off shoot from Catholic and Homosexual thread

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

During my 20 odd years in the gay lifestyle, I was fairly well-read in what’s called Queer Theory as well as in LGBT fiction and autobiographies etc. I can state with a fair amount of certainty that this is EXACTLY what is taught in the LGBT world, to-wit: because one has a sexual experience with someone of the same sex . . . the sexual aspect spiritually enhances the non-sexual aspects.

I have seen Deo’s posts wherein he claims that there is no gay agenda and if there is, he wasn’t at the meetings. This is, at best, disingenuous. After 20 years, I not only know that there’s a gay agenda, I was at the meetings–on college campuses, in gay bars, in readings, in queer theory classes, in living rooms, it’s in the magazines, etc. Sure, there might be a divergent pattern of thought here and there, but I am well familiar with Deo’s claim to “gift” and “otherness”. it’s not original to him. I personally can datemy reading of the idea that homosexuals traverse to the borders/edges and bring back interesting and valuable ideas to the rest of society to Paula Grahn who was writing in the early 70’s.

the gay sex=greater spirituality can be found throughout the new age movement with lesbians and bisexual women being encouraged to validate their woman-love through same sex sexual activity.

It is all cloud cover–smoke and mirrors. I guess that’s why I feel so strongly about taking on the gay apologists when I’m so new at all of this–I fell for all of this and I want to at least throw up some warning signs to anyone else in danger of falling.

Michelle, I am beginning to realize that one of our difficulties throughout this conversation has been that you may see me not as a brother, but as the stand-in for a lot of things, groups, organizations and ideologies that you’ve rejected and about which you perceive a mutual animosity. You’re not in dialogue with me, you’re in dialogue with all of those things through me.

Let me just say: I am not the gay community. I’m not a gay bar. I’m not gay liberation ideology. I don’t harbor any animosity towards anyone here, least of all you. I’m not in competition with you. I don’t want to seduce you to behave in ways contrary to your understanding of the good. I’m not a missionary on a quest to bring you back to Chelsea or WeHo. I’m not a secret agent of the homosexualist agenda. I’m not here to hurt you or anyone. I’ve stated a couple times what I’m doing in these sorts of threads. And none of it has to do with any great overarching agendas.

I’ll admit to suffering from a similar blindness. When I think “Roman Catholic Church” I think first of a monolithic authority structure. And I think of 5 or 10 other things before I get to “good news of the gospel.” That’s not a problem of Roman Catholicism–that’s a problem with my perception of Roman Catholicism. And sometimes it’s easy to feel like I’m arguing with or facing down the Roman Catholic monolith and battling over all of the things that I disagree with about certain aspects of RCC teaching, when in fact I’m in conversation with a beloved brother or sister in Christ with whom I happen to disagree on a few things. That’s a function, again, of my own blindness (and also, let’s be honest, a function of conducting this conversation via postings on a forum).

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

This quote is a statement made by Deo Volente…

…]

The short answer to his assertions is “piffle”.

The long answer is “get over yourself”.

John, I think you’re a good guy. I do. But I’ve recently come to the realization that I don’t believe that I could write anything to you without what I wrote being misunderstood or mischaracterized by you. And this leads me to believe that you probably don’t actually want to be in dialogue with me to begin with. That’s alright. I’ll be here if you want to chat, but I’m not going to force you if you’d rather not.

I wish you joy, peace, and blessings.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…CONTINUED & COMPLETED]
…Perhaps what grouses me is the idea that “disinterested friendship” is the best a homosexual can hope for. The relationships you have described so beautiful are hardly disinterested. What they most certainly lack is any mercenary quality. Which I suspect is the idea of disinterested at which the catechism is getting, but disinterest, to me, has a bit of a chill to it that doesn’t speak to the apatheia of the saints in the least.

…I’ve always preferred the term “homosexuality” to the term SSA as the latter seems like a term of art or a disease like SARS. I understand (perhaps late in the game) that lots of people to whom I’ve been talking think of homosexuality as explicitly referencing both the attraction and sexual behavior. I tried to distinguish between the two in my writing. If I was unclear, I never meant to be.

My relationship with my partner has included sexual acts, and we have experienced these acts as unitive. (I’m clearly not Roman Catholic.) Such acts are not the sine qua non of our relationship. The sine qua non in our case, is the romantic love we share and our desire to share in the joys and burdens of each other’s lives as if they were our own. I’ve a number of friends of whom I’m incredibly fond, many of whom I find physically attractive. In no way am I interested in having sex with them. Those relationships could not withstand such a gesture, and it would severely damage my relationship with my partner as well. I value those friendship relationships as they are very much–there is no “next level” of intimacy possible in them which would also include sexual intimacy.

So I want to make it clear that I would not counsel anyone (homosexual or heterosexual) who wished to remain faithful to the magisterium to include sex, casual or otherwise, in their relationship unless they were sacramentally married to the one with whom they were going to have sex (in which case, the whole idea of “casual” becomes moot to begin with). Because I do not share the RCC’s understanding of what sex is principally for doesn’t mean that I desire that everyone share my understanding or go against their beliefs.

Moreover, just for the record, I want to make it clear that I’ve never argued that everyone should do whatever they want, as long as it feels good. Such a way of living is clearly contrary to love.

If I have appeared to advocate such things in the past, I clearly did not express myself well. If I have actually advocated such things in the past, I retract my advocacy.

…
I hope I’ve gone some way toward clarifying my position, Elizabeth. In short, it all revolves around the word “disorder” and its repercussions.

A take off from your reply to Elizabeth:

At some point in your previous postings, I began to think I was misunderstanding you. Your posts today indicate I have not. Your starting point is that homosexuality is not a disorder, a word that you resent and come to reject, even as it is a correct and charitable word as used by the Church. Science as claimed by the APA on the subject until 1973 called it worse, a disease, a mental illness. After reading much about the scrutiny of the subject and scientific tests three decades plus later, I am of the mind that it is not a mental illness, but it is manifestly associated with depression and suicide ideation in many with the condition. The concept that depressive and suicidal thoughts are connected to societal rejection is simplistic and a worldview with a decided direction to normalize homosexual acts.

So the best that can really be said about homosexuality is its psychogenesis is not known, as the Catechism states. Antagonists think that such is a mere posture making the Church an unreliable authority, discounting that she is a spiritual teacher using wisdom and imparting teachings on revealed Truth before and after the Word Incarnate’s time on earth. [Jesus advocated for love and preached against hypocrisy, but He was not a lawbreaker – He came and took human form to fullfill the Law.] The Church is not closed to what science (the kind not driven by politics) can share to bring about the physical, mental and spiritual integration of man. The certainty she holds is that all knowledge that humans can grasp lead to God.

The exercise of free will and the committing of original sin brought about man’s impaired relations with God and his brokenness, one of which is homosexuality and the suffering that goes with it. Many homosexuals, even the learned ones, seem to operate on the belief that their suffering is supreme above all others that the only rectification is a new morality in their favor and a consequent new world order. It would be a world rejecting God, the unholy accepted as holy. As the gospel reading in yesterday’s Mass reminds us, it will all be sorted out at harvest time. The wheat and the tares are to be separated, general and particular judgment to be meted.

I agree with you in counting on God’s mercy. No sin is too big for or bigger than God’s mercy. I would not be too sure about an earnest wish to obtain a special kind of justice (for Mark), with convenient re-interpretation of the incontrovertible meaning of biblical text and Church teaching, and requisite repentance.

Our Lord Jesus showed that suffering can be endured, and inevitable death can be conquered. All suffering and eventual death of each one of us are opportunities in sharing with His Passion and Death.
,

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Your starting point is that homosexuality is not a disorder, …] The concept that depressive and suicidal thoughts are connected to societal rejection is simplistic and a worldview with a decided direction to normalize homosexual acts.

Hi InSearch.

I understand your reasoning here completely, though I obviously still don’t agree with the language of disorder.

Re: depression and such things, let me just say that I suffered from deep depression when I was younger regarding these issues. The thought of suicide recurred quite frequently. The cause of my depression was a fear that my parents would hate and reject me, that my friends would hate and reject me, that I would remain alone and rejected for the rest of my life. I had even begun to reconcile myself to the idea that love (however it was defined) was for other people, not for me. It was not a very pretty time in my life. And I will say that one of the causes of all of this fear and anxiety was the work of Dr. James Dobson on which I was raised and by which I was taught to understand the process of adolescence. Thanks to all of that, I believed myself to be irredeemable. I was raised to believe that Jesus loved me, but I suspected, thanks to Dr. Dobson, that he did so grudgingly, against his will, and that he would much rather wash his hands of me if he could. In short, the perception of societal rejection can be just as potent as it’s reality.

To me, now, I understand that the RCC intends to be charitable in its use of the word “disorder”. When I was younger, I actually found comfort in the distinction between orientation and act–it was contrary to what I had been taught, and I was relieved that I wasn’t the personification of sin for desiring in the way I did. I also understand that the general rhetoric surrounding homosexuality in the RCC can be hard to tell from the rhetoric surrounding it in the more strident conservative Protestant world unless you know how to understand and parse out the terms of the argument, and even then, there’s no guarantee that the terms will be used correctly or consistently (as I’ve indicated, I realize I’m guilty of this as well). Some of this confusion is possible because a lot of conservative social rhetoric can be couched in general moral/religious rhetoric which tends to bleed wholesale into conservative RCC thought, and then backed into an RCC moral theological framework. It’s a process that often seems to happen quite unconsciously (you can see it happening all over these forums).

And I think the language of disorder contributes to all of this confusion and, moreover, has some unsavory implications that I’ve tried to unpack in posts here and elsewhere. Nonetheless, I understand that if the RCC sees sex as principally procreative within the context of a sexuality ordered toward conjugal union between men and women, then anything that is not procreative sex within that union, or is not oriented toward procreation, at least for the sake of philosophical consistency, must be categorized as disordered. I nonetheless think the term does not speak to the reality of what homosexuality is and that, eventually, the growing scientific consensus will impact how the RCC evolves its understanding homosexuality. That is not to say, however, that the RCC will or should alter it’s teachings regarding chastity within and without marriage. I don’t see that such an alteration would be necessary.

Many homosexuals, even the learned ones, seem to operate on the belief that their suffering is supreme above all others that the only rectification is a new morality in their favor and a consequent new world order.

Many may believe just that, but that wouldn’t make them correct. Naturally, getting rid of the language of disorder would entail changes in how we understand that homosexuals fit into the moral order that already exists. It would, no doubt, entail a new understanding of how the existing moral order works, but a new or evolving understanding doesn’t translate into a new morality (any more than the dogmatic definition of the Immaculate Conception or Papal Infallibility were said to add anything to the deposit of faith, despite the Orthodox and Protestants saying that Rome was making up new doctrines), nor would it necessarily mean that the RCC must or should change it’s teachings regarding chastity.

As the gospel reading in yesterday’s Mass reminds us, it will all be sorted out at harvest time. The wheat and the tares are to be separated, general and particular judgment to be meted.

I think the great thing about that parable is that the separation can only be just on the final day, that the Lord of the Harvest prevents his workers from separating the wheat and the tares because he is concerned that the wheat may be uprooted, too. Apparently, the too plants looked similar enough to the untrained eye that a casual worker could easily pluck up the good with bad. So the parable becomes about the merciful longsuffering of God, as well as an admonition that we ourselves should not presume to be able to tell the wheat from the tares until the last day when, I will imagine, we’ll be quite surprised by what is wheat and what are tares.

I would not be too sure about an earnest wish to obtain a special kind of justice (for Mark), with convenient re-interpretation of the incontrovertible meaning of biblical text and Church teaching, and requisite repentance.

I’m not interested in a separate justice, InSearch. The Justice of God, which is not separate from his Mercy, is sufficient for me.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Elizabeth502]

Naturally, getting rid of the language of disorder would entail changes in how we understand that homosexuals fit into the moral order that already exists. It would, no doubt, entail a new understanding of how the existing moral order works, but a new or evolving understanding doesn’t translate into a new morality.

It most certainly does translate into that, particularly because the foundation for such a new “translation” requires a contortion wihch invalidates the very premises on which the entire teaching on sexuality exists, which is fundamental and which I quoted for you in context from the Catechism. What is radical, and cannot be changed, is that males are not females, and thus relationships undifferentiated by sex can never be complementary or unitive in the definitional base of the RCC. Male-male and female-female relationships will never be sufficiently analogous to male-female relationships, even psychologically. There can be limited points of commonality between the two categories, but the differences remain radical and unbridgeable.

The other aspect of the contortion is that the reasoning for your morality is this: absolute standards are subordinate to subjectivism (your ‘personal experience’). Nothing could be clearer. But that is the opposite (as I have explained) of the operational dynamics in Roman Catholic moral theology. The RCC does not buy subjectivism as a valid standard for morality, because it takes its authority from God, who is unchanging and absolute. As a practical matter, to welcome subjectivism as its own ‘authority’ invites moral anarchy when all personal experience is equally valid.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

… What is radical, and cannot be changed, is that males are not females, and thus relationships undifferentiated by sex can never be complementary or unitive in the definitional base of the RCC. Male-male and female-female relationships will never be sufficiently analogous to male-female relationships, even psychologically. There can be limited points of commonality between the two categories, but the differences remain radical and unbridgeable.

The other aspect of the contortion is that the reasoning for your morality is this: absolute standards are subordinate to subjectivism (your ‘personal experience’). Nothing could be clearer. But that is the opposite (as I have explained) of the operational dynamics in Roman Catholic moral theology. The RCC does not buy subjectivism as a valid standard for morality, because it takes its authority from God, who is unchanging and absolute. As a practical matter, to welcome subjectivism as its own ‘authority’ invites moral anarchy when all personal experience is equally valid.

Correct. The verdict on homosexual relations is uncompromising as they lack an essential and indispensable purpose. The purpose of sexual activity is for married people to cooperate with God in the beginning of children; and to both express and cultivate their mutual love for each other.

Further, Mark’s take on the parable of the wheat and the tares on harvest time is a gamble, discounting the objective moral order which has been articulated and approved by Pope Paul VI in 1975:

From SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

PERSONA HUMANA

DECLARATION ON CERTAIN QUESTIONS CONCERNING SEXUAL ETHICS

VIII
In the pastoral field, these homosexuals must certainly be treated with understanding and sustained in the hope of overcoming their personal difficulties and their inability to fit into society. Their culpability will be judged with prudence. But no pastoral method can be employed which would give moral justification to these acts on the grounds that they would be consonant with the condition of such people. For according to the objective moral order, homosexual relations are acts which lack an essential and indispensable finality. In Sacred Scripture they are condemned as a serious depravity and even presented as the sad consequence of rejecting God. This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and can in no case be approved of.

 

[chrysostim83]

with chastity defined as the gift of the person, with self-mastery ordered to the gift of the person in CCC 2346. . . .

In no way does the reading of any of these parts of the Catechism support what Deo Volente is saying and what you appear to support, the conclusion that our sexuality is fundamental to form relationships with others on ALL sorts of levels, connecting this to our fundamental relationship with God.

I already responded to this post, but I realized later there was a little bit more that could be said about it.

The first thing is that the Catechism doesn’t really contain a proper definition of chastity. For example, the definition proposed above doesn’t work because it can’t be substituted for “chastity” in the contexts it is supposed to cover: in particular, while it makes good sense to talk about growing in chastity, it makes no sense at all to talk about growing in the gift of the person. If you go back to the Catechism itself to find a definition, you would find yourself having to make sense out of the idea of growing in the successful integration of sexuality within the person (CCC 2337). Apparently, then, the CCC assumes that the definition of chastity is given already, and the only one I know is that chastity is the virtue that deals with the sexual appetite (cf. ye olde Catholic Encyclopedia).

With chastity defined this way–and this is the definition I was using all along–it should be clear that if chastity blossoms in friendship and lust ultimately results in estrangement, then sexuality plays a big role in human relationships, even the non-sexual ones. Does this argument make sense now?

There is also another way to tackle this issue. When I was in high school, I switched from wearing glasses to wearing contacts, and I noticed that when I wore contacts, pretty much everyone around me was much kinder and more helpful. Now, the choice between glasses and contacts is not very profound, unlike sexuality which includes one’s biological sex, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation and sexual orientation identity, etc. So if such a superficial thing as the method you use to correct your vision can noticeably affect your interactions with others, how much more must a profound thing like sexuality have an effect on your relationships?

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

It most certainly does translate into that, particularly because the foundation for such a new “translation” requires a contortion wihch invalidates the very premises on which the entire teaching on sexuality exists, which is fundamental and which I quoted for you in context from the Catechism.

Elizabeth, perhaps I have more faith in the objective moral order to survive a new understanding of that order. No contortions are necessary if, as I maintain and as science increasingly bears out, our understanding of the moral order needs revision, but not the moral order itself.

And I think we need to put a couple things into perspective. The moral order is not a book or a catechism or a checklist, nor is it a philosophy. It actually looks very much like a crucified Man. That reality does not, will not, change. We may deepen our understanding of it, but it doesn’t change.

Although, let’s be honest, it will change us. And that change can be quite frightening. As we move deeper and deeper into the wounds of the Crucified One, closer and closer to the heart which holds all of creation in love, it is inevitable that we will find ourselves changing, and we will find our perception of others and of our world changing. That can be scary. But it’s an invitation to radical transformation. If that transformation requires us to change our philosophies in order to accommodate it, then we would probably be wise to locate what is objective in the reality of the Crucified and Risen One and not in the philosophical frameworks by which we attempt to understand that One who says, “Behold, I am making all things new.”

What is radical, and cannot be changed, is that males are not females, and thus relationships undifferentiated by sex can never be complementary or unitive in the definitional base of the RCC. Male-male and female-female relationships will never be sufficiently analogous to male-female relationships, even psychologically. There can be limited points of commonality between the two categories, but the differences remain radical and unbridgeable.

Different things must, of course, be treated differently and their differences must be acknowledged and respected. As our friend Blake says, “One Law for the Lion and the Ox is Oppression.” But I don’t believe that the differences between men and women are as absolute as you claim them to be. Yes–there are absolute biological differences, but I don’t see that those differences reflect an absolute ontological or anthropological difference. Men and women are not two different species. The humanity of the one is common to the other.

The other aspect of the contortion is that the reasoning for your morality is this: absolute standards are subordinate to subjectivism (your ‘personal experience’).

Not quite. Absolute standards, insofar as they represent interpretive frameworks, are probably not as absolute as we would like to think they are.

There is One Absolute. Only One. Not two, not a multuplicity. One. And that’s God. There is no other absolute, be it a philosophy, a conception of the moral order, a rulebook, a checklist, or what have you. There is no other absolute.

The standards we would like to uphold as absolute are subordinate to the Lord of Life and of Love. It is entirely consistent with Love to alter our understanding of those standards should we discover (and, again, we are on a journey of discovery, of actively being led into all truth) that our standards are getting in the way of a fuller, more truthful understanding of ourselves, of God, and of the world.

It’s a scary prospect, the prospect of being wrong. I understand. I think the risk is worth it. Moreover, I think it is prophetic in every sense of the word.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Elizabeth502]

The moral order is not a book or a catechism or a checklist

It proceeds from Divine Law, known through Revelation, carried forward by God’s representative on earth, The Catholic Church, founded by Jesus Christ, Son of God. As such, the moral order does not change because it cannnot change. Only our understanding of the fixed moral order can change. The catechism communicates that fixed moral order.

nor is [the moral order] a philosophy.

Never said it was. Stop twisting my words. The philosophy is an intellectual framework integrated with the theology. Like theology, it is based on Order. The philosophy is not the absolute; it is the way man describes his understanding of the meaning of truth and his relationship to truth, ideals, principles.

[the moral order] actually looks very much like a crucified Man.

What are you talking about? “looks very much like a crucified Man.” ? The Man who was crucified was crucified for violations of the fixed moral order.

That reality does not, will not, change. We may deepen our understanding of it, but it doesn’t change.

Correct. The crucifixion has unchanging meaning, for all time.

Although, let’s be honest, it will change us. And that change can be quite frightening. As we move deeper and deeper into the wounds of the Crucified One, closer and closer to the heart which holds all of creation in love,

From The Oxford Dictionary:

Absolute: not qualified or diminished in any way; not subject to any limitation; unconditional; having unrestricted power; final; existing independently and not in relation to other things ; not relative or comparative: absolute moral standards

it’s an invitation to radical transformation. If that transformation requires us to change our philosophies in order to accommodate it, then we would probably be wise to locate what is objective in the reality of the Crucified and Risen One and not in the philosophical frameworks by which we attempt to understand that One who says, “Behold, I am making all things new.”

(1) I never said philosophy was absolute.
(2) Thank you for manipulating Scripture to apply to an argument you want to make about the moral order. Isaiah and Revelation refer to the transformation of the world, and ultimately to Christ’s Final Coming, not to some malleability of the moral order, because that is a contradiction in terms.
(3) Yes, the moral order is an invitation to radical transformation, as is the Cross.
(4) We are never “invited to change the moral order.” That is not what The Cross invites us to do. The Cross invites and commands us to submit our fleshly wills to Divine Will, as Jesus did on Calvary.

I don’t believe that the differences between men and women are as absolute as you claim them to be. Yes–there are absolute biological differences, but I don’t see that those differences reflect an absolute ontological or anthropological difference. Men and women are not two different species. The humanity of the one is common to the other.

They don’t have to be differentiated species to be radically differentiated. The study of biology reveals how persistent this radical differentiation is. Science disagrees with you.

Absolute standards, insofar as they represent interpretive frameworks, are probably not as absolute as we would like to think they are.

Repeaitng from above:
From The Oxford Dictionary:

Absolute: not qualified or diminished in any way; not subject to any limitation; unconditional; having unrestricted power; final; existing independently and not in relation to other things ; not relative or comparative: absolute moral standards

There is One Absolute. Only One. Not two, not a multuplicity. One. And that’s God. There is no other absolute, be it a philosophy, a conception of the moral order, a rulebook, a checklist, or what have you. There is no other absolute.

So the simple fact is that you do not believe that the Catholic Church is the repositor of God’s absolute truth. Therefore, no discussion, by Catholics who know their faith, of those teachings carried forth from divine revelation, is a discussion you are prepared to accept. So why have this discussion? You’re challenging me, and other faithful Catholics who understand the foundations of their faith, to disregard the absolute character of that.

The bottom line is that you want to create your own catechism to suit your different moral standards. You want me to agree that that’s perfectly fine and that the moral order will ‘inevitably’ change, and you also want me to agree with the manipulation of scripture and the meaning of the Cross, to achieve your end.

I’m sorry that I cannot accommodate you, Mark.

 

[Elizabeth502]

The first thing is that the Catechism doesn’t really contain a proper definition of chastity.

Here it is:

2337 Chastity means the successful integration of sexuality within the person and thus the inner unity of man in his bodily and spiritual being. Sexuality, in which man’s belonging to the bodily and biological world is expressed, becomes personal and truly human when it is integrated into the relationship of one person to another, in the complete and lifelong mutual gift of a man and a woman.

The context is:
man + woman + marriage of that man & woman. Our sexual appetites are to be integrated within traditional marriage, defined as one man, one woman.

To integrate, in the language of the catechism, is to be in right order of one’s role, one’s self, with respect to God and God’s commands.

The seven violations of chastity are listed in the catechism thus:

Offenses against chastity

2351 Lust
2352 Masturbation
2353 Fornication
2354 Pornography
2355 Prostitution
2356 Rape
2357 Homosexuality [listed further in that section as the acts, not the attraction]

Thus, chastity is not merely the absence of unbridled appetite to engage in erotic behavior. Rather, it is the restriction of erotic behavior to its proper (God-ordered) context. It is a matter both of setting and degree, not one or the other.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I will just follow up to say that both Deo Volente and chrysostim83 engage in de-contextualized discussions of the Catechism, with respect to individual paragaphs, and with respect to the larger sections in which those concepts are discussed. Thus, you will notice that in the above post I quoted from the Offenses Against Chastity section. However, the entire following section discussions Conjugal Fidelity, and within that section Adultery. It doesn’t mean that adultery is not also a violation of chastity. It most certainly is, just as homosexual acts are. But both, in the view of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, warranted sub-sections: homosexuality because of the distinction between attraction and behavior; conjugal fidelity because that concerns not only the matter of chastity but also the Dignity of Marriage: adultery violates chastity, justice, charity, God’s commands, and the sacrament itself.

One has to read the catechism sequentially and in context, just as all critical reading of documents has to be done, with one concept understood in the way in which it has been defined (part to whole).

 

[Elizabeth502]

^ sorry. In the 3rd sentence I meant discusses, not ‘discussions.’

 

[InSearchofGrace]

I already responded to this post, but I realized later there was a little bit more that could be said about it.

The first thing is that the Catechism doesn’t really contain a proper definition of chastity. For example, the definition proposed above doesn’t work because it can’t be substituted for “chastity” in the contexts it is supposed to cover: in particular, while it makes good sense to talk about growing in chastity, it makes no sense at all to talk about growing in the gift of the person. If you go back to the Catechism itself to find a definition, you would find yourself having to make sense out of the idea of growing in the successful integration of sexuality within the person (CCC 2337). Apparently, then, the CCC assumes that the definition of chastity is given already, and the only one I know is that chastity is the virtue that deals with the sexual appetite (cf. ye olde Catholic Encyclopedia).

With chastity defined this way–and this is the definition I was using all along–it should be clear that if chastity blossoms in friendship and lust ultimately results in estrangement, then sexuality plays a big role in human relationships, even the non-sexual ones. Does this argument make sense now?

There is also another way to tackle this issue. When I was in high school, I switched from wearing glasses to wearing contacts, and I noticed that when I wore contacts, pretty much everyone around me was much kinder and more helpful. Now, the choice between glasses and contacts is not very profound, unlike sexuality which includes one’s biological sex, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation and sexual orientation identity, etc. So if such a superficial thing as the method you use to correct your vision can noticeably affect your interactions with others, how much more must a profound thing like sexuality have an effect on your relationships?

Oh, I agree that sexuality has a profound effect in life, on how we relate with others. The debate is more on the boundaries of sexual expression, although non-Catholics and liberal Catholics are not necessarily accepting the incontrovertibility of Scripture, Tradition, and the Catechism on the matter. I objected to sexuality being fundamental to form relationships with others on ALL sorts of levels, connecting this to our fundamental relationship with God, as Mark indicated, because he seemed to be making this conclusion to justify his embrace of homosexuality. His personal choice of departing from teaching on the role of sexuality / purpose of sex (which is not exclusively Catholic by the way) becomes the prism, somehow, through which he interprets Scripture and the language of the Catechism.

Elizabeth has completely and beautifully covered chastity in her post #49, clarifying its definition and context.

Mark is using a non-standard definition of chastity with which you seem to be in consonance. His post listing the “fruits” of homosexual relations mentioned self-control. It is deducible that he is in effect asserting that there can be chastity in a homosexual relationship, equivalent to the chastity within a marriage of a man and a woman.

How is chastity possible in a homosexual relationship when chastity as the ordered gift of self excludes homosexuality? Do you and Mark figure that homosexuals in committed relationships are exercising chastity by simply not acting on attractions with other potential homosexual partners? Maintaining that homosexuality is not just about homosexual sex? Does faithfulness in a committed homosexual relationship translate to chastity, in your view?

Nay. And both of you know why not.

Let me echo Elizabeth’s words as directed to Mark,

So the simple fact is that you do not believe that the Catholic Church is the repositor of God’s absolute truth. Therefore, no discussion, by Catholics who know their faith, of those teachings carried forth from divine revelation, is a discussion you are prepared to accept. So why have this discussion? You’re challenging me, and other faithful Catholics who understand the foundations of their faith, to disregard the absolute character of that.

and her words to followers of this thread,

I will just follow up to say that both Deo Volente and chrysostim83 engage in de-contextualized discussions of the Catechism, with respect to individual paragaphs, and with respect to the larger sections in which those concepts are discussed. …

One has to read the catechism sequentially and in context, just as all critical reading of documents has to be done, with one concept understood in the way in which it has been defined (part to whole).

 

[Nate13]

For the sake of those who may read his can we tone the metaphors down haha? It seems like its just making for really long posts and its like going round and round in a revolving door.

It appears the real argument here is over the Church’s view on what the meaning of our sexuality is about. The Church states that every sexual act should be BOTH procreative (with purpose and intent to have kids) and unitive and these two things cannot be separated without committing a sin. The homosexual act does not fall under this and Deo Volente has stated his disagreement with what the Church teaches on sexuality, thus why there is a disagreement over SSA. Deo Volente contends that sex can achieve its purpose in God’s eyes and not be sinful by being solely for unitive purposes. Any successful argument contrary to his position must be about how these two intertwined purposes cannot be separated from each other without being sinful. I’ll leave it to other’s in this thread to supply them, but I hope my comment helps to nail down the real differences It seems to me that a lot of same arguments for why contraception is not acceptable would fit here though, since contraception seeks to separate the unitive and procreative purposes of sex as well.

Anyways I guess my real point is how can we have a discussion on chastity if Deo Veolente disagrees with the Chuch’s teaching on sexuality?

 

[Elizabeth502]

For the sake of those who may read his can we tone the metaphors down haha? It seems like its just making for really long posts and its like going round and round in a revolving door.

It appears the real argument here is over the Church’s view on what the meaning of our sexuality is about. The Church states that every sexual act should be BOTH procreative (with purpose and intent to have kids) and unitive and these two things cannot be separated without committing a sin. The homosexual act does not fall under this and Deo Volente has stated his disagreement with what the Church teaches on sexuality, thus why there is a disagreement over SSA. Deo Volente contends that sex can achieve its purpose in God’s eyes and not be sinful by being solely for unitive purposes. Any successful argument contrary to his position must be about how these two intertwined purposes cannot be separated from each other and without being sinful. I’ll leave it to other’s in this thread to supply them, but I hope my comment helps to nail down the real differences It seems to me that a lot of same arguments for why contraception is not acceptable would fit here though, since contraception seeks to separate the unitive and procreative purposes of sex as well.

Anyways I guess my real point is how can we have a discussion on chastity if there is a disagreement over the meaning of our sexuality?

Thanks for your contributions. I believe that InSearchOfGrace and I together covered and elucidated the Church’s definition of sexuality and of chastity, and have addressed the fact that Deo Volente does not accept those definitions, which is why the discussion is compromised. In particular, InSearchofGrace went to some lengths to explain the unitive & procreative essentials of the Church’s teaching on sexuality.

 

[Nate13]

@Elizabeth502

haha ok good that makes more sense then as to why this discussion is happening. Did she go into natural law? The idea of what our sexuality is really for is a philosophical question. I think for some people its easy to see while others need to delve way deeper. Some of us can look at how our bodies are made and it just makes sense how male and female bodies complement each other, similarly to how easily a child sees that an abortion is killing a baby and knows that it is wrong.

Also I know someone said bible passages were brought up earlier, but I’d be curious to hear what Dio Veolente said in response to Romans 1:26-27? Paul even uses the word “normal” to describe heterosexual sexual acts compared to homosexual which implies that those are “abnormal”.

 

[chrysostim83]

Elizabeth502,

I cited CCC 2337 explicitly in the post you responded to, so it wasn’t as if I needed it quoted back to me. I was and am maintaining my remarks on the definition of chastity despite the apparent definition given in CCC 2337.

The fact of the matter is you completely missed the argument why CCC 2337 is philosophically unacceptable as a definition: the way the catechism “defines” the word ‘chastity’ is not freely substitutable for it in all relevant contexts (in particular, it is possible to talk about growing in chastity but it is a violation of the laws of English semantics to talk about growing in the successful integration of sexuality within the person). Sure, CCC 2337 is perfectly OK as an elucidation of the concept of chastity, but an elucidation is not a definition.

InSearchofGrace,
Why are you assuming that I think same sex sexual behaviors do not violate chastity? Have I ever written anything like that?

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

It proceeds from Divine Law, known through Revelation, carried forward by God’s representative on earth, The Catholic Church, founded by Jesus Christ, Son of God.

It should come as no surprise that I’m a fan of James Alison, a Roman Catholic theologian who has done much to explicate the work of Rene Girard, whom I also deeply admire. My thinking with regard to Rome’s teaching on homosexuality is pretty much entirely indebted to Alison, though I don’t do him or his work any justice, I must say. I’m not a very good ambassador, much as I would like to be. But his vision of Catholic theology is breathtaking–the feeling that I get reading Alison is the same feeling I get reading Eastern Orthodox theologians: the feeling of a vista of love opening up and continuing beyond anything I could or will imagine. Again: breathtaking.

Your talk of law made me think of Alison’s very Girardian explication of Galatians. I’ll quote from it, it’s so good. You probably won’t like it. That’s fine. But I find the Gospel in it.
If the law curses somebody, then it creates a world of good and bad, and this means that the “good” in that system is fatally dependent on the “bad”. If I rely, for my goodness, on holding onto, and obeying, everything in the system, then that means my goodness is “over against” someone else’s badness, and thus, being dependent on it, is part of it.

Furthermore it means that for as long as I am beholden to the system of goodness, I will never in fact be able to obey the commandment which all agree to be a simple summation of the whole law: “You shall love your neighbour as yourself” (Gal 5:14) , because the law as system of goodness will prevent me from recognizing the neighbour who is as my self and who needs loving, because often enough it will hide that neighbour under the veil of being a “cursed other”. In other words, the lived anthropological effect of the system of goodness is, in practice, that of nullifying the goodness towards which the commandment points.

So we have the classic Pauline insight that no system of goodness, precisely because it sets up a world of good and bad, blessing and curse, can be from God, since God is only blessing, only promise, and that the real danger to moral life in any given society comes not in the first place from people who are “bad”, since they are in a sense too obvious to worry about, but rather from systems of goodness, which, since they are dependent on a “wicked other”, are terribly dangerous.

…]

…Paul does not think that the law came from God – in fact he specifically refers to it as given by Angels through a mediator, thus denying it a divine origin (Gal 3:19). For Paul, the promise of a blessing came and comes directly from God to all people because of Abraham and has no duplicity, no ambivalence and no double-binds involved in it. The law however was something that was not part of the divine promise, but was an angelic crutch added through Moses to contain violence. The fact that the Law contains violence in both senses of the word “contain” – that is it holds violence back (limiting revenge), and it harbours violence within itself (authorising curses) – is part of the proof that it is involved in ambivalence, and double-bind, and therefore cannot itself come from God.

No, for Paul it was not God who had set it up for Jesus to be cursed at all. The sphere of the curse is what it looks like to live in a world in which good and evil are defined over against each other – in other words, it is a strictly anthropological – human – reality.
You can find the whole thing here: jamesalison.co.uk/texts/eng16.html . It’s worth a read.

[CONTINUED…]

 

[Deo_Volente]

…CONTINUED & COMPLETED]

As such, the moral order does not change because it cannnot change. Only our understanding of the fixed moral order can change. The catechism communicates that fixed moral order.

I would just alter that last sentence: the catechism communicates an understanding of that fixed moral order.

What are you talking about? “looks very much like a crucified Man.” ? The Man who was crucified was crucified for violations of the fixed moral order.

Indeed. “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree.”

I was referring to Jesus Christ. The moral order of the universe looks like Jesus Christ.

(2) Thank you for manipulating Scripture to apply to an argument you want to make about the moral order. Isaiah and Revelation refer to the transformation of the world, and ultimately to Christ’s Final Coming, not to some malleability of the moral order, because that is a contradiction in terms.

I’ve a feeling that any interpretation that differs from your own amounts to manipulation, let’s be honest.

(4) We are never “invited to change the moral order.” That is not what The Cross invites us to do.

I never said we were, I never said it was. The Cross invites us to a new understanding of the moral order and our relationship to it.

The Cross invites and commands us to submit our fleshly wills to Divine Will, as Jesus did on Calvary.

I would have stopped at invites, as I do not believe that the Cross, the sign of mercy, is a dictator commanding people to do anything.

They don’t have to be differentiated species to be radically differentiated. The study of biology reveals how persistent this radical differentiation is. Science disagrees with you.

I never denied radical differentiation. I affirmed a fundamental shared humanity.

Therefore, no discussion, by Catholics who know their faith, of those teachings carried forth from divine revelation, is a discussion you are prepared to accept.

I’m prepared to accept discussion, Elizabeth. But I’m not prepared to accept an argument (whether from you or the RCC or anyone) that posits (against the growing evidence of science and experience and contrary, I would argue, to the promptings grace) that homosexuality is intrinsically or objectively disordered–not, that is, without a little discussion about why that should be so. And should that discussion be couched in a series of statements that amount to little more than, “just obey,” or “what if you’re wrong,” or “you should fear God,” then I can only conclude that no discussion is actually possible, because the whole enterprise is mired in fear–a fear that, should the language of disorder be inaccurate, we might just have to undertake the sometimes difficult but rewarding task of expanding and re-imagining how we conceive of the human ability to give and to receive love in the light of grace. Why such fear should be so prevalent, I do not know.

You want me to agree that that’s perfectly fine and that the moral order will ‘inevitably’ change, and you also want me to agree with the manipulation of scripture and the meaning of the Cross, to achieve your end.

Not really, Elizabeth. This thread was started because I had the apparent audacity to tell a struggling homosexual man that no one actually wants him to suffer, that God is not invested in keeping homosexuals in anguish. What I would like you to do, Elizabeth, is to explain to me how the anguish and alienation of homosexuals who are struggling to understand themselves and their affections in the light of the gospel are to find grace in being told that they are disordered. I would like for you to explain to me how their anguish is a fitting ornament to that gospel, how their pain accomplishes the purposes of the Kingdom of God. Explain that to me, Elizabeth, and I’ll be good to go.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Elizabeth502,

I cited CCC 2337 explicitly in the post you responded to, …

InSearchofGrace,

Why are you assuming that I think same sex sexual behaviors do not violate chastity? Have I ever written anything like that?

The exact wording I used are as follows:

Mark is using a non-standard definition of chastity with which you seem to be in consonance…

How is chastity possible in a homosexual relationship when chastity as the ordered gift of self excludes homosexuality? **Do you and Mark figure that homosexuals in committed relationships are exercising chastity by simply not acting on attractions with other potential homosexual partners? **Maintaining that homosexuality is not just about homosexual sex? Does faithfulness in a committed homosexual relationship translate to chastity, in your view?

Your posts seemed to be agreeing with most if not all of Mark’s declared views in this thread, but I was not sure. Hence, I made a qualified statement, followed by questions. Notice the interrogative format. If it came across as unambiguous, and you are taking issue with that, I am sorry. I am not making assumptions now, and without the need to review your record of posts, can you provide a direct reply to this question: do you consider homosexual behaviors/acts as violation of chastity then?
,