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

[Gregorius]

​Does it really? I had a French friend tell me it meant messy or unorganised rather than sick. That's terrible if it has the same psychological connotations in other languages as it does in English.

How disgusting that the authors of the catechism didn't think about how hurtful words and terms that pathologise those with SSA and paint them as ill would be to people - those who identify as gay, those who are Catholic and striving to be chaste, and their loved ones. Truly hurtful language. My disillusionment with this Church grows day by day. 

​Hold on, I actually met one of the people who worked on that catechism, and he is one of the sweetest, approachable, and knowledgeable people you can find. Don't paint them all with the same brush!

Considering the catechism was a 20+ year project involving hundreds of people all over the world, I'm sure they considered their wording very, very carefully; do not despair. Happy Easter!

[Aragon]

​Hold on, I actually met one of the people who worked on that catechism, and he is one of the sweetest, approachable, and knowledgeable people you can find. Don't paint them all with the same brush!

Considering the catechism was a 20+ year project involving hundreds of people all over the world, I'm sure they considered their wording very, very carefully; do not despair. Happy Easter!

Regardless of how nice they may be as people the reality is terms such as "disordered" and "condition" carry very heavy psychological associations that pathologise gay people. And the Catechism isn't even talking about the act when it uses those words, it's talking about the "disordered condition" of the person. As if anyone could hear the sweetness of the gospel through language that makes them feel like a leper. 

Just disgusting.

[Aragon]

​IF is the key word here as well as a red flag, I heard so and so say... is also a red flag. If you don't really know what the word means in French then why make such bold judgements against the writers of the Catechism?

​I certainly hope that English is the only language where the terminology used by the catechism has connotations of mental illness, but even that's enough to justify anger and hurt I think. 

[Lilllabettt]

​Does it really? I had a French friend tell me it meant messy or unorganised rather than sick. That's terrible if it has the same psychological connotations in other languages as it does in English.

How disgusting that the authors of the catechism didn't think about how hurtful words and terms that pathologise those with SSA and paint them as ill would be to people - those who identify as gay, those who are Catholic and striving to be chaste, and their loved ones. Truly hurtful language. My disillusionment with this Church grows day by day. 

 

There are heart disorders and heart disease. Disease can lead to disorder. Disorder is not disease, it is an abnormal function of what might be an otherwise healthy system. 

[KnightofChrist]

​I certainly hope that English is the only language where the terminology used by the catechism has connotations of mental illness, but even that's enough to justify anger and hurt I think. 

​Many English words while spelt the same have widely different meanings.

There are heart disorders and heart disease. Disease can lead to disorder. Disorder is not disease, it is an abnormal function of what might be an otherwise healthy system. 

​This is a good example.

[Aragon]

That's a good point Lillabett and KoC. I'm sorry, I hope this doesn't come off as whiny or overly-sensitive. I just find being spoken about in such terms as really hurtful. It makes one feel as if the Church regards them as diseased or a leper.

[KnightofChrist]

I have a heart disorder, the word disorder it doesn't shame me or offend me. I have a heart condition that is outside the norm, calling it a disorder isn't hurtful. It's just a way to describe an abnormality. The CCC calls SSA an inclination disorder. There are many kinds of disorders that effect man that have nothing to do with mental illness/disorders.

[Ice_nine]

​I certainly hope that English is the only language where the terminology used by the catechism has connotations of mental illness, but even that's enough to justify anger and hurt I think. 

​Can I dig a little deeper here? Why are people so hurt and offended when people suggest, or even flat out tell them, that they are afflicted by a mental illness? I'm trying to wrap my head around this. Does the anger have anything to do with the stigma of mental illness? If I were to suggest that homosexuals were afflicted by a physical disorder, like a hormonal dysfunction, would people be as upset?

I don't think so. And while "accusing" someone of having a mental illness and the stigma attached is not the whole reason for anger and resentment, I can't help but think it's part of it.

In addition I think we've lost the idea that God loves the lepers, and otherwise sick, more than He loves the healthy. In a Christian context, brokenness brings us closer to Christ. It's almost offensive to us now. Of course that doesn't justify being a db to gay pholk, but I don't understand how Christian anybodies (gay straight or otherwise) insist that they are whole, healthy, and well put together. Christ didn't hang out with people who fit that description.

[Nihil Obstat]

Of course one of the primary architects of the new Catechism was Joseph Ratzinger who is multilingual and certainly not an intellectual or theological lightweight. 

I do not know if he wrote that passage in particular - although if I were to speculate it does rather sound like his writing style - but whenever Pope Benedict wrote something we could trust that not a single word was carelessly chosen. He typically means precisely what he writes.

[veritasluxmea]

Regardless of how nice they may be as people the reality is terms such as "disordered" and "condition" carry very heavy psychological associations that pathologise gay people. And the Catechism isn't even talking about the act when it uses those words, it's talking about the "disordered condition" of the person. As if anyone could hear the sweetness of the gospel through language that makes them feel like a leper. 

Just disgusting.

​Technically Christianity holds that every person is disordered and living in a disordered condition and needs help. That's kind of why Jesus came to save us. 

Frankly, I just don't read this Catechism passage as making a statement on the mental health of homosexuality. Viewed with the understanding that a) there is a way to move (also known as order) your whole person- mind, body, and soul- towards God through virtue and a way to move your whole person away from God through sin, and b) humans- all humans- live in disordered conditions (aka conditions that move us away from God), the idea that homosexuality- not homosexual persons, but homosexuality itself- is "disordered" makes sense. 

Think about it this way- if experiencing sexualized attractions about a person of the same sex was properly ordering your sexuality, then why would actually committing sodomy be wrong? Why would everything inclining someone to the act be a good ordering of yourself and then the act itself be morally wrong? The Catholic Church views the act of sodomy as a sin (something that moves you away from God). So it makes sense that the Catholic Church would call homosexual attractions as not properly ordered sexuality. It would be inconsistent to say otherwise. The Church doesn't call it a mental illness, doesn't call it a sin to experience it, doesn't say homosexual people are disordered or mentally ill. It just says... "Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained... [The inclinations] are contrary to natural law... This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial." 

That doesn't mean experiencing same sex attractions isn't natural, or normal. It's ok to be Catholic and think homosexual attractions are a normal part of life (for whoever), occur naturally, and are permanent. It's also ok to be Catholic and think that it's a mental illness or that attractions change over time. Or a mix of that. Look, my point is the Church doesn't make calls on mental illness, and I just don't read this passage (in English) as making a call on that. 

EDIT: Quote got messed up, not sure where Icenine came from. 

[CrossCuT]

​You often take these vague shots at Church Militants but you rarely elaborate on what it is you expect them to say. And it isn't particularly constructive for anyone. Is it Church doctrine that bothers you in itself, or the way people discuss it?

​I considered giving my exact reasons, but then people would be like "wow so rude to say that about people". I am the minority on this site so I always lose. Besides, I dont think mentioning my thoughts about peoples manner of speaking on these topics would in any way make a difference. So its probably completely pointless to mention it in the frist place. Do what you want.

[superblue]

​In Canada it is a very polite gesture that works as a greeting or a friendly acknowledgement. I highly recommend you get into the habit of using it regularly and with great gusto.

​An that is why no one takes Canada seriously.

[Amppax]

Of course one of the primary architects of the new Catechism was Joseph Ratzinger who is multilingual and certainly not an intellectual or theological lightweight. 

I do not know if he wrote that passage in particular - although if I were to speculate it does rather sound like his writing style - but whenever Pope Benedict wrote something we could trust that not a single word was carelessly chosen. He typically means precisely what he writes.

Something that is important to note is that the Catechism first written in French, then translated several years later into the Latin editio typica. 

An interesting, tangentially related story: Cardinal Schönborn, who was chief editor of the Catechism, was giving a paper at one point at a conference at CUA. His flight to the US was delayed in some way, and as a result, he arrived in the US without having slept in something close to 24 hours. So he gets up to give the paper, and gives it in flawless English (according to the story). He then apologizes after finishing, and reveals that the paper he was reading from was in French. So he basically translated it on the fly. On next to no sleep. Which is nuts. 

[superblue]

I am waiting for the day when the debate is on a Presidential candidate probably a democrat, who is not only a homosexual but married and has an adopted child,

and interestingly enough, the Catechism mentions nothing remotely suggesting that one can not provide goods and services to homosexuals.

 

[dUSt]

and interestingly enough, the Catechism mentions nothing remotely suggesting that one can not provide goods and services to homosexuals.

"Every word or attitude is forbidden which by flattery, adulation, or complaisance encourages and confirms another in malicious acts and perverse conduct. Adulation is a grave fault if it makes one an accomplice in another's vices or grave sins. Neither the desire to be of service nor friendship justifies duplicitous speech. Adulation is a venial sin when it only seeks to be agreeable, to avoid evil, to meet a need, or to obtain legitimate advantages (CCC 2480)."

 

​I agree that denying general service to homosexuals is wrong. But, I don't think this is an issue with current events. The issue is providing goods or services to specific things such as a homosexual weddings, or gay pride rallies, etc.--specific things or events that contradict church teaching.

I recently read an interview with a homosexual woman who supports the law in Indiana, because she made a point about her business--and how she would want to have a right to deny providing her services to an anti-gay-marriage rally. She respects the right of Christians to not provide service for things they don't believe in. She also made a point that "disagree" does not mean "malicious".

When a business provides service to a homosexual person, they are serving the humanity in that person--not their homosexuality. When a business provides service for a gay wedding or a gay rally, they are no longer serving the humanity in an individual, but rather an event or an idea. That is the difference.

 

Edited April 7, 2015 by dUSt