How Entrenched Is Homosexuality In The Seminaries?

[PhuturePriest]

Toronto.

 

That explains it. :P

[Not The Philosopher]

Don't make fun.

[PhuturePriest]

Don't make fun.

 

Canada is in a very bad time when it comes to the faith. Sorry, it's just a fact. :P

[Socrates]

Negative. Id like you to find a quote of when I directly expressed opposition to the churches teaching on homosexuality.

 

I have however been outspoken against the conservative church's treatment of homosexuals as well as been open about  my support of civil unions. 

 

Which conservative church are you referring to?  I belong to the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church.

 

The Church is quite clearly opposed to homosexual civil unions.  You can read why here:

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH:  CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS

 

 

CONCLUSION

11. The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.

 

 

 

 

 

In summary, homosexuality is not a disorder, it's a sexual orientation. Just like being black isn't a disease, it's a race. 

 

Again, the Church disagrees.

 

The Catechism states that homosexual inclinations are "objectively disordered."  (CCC 2357)

 

From a CDF letter to the Bishops from Cardinal Ratzinger on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons:

 

Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.

 

[Fidei Defensor]

Which conservative church are you referring to?  I belong to the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church.

 

The Church is quite clearly opposed to homosexual civil unions.  You can read why here:

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH:  CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS

 

 

 

 

 

 

Again, the Church disagrees.

 

The Catechism states that homosexual inclinations are "objectively disordered."  (CCC 2357)

 

From a CDF letter to the Bishops from Cardinal Ratzinger on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons:

 

 

 

Homosexuality isn't a "disorder" in the more common use of the term.

Edited April 1, 2014 by tardis ad astra

[chrysostom]

Homosexuality isn't a "disorder" in the more common use of the term.

 

But I don't think the then-Cardinal Ratzinger was meaning to use the more common use of the term.

 

BTW, I like your new profile pic, especially because the chasuble isn't being raised too much by the altar boy.  At my church they make Father look like Superman.  :P

Edited April 1, 2014 by chrysostom

[PhuturePriest]

Homosexuality isn't a "disorder" in the more common use of the term.

 

Really? This is amazing knowledge to know. Then what is truly meant by "disorder"?

[Eliakim]

Very good post, Socrates. 

 

Does the Church still have programs to help homosexuals out of their disorder? 

[CrossCuT]

Really? This is amazing knowledge to know. Then what is truly meant by "disorder"?

 

Lets not go there. There is a very decided difference to how the Church views disordered and how the natural world views disordered. Need I remind you that since religious objection to homosexuality has been the case for a looong time, there is a lot of scientific data that has be skewed or just completely cut out because it related to such a taboo topic. 

So in retrospect, the subject is very messy because people honestly dont have a good window of reference. We view it as disordered because it has never been presented as normal...which it is very normal to find in the animal kingdom. However just because something occurs in the natural world doesnt mean you cant have a moral objection to it. But what Im trying to say is that the Catholic church deems it as a disorder based on moral reasons because if you look at new information on the subject, it is not as "disordered" as lead to believe. I have posted on this in the past.

 

But I think we start treading into deep water when we begin labeling individuals as "disordered" and then grouping them in to sexual deviant categories and assuming that homosexuality is synonymous with uncontrollable sexual desire. That is not only incredible false, but it is incredible unchristian, wrong, and plain inhumane. 

[CatholicsAreKewl]

It's so much easier to get a date if you're gay, or maybe that's just me.

Edited April 2, 2014 by CatholicsAreKewl

[CrossCuT]

 

 

Homosexuality (HS) is commonly assumed to be very rare in nature but this perception appears to be an artifact associated with an historical reluctance to publish socially and religiously controversial information. For example, consider the early 20th century naturalist George Murray Levick who recorded the following observation in his field notes while observing Adélie's penguins in Antarctica “Here on one occasion I saw what I took to be a pickle copulating with a hen. When he had finished, however, and got off, the apparent hen turned out to be a pickle, and the act was again performed with their positions reversed, the original “hen” climbing on to the back of the original pickle, whereupon the nature of their proceeding was disclosed.” (reprinted in [1]). Levick was so taken aback by these “socially inappropriate” behaviors that he hid them in his notebook by recording them in code with Greek letters. He also decided against publishing them except in the relatively obscure expedition's reports –where they were rejected for publication [1]. Circumventing this type of reporting bias, several books have been written in the last 15 years in which the authors searched the published literature for observations –usually mentioned as an aside in an unrelated context– describing homosexual behavior in nature. Many hundreds of such examples were found across a broad spectrum of species [2-4]. For instance, homosexual behavior has been recorded in 93 species of birds [5]. Representative examples include a 14% incidence of female-female nesting pairs of Western Gulls in California [6] and this value is 31% for Laysan albatrosses on the island of Oahu [7]. Male-male pairs occur at a rate of 5–6% in Australian black swans [8], and in graylag geese 15% of males only participated in male-male pair bonds over their lifetime, while 37% were bisexual [9]. Even species as familiar as barnyard sheep have about 8% strictly homosexual males [10] â€“ yet almost no one except sheep breeders is aware of this fact, presumably because it has been socially inappropriate to mention it.

 

Im not a huge fan of posting text walls, but this is from an article that I found very informative.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.201300033/full

 

Edited April 2, 2014 by CrossCuT

[arfink]

Lets not go there. There is a very decided difference to how the Church views disordered and how the natural world views disordered. Need I remind you that since religious objection to homosexuality has been the case for a looong time, there is a lot of scientific data that has be skewed or just completely cut out because it related to such a taboo topic. 

So in retrospect, the subject is very messy because people honestly dont have a good window of reference. We view it as disordered because it has never been presented as normal...which it is very normal to find in the animal kingdom. However just because something occurs in the natural world doesnt mean you cant have a moral objection to it. But what Im trying to say is that the Catholic church deems it as a disorder based on moral reasons because if you look at new information on the subject, it is not as "disordered" as lead to believe. I have posted on this in the past.

 

But I think we start treading into deep water when we begin labeling individuals as "disordered" and then grouping them in to sexual deviant categories and assuming that homosexuality is synonymous with uncontrollable sexual desire. That is not only incredible false, but it is incredible unchristian, wrong, and plain inhumane. 

 

I don't believe that the Church is asserting any of these things when she asserts that homosexuality is intrinsically disordered. Suffice to say that the Church has always and will always use special terminology, because her language is primarily the language of philosophy. The definitions of words are thus far more critical and usually do not mirror common usage of the term. Unfortunately, translating the Church's concepts of "nature" and "disorder" into common speech isn't a simple one-to-one word replacement, which probably explains your frustration with it.

 

In general, it is probably useful to refer to St. Thomas Aquinas' definition of sin when looking into disorder, as you can't understand what the Church means by something being disordered without understanding that first. When something is disordered, it means that it is not "ordered to the good." In the case of a desire or predisposition, as we would say of homosexuality, the desire itself is not sinful unless the will chooses to act upon it. This is because sin presupposes an act of the will along with sinful matter. What influences us to act in a sinful way is normally referred to as temptation. When our fallenness causes us to be continuously tempted we can rightly call this disordered, as we're not meant to be that way. Original sin results in the disorderedness of our attractions.

 

 

However, the desire itself is disordered in that by desiring homosexual sex you are desiring something which is not ordered to your personal good, not ordered to the good of family or society, and not ordered to the good that God desires and requests of us. Of course, every temptation and sinful desire is thus disordered. The desire to be adulterous is also disordered, as is the desire to get drunk, steal, lie, or murder.

 

So, to the Church, homosexuality does need to be viewed by the church as sexually deviant and disordered, as would a desire to practice masturbation or have an affair or look at pornography, not matter how common it is among other members of society or among the animals. This is because the Church must recognize that such things are not ordered to our good.

Edited April 2, 2014 by arfink

[CrossCuT]

I don't believe that the Church is asserting any of these things when she asserts that homosexuality is intrinsically disordered. Suffice to say that the Church has always and will always use special terminology, because her language is primarily the language of philosophy. The definitions of words are thus far more critical and usually do not mirror common usage of the term. Unfortunately, translating the Church's concepts of "nature" and "disorder" into common speech isn't a simple one-to-one word replacement, which probably explains your frustration with it.

I agree. I dont think the Church is at all saying that homosexuality is synonymous with the things I said above, however the members do. There are plenty of examples in this thread alone from multiple people. I think it is part of our sinful human nature to unconsciously start degrading people based on our ideas of "disordered". Even while the person does not actively harbor ill will against anyone who  is homosexual, they have an unconscious predisposition to judge, and harm the reputation of homosexuals by making these comparisons.

 

I think you also made an excellent point. I have always believed in and loved the marriage between faith and science. Faith can inform science as well as science can inform faith. We need to use both logic and reason to understand the full picture of our world. Science can be a very big player in demystifying our physical, natural world.

 

I am not at all claiming that homosexual acts are ok or going against the church on Her teachings of its morality, I am simply imploring all Catholics to realize where science can help us see more clearly these things that we find so abhorrent because those attitudes are leaking into how we treat these people and I do not support that aspect.

 

And your comment about the church viewing those words differently, I get it. I totally do. which is why I think we ought to find different words. If you know full well that the majority of society views these words in one light, yet you use them in a different light...how do you expect us to find common ground with the secular world? Maybe some Catholics dont care about connecting with our secular bothers and sisters, but I do. 

 

 

In general, it is probably useful to refer to St. Thomas Aquinas' definition of sin when looking into disorder, as you can't understand what the Church means by something being disordered without understanding that first. When something is disordered, it means that it is not "ordered to the good." In the case of a desire or predisposition, as we would say of homosexuality, the desire itself is not sinful unless the will chooses to act upon it. This is because sin presupposes an act of the will along with sinful matter. What influences us to act in a sinful way is normally referred to as temptation. When our fallenness causes us to be continuously tempted we can rightly call this disordered, as we're not meant to be that way. Original sin results in the disorderedness of our attractions.

Right. I get that, which is why we are ALL disordered no? There are crosses which temp all of us everyday! Not just in sexual preferences, but in all areas. 

 

 

 

However, the desire itself is disordered in that by desiring homosexual sex you are desiring something which is not ordered to your personal good, not ordered to the good of family or society, and not ordered to the good that God desires and requests of us. Of course, every temptation and sinful desire is thus disordered. The desire to be adulterous is also disordered, as is the desire to get drunk, steal, lie, or murder.

 

I agree with that to a point. While the act itself is sinful, I do not  believe for a second that genuine love and care for another human being is disordered at all. And I believe that homosexuals can experience a genuine love which is God-like because God is love.

 

 

 

 

So, to the Church, homosexuality does need to be viewed by the church as sexually deviant and disordered, as would a desire to practice masturbation or have an affair or look at pornography, not matter how common it is among other members of society or among the animals. This is because the Church must recognize that such things are not ordered to our good.

I get that, the ACT is disordered and deviant. My main problem is (and maybe Im not communicating it well) is when we start generalizing the PEOPLE as deviants. When we meet a homosexual, we dont see them as a person, instead we see a disorder...we see a sexual deviant. And then our actions are dictated by those thoughts in how we treat them.

That is my core complaint. I see it too often to brush my frustration aside. 

 

 

 

PS, thank you Arfink for being such a gracious conversationalist! I know its frustrating listening to me ramble about my love for the deviant homosexuals, but I appreciate you not questioning my convictions and being open and honest with me. I think you helped me learn as well! So thank you! :)

Edited April 2, 2014 by CrossCuT

[arfink]

I agree with that to a point. While the act itself is sinful, I do not  believe for a second that genuine love and care for another human being is disordered at all. And I believe that homosexuals can experience a genuine love which is God-like because God is love.

 

The Church does not deny anyone their ability to love others. I think it's a real shame that in common English we have so carelessly compressed so many concepts into the word "love" that it's impossible to distinguish them. I think we'd have a lot less of a problem if we were able to pick this stuff apart a bit more, perhaps as the Greeks did, when they defined all different kinds of love as ways of separating the ideas of say, the love between brothers from the love between parent and child, and the love between master and servant or even from eros, the uncontrolled sexual love. They even made distinctions between different kinds of sexual love, as between spouses it was usually called pragma, from which we get our word "pragmatic," as it was meant to reflect that married sexuality was not uncontrollable lust, but somewhat more ordered and practical. They would have recognized all these kinds of love as proper in only particular situations, but with special distrust for eros, as they generally distrusted any loss of control over their wills.

 

I think it would be really great to see people begin using such distinctions again, though I do not wish to advocate for a return to ancient Greek speech. :P I think it would allow for more varied expressions of "love" which would allow us to regain the idea of normal man-man and woman-woman relationships without having to needlessly drag in society's obsessive need to connect affection and lust in all cases.

Edited April 2, 2014 by arfink

[CrossCuT]

The Church does not deny anyone their ability to love others. I think it's a real shame that in common English we have so carelessly compressed so many concepts into the word "love" that it's impossible to distinguish them. I think we'd have a lot less of a problem if we were able to pick this stuff apart a bit more, perhaps as the Greeks did, when they defined all different kinds of love as ways of separating the ideas of say, the love between brothers from the love between parent and child, and the love between master and servant or even from eros, the uncontrolled sexual love. They even made distinctions between different kinds of sexual love, as between spouses it was usually called pragma, from which we get our word "pragmatic," as it was meant to reflect that married sexuality was not uncontrollable lust, but somewhat more ordered and practical. They would have recognized all these kinds of love as proper in only particular situations, but with special distrust for eros, as they generally distrusted any loss of control over their wills.

 

I think it would be really great to see people begin using such distinctions again, though I do not wish to advocate for a return to ancient Greek speech. :P I think it would allow for more varied expressions of "love" which would allow us to regain the idea of normal man-man and woman-woman relationships without having to needlessly drag in society's obsessive need to connect affection and lust in all cases.

 

Picking apart the word Love is not where our problem is. I highly doubt that Cathoics are referring to a specific Greek interpretation of love when they sneer at homosexuals. Maybe you have a specific idea, but I dont believe all Catholics do.

 

I also dont think we NEED to pick apart the word and categorize all walks of life into which "love" we are referring to. How about we just love? Another consequence of all of this is that I see people trying to overcompensate the issue. Im not saying that anything you suggested is wrong, Im just saying that I dont think its necessary. If we just adopt a little more Christ like love and view others in the light of their human dignity, their undeniable worth, and the image of God for which they are made...then the world would be a better place.

 

But instead, we are viewing them through a window of disorder and deviance...and that is what is coloring our actions. Not love or its translations.