Grace & Peace!
DOshea, I thought your response was excellent and am very grateful for it!
It does no good to foster open discussion if you misquote. The CCC actually states: (2357) …tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”
Acts, not desire.
(2358) This inclination, which is objectively disordered…" Here it speaks of “deep-seated homosexual tendencies,” not homosexual desire.
I think this is the issue here (and by the by, St. Francis, this is the section of the catechism which referred to homosexual inclinations as “objectively disordered”): in what way does a homosexual tendency or inclination reflect upon the individual’s desire? To what extent is desire a manifestation of an inclination or tendency, and to what degree is the opposite the case?
It seems to me that a homosexual inclination speaks to the
consciousness of a desire for same-sex intimacy. I’m not sure you would agree and would be interested to know how you understand “homosexual inclination.”
Moreover, something must be inclined for there to be an inclination. What is that something? It seems to me that it would be the will and that it would not be unreasonable to assume that what is predicated of the inclination can also be predicated of the will. But we’re about to enter a bit of a subtle territory here…
…perhaps what we need to do first is to really understand the process of desire and its relationship to the will–or at least come to some agreement as to how the process works. To do so, we should probably agree on some terms and concepts that are involved. I would argue that these notions would be essential to the discussion:
1: The three powers of the soul: memory, will, intellect
2: The Natural Will
3: The Personal Will
4: We must also come to a conclusion regarding the nature of homosexuality: is it a defective heterosexuality? Or is it its own thing? How we answer this question has considerable repercussions for whether or not the objective disorder of the homosexual inclination implies the objective disorder of the homosexual will.
In other words, which is the more true statement:
1: The desire for homo-sex intimacy is a reflection in the personal will of a natural inclination which arises from the natural will (like a desire for hetero-sex intimacy). Because we are subject to the disease of sin, this inclination can be expressed, through the personal will acting on that desire, in inappropriate ways, but can also find appropriate expressions. The inclination is itself not objectively disordered.
2: The desire for homo-sex intimacy is a reflection in the personal will of an objectively disordered heterosexual inclination which arises from the natural will. This inclination cannot be expressed in any appropriate way.
If statement 2 is the more true one, then what are the implications for the condition of the natural will of such a person conscious of such desires? What are the implications for their very concept of personhood? How is such a person to view their sexuality, their very* faculty for sexual intimacy*, if not with the most abject shame, disgust, hatred, loathing, and mistrust? And is it reasonable to expect others to view that faculty differently, or be in any way supportive of a different view?
My argument is that statement 2 is severely flawed. It may be appropriate to speak of an action as disordered, but to speak of an inclination as disordered does indeed have repercussions on the nature of desire, on the condition of the will, and on the wholeness of the human person.
Mark, I have to respectfully disagree with you. The CC does nothing but flat out prohibit any kind of uncharitable act or discrimination against anyone with any degree of homosexual tendencies. It calls on all of us to show compassion and support. But it stops short of saying we have to accept sinful acts in order to show that support. They make a big distinction between the two, and it looks to me like it’s not being seen or is being seen and distorted. Either way, the answer is to learn the truth of the teaching rather than react to teaching that isn’t there.
I understand your point, but it’s not just the acts that are considered disordered–it’s the inclination towards those acts that is also described as disordered. At its most basic level, a homosexual is someone who is conscious of a desire for same-sex intimacy, which desire is a reflection of a tendency which the Roman Church understands as
wholly corrupt (what else does “objectively disordered” mean?). This says something very clear about how the Roman Church understands the very personhood of the homosexual–and it’s not pretty, and it’s not particularly charitable. But what other conclusion can be drawn given that the act
and the inclination are
both either intrinsically or objectively disordered? After all, the catechism states:
“Sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses, is not something simply biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such.”
Sexuality concerns the innermost being of the human person. What of the homosexual’s sexuality? Given all we’ve said above, how is the homosexual to understand the relationship of their sexuality to their innermost being if their sexuality represents an inclination that is objectively disordered?
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is grace and mercy! Deo gratias!
