wife are pledged by a bond of mutual affection that cannot be sundered. And the end of matrimony is the begetting and upbringing of children: the first of which is attained by conjugal intercourse; the second by the other duties of husband and wife, by which they help one another in rearing their offspring.
So those that “repeatedly have affairs or ‘fall in love’ with another person” are acting contrary to the form of matrimony.
To be in love with someone outside your marriage?
Marriage is not
only about love. This emphasis on love is not sufficient to establish the grounds for marriage. For if it were, we’d have no argument against a whole host of relationships, e.g. incest, polygamy, and polyandry. By the same token, a lack of love is not sufficient to end a marriage. It seems the vogue notion that marriage is about love, and “Love is all we need.” But of course, in all these cases, the word “love” means something mostly emotional.
I think it is true that love is sufficient. But only the right kind of love–what C. S. Lewis calls “agape”. Those who act outside the bounds of marriage are bound up in eros, not agape.
But then…why is it that these people are still “permitted” to stay/be married?
By this, I presume you mean infidelity after establishment of the marriage. If there is infidelity before the marriage, I do believe it is grounds for an annulment, since it indicates a lack of consent (i.e. the lack of sincerity means that there is not full consent to the bounds of marriage).
Now, presuming the marriage had full consent, they are bound as an “inseparable union of souls”. They are not " ‘permitted’ to say/be married," they are
required to remain married. “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” From CCC 2384 (emphasis mine):
Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law.
It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery:
If a husband, separated from his wife, approaches another woman, he is an adulterer because he makes that woman commit adultery, and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has drawn another’s husband to herself.
Why are they then not called to a life of celibacy when they realize they have a “disorder” that is equal to a disease/birth defect?
Sexual relations are disordered insofar as they are neither unitive nor genitive. Sexual relations outside of the bonds of marriage are not unitive. And sexual relations that are not ordered toward procreation are not genitive. The former applies to those who act outside of marriage, such as those who repeatedly engage in affairs. The latter applies to homosexual couples. The call to celibacy is to acts that are contrary to the unitive and genitive nature.
So, in short, yes they are called to celibacy–celibacy from acts outside of the marriage. And if their passions lead them to compulsively engage in such behavior, then yes, it is a " ‘disorder’ that is equal to a disease/birth defect". And they are called to remain celibate from such activity.
Now, as to the part that you quoted from my earlier message, I should provide more clarification. When I say that “[t]he friends I have with same-sex attraction … acknowledge their commitment to remain celibate”, I mean that they acknowledge their commitment to remain celibate
outside the bonds of marriage. Neither of them are married, nor do they have any desire to marry. They have fallen in love before with other men, but recognized the disorder of the attraction and ended the relationships.
