Homosexuality disordered/if you speak a foreign language please read this

[Aragon]

So I did a little research and looks like the term 'objectively disordered' comes from a 1986 letter that says:

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." If "objectively disordered" just means it's a tendency towards an "instrinsic moral evil" isn't that just a really theologically convoluted way of saying it's a temptation towards an act which is a mortal sin? Doesn't sound too dissimilar from any other temptation towards acts which are "intrinsic moral evils" such as masturbation or lying. So the term 'objectively disordered' is just a theological term that means it is not a sin in itself but is a temptation towards a sinful act? Like any other temptation that someone, hetero or homo, may struggle with? Is that correct or am I being too generous in my understanding?

[Nihil Obstat]

It implies something a bit stronger than temptation to mortal sin. More specifically it is a temptation to a state of affairs which cannot possibly be sanctified. For instance the temptation to fornication is not objectively disordered in that sense because such a union, which illicit and mortally sinful, nevertheless could theoretically be sanctified, directed towards the Good. The inclination itself is, in a technical sense, natural, i.e. in conformity with natural law. A sexual union between two people of the same sec cannot be ordered towards the Good no matter how vastly circumstances change.

[Lilllabettt]

​Wow, some people are horrible evangelists. This is not how you speak to someone struggling with the faith. 

He is not a "speck in the vastness of the universe". He is a child of God, a child for whom Christ shed every last drop of His precious blood, he is deeply loved and valued by God and the Church and is called to attain Christian perfection.

​Hi Aragon,

Camel is a speck in the vastness of the universe. You are as well. It's interesting to me that you would try to deny that reality. Being a speck and being loved and valued by God are not mutually exclusive conditions. Interesting that you seem to think they are. 

Let me correct another misunderstanding of yours. Lots of people try to "evangelize" by playing down the difficult realities of discipleship. They try to make their religion as attractive as possible. Jesus Loves You. Peace Like A River. That's not the whole story is it? Then people are confused when authentic discipleship asks them to suffer, and the God they follow does not "fill the void." 

But  I am not attempting to "evangelize" camel. I am not engaged in an attempt to convince him of anything, or find a "gospel solution" to resolve his problem, or get him to keep his faith. I am being honest for the sake of being honest. As he requested, in fact.

[Nihil Obstat]

“They will write on their temples:  ‘You will be better fed here than over the way’ and then they will be astonished to discover that their god is their belly.”

[Luigi]

So I did a little research and looks like the term 'objectively disordered' comes from a 1986 letter that says:

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." If "objectively disordered" just means it's a tendency towards an "instrinsic moral evil" isn't that just a really theologically convoluted way of saying it's a temptation towards an act which is a mortal sin? Doesn't sound too dissimilar from any other temptation towards acts which are "intrinsic moral evils" such as masturbation or lying. So the term 'objectively disordered' is just a theological term that means it is not a sin in itself but is a temptation towards a sinful act? Like any other temptation that someone, hetero or homo, may struggle with? Is that correct or am I being too generous in my understanding?

​Every human faculty has a proper object. The proper object of the sense of sight is light. The proper object of the sense of taste is flavor. Etc. The proper object of sexual desire is a person of the opposite gender. People who are attracted to members of the same gender still have the human faculty of sexual desire, but it's ordered (or you might say "directed") toward an improper object.  Thus the term "objectively disordered." It's a technical term from philosophy and/or theology. Problems arise in understanding the term when people view it as two ordinary English words that have slammed together to pass judgment on homosexuals.

BTW, there are lots of other people other that homosexuals whose faculty of sexual desire is objectively disordered - toward other improper objects. 

[Aragon]

​Hi Aragon,

Camel is a speck in the vastness of the universe. You are as well. It's interesting to me that you would try to deny that reality. Being a speck and being loved and valued by God are not mutually exclusive conditions. Interesting that you seem to think they are. 

Let me correct another misunderstanding of yours. Lots of people try to "evangelize" by playing down the difficult realities of discipleship. They try to make their religion as attractive as possible. Jesus Loves You. Peace Like A River. That's not the whole story is it? Then people are confused when authentic discipleship asks them to suffer, and the God they follow does not "fill the void." 

But  I am not attempting to "evangelize" camel. I am not engaged in an attempt to convince him of anything, or find a "gospel solution" to resolve his problem, or get him to keep his faith. I am being honest for the sake of being honest. As he requested, in fact.

​Aight. Cool. You can cut the passive aggressive BS. You don't need to correct any "misunderstandings of mine", and it's totally not interesting that I think being described as a speck in the universe and a child of God are mutually exclusive. 

To be honest I just found the tone you answered Camel's questions with to be pretty off putting and repellent. Believe it or not style and presentation matters when we're talking to other people and the faith is always supposed to be communicated with charity and love. I also think that your presentation of the Christian life as something that might just be all about suffering is depressingly naturalistic. Catholicism isn't prosperity gospel, but it is about finding joy in both this life and the next. That doesn't exclude suffering and sacrifice, but considering that the fruits of the Holy Spirit include peace and joy I think we can hope that these two attributes will be a hall mark of Christian discipleship. I think if your faith is making you depressed then there's something seriously wrong.

 

God bless and happy Easter.

[Aragon]

PS. 

Lillabett,

Please don't take the first paragraph of my post as an attack. I just think it's much easier if we be upfront about what we're saying and drop the passive aggressive tone. I just don't think accusing people who find Catholicism of being "too hard" of "spitting in the face of the martyrs" and other such sentiments is a particularly good way to speak.

If a religion were making me depressed I certainly think I'd review what was going wrong, what was going right, and whether this is really what God wants for me. 

[The camel]

Aragon - sorry to derail your thread. It was not my intention, as I am sure you can see. I made an unguarded comment which I was asked to clarify, and in trying to do so honestly, unleashed a torrent of responses.

I do agree with you about the need for joy in religion, and find the frankly sanctimonious tone of some people distinctly off putting. To hide behind the 'I'm only preaching the truth, and the truth is hard' defence is pretty hopeless. Can we be as insulting as we wish if it is our idea of 'the truth spoken in love'? Seemingly yes. 

[Nihil Obstat]

Keep in mind that some will find Truth insulting no matter how it is expressed, simply because Truth will often be a stumblingblock to the Jews and foolishness to the Greeks.

Some people are obnoxious, but Truth is Truth.

[Lilllabettt]

​Aight. Cool. You can cut the passive aggressive BS. You don't need to correct any "misunderstandings of mine", and it's totally not interesting that I think being described as a speck in the universe and a child of God are mutually exclusive. 

To be honest I just found the tone you answered Camel's questions with to be pretty off putting and repellent. Believe it or not style and presentation matters when we're talking to other people and the faith is always supposed to be communicated with charity and love. I also think that your presentation of the Christian life as something that might just be all about suffering is depressingly naturalistic. Catholicism isn't prosperity gospel, but it is about finding joy in both this life and the next. That doesn't exclude suffering and sacrifice, but considering that the fruits of the Holy Spirit include peace and joy I think we can hope that these two attributes will be a hall mark of Christian discipleship. I think if your faith is making you depressed then there's something seriously wrong.

 

God bless and happy Easter.

​Hi Aragon, God bless and Happy Easter. 

My intention is not to be passive aggressive. I have chosen my tone very intentionally. 

Peace and joy are nice. But I am speaking to someone who has admitted to being deeply troubled in the context of Church teaching for a long time. The Church's teaching will not change and human sexuality is relatively stable. There is a distinct possibility that this person's future discipleship will involve more sacrifice and suffering than joy and peace. For some people Good Friday lasts their entire lives.  And yet whatever formation and "evangelizing" this individual has received has left him unprepared for this. He thinks that

Radical renunciation of self only makes sense if God is prepared to fill the void, and I have not found that to be the case.

Well. Authentic religion is an act of intellectual humility, a confession that something outside oneself is true. Radical renunciation of self makes sense if what I believe is true. There are religions that have the removal of pain as a goal. Buddhism. But even authentic Buddhism demands radical renunciation in the service of the truth, regardless of whether or not one is destined in this life to achieve the cessation of suffering. 

The Christian approach to suffering is central to its self-understanding, and that is that suffering does not go away.  For some people it is the dominant force in their lives, for their entire lives. For some people God does not "fill the void." Jesus Himself says those people should count themselves blessed. "Evangelists" like to skip over that part. "Do x,y,z, believe like this, consider this, peace will come." Well, maybe it won't. 

For lots of people it doesn't, in one serious area or another. They discover they or someone they love is gay. Or they can only conceive with IVF. Or they are divorced at 25 and denied an annulment. Or are abused by a priest. That's when the test comes, and how do we expect people to do, when they have heard this weird prefab Peace Like a River counterfeit version of Christianity all their lives. Well, I'm not selling that bill of goods. 

If it is true, it is 100% worth it. Living in accord with conscience is the only worthwhile way to live.  If it is not true, it is not worth it. It's an awful waste. 

 

 

[Norseman82]

Lilllabettt,

Please read James 2:15-16:

"If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and no food for the day and you say 'Good-bye and good luck!  Keep warm and well fed' but do not meet their bodily needs, what good is that"?

Instead of rubbing salt in Camel's wounds, why don't you act as balm for his wounds by offering yourself up as a spouse (assuming Camel is a male)?

[Lilllabettt]

 

Lilllabettt,

Please read James 2:15-16:

"If a brother or sister has nothing to ear and no food for the day and you say 'Good-bye and good luck!  Keep warm and well fed' but do not meet their bodily needs, what good is that"?

Instead of rubbing salt in Camel's wounds, why don't you act as balm for his wounds by offering yourself up as a spouse (assuming Camel is a male)?

 

That there is some next level weird, my friend.

 

Actually not merely weird, but insane. 

 

​

[Maggyie]

Lilllabettt,

Please read James 2:15-16:

"If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and no food for the day and you say 'Good-bye and good luck!  Keep warm and well fed' but do not meet their bodily needs, what good is that"?

Instead of rubbing salt in Camel's wounds, why don't you act as balm for his wounds by offering yourself up as a spouse (assuming Camel is a male)?

Yes you are joking right?

[Nihil Obstat]

Lilllabettt,

Please read James 2:15-16:

"If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and no food for the day and you say 'Good-bye and good luck!  Keep warm and well fed' but do not meet their bodily needs, what good is that"?

Instead of rubbing salt in Camel's wounds, why don't you act as balm for his wounds by offering yourself up as a spouse (assuming Camel is a male)?

Well that was just about the weirdest twist ending I have ever encountered. 

[Ash Wednesday]

Yeah. That's just about the most bizarre attempt at calling someone out I've ever seen around here in a very long time. If at all.