B
Brendan
Guest
A few do, most do not.
- Status
B
Brendan
Guest
As I mentioned, we were speaking of civil contract law.
If you would like to discuss what is and is not a basic human right, again that is metaphysics.
S
sharrisec
Guest
Deo,
A very long and detailed explanation, however, if you read the Catechism of the Catholic Church (sections 2357-2359), you’ll notice you’re leaving out a very important word. It talks about the homosexual “act” as being intrinsically sinful and not same-sex attaction itself. It also says many other charitable things you are leaving out.
Scott
J
jrwaiss
Guest
Gearhead, you bring me to Second Question of this thread: Is homosexuality intrinsically or objectively disordered?
Earlier Mark (Deo Volente) wrote:
It is true that the Catechism of the Catholic Church says that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered (CCC 2357) and that homosexual inlination or tendency (i.e. same-sex attraction) is objectively disordered (CCC 2358). Let me paraphrase the answer I give in my book, Born to Love:
- All human persons (male or female, sinner or saint, gay or lesbian or straight) are intrinsically good, which is rooted in being made in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:26-27; 5:1-2; CCC 1700,1702,1705).
- We disfigure that dignity by sin (CCC 1701); which is a disorder of the will (1755,1761), including venial sin (1863,1875).
- Homosexual acts are disordered (CCC 2357), as is divorce (2385), masturbation (2352), etc.
- Any inclination to disordered action is itself a disorder, such as disordered passions (CCC1768), ignorance (1793), sexual lust (2351), and desire for money (2424).
As St Francis pointed out:
survive correctly points out:
As does St Francis:
Mark (Deo Volente) doesn’t see that all sin and all tendency to sin as disorder:
And
But, as we showed above, it is the inclination to sin are disordered, just as desires to gratify oneself by masturbation or by doing pornography are disordered. As Mark77 pointed out:
Here, DOShea rightly points out that it is the sense-desires or deep-seated emotional tendencies that are disordered, not the will of the homosexual which is intrinsically good.
Deo Volente comes back by saying:
Desires for any immoral sexual activity is objectively disordered, whether homosexual or heterosexual. Desires for heterosexual sex with children or with oneself or with a person who is not one’s spouse are all objectively disordered.
G
gearhead
Guest
IOW, you agree that the Catholic Church is intolerant of homosexuality, but you think this intolerance is justified. Right?
J
jrwaiss
Guest
The Catechism of the Catholic Church condemns intolerance, as it does:
Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard… (CCC 2357).
The equality of men rests essentially on their dignity as persons and the rights that flow from it: \q\Every form of social or cultural discrimination in fundamental personal rights on the grounds of sex, race, color, social conditions, language, or religion must be curbed and eradicated as incompatible with God’s design (CCC 1935).
It calls us to accept everyone “with respect, compassion, and sensitivity” (CCC 2357).
As was said earlier, homosexuality does not have a monopoly on objective disorder. There are other sinners out there, starting with me.
N
Nec5
Guest
1st Question: It’s another chink in the cultural unity that once defined this country, ugly and contradictory as it often was (i.e. slavery, poll taxes, etc.). The worst case scenario is that it will contribute to the destruction of the family unit as the basic unit of society. To be certain, divorce and living together have done far more damage to this building block of society. In fact, they are a main reason we are at this point. However, the recognition of anyone marrying provides public and official support for the notion that marriage doesn’t matter at all. In short, it continues our slide into moral relativism, the inability or unwillingness make necessarily subjective judgments.
I’m arguing with you on a theoretical level. I think this country took what I consider a devastatingly wrong turn when the WWII veterans came home. The “greatest” generation defeated an external monster (Nazism) only to fall victim to internal corruption (they failed to properly raise their kids so 18 years later we get the hippies and relativism). I also know that gay marriage will join abortion in becoming the new norm.
I predict that polygamy and all sorts of alternative lifestyles will increasingly gain acceptance because their human rights are subjectively being violated much like gay marriage.
With the basic family structure destroyed on a mass level, it will only be a matter of time before the government or some other group begins putting on the squeeze. In fact, you can already see it. What was once though impossible just 20 years ago has become reality (cameras on every street corner, police forcing parents to use child seats, threatened with jail time for not buying health insurance, gay marriage, private property seized by the government and given to another private owner, mandatory flu shots, taking my money and giving it to others via cash for clunkers, etc). The list is long. This shift is all a result of the cultural and moral decay that began in the late 40s and surfaced in full with the 60s.
Question 2: There are 2 options for society. I remember reading something Jefferson wrote about the issue of freedom. He claimed that the country would eventually have it’s freedoms taken away and will either explode in rebellion as you suggest, or quietly and gradually submit to the chains on our freedom. When I look around at my peers and today’s mindset, I think the second option is more likely. There are too many sheep, and few people with enough fire in their belly to adequately resist. Sadly, this includes the church.
On a less serious note, for a thread entitled “the bottom line”, it’s awfully long winded. Just look at my absurdly long posts and everyone else’s.
If people think me paranoid, remember the old joke: Just because I’m paranoid doesn’t mean people aren’t out to get me.
G
gearhead
Guest
Unjust discrimination. IOW, it accepts a certain level of discrimination, calling it “just”. It also rejects discrimination over and above this level.
Just because it isn’t comfortable with a greater level of intolerance than it exhibits itself doesn’t make the Church’s position tolerant.
J
jrwaiss
Guest
You like to twist other people’s words, I see… OK, I’ll play your game.
“Just” discrimination, as when a person discriminates against an unjust aggressor in defending himself, his loved-ones, or others:
Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility (CCC 2265).
G
gearhead
Guest
How am I twisting your words? The Church views homosexuality as disordered and homosexual acts as sin. Is the Church tolerant of what it views as disorder and sin?
D
Diane_Lynn
Guest
Why am I getting the feeling that some come in here not to argue a point but to apply the intolerance of homosexuality to the person whereas the church finds the ACT in itself intolerant.
Most Catholics do not think of homosexuals as being evil but we do find the ACTS they commit repulsive. I personally think that the demand for homosexual couples to be granted license for their sinful ACT a blasphemy. It is nothing less.
Now the comparison of other human foibles are being compared to homosexuality and also the issue of class or race is somehow considered in the same measure. The BIBLE makes clear that a man lying with another man is an abomination. If you don’t accept that then I strongly suspect you are here to argue with us in an attempt to convert us to your favorable consideration of the ACT of homosexuality. Sorry, I am Catholic and I abide by the tenants of my faith. I will not be swayed by your passion for the physical in opposition to the spiritual.
D
Deo_Volente
Guest
Grace & Peace!
jrwaiss, I think that in the end we’re still talking about different things.
Like you, I believe that sin is a disorder of the will, that it represents a wound or a disease. As the old formula puts it, nature is wounded, but not destroyed. I do not believe that this view is at odds with what Rome teaches.
When it comes to sexuality, however, Rome appears to teach something else and it comes across as gibberish to many homosexual people. I’ve written about this before on this thread. Lets look again at the logic, the questions such logic brings up, and how these questions pose particular problems.
A: Rome states in the catechism that our sexuality is fundamentally related to our humanity and to our wholeness as humans.
B: A homosexual’s sexuality is homosexual (like a heterosexual’s sexuality is heterosexual)
C: We should be able to conclude that a homosexual’s homosexuality by virtue of the fact that it is his or her sexuality is fundamentally related in a positive and constructive way to his or her humanity and to his or her wholeness as a human in a way identical to a heterosexual’s heterosexuality.
D: However, a homosexual’s sexuality inclines him or her to desire intimate and/or romantic/sexual relationships with people of the same sex.
E: Rome understands that inclination as disordered.
This brings up some questions:
1: In what way are we to understand the sexuality of the homosexual as not disordered in light of the fact that that sexuality is capable of giving rise to disordered inclinations exclusively?
2: In what way, then, are we *not *to understand the homosexual as disordered to a degree unknown to heterosexuals, considering point A above? Indeed, a heterosexual may have a disordered sexual inclination, but that inclination is a perversion of their fundamentally good sexuality. A homosexual can only sexually desire disorder.
3: If a homosexual’s homosexual sexuality is, in fact, basically good (like a heterosexual’s) then should it not be possible for a homosexual to experience or even express a homosexual sexual inclination that is not disordered?
If one takes Rome’s position, one can only answer these questions by taking one of several problematic paths:
Path 1: Homosexuality is not a sexuality. It is a psychological disorder leading to a moral disease.
Path 2: Homosexual’s are in fact morally diseased in a way unknown to heterosexuals.
Path 3: Sexuality is, in fact, not at all related to what it is to be human and/or whole.
The problem is that Path 1 is contradicted by the scientific and medical communities, as well as by experience itself, placing Path 1 in the same category as a defense of geocentrism in the face of the Copernican Revolution. The problem with Path 2 is that it suggests double predestination–homosexuals are basically damned by virtue of their sexuality which is cannot but give rise to disorder, and as their sexuality is related to their human wholeness, that wholeness will be forever elusive. Path 3 is simply ludicrous and contradicts Rome’s most basic teaching on sexuality to boot.
If we were seeking to be entirely consistent with Rome’s teaching, however, we will have to take one of these dead end paths, probably 1. Path 1 is indeed the route the catechism takes (though it stops short of demanding or suggesting conversion therapy, which I find strange from a pastoral perspective) as Path 2 represents something entirely repugnant to Catholic theology–the idea that nature is, in fact, destroyed in homosexuals. That the wound of sin has not simply perverted sexual desire, it has destroyed it entirely, making a homosexual’s desire broken in a way that a heterosexual’s desire simply, naturally, cannot be. But because most homosexuals understand their homosexuality as their sexuality and as natural to them, most of them understand Rome’s position as fundamentally related to Path 2. And they hear all of this “being a homosexual is fine, as long as you don’t act on it” as akin to saying, “having a pair of lungs is fine, as long as you don’t breathe with them.”
The alternative, of course, is to affirm that a homosexual’s homosexual sexuality is, in fact, good. It can be perverted, it can be distorted, but the fundamental inclination toward same sex intimacy which arises from that sexuality is good and can be expressed in good ways.
What those ways are I will leave open. Sexual expression has always been controlled via various legal and moral structures (from patriarchy to polygamy, monogamy, concubinage, divorce laws, etc.). I do not see why homosexual sexual expression could not also be positively expressed within any number of appropriate structures.
Ultimately, jrwaiss, I do not deny that sin is sin, I do not deny that disorder is disorder. My contention is that Rome’s understanding of homosexuality is deeply flawed and has led to deeply flawed moral conclusions for homosexuals.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is grace and mercy! Deo gratias!
jrwaiss, I think that in the end we’re still talking about different things.
Like you, I believe that sin is a disorder of the will, that it represents a wound or a disease. As the old formula puts it, nature is wounded, but not destroyed. I do not believe that this view is at odds with what Rome teaches.
When it comes to sexuality, however, Rome appears to teach something else and it comes across as gibberish to many homosexual people. I’ve written about this before on this thread. Lets look again at the logic, the questions such logic brings up, and how these questions pose particular problems.
A: Rome states in the catechism that our sexuality is fundamentally related to our humanity and to our wholeness as humans.
B: A homosexual’s sexuality is homosexual (like a heterosexual’s sexuality is heterosexual)
C: We should be able to conclude that a homosexual’s homosexuality by virtue of the fact that it is his or her sexuality is fundamentally related in a positive and constructive way to his or her humanity and to his or her wholeness as a human in a way identical to a heterosexual’s heterosexuality.
D: However, a homosexual’s sexuality inclines him or her to desire intimate and/or romantic/sexual relationships with people of the same sex.
E: Rome understands that inclination as disordered.
This brings up some questions:
1: In what way are we to understand the sexuality of the homosexual as not disordered in light of the fact that that sexuality is capable of giving rise to disordered inclinations exclusively?
2: In what way, then, are we *not *to understand the homosexual as disordered to a degree unknown to heterosexuals, considering point A above? Indeed, a heterosexual may have a disordered sexual inclination, but that inclination is a perversion of their fundamentally good sexuality. A homosexual can only sexually desire disorder.
3: If a homosexual’s homosexual sexuality is, in fact, basically good (like a heterosexual’s) then should it not be possible for a homosexual to experience or even express a homosexual sexual inclination that is not disordered?
If one takes Rome’s position, one can only answer these questions by taking one of several problematic paths:
Path 1: Homosexuality is not a sexuality. It is a psychological disorder leading to a moral disease.
Path 2: Homosexual’s are in fact morally diseased in a way unknown to heterosexuals.
Path 3: Sexuality is, in fact, not at all related to what it is to be human and/or whole.
The problem is that Path 1 is contradicted by the scientific and medical communities, as well as by experience itself, placing Path 1 in the same category as a defense of geocentrism in the face of the Copernican Revolution. The problem with Path 2 is that it suggests double predestination–homosexuals are basically damned by virtue of their sexuality which is cannot but give rise to disorder, and as their sexuality is related to their human wholeness, that wholeness will be forever elusive. Path 3 is simply ludicrous and contradicts Rome’s most basic teaching on sexuality to boot.
If we were seeking to be entirely consistent with Rome’s teaching, however, we will have to take one of these dead end paths, probably 1. Path 1 is indeed the route the catechism takes (though it stops short of demanding or suggesting conversion therapy, which I find strange from a pastoral perspective) as Path 2 represents something entirely repugnant to Catholic theology–the idea that nature is, in fact, destroyed in homosexuals. That the wound of sin has not simply perverted sexual desire, it has destroyed it entirely, making a homosexual’s desire broken in a way that a heterosexual’s desire simply, naturally, cannot be. But because most homosexuals understand their homosexuality as their sexuality and as natural to them, most of them understand Rome’s position as fundamentally related to Path 2. And they hear all of this “being a homosexual is fine, as long as you don’t act on it” as akin to saying, “having a pair of lungs is fine, as long as you don’t breathe with them.”
The alternative, of course, is to affirm that a homosexual’s homosexual sexuality is, in fact, good. It can be perverted, it can be distorted, but the fundamental inclination toward same sex intimacy which arises from that sexuality is good and can be expressed in good ways.
What those ways are I will leave open. Sexual expression has always been controlled via various legal and moral structures (from patriarchy to polygamy, monogamy, concubinage, divorce laws, etc.). I do not see why homosexual sexual expression could not also be positively expressed within any number of appropriate structures.
Ultimately, jrwaiss, I do not deny that sin is sin, I do not deny that disorder is disorder. My contention is that Rome’s understanding of homosexuality is deeply flawed and has led to deeply flawed moral conclusions for homosexuals.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is grace and mercy! Deo gratias!
B
Brendan
Guest
No the Church is VERY tolerant of homosexuality. What it is intolerant of is homosexual ACTS.
There is quite a big difference.
We offer support ministries so that they may cope with their particular cross and respond to it is a way that corresponds to God’s Grace.
The homosexual acts, like other grave sin, are fully and rightly condemned.
S
severus68
Guest
There are legal restrictions against marriage between people closely related by blood and some related by marriage. The Church does prohibit such marriages.
Z
Zoe_Brain
Guest
My problem is this: that while my reading of the Bible too indicates that homosexuality is sinful; while that’s the official line of the magisterium; while that’s in the catechism; and I have no problem with that as a religious belief…
It’s the consequences that I object to.
OK, object to homosexuality as sinful. I don’t believe it is, but every catholic should.
Where the Church goes off the rails though, is where the logic is followed to the point of absurdity, and cruelty too.
It’s the consequences that I object to.
OK, object to homosexuality as sinful. I don’t believe it is, but every catholic should.
Where the Church goes off the rails though, is where the logic is followed to the point of absurdity, and cruelty too.
- Homosexuality is a sin
- Therefore we can’t be seen to support it.
- Therefore we will oppose legislation against bullying of children of gay parents.
S
sharrisec
Guest
Extremely well put Diane! I’m not sure what part of the word “act” most are not getting. I also like the way Drawmack explained the incorrect use of “tolerate”. In today’s society, we tolerate a whole lot of things, but we “accept” or “reject” based on our moral conscience. We as Catholics cannot accept the homosexual act any more than anyone can “accept” me stealing money from friends. I can’t imagine trying to make people feel badly if they reject my disorders and sins, which we all have.
G
gearhead
Guest
Homosexual acts are labelled “sin”; homosexuality itself is labelled “disorder”. Neither of these are tolerant.
But if you think you’re right in your intolerance, why not proclaim it proudly?
Speaking for myself, I’m intolerant of evil (actual evil); I’m intolerant of disease (actual disease)… and I have no problem saying so. If you think that homosexual acts are akin to evil and homosexuality itself is akin to disease, why would you have a problem saying that you’re intolerant of them?
B
Barry_Gabriel
Guest
Now there’s a stretch. As A=B, therefore soup is an orange. :nope: Homosexuality has nothing whatsoever to do with virginity on the wedding night etc. Your putting them together in this context as a comparison is false. Think this through Cluny.
B
Brendan
Guest
You are correct, it is a moral disorder . The acts that it is ordered towards are inherently sinful (hence the term “wrongly ordered”). That is not being ‘intolerant’, just stating a fact.
Alcoholicism is also a moral disorder. The Church drunkeness to be sinful, even as a singlular act. At the same time, it offers ministries to help alcholics live sober lives. Does that mean that the Church is intolerant of alcoholics?
S
sharrisec
Guest
I’m tolerant of the disorder of homosexuality and intolerant of the act. There, I said it.
P.S. - To all the non-Catholics in this thread, I suggest you read what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say on this topic before you presume to know the Magisterium’s position. I also suggest several podcasts from Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, who provides some very interesting information on homosexuality and gay lifestyle.
- Status