'Pedophilia Is a Sexual Orientation'?

[atheistgirl]

Disordered sexual gratification.

This is what I was wondering.

If the claim is the object of homosexual action is sexual gratification, you (not you personally) can’t claim that homosexual action is **intrinsically evil **as Nate13 did, because sexual gratification, in the right context, is not intrinsically evil.

Homosexual actions can be intrinsically disordered, if you are of a certain religious persuasion, but it can’t be intrinsically evil, because sexual gratification, sexual attraction, sexual climax and so on, **are not intrinsically evil **of themselves.

Sarah x

 

[Corki]

This is what I was wondering.

If the claim is the object of homosexual action is sexual gratification, you (not you personally) can’t claim that homosexual action is **intrinsically evil **as Nate13 did, because sexual gratification, in the right context, is not intrinsically evil.

Homosexual actions can be intrinsically disordered, if you are of a certain religious persuasion, but it can’t be intrinsically evil, because sexual gratification, sexual attraction, sexual climax and so on, **are not intrinsically evil **of themselves.

Sarah x

Not exactly. Just from a biological standpoint, homosexual activity is disordered. The normal order for human sexual union is genital to genital. The parts are designed to be complementary and for that complementariness to result in sexual gratification. Homosexual activity ignores the complementary structure of the human body and seeks sexual gratification in an alternate manner.

Disordered sexual gratificatication can certainly be intrinsically evil; it’s the “disordered” that makes it wrong, not the “sexual gratification”. In fact, to seek an objective good through immoral means would make it more evil, not less. Many objective evils are perversions of things that are themselves good.

 

[atheistgirl]

Not exactly.

Perhaps we’re understanding ‘‘intrinsically’’ differently.

But to me, you can’t argue that homosexual activity in the sense of seeking sexual gratification, is ‘‘intrinsically’’ evil, disordered yes, from the Church’s point of view, but even the Church does not call homosexual activity intrinsically evil. It can’t. Because sexual satisfaction in and of itself is not evil. It’s the context that matters.

Sarah x

 

[Corki]

Perhaps we’re understanding ‘‘intrinsically’’ differently.

But to me, you can’t argue that homosexual activity in the sense of seeking sexual gratification, is ‘‘intrinsically’’ evil, disordered yes, from the Church’s point of view, but even the Church does not call homosexual activity intrinsically evil. It can’t. Because sexual satisfaction in and of itself is not evil. It’s the context that matters.

Sarah x

I don’t understand the disconnect here. It’s not the “seeking” that makes it disordered, it’s the activity that one pursues to gain sexual gratification. That activity can be good or evil. Rape and pedophia are intrinsically evil too. They both have an end goal of sexual gratification but go about it in a disordered manner. In those cases, the disorder comes from the coersion or lack of consent. In the case of homosexual acts, the disorder comes from the anatomy.

Intrinsically evil means that it is always wrong and cannot be made good. Homosexual acts fit that criteria. Sexual gratification does not.

 

[Nate13]

Read again. It says that they are intrinsically disordered, not that they are intrinsically evil.

Intrinsically disordered is not the same as intrinsically evil.

Disordered, evil, immoral and never justifiable are different things. You are mixing up very specific terms.

-Tim-

Lol its considered intrinsically evil just as masturbation, fornication, and on down the list is. Intrinsically evil very simply means that there is no possible good that can justify the act. The principle of double effect can never come into play and make it so committing a homosexual act is alright. What do you think intrinsically evil means? Contrary to natural law is also a key term there.

The Catechism uses the same language for masturbation:

2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action."138 “The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.” For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of "the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved."139

i.e its intrinsically evil…the object of the act of masturbation is evil and thus never justifiable.

 

[RobbyS]

Sick indeed, and I am a whole hearted fan of chemical castration, for starters.
I’m also sick of hearing “born this way” as an excuse for all the deviancy in the world.

Well, we ARE “born this way.” I mean all of us are fallen creatures. But this explains murder as well as sexual deviancy. So is this the secular way of saying that the devil made me do it?

 

[Nate13]

Perhaps we’re understanding ‘‘intrinsically’’ differently.

But to me, you can’t argue that homosexual activity in the sense of seeking sexual gratification, is ‘‘intrinsically’’ evil, disordered yes, from the Church’s point of view, but even the Church does not call homosexual activity intrinsically evil. It can’t. Because sexual satisfaction in and of itself is not evil. It’s the context that matters.

Sarah x

Instrinsically evil = an act that can never be justified. In other words always wrong to commit said act no matter what the intent of circumstances may be. Its an act that is always wrong to commit because the object of the act is evil. You can never justify evil because of a good ends. That is what calling it intrinsically evil means. It takes an understanding of how Christian morality is built up.

 

[atheistgirl]

I don’t understand the disconnect here.

Why does the Church say rape is always an intrinsically evil act:

2356 Rape is the forcible violation of the sexual intimacy of another person. It does injury to justice and charity. Rape deeply wounds the respect, freedom, and physical and moral integrity to which every person has a right. It causes grave damage that can mark the victim for life. It is always an intrinsically evil act. Graver still is the rape of children committed by parents (incest) or those responsible for the education of the children entrusted to them.

but homosexual activity is intrinsically disordered?

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

The Catholic Church very clearly does not say that homosexual actions are intrinsically evil.

It makes a distinction between intrinsically evil and intrinsically disordered.

They may be the same to you, but they are clearly not the same thing to the Catholic Church.

Sarah x

 

[Nate13]

jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/11/intrinsic_evil.html

Jimmy Akin lays it out here.

Intrinsically evil = object of the act is evil.

 

[atheistgirl]

jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/11/intrinsic_evil.html

Jimmy Akin lays it out here.

Intrinsically evil = object of the act is evil.

Sorry I usually dump pages where the very first thing I see is ''Sign up for ‘‘Secret Information’’

Why does the Catholic Church use the specific term ‘‘intrinsically evil’’ for rape, but uses the specific term ‘‘intrinsically disordered’’ for homosexual activity.

Clearly the Catholic Church is being very specific, and sees a difference in these terms. What is this difference?

Sarah x

 

[maltmom]

Sorry I usually dump pages where the very first thing I see is ''Sign up for ‘‘Secret Information’’

Why does the Catholic Church use the specific term ‘‘intrinsically evil’’ for rape, but uses the specific term ‘‘intrinsically disordered’’ for homosexual activity.

Clearly the Catholic Church is being very specific, and sees a difference in these terms. What is this difference?

Sarah x

Sarah, I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut on the forum.

I think the difference is that rape is a violent sexual attack on another in which the victim has no say in what happens. Homosexuality in the eyes of the Church is against natural sexuality that God created and is therefore disordered. At least that is what came to mind when I saw your post #106

 

[Corki]

Why does the Church say rape is always an intrinsically evil act:

but homosexual activity is intrinsically disordered?

The Catholic Church very clearly does not say that homosexual actions are intrinsically evil.

It makes a distinction between intrinsically evil and intrinsically disordered.

They may be the same to you, but they are clearly not the same thing to the Catholic Church.

Sarah x

LOL I would think that using the terms “grave depravity” along with “intrinsically disordered” would be enough. However, you are limiting Church teaching to two paragraphs in the Catechism. There is a lot more out there.

For example in “LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
ON THE PASTORAL CARE OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS”, Pope Benedict (then prefect of the CDF) wrote:

Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.

From the USCCB document “Ministry to Persons with a Homosexual Inclination:
Guidelines for Pastoral Care”

While the Church teaches that homosexual acts are immoral, she does distinguish between engaging in homosexual acts and having a homosexual inclination. While the former is always objectively sinful, the latter is not.

always objectively sinful = intrinsically evil

Tot the Church intrinsically disordered is used to define the inclination toward what is morally wrong. Intrinsically evil acts are those that are always immoral regardless of circumstances.

Reason attests that there are objects of the human act which are by their nature “incapable of being ordered” to God, because they radically contradict the good of the person made in his image. These are the acts which, in the Church’s moral tradition, have been termed “intrinsically evil” (intrinsece malum): they are such always and per se, in other words, on account of their very object, and quite apart from the ulterior intentions of the one acting and the circumstances.

Veritatis Splendor (Blessed Pope John Paul II)

 

[Corki]

Sorry I usually dump pages where the very first thing I see is ''Sign up for ‘‘Secret Information’’

Why does the Catholic Church use the specific term ‘‘intrinsically evil’’ for rape, but uses the specific term ‘‘intrinsically disordered’’ for homosexual activity.

Clearly the Catholic Church is being very specific, and sees a difference in these terms. What is this difference?

Sarah x

If the object is always immoral, the act is intrinsically evil. The Church uses “disordered” primariy for the relationship between a good act and an evil one while “intrinsically evil” is a decription of the morality of the act.

(the Sign up for Secret Information is just a cutsie way of getting an email bulletin once in a while)

Jimmy Aikin does a good job at summarizing almost 2000 years of teaching on what makes something morally evil. He goes all the way from Augustine to JPII.

If you are honestly interested in the answer to your question, read Veritatis Splendor.

 

[severus68]

Allowing a child bride as young as age eight, which seems bizarre to me, is NOT the same thing as pedophilia. For one thing, a man who has sex with his young wife would not be allowed to have sex with another child the same age. For another, in cultures where men marry very young girls, they are expected to remain married to those girls as they age and to continue marital relations with them.

I’m not condoning ‘child brides’ but it is a mistake to think every man (or any man) who takes one is a pedophile.Further, it is a mistake to think members of a society which allows this draw no distinction between a man who takes a young bride and a man who only wants to have sex with children.

It is far more than bizarre, it is sick. The fact that the man is married to the child does not make it so. Further, in most of the societies where marrying off little girls is accepted, polygamy is also accepted. Why does remaining married to children and continuing to have sex with children make this practice better? Legalised paedophilia is still paedophilia to right thinking people.

 

[severus68]

Bria,

This discussion is “as if” homosexuality and pedophelia were exclusive and that is not true. Many pedophiles are homosexuals. I agree that the issue of consent is important and then the question is who defines the age of consent and why?

Many straight people are paedophiles too.

 

[severus68]

Bria,

You are an empiricist and not a rationalist. You are drawing conclusions based on experience that is not consistent with fact. Look here…

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17502450

.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19878444

The first one - just shows one thing they were studying.

The second - it does not show how the samples were drawn.

Your experience and what you observe do not bear out with facts…

 

[severus68]

I am old enough to remember Andrea Dworkin’s claim that because women in our society are not free and cannot consent, EVERY act of heterosexual sex is rape. One doesn’t hear that so much anymore, but it was much discussed in the '70s. (Another thing commonly heard then was that divorce had no serious negative impact on children. That’s heard less often now too.)

“Consent” isn’t as clear-cut a term as is often believed. To take a familiar example, some hold that the power-imbalance between an employer and employee (or college prof and student) is such that the latter cannot really consent. One used to hear this a lot, but then a lot of people started sleeping with their professors and bosses and thought it was no one else’s business and if someone had a problem with it, too bad for them.

A lecturer sleeping with his of age student, is not rape, neither is a boss sleeping with his employee. It is about being in a position of power and influence. So someone may get sacked but no one is charged with a crime. A child cannot consent and the law recognises that. A child has not the mental and emotional maturity to consent and is easily influenced. In many places, contracts with someone below 18, can be set aside.

 

[severus68]

Corki,

I refuse to accept that homosexuality is anything but a choice. I don’t accept it and I do not see it as an orientation. This quells the argument. Who says I have to change my opinion?

The Catholic Church says differently. Please read the Cathechism on this issue.

 

[CopticChristian]

Many straight people are paedophiles too.

Severus,

Yes…

Paedophiles are heterosexual and can have same sex thoughts directed at children and acted out with children

Paedophiles are heterosexual and can have heterosexual thoughts directed at children and acted out with children

 

[CopticChristian]

The Catholic Church says differently. Please read the Cathechism on this issue.

Severus,

I suggest you read the Catechism and notice that what I believe and think is not at odds with the Church. My thinking and my beliefs are not contrary nor do they deny what the Church teaches.

While the Church says they have no firm committment of the etiology…I do and that does not contradict Church teaching…