Serious doubts about Church teaching on homosexuality

[SMGS127]

You are basically saying that the homosexual inclination is only subjectively disordered. That is, it is only a disordered inclination by virtue of an individuals experience of it?

That is the antithesis Catholic teaching which stresses that it is ***objectively ***disordered. That is, in and of itself disordered.

No, as has been pointed out to you many times through the Canadian and United Kingdom Bishops’ explanation of Church teaching, “objectively disordered” means "disordered in its object." It is disordered insofar as it leads to genital activity or lust. You are not using the correct Catholic definition of the term “objectively.”

This is just my opinion of course, but I still maintain that having a partner to begin with already rolls out the carpet for temptation. Maybe “not for you” (although if you end up having sex with the partner, that says otherwise), but perhaps for the partner and also perhaps for the people who might observe a partnership/relationship in public, i.e scandal. So even if you are not tenpted, your partner and the public may very well be.

I have addressed both of these things too. It is not a near occasion of sin, and scandal should be addressed appropriately. But neither of these things speak to the morality of the act itself.

 

[Bookcat]

You have posted the same, exact post, word-for-word, literally seven times minimum. That is clearly against forum rules, and I am informing you that I will report you every single time in the future that you post the same, exact post. For reference:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=270175

Emphasis mine.

You have repeated the same arguments over and over and over and over again in several threads now.

I just do not want to keep recreating new posts all the time -and like I said I often too cut from other posts for I want to say the same or similar.

And new readers come along who are not likely going to read through a whole slew of posts. So I make use of my old posts. I reuse old posts too in other threads so as not save time …and bad typing. Alot of the same kinds of questions come up here on the forums all the time…no need to reinvent the wheel each time.

 

[Rin]

You are basically saying that the homosexual inclination is only subjectively disordered. That is, it is only a disordered inclination by virtue of an individuals experience of it?

That is the antithesis Catholic teaching which stresses that it is ***objectively ***disordered. That is, in and of itself disordered.

She is most definitely not saying that, and Catholic teaching is not saying exactly what you’re saying - but this has been explained by people more knowledgeable (and more eloquent, may I add) than me a few times in multiple threads over the last week, so I will not expound on it. However, recommend you go back and consider some of the nuances.

 

[LongingSoul]

No, as has been pointed out to you many times through the Canadian and United Kingdom Bishops’ explanation of Church teaching, “objectively disordered” means "disordered in its object." It is disordered insofar as it leads to genital activity or lust. You are not using the correct Catholic definition of the term “objectively.”

The position of the CDF and the Vatican is as follows…

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

SOME CONSIDERATIONS
CONCERNING THE RESPONSE TO LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS
ON THE NON-DISCRIMINATION OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS*

1. The letter recalls that the CDF’s “Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics” of 1975 “took note of the distinction commonly drawn between the homosexual condition or tendency and individual homosexual actions”; the latter are “intrinsically disordered” and “in no case to be approved of” (no. 3).
2. Since “n the discussion which followed the publication of the (aforementioned) declaration…, an overly benign interpretation was given to the homosexual condition itself, some going so far as to call it neutral or even good”, the letter goes on to clarify: “Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered towards an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.

Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be directed towards those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not” (no. 3).

This inclination has arisen in the first instance from a distorted call. It is only a sin if acted on but remains a disorder to be renounced all the same. Therefore all regard that is retricted to the relationship between men and women ordered to the survival of the species, is forbidden to people of the same sex. It is objectively disordered.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Do you understand that this puts are immortal souls in danger by telling them they can kinda be homosexual as long as they control themselves?

Being same-sex attracted is not a sin, estesbob. And same-sex attracted people are homosexuals. The issue is not, then, “How can I stop being same-sex attracted?” The issue is, “As a same-sex attracted person, is my capacity to give and receive love worthless? Can I share my life with someone whom I would call my (and who would call me their) beloved? Is there a way for me as a same-sex attracted person to live fully into my humanity, body and soul, and give and receive love and intimacy in a way that leads most clearly to virtue, wholeness and flourishing? Is there a positive vision of life into which I’m being asked to live? How do I employ the fullness of my humanity, body and soul, in embarking on the journey of sanctification?” That’s the issue. Not, “How can I stop being same-sex attracted.”

Surely there are people who are burdened with the heterosexual condition and all of the lusts and moral horrors of which it is capable are not required to seek to stop being heterosexual? Surely these people with the heterosexual condition go on dates and are not all guilty of heterosexual sin, even though they’re dating someone, even desiring someone, who is clearly not their spouse?

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[SMGS127]

1. Since “n the discussion which followed the publication of the (aforementioned) declaration…, an overly benign interpretation was given to the homosexual condition itself, some going so far as to call it neutral or even good”, the letter goes on to clarify: “Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered towards an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.

Yes, and just as the Canadian and UK Bishops stated, Cardinal Ratzinger ALSO states. Which is that, insofar as the inclination of the homosexual person is directed towards an intrinsic moral evil (e.g. homosexual sex/lust), it is disordered in that object, and is thus an objective disorder. This does not mean that SSAs cannot be directed in a moral manner, nor does it mean that SSAs are disordered no matter how they are directed. And that is what you are not understanding.

 

[Rau]

So you say. But I’ve read a many a thread on here with those claiming to be in conformity with Church teachings…posting things that seems quite obvious to me to be the opposite of these teachings!..just saying.

*** Peace, Mark***

I think what I wrote is demonstrably so.

Not sure I’ve seen that. You do typically see:

• those who just say the Church is living in the past, is unfair, cruel, got it wrong, etc
• those who are cafeteria Catholics and reject specific teachings.
• those who claim to be following a higher “truth” than the Church provides - apparently they have a line on God’s thoughts denied to the rest of us.

From my observation, those folks have not been present on this and it’s related threads.

If you feel some posters are failing to understand Church teaching, of course you may be right.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be directed towards those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not” (no. 3).

This inclination has arisen in the first instance from a distorted call. It is only a sin if acted on but remains a disorder to be renounced all the same. Therefore all regard that is retricted to the relationship between men and women ordered to the survival of the species, is forbidden to people of the same sex. It is objectively disordered.

You overreach. The homosexual activity referred to in your quoted passage is a clear reference to the context of the catechism: that of homosexual genital sexual acts.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

“For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers…] But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.” Matthew 23:4&15

 

[LongingSoul]

No, as has been pointed out to you many times through the Canadian and United Kingdom Bishops’ explanation of Church teaching, “objectively disordered” means "disordered in its object." It is disordered insofar as it leads to genital activity or lust. You are not using the correct Catholic definition of the term “objectively.”

Again, I must point out that you have distorted the wording of the Canadian Bishops. They did not say “It is disordered insofar as it leads to genital activity or lust.”

They actually said… *"Nonetheless, when oriented toward genital activity, this inclination is “objectively disordered.” *

‘Oriented’ does not mean ‘leads to’. It just means inclined to. You yourself admit to being inclined to sexual activity with women and have lived a long life of same sex relationships.

 

[LongingSoul]

Grace & Peace!

You overreach. The homosexual activity referred to in your quoted passage is a clear reference to the context of the catechism: that of homosexual genital sexual acts.

The CCC says that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and that homosexual inclinations are objectively disordered. You are the one who has misrepresented the CCC.

 

[LongingSoul]

Yes, and just as the Canadian and UK Bishops stated, Cardinal Ratzinger ALSO states. Which is that, insofar as the inclination of the homosexual person is directed towards an intrinsic moral evil (e.g. homosexual sex/lust), it is disordered in that object, and is thus an objective disorder. This does not mean that SSAs cannot be directed in a moral manner, nor does it mean that SSAs are disordered no matter how they are directed. And that is what you are not understanding.

Same sex attraction is not to be a basis for relationship. People with this disorder are encouraged to find fulfillment in spiritual ways and in disinterested friendship as per friendships that pertain to every person.

 

[LongingSoul]

Surely there are people who are burdened with the heterosexual condition and all of the lusts and moral horrors of which it is capable are not required to seek to stop being heterosexual? Surely these people with the heterosexual condition go on dates and are not all guilty of heterosexual sin, even though they’re dating someone, even desiring someone, who is clearly not their spouse?

Insofar as the natural inclination to pursue union with someone of the opposite sex, that inclination is ordered to nature and legitimately part of Gods plan for human sexuality. The morality of the acts depends on the married or unmarried status of the couple.

 

[SMGS127]

Again, I must point out that you have distorted the wording of the Canadian Bishops. They did not say “It is disordered insofar as it leads to genital activity or lust.”

They actually said… "Nonetheless, when oriented toward genital activity, this inclination is “objectively disordered.”

‘Oriented’ does not mean ‘leads to’. It just means inclined to. You yourself admit to being inclined to sexual activity with women and have lived a long life of same sex relationships.

What the heck does this even mean?

If the Canadian Bishops meant “as long as one is attracted to members of the same sex,” there is no need for their qualifier. If they meant “as long as one is intending or directing their actions towards sex/lust,” then you are dead wrong. There is no scenario I can possibly imagine under which your interpretation even makes sense. You are grasping at straws to try to force your [false] interpretation of the Catechism to somehow be correct.

 

[Rin]

Again, I must point out that you have distorted the wording of the Canadian Bishops. They did not say “It is disordered insofar as it leads to genital activity or lust.”

They actually said… "Nonetheless, when oriented toward genital activity, this inclination is “objectively disordered.”

‘Oriented’ does not mean ‘leads to’. It just means inclined to. You yourself admit to being inclined to sexual activity with women and have lived a long life of same sex relationships.

No, it means “has as its goal”: The inclination is “objectively disordered” when it has genital activity as its goal.

I am aware of and fully understand that words like “orientation”, “objectively” and (especially) “disordered” are words that are difficult for English speakers, because the words are used daily with slightly different meanings than they have in theology. However, I would recommend that you consider whether you could be wrong.

In theology, these terms are used to consider the teleology of things (including actions and inclinations). The language is rather exact - exactly to avoid painting things with bigger brushes than needed. You do as Mark says overreach - the texts speak only of the orientation towards sexual acts, not of the orientation towards romantic relationships or “romantic acts”. I know that in our time this distinction has been erased, but it is nonetheless a real, existing and very Catholic distinction.

 

[Rau]

Grace & Peace!

Being same-sex attracted is not a sin, estesbob. And same-sex attracted people are homosexuals. The issue is not, then, “How can I stop being same-sex attracted?” The issue is, “As a same-sex attracted person, is my capacity to give and receive love worthless? Can I share my life with someone whom I would call my (and who would call me their) beloved? Is there a way for me as a same-sex attracted person to live fully into my humanity, body and soul, and give and receive love and intimacy in a way that leads most clearly to virtue, wholeness and flourishing? Is there a positive vision of life into which I’m being asked to live? How do I employ the fullness of my humanity, body and soul, in embarking on the journey of sanctification?” That’s the issue. Not, “How can I stop being same-sex attracted.”

Surely there are people who are burdened with the heterosexual condition and all of the lusts and moral horrors of which it is capable are not required to seek to stop being heterosexual? Surely these people with the heterosexual condition go on dates and are not all guilty of heterosexual sin, even though they’re dating someone, even desiring someone, who is clearly not their spouse?

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Ok, but ceasing to be SSA is not proposed, other than by those who advocate the therapy road. The proposition is to accept some pretty restrictive provisions - more restrictive than heterosexuals. And the rationale given for that is that to do otherwise is to follow an (objective) disorder. And the nub of the argument is whether all that flows from SSA is following said disorder, or whether the disorder relates only to seeking wrong objects, viz lust and sex acts.

The secondary points of debate are around whether one can be clear on what motivates an act pursuant to SSA, and also near occasion of sin.

 

[Rin]

Ok, but ceasing to be SSA is not proposed, other than by those who advocate the therapy road. The proposition is to accept some pretty restrictive provisions - more restrictive than heterosexuals. And the rationale given for that is that to do otherwise is to follow an (objective) disorder. And the nub of the argument is whether all that flows from SSA is following said disorder, or whether the **disorder **relates only to seeking wrong objects, viz lust and sex acts.

The secondary points of debate are around whether one can be clear on what motivates an act pursuant to SSA, and also near occasion of sin.

I know I’m probably never going to change this (and I’m sure you didn’t do it on purpose), since virtually every English speaker makes this mistake, but to repeat myself from earlier threads :

• The Church does *not *see being attracted (in any way) to the same sex as “a disorder”.
• The Church does however see homosexual acts (as in, to be blunt, gay sex) as “intrinsically disordered”, because they are ordered to something other than reproduction and union between man and woman.
• For that reason, the Church does also see an inclination towards these acts as “objectively disordered”, because the inclination has these acts as its object.

The noun “disorder” means something completely different than the adjective “disordered” as used in Catholic theology. Sadly, they share stems in English. This makes for a lot of unneeded confusion.

Edit: To the last point on my list: My explanation here is a tautology, but that is because that’s what it is (okay, I need to sleep soon). “Objectively disordered” simply means “disordered because its object is…”. Therefore, a romance with no sexual “object” cannot be disordered. The element that would be wrongly ordered is no longer part of the picture.

 

[GaryTaylor]

In the letter the Cardinal stated: “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.”

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDQQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FHomosexuality_and_Roman_Catholicism&ei=QSm_U4blKeWa8gHE9oGoDg&usg=AFQjCNFZzxGgvXzgTe4ryQk_o-Nzwe32rQ

 

[Rau]

Again, I must point out that you have distorted the wording of the Canadian Bishops. They did not say “It is disordered insofar as it leads to genital activity or lust.”

They actually said… "Nonetheless, when oriented toward genital activity, this inclination is “objectively disordered.”

‘Oriented’ does not mean ‘leads to’. It just means inclined to. You yourself admit to being inclined to sexual activity with women and have lived a long life of same sex relationships.

Can you elaborate on what actions, flowing from SSA, might orient to somewhere licit? Clearly they exist, otherwise the qualification in the quote would be unnecessary.

 

[Rin]

In the letter the Cardinal stated: “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.”

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDQQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FHomosexuality_and_Roman_Catholicism&ei=QSm_U4blKeWa8gHE9oGoDg&usg=AFQjCNFZzxGgvXzgTe4ryQk_o-Nzwe32rQ

Then, sadly, the good Cardinal must either have slipped or been affected by his own native language.

The sentence you quote would make zero sense in my native language, and I suspect that it would not in Latin, either.

 

[Rau]

I know I’m probably never going to change this (and I’m sure you didn’t do it on purpose), since virtually every English speaker makes this mistake, but to repeat myself from earlier threads :

• The Church does *not *see being attracted (in any way) to the same sex as “a disorder”.
• The Church does however see homosexual acts (as in, to be blunt, gay sex) as “intrinsically disordered”, because they are ordered to something other than reproduction and union between man and woman.
• For that reason, the Church does also see an inclination towards these acts as “objectively disordered”, because the inclination has these acts as its object.

The noun “disorder” means something completely different than the adjective “disordered” as used in Catholic theology. Sadly, they share stems in English. This makes for a lot of unneeded confusion.

Edit: To the last point on my list: My explanation here is a tautology, but that is because that’s what it is (okay, I need to sleep soon). “Objectively disordered” simply means “disordered because its object is…”. Therefore, a romance with no sexual “object” cannot be disordered. The element that would be wrongly ordered is no longer part of the picture.

I have the same understanding as you. Apologies to readers for the grammatical slip in using the noun in place of adjective. As a grammarian, I am embarrassed!