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

[MIKolbe]

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.  

This is worthy of reflection and prayer.

[dominicansoul]

Sexuality comes up alot in highschool catechism classes.  When I teach highschool students, I do focus more on positive terms, the beauty we all encompass in our sexuality and how Christ and the Church teach us that it is very sacred and how our bodies do not belong to us, but that our bodies in fact belong to God for we were bought at a very very high price (the price of Christ's blood.)  I talk to all the students in this same vein, whether they be struggling with heterosexual desires or homosexual attractions or who knows what else!  (I don't want to hear their confessions! lol )  I don't think it's the language itself that needs to be changed, but just the way and manner and attitude that we preach about sex, period.

I also tend to focus more on our relationship with Christ and death to ourselves because the world around us and society as a whole wants us to forget about Christ and our relationship with Him and focus more inward, more selfishly to our own concupiscence---society demands we  focus on ourselves sooo much and what we "deserve" and what we want, regardless of the consequences.

I teach them what truly defines us is our relationship with God...and that we need to work constantly and stay focused on this relationship.

Archbishop Chaput has a point, but at the same time,  just know that there are people who are eager to change the Church's teaching entirely, and they will definitely use his advice to do just that...This was the case with Vatican II, peeps took the documents and did whatever they wanted in "the spirit of Vatican II."

I do emphasize to my students that Sin is ugly!  Sin is disordered...!  I think you will find the Church teaches this for every action that tears you away from the grace of God...

[Not The Philosopher]

I don't have an issue with 'disordered'. It's an important moral theological term. But like a lot of other technical terms, I don't think it needs to be used in every conversation we have, especially if it is liable to be misunderstood or misinterpreted in the context. If you're talking to your co-worker about the the Eucharist, you don't have to start by saying that the substance changes while the accidents remain the same - or, if you do, be prepared to explain Aristotelian terminology as well. I mean, the term disordered is part of natural law reasoning, and a lot of people have a poor understanding of what natural law is, and, frankly, a lot of Catholics don't do a good job of articulating it. You gotta learn the grammar as well as the vocab.

Edited October 23, 2015 by Not The Philosopher

[KnightofChrist]

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.

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.

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.

I believe we're using the word "world" differently. Which is part of the issue with the Church's language. There are people who do not have the same understanding of the words that the Church uses. However, having different understandings or meanings of words is no good reason to drop use of those words. Changing the language risks changing the teaching just as changing the way one prays can change what one believes.  Anyway, the word "world" can have many meanings. It can mean Earth, or other planets, a continent, etc etc. I'm use the word as Christ used it in relation to the enemies of the Church. The world is the dominion of the Devil and those within that domain who's spiritual father is the devil. So this is why the world will never accept Church teaching. 

So I am not assuming the Church's defeat, the Church will over come the world but the world will never accept and obey her teachings. Even at the height of Christendom (which did not cover most of the Earth) the Devil was the prince of this world. Many did not actually follow or obey the Church's teachings, there where even those in the Church who did not. We should all be able to think of many such examples without me having to list them out.

Still the Church should strive for the salvation of every group of people and generation it encounters. The Church, like any good mother who warns against something that would cause the horrible death of their children, uses clear and strong language against sin to save us from the fires of Hell. Grave sin is a deadly poison and using soft and gentle language to warn against it will cause people to not take it seriously.

Yes, many people do perceive the Catholic Church's positions on various matters as hateful. But many people today also accept many grave sins as normal and acceptable. Many view good as evil and evil as good. The Church's unchanging Dogma is such an example, to the world and to many that is bad, but the Church's unchanging Dogma is actually good. Whatever language the Church uses, without changing teaching, it will still face this problem of trying to reach people across the void of the understanding of Good and Evil. The language that the Church does use is going to depend on people explaining it to others as you did with your sister and as I attempt to with the word world.

As for making personal character judgements I'm not going to make it my place to judge your character on what you seem to feel even if you choose to continue to judge mine. I see no good in that. I only wish to discuss the topic not our characters, at best it will divert the topic and at worse lead to bickering. I'm strong in my beliefs and I try to speak as clearly as possible. I am human and I can fail to do that and fail to be understood but I'm what you seem to think about me lol.

[Peace]

I believe we're using the word "world" differently. Which is part of the issue with the Church's language. There are people who do not have the same understanding of the words that the Church uses. However, having different understandings or meanings of words is no good reason to drop use of those words. Changing the language risks changing the teaching just as changing the way one prays can change what one believes.  Anyway, the word "world" can have many meanings. It can mean Earth, or other planets, a continent, etc etc. I'm use the word as Christ used it in relation to the enemies of the Church. The world is the dominion of the Devil and those within that domain who's spiritual father is the devil. So this is why the world will never accept Church teaching. 

Hmm. I have heard the "world" distinction made before but mainly among evangelical protestants (not that there is anything wrong with that).

Precisely, how do you define "world" as you use it above? What people are included in the "world" and what people are not included in the "world"? For example, are you putting all non-Catholics in the world? Are you putting all non-Christians in the world? What about Catholics who reject certain Church teachings such as her teaching on contraception? How about people who through no fault of their own have not heard the gospel?

Or are people who are in the "world" restricted to a more limited set of people, such as satanists, atheists, etc.?

However, having different understandings or meanings of words is no good reason to drop use of those words. Changing the language risks changing the teaching just as changing the way one prays can change what one believes. 

Sure. But sometimes it can be good to change words. It is cool to have the Mass in Latin, but if you get to a point where nobody on the Earth speaks Latin anymore, it could be a good idea to do it in English or Spanish.

Still the Church should strive for the salvation of every group of people and generation it encounters. The Church, like any good mother who warns against something that would cause the horrible death of their children, uses clear and strong language against sin to save us from the fires of Hell. Grave sin is a deadly poison and using soft and gentle language to warn against it will cause people to not take it seriously.

Fire and Brimstone works for some people. For other people not so much. I think that for some folks rather than shouting Fire and Brimstone, showing them a better alternative might be a better approach. I mean, let's take pre-marital sex as an example. If you approach someone who is not a Christian and enjoying a lewd lifestyle, and are just like "The way you are living is an abomination to the LORD and you will burn in HELL!" you probably aren't going to get so far. But can you offer the person something more appealing than what he already has? I think you can.

Anyway. I am not sure if we really disagree on it so much. It seems that to a certain extent we have been talking past each other.

As for making personal character judgements I'm not going to make it my place to judge your character on what you seem to feel even if you choose to continue to judge mine. I see no good in that. I only wish to discuss the topic not our characters, at best it will divert the topic and at worse lead to bickering. I'm strong in my beliefs and I try to speak as clearly as possible. I am human and I can fail to do that and fail to be understood but I'm what you seem to think about me lol.

It's not like I called you a harlot, you know. I haven't made any firm conclusions about your character. I thought that you were implying that the Church is unable to influence the moral view of society at large, and I don't think that conclusion was all that unreasonable based upon what you wrote.

[Oremus Pro Invicem]

I'm waiting for other word recommendations from those who believe it should be changed.  What are some of the proposed replacement words which will convey the teaching of the Church? 

Also why do you think your new word choice won't offend someone? 

If your word choice does offend others should we opt to change it again?

[Basilisa Marie]

I'm waiting for other word recommendations from those who believe it should be changed.  What are some of the proposed replacement words which will convey the teaching of the Church? 

Also why do you think your new word choice won't offend someone? 

If your word choice does offend others should we opt to change it again?

I think it's less about being offensive and more about being misunderstood. People hear "disorder" and they think "mental illness that needs to be treated and/or cured." They don't think "not directed toward the good." Lots of people find the Church teaching offensive in itself. We can't do much about that, other than pray for their conversion. 

It seems to me that because "disorder" has a lot of connotations to mental illness or disability in our society, a lot of the cultural emotional baggage comes along with it. So you get the social stigma, like it's a dirty secret that shouldn't be talked about because it's shameful. You have the implication that it's something that should be cured, or treated, so that you can live a "normal" (in this case, heterosexual) life. You also have the idea that people with mental disorders are on some level, subhuman, not worthy of the same dignity as "regular" people. 

But the Church doesn't say that we need to treat or cure homosexuality and turn homosexuals into heterosexuals. It doesn't say that having homosexual tendencies should be hidden because they're shameful. It doesn't say that homosexuals have less dignity than heterosexuals. 

Maybe instead of saying "disordered" we can just say what we mean, even if it takes more words to do so. 

[truthfinder]

Part of the problem is the seemingly more frequent devolution to gut-reactions with certain terms without investigating further how the text is using the words.  

[Gabriela]

I'm waiting for other word recommendations from those who believe it should be changed.  What are some of the proposed replacement words which will convey the teaching of the Church? 

Also why do you think your new word choice won't offend someone? 

If your word choice does offend others should we opt to change it again?

I don't necessarily change any words. I change the whole conversation. When people ask why the Church objects to homosexuality, I tell them:

1. The Church has no problem with homosexual people as people.

2. The Church understands that attraction to the same sex is something many people can't control.

3. The Church teaches that, for a sexual act to be moral, it must be carried out within the confines of marriage, and must be both potentially procreative and unitive (I explain what these mean).

4. Since (3), masturbation is a sin, and premarital sex between a male and female is a sin, and also sex between two men or two women is a sin.

5. The Church's recommendation for those who experience attraction to the same sex, or for anyone who finds premarital sex or masturbation difficult to resist, is to turn to God to ask for the grace of chastity. Many Catholics struggle to remain chaste, but those who live celibate lives are an inspiration to us and living proof that you won't die from not having sex. You can even be happy that way.

They don't usually agree with me at the end of this, but they at least can see that the Church has a whole logic behind Her belief, and so isn't just "hating on gays".

[Peace]

I think it's less about being offensive and more about being misunderstood. People hear "disorder" and they think "mental illness that needs to be treated and/or cured." They don't think "not directed toward the good." Lots of people find the Church teaching offensive in itself. We can't do much about that, other than pray for their conversion. 

It seems to me that because "disorder" has a lot of connotations to mental illness or disability in our society, a lot of the cultural emotional baggage comes along with it. So you get the social stigma, like it's a dirty secret that shouldn't be talked about because it's shameful. You have the implication that it's something that should be cured, or treated, so that you can live a "normal" (in this case, heterosexual) life. You also have the idea that people with mental disorders are on some level, subhuman, not worthy of the same dignity as "regular" people. 

But the Church doesn't say that we need to treat or cure homosexuality and turn homosexuals into heterosexuals. It doesn't say that having homosexual tendencies should be hidden because they're shameful. It doesn't say that homosexuals have less dignity than heterosexuals. 

Maybe instead of saying "disordered" we can just say what we mean, even if it takes more words to do so. 

Well I dunno. I think you can consider it a disorder, just like a mental illness or a disability. It seems to be a form of infertility, in a sense. You are inclined to have a sexual attraction to people who with you cannot procreate. The human race would die out if everyone had the same inclination . . .

That may not necessarily be the greatest thing to hear but I don't think the truth of it changes . . .

Now, just cause someone has a disorder does not mean that he or she has less intrinsic dignity than anyone else. We are all disordered in some form or another.

[Basilisa Marie]

Well I dunno. I think you can consider it a disorder, just like a mental illness or a disability. It seems to be a form of infertility, in a sense. You are inclined to have a sexual attraction to people who with you cannot procreate. The human race would die out if everyone had the same inclination . . .

That may not necessarily be the greatest thing to hear but I don't think the truth of it changes . . .

Now, just cause someone has a disorder does not mean that he or she has less intrinsic dignity than anyone else. We are all disordered in some form or another.

The problem isn't whether or not it might "count" as a mental disorder, the problem is our cultural baggage surrounding mental disorders. Most of that cultural baggage isn't good. 

Edited October 23, 2015 by Basilisa Marie

[Peace]

The problem isn't whether or not it might "count" as a mental disorder, the problem is our cultural baggage surrounding mental disorders. Most of that cultural baggage isn't good. 

Well then I say let's address the cultural baggage. People with mental disorders should be afforded the same level of respect as anyone else, of course . . .

[Gabriela]

Well then I say let's address the cultural baggage. People with mental disorders should be afforded the same level of respect as anyone else, of course . . .

Can we not address homosexuality and discrimination on the basis of mental disorders at the same time?

[Aragon]

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

 

I know, but for the purpose of communicating the Faith this distinction between a disordered inclination and the person who has the inclination is almost always lost. Also, when we use this language in our discourse around this sin but not others it can often appear like we're saying ssa people are particularly bad sinners.

[Peace]

Can we not address homosexuality and discrimination on the basis of mental disorders at the same time?

If the situation warrants discussing them separately, that is perfectly fine by me.