I don’t think this is out of the ordinary, It is, after all, the position of the Catholic Church.I’m tolerant of the disorder of homosexuality and intolerant of the act. There, I said it.
I agree.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.
Uh, no. NARTH has little understanding of homosexuality, and I think recommending one of its founders is very misleading.I also suggest several podcasts from Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, who provides some very interesting information on homosexuality and gay lifestyle.
Maybe, maybe not… but it’s certainly intolerant of alcoholism.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?
I’ve read what the catechism has to say on the subject, and as for my opinion of Joseph Nicolosi, the less said the better.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.
But here is the difference between alcoholism and homosexuality. Alcoholism and drunkenness are alien to the wholeness of the human being–they represent corruptions of natural goods, misuses of good faculties that can become habitual but that are nonetheless extrinsic to human wholeness and in fact destructive of it. Sexuality, however, is an essential part of being a human being: as such, a homosexual’s homosexual sexuality is not alien to his or her wholeness as a human being but intrinsic to it. A homosexual’s homosexuality is related *positively and constructively *to his or her human wholeness, just as the heterosexual’s heterosexuality is related to their wholeness. But Rome understands the homosexual sexuality as a disorder, rendering wholeness for the homosexual impossible as something intrinsic to their capacity for human wholeness (their sexuality) is fundamentally and irreparably broken.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?
Mark, I think you are right here. That is the problem. To get on the same page and discuss the same issues, let’s analyze your first statement.Grace & Peace!
jrwaiss, I think that in the end we’re still talking about different things.
Indeed the Catechism says something like that when it speaks of how God made us in his image and likeness as male and female:A: Rome states in the catechism that our sexuality is fundamentally related to our humanity and to our wholeness as humans.
Perhaps what you and others are addressing is not simple tolerance but actually acceptance of the gay lifestyle which Obama himself has advanced along with late term abortion. I wonder where Obama’s compassion and understanding stood when it came to the murder of innocent pre-born.People from all walks of life, creeds, races will have different degrees for tolerance as to the gay lifestyle, Catholics, as individuals, are no exception. People “different” scare many. Any kind of change and unknown can be difficult and understandable.
I treat the gay group with respect and their right to be heard as we do on what we think. I do not support gay marriage in the eyes of law. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Just part of my christian faith but worldwide outside the USA, it’s become legal in the eyes of many governments and nations. I believe President Obama will be attending a dinner tonight which includes same sex attracted. There are many issues. Even Barack, the Nobel peace prize winner, won’t have all the solutions, but does have compassion and understanding. An attribute more world leaders should have today.
Let’s assume that you’re right. Technically/explicitly, I believe you are. But practically/implicitly, I don’t think you can make this statement with ultimate confidence.Nowhere does the Catechism talks about A sexuality, or about different sexualiTIES, or different types of sexuality.
I agree with this understanding of sexuality 100%. It relates fundamentally to our capacity for relationship.The Church sees human sexuality as essentially one and undivided, orienting the Church and all humanity into a spousal relationship with Christ.
Also agreed, though here I differ with you slightly–your implication seems to be that biological male and female are more essential to our understanding of relationship and of God’s image than the ideas and ways of relating of which biological maleness or femaleness are the most potent symbols.This one human sexuality—created as male and female—is linked to being made in God’s image and likeness.
I agree with you regarding the great value of chastity. I agree, also, regarding the importance of the marriage as an expression of a greater Divine reality.It is expressed by a man and woman in marriage, but it is also expressed in the chaste way a person lives before getting married or in the chaste way a spouse lives when separated from the other.
This would be fine if same-sex attraction were not seen as intrinsically disordered. In what way would you recommend that someone integrate something intrinsically or objectively disordered into their personality? True chastity like you and the catechism describe can only be possible if that same-sex attraction is recognized as a good expression of universal human sexuality. Then chastity is possible. Otherwise (and let’s be honest here) when we say “chastity” we really understand “repression” not integration.In this sense (“Rome’s”), individuals with same-sex attraction are called to integrate their sexual inclinations into their personhood and to live chastity like all the rest.
I would say that our understandings are remarkably similar, strange as it may seem. At any rate, we each share a great respect for the value and importance of true chastity.Whether or not you agree with this position or this understanding of the term “sexuality”, I hope you understand the importance of this term to the whole discussion.
Given the implicit terms of your argument, though, this is either disingenuous, extremely jesuitical, or, in order to be completely true, must be glossed by an understanding of same-sex attraction as just an expression of universal human sexuality (oriented toward marriage ultimately, but deeply related to our human capacity for relationship) which attraction is, in itself, either morally neutral or morally good, but certainly not intrinsically disordered.So, before moving on with the rest of your argument, let’s clarify that what the Catholic Church refers by the term “sexuality” cannot be segmented into different “sexualities.” In the Church’s use of the term, heterosexuality is not a sexuality. Neither is homosexuality.
Neither I nor the Church are advocating repression. A porn-addict must learn to redirect his almost irresistible desires. If he senses the temptation to lock himself in his room and turn on the computer, he must find out the source of his desires. Perhaps every time he feels a profound loneliness, he does porn. If that is the case, he should see his temptation as a call to get out of himself. Perhaps he comes up with a plan to call a friend every time he feels the urge. He doesn’t have to tell him or her why, just call a friend to say Hi.This would be fine if same-sex attraction were not seen as intrinsically disordered. In what way would you recommend that someone integrate something intrinsically or objectively disordered into their personality? True chastity like you and the catechism describe can only be possible if that same-sex attraction is recognized as a good expression of universal human sexuality. Then chastity is possible. Otherwise (and let’s be honest here) when we say “chastity” we really understand “repression” not integration.
What is the moral minefield? I don’t see it? Are you saying that “auto-sexuality” is being discriminated against? Or “trans-sexuality”?Moreover, if universal human sexuality is oriented toward marriage exclusively, not to this or that particular object, then we must understand all forms of sexual desire as intrinsically disordered since sexual desire in itself is not particularly concerned with marriage. This would make dating a bit of a moral minefield and best left un-attempted.
But jrwaiss, by the terms of your own scenario, the porn addict’s problem isn’t with his sexuality per se, but with his inability to properly deal with his loneliness which places a distorting pressure on his sexual desire which leads to the addiction. Granted, insofar as his problem is relational, his difficulty will involve his sexuality (given that sexuality relates to our relational capacity). But the solution to his problem is not a sexual one. It has to do with socialization.Neither I nor the Church are advocating repression. …[snip]… He doesn’t have to tell him or her why, just call a friend to say Hi.
But the sexual impulse is not the difficulty in your scenario–an inability to competently deal with loneliness is the difficulty. The task, in your scenario, is to actually free up the capacity for relationship which is fundamental to sexuality generally. You’re right, this is not repression. But homosexuality is not a porn addiction, nor is it analogous to porn addiction, as mentioned above.This is not repression, but true integration. It takes effort, time, but he finds true fulfillment in the process.
While I believe your offer is fundamentally misguided at best, and though I must admit feeling not a little insulted, I will choose to view your statement as coming from a place of kindness and will respectfully decline. I do not know who the “we” is of which you speak, but the integration of my sexuality (as opposed to my urges) with my personality is a matter for my confessor, my partner, my God, and me. While I respect you and wish you only good things, you don’t figure very prominently in this particular equation.I don’t know you but I’m sure we could help you integrate you sexual urges into your person without any disorder. I’m not saying it is easy, but you wouldn’t regret it.
No. I am saying that sexuality is not oriented toward either a male or female partner, but toward marriage. Therefore, any desire which is for a male or female partner and not for marriage is potentially disordered. Going on a date may, in fact, be a very risky activity as one may find oneself desiring one’s date sexually (which desire does not generally require marriage as a prerequisite), in which case, one is giving oneself over to a disordered inclination. Best not to go on a date!What is the moral minefield? I don’t see it? Are you saying that “auto-sexuality” is being discriminated against? Or “trans-sexuality”?
The Catholic Church (“Rome,” as you put it) calls us all to give ourselves to others unconditionally. An unhealthy way to date is to focus on ME, on MY desires: I desire to date a woman (or a man)… I desire to have a romantic love… I seek a potentially life-partner… I desire not to be lonely. DISORDERED INCLINATION (whether toward someone of the same or opposite sex). It is disordered because it is ordered to self, as masturbation or pornography would be.Related to the question of repression–I wrote this in an earlier post, but perhaps you can explain where I’m off track with the following:
A heterosexual man says: I desire to go on a date with a woman whom I may grow to love romantically and profoundly and who may potentially be a partner with me in my life. Rome stamps it: ORDERED INCLINATION
A homosexual man says: I desire to go on a date with a man whom I may grow to love romantically and profoundly and who may potentially be a partner with me in my life. Rome stamps it: DISORDERED INCLINATION
To receive Rome’s stamp of approval, the homosexual man must instead say: I do not desire a date at all and I am conscious that desiring a relationship with a man whom I may grow to love romantically and profoundly is not only disordered but is most likely impossible. Such a desire will destroy me. Such a love is not love at all.
We should desire to give ourselves to others in their needs according to God’s plans, that is, in a true and chaste friendship.But while we’re on the subject, what would you have me desire? Marriage? Celibacy? Women? Regarding the third, if the universal human sexuality is oriented toward marriage, whether or not I desire a woman should be immaterial. Regarding the second, I have been in a monogamous relationship with a good Christian man for over a decade and fidelity to this relationship is the canon of my celibacy. (Take that however you will.) Regarding the first, I am interested in being faithful to my partner and in our relationship as being an instance in space and in time of the love we have for Jesus Christ and the love he has for us and for the world–it is my desire that others will know we are Christian by our love. If that is not part of what it is to be married, then perhaps my sexuality is, in fact, flawed–in which case, I am not interested in correcting the flaw.
I don’t believe you are correct. The Church says even homosexuals are to be treated fairly and are entitled to their civil rights like anybody else.Once I discovered that homosexuality and/or the acts are disordered according to the Catholic faith, I have decided to stop following the Catholic religion. You’re talking about a church who raises money to stop gay and lesbian couples to have a CIVIL sanctity and be treated like decent human beings. They could be spending the money for healthcare, maintaning churches, building shelters, etc. If one really “CHOSE” to be homosexual, why do so? Statistically, LGBT individuals experience more harassment and violence in addition to 4 times likely to kill themselves. BTW, there are Catholics who disagree with the standpoint about homosexuality and support marriage for gay and lesbian couples.
Ahem.I don’t believe you are correct. The Church says even homosexuals are to be treated fairly and are entitled to their civil rights like anybody else.
For those of you who aren’t familiar with Canadian law, the Charter is roughly equivalent to the American Bill of Rights, except it has one important difference: it has a “notwithstanding clause” that permits the government to enact a law that violates the other provisions of the Charter.I urge you, Prime Minister, to table a Bill that legislatively enacts the traditional opposite-sex definition of marriage, coupled with a clause that provides for the legislation to take effect notwithstanding the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Well, you do realize that the Church rejects their relationships and families categorically, right? It’s hard to blame them, isn’t it? If you had your way, wouldn’t you want them all to reject their husbands and wives or boyfriends or girlfriends and shared parenthood in favor of total celibacy?After seeing this thread evolve over time, I would like to respond to the topic title.
Yes, it is clear. The OP is quite correct. There is widespread and deep-seated intolerance in the homosexual community directed toward faithful Catholics and the Catholic Church. Clearly that detracts from the moral authority of their movement.
If Gays have the right to request the law be changed and so-called “marriages” legalized, aren’t Catholics allowed the same right to request what’s in our best interest? I see absolutely nothing wrong with the Cardinal’s request.Ahem.
From the 2005 open letter from Aloysius Cardinal Abrozic of Toronto to the Canadian Prime Minister:
For those of you who aren’t familiar with Canadian law, the Charter is roughly equivalent to the American Bill of Rights, except it has one important difference: it has a “notwithstanding clause” that permits the government to enact a law that violates the other provisions of the Charter.
IOW, in this quote, the good Cardinal was asking Canadian government to suspend normal civil rights so that secular law would be in line with Catholic Church doctrine on this matter.
What have Gays done in the cause of Catholic rights and intolerance toward Catholicism?Well, you do realize that the Church rejects their relationships and families categorically, right? It’s hard to blame them, isn’t it? If you had your way, wouldn’t you want them all to reject their husbands and wives or boyfriends or girlfriends and shared parenthood in favor of total celibacy?
I mean, what has the Church done in the cause of homosexual rights or tolerance recently?
Not conforming!What have Gays done in the cause of Catholic rights and intolerance toward Catholicism?
The bishop was addressing the merging of TRADITIONAL opposite sex marriage with those of same sex. Opposite sex marriage is the traditional marriage as accepted by the church.Ahem.
From the 2005 open letter from Aloysius Cardinal Abrozic of Toronto to the Canadian Prime Minister:
I urge you, Prime Minister, to table a Bill that legislatively enacts the traditional opposite-sex definition of marriage, coupled with a clause that provides for the legislation to take effect notwithstanding the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
For those of you who aren’t familiar with Canadian law, the Charter is roughly equivalent to the American Bill of Rights, except it has one important difference: it has a “notwithstanding clause” that permits the government to enact a law that violates the other provisions of the Charter.
IOW, in this quote, the good Cardinal was asking Canadian government to suspend normal civil rights so that secular law would be in line with Catholic Church doctrine on this matter.
Agruge that it’s justified if you want, but the fact of the matter is that the Church has specifically asked for civil rights to be suspended for homosexual people, despite what severus68 said.If Gays have the right to request the law be changed and so-called “marriages” legalized, aren’t Catholics allowed the same right to request what’s in our best interest? I see absolutely nothing wrong with the Cardinal’s request.
It’s arguable whether marriage is a civil right, but equal treatment under the law certainly is. IOW, under the Charter, same-sex couples do have the civil right to enter into marriage on the same basis as opposite-sex couples.The bishop was addressing the merging of TRADITIONAL opposite sex marriage with those of same sex. Opposite sex marriage is the traditional marriage as accepted by the church.
What I believe you are taking issue with is the stance of the bishop that homosexual marriage is not to be treated as if the same as traditional marriage entered into by an opposite sex couple. You are asking for equality as if same sex marriage is a civil right when in fact it would become a license to ACT on one’s homosexuality with the condolence of the government and required to be accepted by the church.
Not so much. First off, since the cardinal’s letter, Canada did legalize same-sex marriage despite the Church’s objections. Second, here’s how our legal system (and yours) works: there is a heirarchy of laws. The constitution prevails over lower laws. Since the Charter is an element of the Canadian constitution, when there is a conflict between the Charter and a lower law, it’s not a matter of asking for an “exception” to the lower law; it’s a matter of enforcing the higher law uniformly. To leave the lower law alone would be to ask for an “exception” to the constitution.What you are also asking for is an exception of marriage laws seeing as a homosexual is not now prohibited to marry an opposite sex person but also wants the ‘right’ to an exception for same sex marriage. Does both sides of the coin come to mind?
I didn’t say he argued for hatred of homosexuals; I argued that he advocated for suspension of civil rights, which he did do.Nothing the bishop stated advanced hatred of the homosexual but made clear the churches belief that to treat homosexual ‘marriage’ in the traditional sense should not be granted as if but the same as opposite sex marriage.