Grace & Peace!
Now that being emphasized - what is being missed as I started to say is that the “homosexual inclination” is itself “objectively disordered” (2358). It is “itself” disordered. Not only “homosexual sexual acts” that can happen due to it. Other acts (or interior choices) then that flow from that inclination too are disordered.
Bookcat, this is a common (and dangerous) misunderstanding of the catechism. The catechism uses two words to describe two different things when it comes to the “disorder” of homosexuality: “intrinsically” and “objectively.” In this context, these two words are not synonyms, but carefully chosen descriptors. The catechism describes homosexual genital acts as “intrinsically disordered” while describing the homosexual inclination to those acts as “objectively disordered.” The difference is this: “intrinsic” describes a thing in itself and is appropriate to describe an act while “objective” describes the object of a desire (or an inclination for a particular act or thing) and is appropriate to describe a desire or an inclination. That is: homosexual genital expression is seen as having no intrinsic moral value and is thus intrinsically disordered, therefore any
inclination which has as its
object homosexual genital expression will be disordered according to its object–i.e., it will be objectively disordered.
Why are the words not interchangeable and why is it important to understand them as not interchangeable? Because describing desire (either generally or specifically) as intrinsically disordered would mean that the movement of the sensual appetite
in itself was incapable of movement toward a good object or incapable of desiring the good in any way other than an evil way. If desire itself were intrinsically disordered, then it would be impossible to desire a good in a good way. This is why we can only evaluate the morality of a desire (or of desire generally) in terms of its object. A desire for a disordered object is an objectively disordered desire,
not an intrinsically disordered desire.
(I refer you to Cardinal Hume’s 1995 “note on the teaching of the Catholic Church concerning homosexual people” wherein he writes that when the Church uses the term “objective disorder” with reference to homosexuality, the Church “can be thinking only of the inclination towards homosexual genital acts.” See:
archive.catholicherald.co.uk/article/10th-march-1995/3/cardinal-hume-launches-attack-on-homophobia)
So, for instance, the beauty of the human body is a good thing–being attracted to the human body is hardly disordered. Being attracted to someone because they embody the Good, the True and the Beautiful in a way one finds uniquely compelling is hardly disordered as people are not in themselves disordered objects. Desiring to intimately share one’s life with someone one finds attractive is also hardly representative of a desire that has as its object a disordered act. We experience the world through the good instrument of our body: in what way can desiring physical intimacy–such as laying your head against your beloved’s shoulder or in the crook of her arm while watching a stupid sitcom; or running your hand through your beloved’s hair while lazily enjoying the sunset together from the comfort of your shared porch–be described as indefatigably representative of a disordered object? Desiring a sexual act? Well, according to the catechism,
that’s where we run into trouble if we happen to be attracted to the same sex or if we happen to be attracted to the opposite sex but are desiring sex outside marriage. Even then, it is not the desire in itself that is disordered, it is, in fact, the object of the desire that is disordered.
To make the claim that homosexual desire is intrinsically disordered (by believing that intrinsic and objective in this context are synonymous) is to make the claim that a homosexual cannot ever trust that he or she can ever desire in a moral way. And such a belief has real repercussions on how the humanity of homosexual people is perceived–because unlike other people, a homosexual person will be seen as only ever desiring immorality, or, should they desire goods (such as the ability to share a life with a beloved, to give and receive love in an intimate relationship characterized mutuality and chastity), they can only ever desire these goods in evil ways, and therefore shouldn’t be allowed to think that they can even desire such goods and still be desiring in moral ways. They must be taught that their desires are
all wrong, that their bodies and emotions can
never under any circumstances be trusted to give, receive, or express love in any way that is genuine or good. And they must be taught that this profoundly negative and inhuman vision of life is what real human wholeness and healing looks like. It’s absurd.
I have yet to read on these boards a compelling positive vision of what human wholeness looks like for homosexual people. It cannot be the case that such a vision is beyond the Catholic imagination. But this much is clear: so long as homosexuality
in itself is viewed as a deficient, deviant or negative form of heterosexuality (so long as homosexuality is understood in terms of a heterosexuality it can never be), then no such vision will be forthcoming any time soon.
[CONTINUED…]
)). In addition to the Catechism I posted a good link with the of sources.
(I know it is July today…but the thread started in June…)