What is the homosexual inclination?

[chrysostim83]

This thread is an off shoot from another thread on homosexuality in which I responded to an argument of James Alison by proposing a non-standard definition of the “homosexual inclination” as the term has been used by the CDF since the 1986 letter on the pastoral care of homosexual persons. Deo Volente, who also participated in the original thread, felt it would be a good idea to explore the validity and implications of the proposal, and that is what the present discussion is for.

The definition I would like to propose is simply that a homosexual inclination is nothing but a desire or willingness to engage in same sex sexual behaviors. Here I will present three arguments that this is the definition the CDF has been using, at least implicitly, since 1986. The arguments can be summarized as follows: (1) the definition makes sense out of what the CDF considers to be a homosexual person; (2) it explains why the homosexual inclination is a disorder; and (3) the most natural alternative definitions do not do either of these things.

The first argument is relatively straightforward. From the 1986 letter, we can infer that a homosexual person is any person who has a homosexual inclination, and from the 2005 Instruction we know that homosexual inclinations can be either transitory or deep-seated. Now, without any regard to whether a homosexual inclination is transitory or deep-seated, if we consider all the people who manifest such an inclination by engaging in same sex sexual behaviors, it appears they have nothing in common except the desire or willingness to engage in those behaviors. For instance, they don’t all have a common sexual orientation, since both homosexual and bisexual persons manifest an inclination toward same sex sexual behaviors. And people who manifest a homosexual inclination don’t all experience same sex sexual attractions either, since some heterosexual people will sleep with others of the same sex for either drugs or money, without, presumably, being attracted to all of their same sex partners. Beyond sexual orientation or same sex attractions, it’s very difficult to find any commonality among what the CDF calls homosexual persons except the desire or willingness to engage in same sex sexual behaviors.

Thus, my way of defining the homosexual inclination explains the meaning of “homosexual person” in the writings of the CDF; it also explains how we can know with certainty that the homosexual inclination is a disorder. For as our will is meant to be disposed to what is good, and as our desires reveal the disposition of our will, it is manifestly a disorder to desire or be willing to engage in an intrinsically evil act. By contrast, other definitions don’t work out so well here. For instance, if we say the homosexual inclination consists of same sex attractions, then the relation between the inclination and the act falls apart as the term “same sex attraction” covers a multitude of phenomenologically distinct attractions, only some of which have any objective connection to same sex sexual behaviors. And the situation is even worse if we say the inclination is the same thing as the orientation, since the orientation is a pretty broad concept, and its only relation to behavior lies in the attractions it gives rise to.

So much for the arguments for my position (in the original thread, I pursued some others). Let me just highlight one implication of this way of defining the homosexual inclination.

It follows from my position that there need not be any conflict between the APA and the Church. For the disorder lies in the desire or willingness to engage in the acts, but we have already seen that the orientation is only indirectly related to such desires. And just as the heterosexual orientation can be perfectly normal even in, say, an unmarried person who has desires to engage in opposite sex sexual behaviors (even though the desire would be ordered to an intrinsic moral evil, viz., fornication or adultery), so too is it possible that the homosexual orientation is a normal variant of human sexual orientation even though the inclination is a disorder.

There are other implications to consider as well (for instance, if it isn’t a disorder, there’s a great deal of room to think of the homosexual orientation as an identity-involving characteristic), but I think enough has been said to get this thread going.

 

[followingtheway]

It’s being attracted to someone of the same sex. Just the attraction, not the action.

 

[Elizabeth502]

if it isn’t a disorder, there’s a great deal of room to think of the homosexual orientation as an identity-involving characteristic

There is no way that the Catholic Church has not identified the homosexual inclination as a disorder. The document below by then Cardinal Ratzinger also refers to the notion of Cross as a Christian mandate, which was challenged by a poster in the previous thread. Relevant excerpts pertinent to this discussion include:

The Catholic moral viewpoint is founded on human reason illumined by faith and is consciously motivated by the desire to do the will of God our Father. The Church is thus in a position to learn from scientific discovery but also to transcend the horizons of science and to be confident that her more global vision does greater justice to the rich reality of the human person in his spiritual and physical dimensions, created by God and heir, by grace, to eternal life.

…the Congregation took note of the distinction commonly drawn between the homosexual condition or tendency and individual homosexual actions. These were described as deprived of their essential and indispensable finality, as being “intrinsically disordered”, and able in no case to be approved of.

In the discussion which followed the publication of the Declaration, however, an overly benign interpretation was given to the homosexual condition itself, some going so far as to call it neutral, or even good. Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is [depending on the individual] a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder. Special concern and pastoral attention should be directed toward 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.

The Church, obedient to the Lord who founded her …celebrates the divine plan of the loving and live-giving union of men and women in the sacrament of marriage. It is only in the marital relationship that the use of the sexual faculty can be morally good. A person engaging in homosexual behaviour therefore acts immorally. To chose someone of the same sex for one’s sexual activity is to annul the rich symbolism and meaning, not to mention the goals, of the Creator’s sexual design. Homosexual activity is not a complementary union, able to transmit life; and so it thwarts the call to a life of that form of self-giving which the Gospel says is the essence of Christian living. This does not mean that homosexual persons are not often generous and giving of themselves; but when they engage in homosexual activity they confirm within themselves a disordered sexual inclination which is essentially self-indulgent. As in every moral disorder, homosexual activity prevents one’s own fulfillment and happiness by acting contrary to the creative wisdom of God.

Increasing numbers of people today, even within the Church, are bringing enormous pressure to bear on the Church to accept the homosexual condition as though it were not disordered and to condone homosexual activity. Those within the Church who argue in this fashion often have close ties with those with similar views outside it. These latter groups are guided by a vision opposed to the truth about the human person, which is fully disclosed in the mystery of Christ. They reflect, even if not entirely consciously, a materialistic ideology which denies the transcendent nature of the human person as well as the supernatural vocation of every individual.

[The Church] is also aware that the view that homosexual activity is equivalent to, or as acceptable as, the sexual expression of conjugal love has a direct impact on society’s understanding of the nature and rights of the family and puts them in jeopardy.

It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. But the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered.

What is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behaviour of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable. What is essential is that the fundamental liberty which characterizes the human person and gives him his dignity be recognized as belonging to the homosexual person as well. As in every conversion from evil, the abandonment of homosexual activity will require a profound collaboration of the individual with God’s liberating grace.

[cont’d…]

 

[Elizabeth502]

[cont’d]

What, then, are homosexual persons to do who seek to follow the Lord? Fundamentally, they are called to enact the will of God in their life by joining whatever sufferings and difficulties they experience in virtue of their condition to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross. That Cross, for the believer, is a fruitful sacrifice since from that death come life and redemption. While any call to carry the cross or to understand a Christian’s suffering in this way will predictably be met with bitter ridicule by some, it should be remembered that this is the way to eternal life for all who follow Christ.

It is, in effect, none other than the teaching of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians when he says that the Spirit produces in the lives of the faithful “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, trustfulness, gentleness and self-control” (5:22) and further (v. 24), “You cannot belong to Christ unless you crucify all self-indulgent passions and desires.”

It is easily misunderstood, however, if it is merely seen as a pointless effort at self-denial. The Cross is a denial of self, but in service to the will of God himself who makes life come from death and empowers those who trust in him to practise virtue in place of vice.

To celebrate the Paschal Mystery, it is necessary to let that Mystery become imprinted in the fabric of daily life. To refuse to sacrifice one’s own will in obedience to the will of the Lord is effectively to prevent salvation. Just as the Cross was central to the expression of God’s redemptive love for us in Jesus, so the conformity of the self-denial of homosexual men and women with the sacrifice of the Lord will constitute for them a source of self-giving which will save them from a way of life which constantly threatens to destroy them.

Second, the Church does not borrow the language of the secular world in discussing “identity.” In this same document is discussed genuine human identity.

The human person, made in the image and likeness of God, can hardly be adequately described by a reductionist reference to his or her sexual orientation. Every one living on the face of the earth has personal problems and difficulties, but challenges to growth, strengths, talents and gifts as well. Today, the Church provides a badly needed context for the care of the human person when she refuses to consider the person as a “heterosexual” or a “homosexual” and insists that every person has a fundamental Identity: the creature of God, and by grace, his child and heir to eternal life.

vatican.edu/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html

 

[chrysostim83]

There is no way that the Catholic Church has not identified the homosexual inclination as a disorder.

True, but remember the whole point of my first post was to argue against equating a homosexual orientation with what the CDF documents call the homosexual inclination. If you look back at the sentence you quoted from me, you’ll see that the “it” in “if it’s not a disorder” refers to “homosexual orientation” and not “homosexual inclination.” The idea was that because they’re distinct, it is possible for the homosexual orientation not to be a disorder even though the homosexual inclination is. And, if that’s right, then it is also possible that the homosexual orientation is the identity-involving characteristic it is usually taken to be.

Second, the Church does not borrow the language of the secular world in discussing “identity.” In this same document is discussed genuine human identity.

About identity, I think what the document is objecting to is the reductionism which the authors felt is implicit in labeling people according to their sexual orientation. But I didn’t say sexual orientation is all there is to identity. In the sentence you quoted, I said it might be identity-involving, meaning that it might be an important ingredient in one’s identity, though not necessarily, and hopefully not, the only item in the recipe.

 

[Elizabeth502]

True, but remember the whole point of my first post was to argue against equating a homosexual orientation with what the CDF documents call the homosexual inclination. If you look back at the sentence you quoted from me, you’ll see that the “it” in “if it’s not a disorder” refers to “homosexual orientation” and not “homosexual inclination.” The idea was that because they’re distinct, it is possible for the homosexual orientation not to be a disorder even though the homosexual inclination is. And, if that’s right, then it is also possible that the homosexual orientation is the identity-involving characteristic it is usually taken to be.

No, it is not right. Inclination = orientation = attraction, in the understanding of the Church and in the teaching of that Church.

(Nice try at once again trying to change Catholic doctrine through some back door of misinterpretation.)

About identity, I think what the document is objecting to is the reductionism which the authors felt is implicit in labeling people according to their sexual orientation.

Then your thinking is incorrect. It refers to the entire movement even to self-label by sexual proclivity. Heterosexuals are also not reduced to their sexuality. Each person is a whole person and has a core of goodness for which Jesus Christ died, to redeem that fallen goodness and restore it to eternal friendship with His Father. That core transcends attractions, appetites, disorders, inclinations, orientations, but is most definitely affected by the acting upon any of these insofar as any of those are in fact disordered.

If sexual activity or orientation were essential to personhood and/or identity, then those who cannot act upon their own attractions (good or bad) would be incomplete persons, such as those who want to marry the opposite sex but cannot or will not through the accidents of life, such as those who vow to donate the option of being sexually active. Yet the Church teaches that that is by no means true. Celibates, the unmarried, those whose sexual attractions are frustrated due to any kind of permanent dysfunction, and persons with homosexual attraction are complete persons, even if/when they do not act upon their sexual orientations. All are equally dignifed and dignifiable in the eyes of God. Each person’s ultimate qualities of goodness are an outgrowth of chosen behavior, relative to one’s state in life (single, married, consecrated religious), and relative to moral teaching.

 

[chrysostim83]

No, it is not right. Inclination = orientation = attraction, in the understanding of the Church and in the teaching of that Church.

Interesting point. To answer it, I would say that part of what this thread is about is thinking critically about what the Church means when she talks about “homosexual inclinations”–not, indeed, for the sake of changing her teaching, but for the sake of gaining a clearer and more accurate understanding of her teaching by re-expressing it in ordinary language. Now it is perfectly true that in the CDF documents, the Church has used “inclination,” “orientation,” and “tendency” (perhaps “attraction” as well, though I’m not so sure about that) as synonyms. So to understand all these terms, it is enough to understand one of them. Thus, given that we also want to re-express the Church’s teaching in less convoluted language, it seems like a sensible procedure to reserve “inclination” for what the Church is talking about, and to use “orientation” and “attraction” as they would typically be understood outside of theological circles.

From what you wrote, it seems like you’re concerned about this procedure. But something like it is really necessary because if the Church’s teaching could not be expressed in ordinary language, then it would be impossible to understand it, as “Vaticanese” is no one’s mother tongue.

If sexual activity or orientation were essential to personhood and/or identity, then those who cannot act upon their own attractions (good or bad) would be incomplete persons. . .

Before we discuss this further, I wonder if you could define “orientation” for me.

 

[John21652]

Interesting point. To answer it, I would say that part of what this thread is about is thinking critically about what the Church means when she talks about “homosexual inclinations”–not, indeed, for the sake of changing her teaching, but for the sake of gaining a clearer and more accurate understanding of her teaching by re-expressing it in ordinary language. Now it is perfectly true that in the CDF documents, the Church has used “inclination,” “orientation,” and “tendency” (perhaps “attraction” as well, though I’m not so sure about that) as synonyms. So to understand all these terms, it is enough to understand one of them. Thus, given that we also want to re-express the Church’s teaching in less convoluted language, it seems like a sensible procedure to reserve “inclination” for what the Church is talking about, and to use “orientation” and “attraction” as they would typically be understood outside of theological circles.

From what you wrote, it seems like you’re concerned about this procedure. But something like it is really necessary because if the Church’s teaching could not be expressed in ordinary language, then it would be impossible to understand it, as “Vaticanese” is no one’s mother tongue.

Before we discuss this further, I wonder if you could define “orientation” for me.

The words “inclination”, “orientation” and “tendency” are pretty basic English words that hardly need any interpretations other than those found in any standard dictionary. Most people on planet Earth with a competent understanding of English knows just what the words mean and when and how to use them. To suggest that when they are used by the Catholic Church they become part of “Vaticanese” is too silly to even entertain. The catholic catechism is written so ordinary, reasonable educated people can grasp what it means. It is no secret code for anything, other than good manners, good behaviour and a lot of common sense.

Common sense tells us that homosexuals have a particular orientation which gives rise to a tendency to act on their inclinations and, in the case of male homosexuals, to want to ram their sex organs up the backside of another man and then attempt to tell the rest of us it is an act of love. Around 97% of people consider that to be an abnormal thing to want to do to another person and a good percentage of the 97% would be highly offended if someone tried it on them. It’s disgusting, disordered and unnatural. No amount of “spin” will ever alter that fact.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Before we discuss this further, I wonder if you could define “orientation” for me.

Normally, I only have to do this for my young students. (Do you lack a dictionary?)

Orientation: the direction of someone’s interest or attitude.

And if you’re attempting another back-door method, to get others to define sexual orientation as some kind of “deterministic” physical orientation akin to the laws of nature (given how the term is used geographically), you will lose again. Your supposedly favorite 1986 document by then-Cardinal Ratzinger expressly denies (and I quoted those denials) that terms like attraction, orientation, inclination or tendency remove man’s free will. Free will – toward and against both good and bad – is at the heart of Catholic philosophy and theology. It is also extremely scriptural, as I pointed out on the previous thread you’re hoping to revive via this one.

If I’m ‘magnetically’ oriented toward a behavior which threatens the good order in which God created me (i.e., his image, not a perverse image), I still have no excuse for indulging that “orientation” (the secular term) or “attraction” (the preferred term in theological texts), except in the rare cases which are true clinical compulsions or unconcious drives, for which I might lack responsibility. Those would in fact still be disordered drives, but my responsibility for their evil would be reduced in God’s judgment, due to reduced control of the conscious will. My disordered drives are not transformed into Goods, simply because they appear to be organic to my personality. They are not in fact organic to me except as I appropriate those behaviors by habit, out of laziness, out of self-comfort, by default, or for any other self-justifying reason, and by repetition they contribute to forming my character. It is I who have appropriated them, sought to “identify” with them, “owned” them (in modern terminology). Whatever the Bads were (unless they were clinical compulsions, in which conscious thought and conscious will are divorced from behavior), they were my choice to act upon, rather than something I was forced (had no choice) to act upon.

Joseph Ratzinger specifically eliminated the category of compulsion-leading-to-inculpability (as it concerns homosexual behavior) in the document I quoted above, and I quoted that particular passage as well.

Supposing that true kleptomania has been excluded after clinical diagnosis. Nevertheless, person X was “born” to steal (never knew when it began, seemed to be ‘inclined’ toward stealing from an early age). Lacking a clinical compulsion, maybe he’s just a lazy S.O.B., or a greedy one, who likes to acquire material objects without earning them legitimately. Or maybe the person in life whom he most admires (who may have some contradictory admirable, moral traits) is also a thief, and the person in question “can’t help” but emulate him, or wants to get in his good graces by engaging in the same behavior. That’s his tough luck. He has either had this “atraction” virtually all his life, or it has become attractive as an aspect of his relationship with an affirming other person. To avoid Hell, it would be best if he engages spiritual counsel to the max, intensifies his sacramental and prayer life, avoids retail and online stores, keeps most of his disposable income in an interest-bearing account which earns penalties for withdrawal, thereby avoiding temptation toward evil.

The problem is, that neither Scripture (which is a signficant angle of the above 1986 document; I’m not supposed to quote an entire text), nor the CCC (which builds on sacred tradition combined with scripture) will ever describe homosexual behavior as neutral, let alone good. Its only category is evil. So even if one were to buy a “deterministic” view of sexual attraction (‘out of my control’), the willful participation in such a forbidden attraction remains evil.

No amount of wordsmithing can evade that fixed reality.

 

[chrysostim83]

John,

Here’s why the dictionary is useless in this case.

• Inclination: a tendency to a particular aspect, state, character, or action
• Tendency: a proneness to a particular kind of thought or action
• Prone: having a tendency or inclination : being likely
• Orientation: a usually general or lasting direction of thought, inclination, or interest

What a shame! The definitions started out well, but it all ended up going around in a great big circle. I would be very interested if you could find a dictionary where this doesn’t happen.

 

[Robertanthony]

John,

Here’s why the dictionary is useless in this case.

• Inclination: a tendency to a particular aspect, state, character, or action
• Tendency: a proneness to a particular kind of thought or action
• Prone: having a tendency or inclination : being likely
• Orientation: a usually general or lasting direction of thought, inclination, or interest

What a shame! The definitions started out well,** but it all ended up going around in a great big circle. **I would be very interested if you could find a dictionary where this doesn’t happen.

Dictionaries are meant to be circular, if you find one where such is not the case, it’s an anomaly. “Anomaly” in the Vatican sense of the word, indeed! I suppose I could do the search, but I’m wondering, are you the fellow who brought in the concept of “female fluidity” in another thread?

 

[NickG3456]

Why do you care so much about this little thing? there are people abused and going homeless and your siting here worrying about this? Get off your lazy asses and start fixing the worlds problem.

 

[chrysostim83]

Dictionaries are meant to be circular. . .

Precisely my point, and the reason why philosophers and moral theologians can’t use a dictionary to answer their questions. It seemed best to me merely to present the circularity without much comment, since, heaven knows, John and Elizabeth wouldn’t have believed me if I had just told them a dictionary is no good for this class of problem.

The question about sexual fluidity is off topic, but I’m probably the guy. If you’re interested, a psychologist at the University of Utah recently published an entire book about it.

And if you’re attempting another back-door method, to get others to define sexual orientation as some kind of “deterministic” physical orientation akin to the laws of nature (given how the term is used geographically), you will lose again. Your supposedly favorite 1986 document by then-Cardinal Ratzinger expressly denies (and I quoted those denials) that terms like attraction, orientation, inclination or tendency remove man’s free will. Free will – toward and against both good and bad – is at the heart of Catholic philosophy and theology. It is also extremely scriptural, as I pointed out on the previous thread you’re hoping to revive via this one.

If I’m ‘magnetically’ oriented toward a behavior which threatens the good order in which God created me (i.e., his image, not a perverse image), I still have no excuse for indulging that “orientation” (the secular term) or “attraction” (the preferred term in theological texts), except in the rare cases which are true clinical compulsions or unconcious drives, for which I might lack responsibility. Those would in fact still be disordered drives, but my responsibility for their evil would be reduced in God’s judgment, due to reduced control of the conscious will. My disordered drives are not transformed into Goods, simply because they appear to be organic to my personality. They are not in fact organic to me except as I appropriate those behaviors by habit, out of laziness, out of self-comfort, by default, or for any other self-justifying reason, and by repetition they contribute to forming my character. It is I who have appropriated them, sought to “identify” with them, “owned” them (in modern terminology). Whatever the Bads were (unless they were clinical compulsions, in which conscious thought and conscious will are divorced from behavior), they were my choice to act upon, rather than something I was forced (had no choice) to act upon.

Joseph Ratzinger specifically eliminated the category of compulsion-leading-to-inculpability (as it concerns homosexual behavior) in the document I quoted above, and I quoted that particular passage as well.

Supposing that true kleptomania has been excluded after clinical diagnosis. Nevertheless, person X was “born” to steal (never knew when it began, seemed to be ‘inclined’ toward stealing from an early age). Lacking a clinical compulsion, maybe he’s just a lazy S.O.B., or a greedy one, who likes to acquire material objects without earning them legitimately. Or maybe the person in life whom he most admires (who may have some contradictory admirable, moral traits) is also a thief, and the person in question “can’t help” but emulate him, or wants to get in his good graces by engaging in the same behavior. That’s his tough luck. He has either had this “atraction” virtually all his life, or it has become attractive as an aspect of his relationship with an affirming other person. To avoid Hell, it would be best if he engages spiritual counsel to the max, intensifies his sacramental and prayer life, avoids retail and online stores, keeps most of his disposable income in an interest-bearing account which earns penalties for withdrawal, thereby avoiding temptation toward evil.

The problem is, that neither Scripture (which is a signficant angle of the above 1986 document; I’m not supposed to quote an entire text), nor the CCC (which builds on sacred tradition combined with scripture) will ever describe homosexual behavior as neutral, let alone good. Its only category is evil. So even if one were to buy a “deterministic” view of sexual attraction (‘out of my control’), the willful participation in such a forbidden attraction remains evil.

No amount of wordsmithing can evade that fixed reality.

Not a lot here for me to discuss since I really don’t have a clue what you’re talking about or what’s bothering you. I do think it’s presumptuous and rude of you to tell me what I’ll say next instead of waiting for me to say it; and for the record, your unnecessary speculations about what I believe are way off base and certainly off topic.

In any case, it looks like you and John both agree with the definition I deduced in the OP: the homosexual inclination is the desire or willingness to engage in same sex sexual behaviors. At least, that’s how I read your phrase about being “oriented to behaviors” and John’s “inclination to have a tendency to be attracted to certain behaviors.” Since we’re all agreed, I guess we can move on to examining the relation between this inclination and what the world at large, but psychologists in particular call “sexual orientation.” I’ll wait till you’re ready though.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

First, I’d like to thank Chrysostim for starting this thread. If we can hear what he’s saying, I think there’s the potential that we can all discover something very new in this conversation. So I think it’s incumbent upon us to make sure we’re hearing him correctly.

So this reflects my understanding–Chrysostim, if I’m not reading/hearing you right, please correct me.

A. These are the premises from which we’re working:
1–Sex which is either non-procreative or which takes place outside of marriage is an evil.
2–A desire for something evil is an intrinsically disordered desire.
3–Homosexual sex is neither procreative, nor can it take place in marriage–it is therefore an evil.
4–The desire for homosexual sex represents an intrinsically disordered desire.
5–The inclination toward this desire is likewise intrinsically disordered.
B. But the understanding that you’re adding to this, Chrysostim, is:
1–Being romantically, or erotically attracted to someone need not include an inclination to- or desire for sexual relations.
2–If such a desire for such relations is present, however, it does not necessarily follow that it is intrinsic to the attraction; the attraction is to a person, not to an act.
3–Homosexual or same-sex attractions, therefore, are not necessarily disordered as they do not require a desire for- or an inclination toward homosexual sex.
4–We are better off distinguishing the attraction to people from the inclination to an act, and we might do well to call the former a “homosexual orientation” while retaining the language of a “homosexual inclination” for the latter.
I think we can unpack what all of this could mean with regard to sexual identity, the nature of human desire, and Alison’s double bind problem in subsequent posts, but I think it’s important that we all get on the same page regarding what Chrysostim is proposing.

Chrysostim, does the above represent what you’re thinking, here? If not, could you set me/us straight on this (no pun intended!)?

Thanks!

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Ahimsa]

Grace & Peace!

First, I’d like to thank Chrysostim for starting this thread. If we can hear what he’s saying, I think there’s the potential that we can all discover something very new in this conversation. So I think it’s incumbent upon us to make sure we’re hearing him correctly.

So this reflects my understanding–Chrysostim, if I’m not reading/hearing you right, please correct me.

A. These are the premises from which we’re working:
1–Sex which is either non-procreative or which takes place outside of marriage is an evil.

I think you should clarify this premise. A married couple, in which the woman has had her uterus surgically removed, thus eliminating any possibility of procreation, may engage in sexual activity, and such activity would not be deemed evil by the Church.

And by “evil” do you mean “a mortal sin”?

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

I think you should clarify this premise. A married couple, in which the woman has had her uterus surgically removed, thus eliminating any possibility of procreation, may engage in sexual activity, and such activity would not be deemed evil by the Church.

And by “evil” do you mean “a mortal sin”?

Ahimsa, for the sake of the discussion, I’m making the usual assumptions regarding those terms that Roman Catholics seem to customarily make. That is, procreative sex is sex in which the male orgasm occurs during vaginal penetration, irregardless of the possibility that either the man or the woman involved will contribute to the conception of a child, but assuming that the lack of such a possibility is the result of nature or, at the very least, is not the result of a desire to wilfully prevent the conception of children. Re: whether or not the evil described is a mortal sin, it would have to satisfy the various requirements for mortal sin first (grave matter, full consciousness, intent to sin).

I think you’re right to ask for the clarification, Ahimsa. So often, these discussions go nowhere because we’re all more or less stuck on our own words/understandings of things. If we can just get on the same page with our terms and how we’ll use them, I think we have a better chance of moving the discussion forward into some potentially very interesting territory.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[chrysostim83]

A. These are the premises from which we’re working:
1–Sex which is either non-procreative or which takes place outside of marriage is an evil.
2–A desire for something evil is an intrinsically disordered desire.
3–Homosexual sex is neither procreative, nor can it take place in marriage–it is therefore an evil.
4–The desire for homosexual sex represents an intrinsically disordered desire.
5–The inclination toward this desire is likewise intrinsically disordered.

This represents very fairly what the Church says about homosexual sex, I think. Let’s accept it for now, but later on, or even on another thread, we could dig more deeply into it to see if it’s OK as it is or if it needs a serious upgrade.

B. But the understanding that you’re adding to this, Chrysostim, is:
1–Being romantically, or erotically attracted to someone need not include an inclination to- or desire for sexual relations.
2–If such a desire for such relations is present, however, it does not necessarily follow that it is intrinsic to the attraction; the attraction is to a person, not to an act.
3–Homosexual or same-sex attractions, therefore, are not necessarily disordered as they do not require a desire for- or an inclination toward homosexual sex.
4–We are better off distinguishing the attraction to people from the inclination to an act, and we might do well to call the former a “homosexual orientation” while retaining the language of a “homosexual inclination” for the latter.

Spot on with the summary here. This is exactly what I was trying to say.

 

[Ahimsa]

B. But the understanding that you’re adding to this, Chrysostim, is:
1–Being romantically, or erotically attracted to someone need not include an inclination to- or desire for sexual relations.

How are you defining “romantic” and “erotic” attractions? What distinguishes romantic/erotic attractions, from non-romantic/non-erotic attractions?

 

[chrysostim83]

How are you defining “romantic” and “erotic” attractions? What distinguishes romantic/erotic attractions, from non-romantic/non-erotic attractions?

I met a man once who got started on his career in philosophy because he wanted to answer those questions. He didn’t at all give the impression that he was going to retire any time soon. Since the question is so difficult, instead of giving you a clear definition of “romantic/erotic attractions,” I’ll to describe them and to sharpen up the description with a few examples.

To describe romantic/erotic attractions, it seems like the heart of attraction is the desire for union with the other and that different kinds of attraction are distinguished by what prompts them, how urgent they are, the fullness of the union desired, and so forth. Romantic/erotic attractions tend to be extreme on all these levels: though they can be prompted by substantial factors, as often as not they are or can be prompted by very little (mere appearance, small mannerisms) as well; they tend to be quite urgent; and the union desired is more complete than the union desired in the attractions we experience for friends. (That we feel such attractions even for friends explains why we aren’t friends with everybody we know.)

Talking of union might seem like it undermines the assumption of a radical distinction between the desire for sexual acts and the attraction to persons, but the examples that follow will hopefully take care of that.
(1) It turns out that the phrase “gay asexual” makes sense. The man I know who describes himself this way can (I imagine) tell the difference between his friends and the men he wants to be “more than friends” with.
(2) Longus’ Daphnis and Chloe describes a couple who feel an intense romantic/erotic attraction for each other, but whose relationship and desires are totally unrelated to desires for concrete sexual acts (the premise of the tale is that the couple have never learned about the Facts of Life).
(3) Finally, it’s a matter of common experience that the desire for concrete sexual acts often clouds the judgment of young, heterosexual couples who are considering marriage. Fairly often, the desire makes them think the ought to get married even when it’s plain to everyone else that that would be a mistake. Indeed, Catholics who get married in the Church are typically required to meet regularly with a priest or a deacon to get pre-marriage counseling, partly so that they can think through their physical desires and gain a deeper appreciation and commitment to each other.

What I take away from these examples is that even though romantic/erotic attractions are often or almost always linked to desires for particular sexual acts, this is not an essential part of them. Love can be purified of such desires and still hold on to everything that makes it what it is.

 

[francisca]

Hi Deo Volente,

B. But the understanding that you’re adding to this, Chrysostim, is:

1–Being romantically, or erotically attracted to someone need not include an inclination to- or desire for sexual relations.

Romance doesn’t always include sexual act. This is true. But romance itself is part of sexual attraction and or relationship.

Erotic feeling doesn’t always ends up in sexual act. But erotic feeling is also part of sexual attraction and or relationship.

2–If such a desire for such relations is present, however, it does not necessarily follow that it is intrinsic to the attraction; the attraction is to a person, not to an act.

True.

I’d like to add: although sexual attraction does not always end up with sexual act, sexual attraction-- if flourish-- it will become sexual act, or at least it will go to sexual direction.

If an attraction is not sexual, it will not go to such direction.

Human being is capable to “be attracted” by all sorts of things. Even “good genuine friendship” needs some attraction. Attraction to other human beings is part of human capability to socialize. Good relation in friendship can be very intense, yet the attraction is not sexual, and therefore there is no “sexual goal”.

3–Homosexual or same-sex attractions, therefore, are not necessarily disordered as they do not require a desire for- or an inclination toward homosexual sex.

If two same gender people attracted to one another, and none of them has no sexual inclination toward one another, then such attraction is called friendship.

4–We are better off distinguishing the attraction to people from the inclination to an act, and we might do well to call the former a “homosexual orientation” while retaining the language of a “homosexual inclination” for the latter.

Like Elizabeth said: attraction = inclination

“Homosexual orientation” as you mean it (attraction to people of the same sex) as separated from “inclination to an act”-- this meaning as you try to propose it-- contradict one another.

If an attraction to the same sex do not constitute ANY inclination to sexual act then it is no longer “homosexuality”. Instead it is called friendship. Thus, the term homosexual orientation can’t separate “attraction” from “inclination to act”. If an attraction is not sexual, it is a friendship. If an attraction is sexual then it will SURELY have some sexual inclination.