+Chaput of Philadelphia: shelve 'disordered' language around homosexuality

[Aragon]

Interesting, coming from a prelate who has a reputation for being 'conservative'. Thoughts?

 

http://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/abp.-chaput-shelf-intrinsically-disordered1

[Nihil Obstat]

Interesting, coming from a prelate who has a reputation for being 'conservative'. Thoughts?

 

Yes. An unfortunate sign of the times.

[dominicansoul]

The Church doesn't call anyone "disordered."  The Church calls homosexuality disordered.  BIG BIG HUGE difference...

 

[Gabriela]

While I agree with Nihil and DS, I have to say this terminology is, in my experience, the Catholic Church's most often misunderstood and offensively received. Should we change our terminology because other people totally misunderstand it? Because they won't take the time or make the effort to learn the theology behind it so they can interpret it in context?

If our mission is to evangelize, it may be a good idea to at least adopt other terms that we can use when first introducing the Church's teaching about homosexuality. Then, once defenses are down, we could explain the deeper "disordered" teaching.

So I'm not saying ditch it. But we do need to figure out some way to share the Church's teaching on homosexuality without immediately raising people's hackles. If they get offended, they shut down, and then we've got no chance of converting them.

[KnightofChrist]

If the Church surrenders to the world in this matter it will embolden her enemies and will make no difference to how she is judged and hated by the world. Any word used to describe the homosexual act as sinful or the desire as disordered will be rejected by the world. Any word that decribes the act and the desire in a negitive light will be seen as just as hateful and rigid as the words she uses now. Only when the Church surrenders her position completely will the world accept her.

[Gabriela]

If the Church surrenders to the world in this matter it will embolden her enemies and will make no difference to how she is judged and hated by the world. Any word used to describe the homosexual act as sinful or the desire as disordered will be rejected by the world. Any word that decribes the act and the desire in a negitive light will be seen as just as hateful and rigid as the words she uses now. Only when the Church surrenders her position completely will the world accept her.

How can we know this until we try using other words?

We need to be able to enter into a dialogue with people about this. If they shut us out immediately because we keep saying one really loaded, "offensive" word, we can't do that.

You may be right: Maybe it's not possible to enter into dialogue with people about this at all. But the fact that some homosexuals do eventually come to understand and occasionally even accept Church teaching on homosexuality suggests that someone did something right. We could learn from those experiences.

[Anomaly]

It appears Chaput wants to express the same message with a softer tone because some interpret a few words as hateful.   Unfortunately some say he is being too soft and has changed the message.  Both point to each other as swallowing camels while themselves choking on gnats.  

Often, it seems Christian love/salvation is simply being on the other side of the iron fist of judgement.  Same old turn or burn.  Meh. 

[KnightofChrist]

We have used over words. The homosexual act traditionally and bibically is known as sodomy and as a grave sin that crys out to heaven. Now it is known as a unnatural and disoredered act and the world still hates us.

Edited October 23, 2015 by KnightofChrist

[KnightofChrist]

Other*

[Basilisa Marie]

Come on guys, it's Chaput. He'd never say we should change Church teaching on something like this. 

The Church changes it's language all the time. Well, all the time might not be the best phrase. But look at proselytize vs evangelize. We don't talk about proselytizing anymore, because it has the unfortunate connotations of forced conversions, shouting incomprehensibly on street corners, and smacking people in the face with catechisms. Evangelize, on the other hand, is associated with preaching and living the Gospel in a whole multitude of ways. It's way better. And both refer to how we spread the Gospel. 

If someone doesn't understand what you're saying, the solution isn't always to talk louder. If a word is a stumbling block for people and causing more confusion (because "disordered" is a technical Church term and means something totally different in common English), why would we keep using it if we can spread the same Gospel message without it? Particular words shouldn't be what's most important. 

[Peace]

Any word used to describe the homosexual act as sinful or the desire as disordered will be rejected by the world. Any word that decribes the act and the desire in a negitive light will be seen as just as hateful and rigid as the words she uses now. Only when the Church surrenders her position completely will the world accept her.

Why?

You could have said the same thing about many things taught by Christians that were rejected by society at large at one point in time, and then came to be accepted by larger society at a later point in time. You seem to assume defeat. You seem to assume that the Church is incapable of influencing or changing popular opinion on moral matters. But history shows that is not the case. The Church has had a huge historical influence on societal values at large.

The question we now face is - how do we adapt to get our message across in the present culture?

Edited October 23, 2015 by Peace

[Gabriela]

Also, continuing Basilisa's point:

"confession" >> "reconciliation"

[KnightofChrist]

Why?

You could have said the same thing about many things taught by Christians that were rejected by society at large at one point in time, and then came to be accepted by larger society at a later point in time. You seem to assume defeat. You seem to assume that the Church is incapable of influencing or changing popular opinion on moral matters. But history shows that is not the case. The Church has had a huge historical influence on societal values at large.

The question we now face is - how do we adapt to get our message across in the present culture?

This is how drama gets started. People judge others personally, so I will not respond in kind, nor will I prop anyone that makes seemly personal judgements of others.

So long as the Church keeps the meaning of her language against the act and desire of homosexuality the same it isn't going to make a beaverdamn's difference to the world what words are used. It is the teaching and meaning that the world hates and finds hateful. And if we change the Church's language to make it 'nicer' or 'softer' we risk loosing the meaning and teaching of the Church.

We've had this discussion many times on Phatmass, but those who advocate changing the Church's language never offer any 'better' words that have the same meaning without watering down the Church's teaching.

[Anomaly]

This is how drama gets started. People judge others personally, so I will not respond in kind, nor will I prop anyone that makes seemly personal judgements of others.

So long as the Church keeps the meaning of her language against the act and desire of homosexuality the same it isn't going to make a beaverdamn's difference to the world what words are used. It is the teaching and meaning that the world hates and finds hateful. And if we change the Church's language to make it 'nicer' or 'softer' we risk loosing the meaning and teaching of the Church.

We've had this discussion many times on Phatmass, but those who advocate changing the Church's language never offer any 'better' words that have the same meaning without watering down the Church's teaching.

Knight,

At this point it's personal opinion what words mean to other people. 

I'm sure there is a point in the stories of Jesus eating with tax collectors and talking to women who were prostitutes.   Maybe it is only changing how you say it, not what you say.   

I do note how Catholics get so upset with each other about this teaching on homosexuality and then are confused and dismissive when non-Catholics are hurt and negative in their interpretation of what the Church is saying.  Are non-Catholics blamed when they simply hear condemnation instead of a call to a better way?   Same goal, two different paths. 

[Peace]

This is how drama gets started. People judge others personally, so I will not respond in kind, nor will I prop anyone that makes seemly personal judgements of others.

I made a judgment based on what you wrote.  You wrote that "Any word used to describe the homosexual act as sinful or the desire as disordered will be rejected by the world. Any word that decribes the act and the desire in a negitive light will be seen as just as hateful and rigid as the words she uses now. Only when the Church surrenders her position completely will the world accept her." This implies that no matter what the Church does larger society will reject what she teaches. It is an attitude that assumes defeat.

So long as the Church keeps the meaning of her language against the act and desire of homosexuality the same it isn't going to make a beaverdamn's difference to the world what words are used.

Again - why? You seem to think that it is impossible for the Church's position on homosexuality to be accepted by society at large. I do not see why that has to be the case.

It is the teaching and meaning that the world hates and finds hateful. And if we change the Church's language to make it 'nicer' or 'softer' we risk loosing the meaning and teaching of the Church.

We've had this discussion many times on Phatmass, but those who advocate changing the Church's language never offer any 'better' words that have the same meaning without watering down the Church's teaching.

 FYI - I do not advocate changing the Catechism on that point. I think the language of the Catechism is fine, but I think that individual Catholics could do a better job of explaining the reasons why the Church teaches what it does.

For better or worse, many people do perceive the Catholic Church's positions on various matters as hateful, and in some cases that is because they do not fully understand the reasons or rationale behind what she teaches. And they see the Church as just being dogmatic and caring about rigidly following rules than about caring about people. That was definitely the case with my sister before I explained some things to her, after which she able to change her view of the Church a bit. She is actually thinking about becoming Catholic now.

How you present yourself does matter. If you come of as angry and unwilling to look at things from the point of view of other people, or consider their concerns, you usually aren't going to get very far with them. And you have to shape your message taking into account the culture of the people that you are attempting to persuade. I think St. Paul talks about that.