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

[Aragon]

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.

I've heard many same sex attracted Catholics, including those who are orthodox and chaste, say that they find this language hurtful. Even if no one converts because we use a "nicer" tone, shouldn't our care for Catholics who struggle with this issue cause us to use more pastorally sensitive language? 

Others are right, if you begin talking to someone in a gay relationship about their 'objectively disordered condition' or whatever they're going to get angry and shut you out.

 

Also, I think it's easy to come up with many better terms

Instrinsically disordered - always sinful

Objectively disordered inclination - Temptation, not ordered towards the proper object of sexuality

[Norseman82]

 

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

 

Because someone had to post it: 

 

 

Edited October 24, 2015 by Norseman82

[dUSt]

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.

Allow me to try this line of thinking out on you... You're saying I should say that you act like a "jerk". If I ever tried to be "nicer" or "softer" and say you act "inconsiderate", you're saying that you would not understand how I felt, because it would water down my feelings?

Instead of "homosexuality is intrinsically disordered" why doesn't the Church say "homosexuality disrupts the naturally planned function of sex".

That's breaking it down by the definition of those words, and says the same thing.

Somebody please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the church teaches that homosexual acts are disordered. She does not teach that homosexuality is a disorder. If 90% of people who read it interpret it as the Church teaching that homosexuality is a disorder, then I think it's just common sense that the language should be changed to better define what the Church teaches on the matter.

[Credo in Deum]

 

Somebody please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the church teaches that homosexual acts are disordered. She does not teach that homosexuality is a disorder. If 90% of people who read it interpret it as the Church teaching that homosexuality is a disorder, then I think it's just common sense that the language should be changed to better define what the Church teaches on the matter.

Both the acts and inclination are considered disordered.

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,¹⁴¹ tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."¹⁴² They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved. 

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition

I say we replace 'disordered' with 'discombobulated'.

Problem solved.

Edited October 24, 2015 by Credo in Deum
I edit what I want!

[dUSt]

Both the acts and inclination are considered disordered.

I guess I should have been more specific. Yes, the act is "intrinsically disordered" and the inclination is "objectively disordered". But, is homosexuality a disorder--as in the common understanding of how that word is used (mental disorder, learning disorder, etc). Also, is the act not "objectively" disordered as well? And is not the inclination "intrinsically disordered" too? Why is there a differentiation? WHAT DOES THE CHURCH MEAN!? If I don't understand it, how could the average MSNBC viewer possibly understand it?

[Aragon]

I guess I should have been more specific. Yes, the act is "intrinsically disordered" and the inclination is "objectively disordered". But, is homosexuality a disorder--as in the common understanding of how that word is used (mental disorder, learning disorder, etc). Also, is the act not "objectively" disordered as well? And is not the inclination "intrinsically disordered" too? Why is there a differentiation? WHAT DOES THE CHURCH MEAN!? If I don't understand it, how could the average MSNBC viewer possibly understand it?

 

It doesn't mean 'mental disorder'. The Church doesn't have the competency or authority to hand out psychiatric diagnoses. And 'objectively' here isn't being used as the opposite of 'subjectively'.

Instrinsically means it's sinful (disordered in itself). Objectively disordered means it's not sinful in itself but is directed towards an act (an object) that is sinful. Because the inclination is ordered towards an object that is sinful (homosexual activity) it is "objectively disordered". Of course, as you point out, the fact that the owner of a Catholic forum doesn't easily understand those terms demonstrates how ineffective (and even counterproductive) they are for both evangelisation and pastoral care. +Chaput is right. We need to use language that expresses the teaching of the Church on this issue in both a clearer and more charitable way.

Act: always sinful
Inclination: Not sinful, but a temptation to a sinful act.

Same meaning. Much clearer. Doesn't make same sex attracted people sound like they're lepers.

Edited October 24, 2015 by Aragon

[Basilisa Marie]

I guess I should have been more specific. Yes, the act is "intrinsically disordered" and the inclination is "objectively disordered". But, is homosexuality a disorder--as in the common understanding of how that word is used (mental disorder, learning disorder, etc). Also, is the act not "objectively" disordered as well? And is not the inclination "intrinsically disordered" too? Why is there a differentiation? WHAT DOES THE CHURCH MEAN!? If I don't understand it, how could the average MSNBC viewer possibly understand it?

The Church doesn't have an official position on whether or not homosexuality is a disorder like how bipolar and depression are disorders. It believes sexual attraction to members of the same sex is a disorder in the sense that it's objectively not ordered toward the natural purpose of sex. So the actions and the inclination is intrinsically disordered. But experiencing the inclination is not sinful. Only the actions are. Any inclination we experience toward sin is disordered; homosexuality isn't the only disordered inclination. That is, experiencing temptation isn't sinful. 

[Credo in Deum]

 If I don't understand it, how could the average MSNBC viewer possibly understand it?

This is assuming the average MSNBC viewer wants to understand it.  

[Aragon]

The Church doesn't have an official position on whether or not homosexuality is a disorder like how bipolar and depression are disorders. It believes sexual attraction to members of the same sex is a disorder in the sense that it's objectively not ordered toward the natural purpose of sex. So the actions and the inclination is intrinsically disordered. But experiencing the inclination is not sinful. Only the actions are. Any inclination we experience toward sin is disordered; homosexuality isn't the only disordered inclination. That is, experiencing temptation isn't sinful. 

My question is though, if this is the case, then why do we seem to reserve this language for homosexuality? Why not just talk about the 'temptation' to homosexual acts rather than the disordered inclination to homosexuality. It makes it sound like same sex attracted people are especially bad sinners who have an 'objective disorder', while the rest of us just deal with our garden variety 'temptations'.

[Basilisa Marie]

My question is though, if this is the case, then why do we seem to reserve this language for homosexuality? Why not just talk about the 'temptation' to homosexual acts rather than the disordered inclination to homosexuality. It makes it sound like same sex attracted people are especially bad sinners who have an 'objective disorder', while the rest of us just deal with our garden variety 'temptations'.

We don't actually reserve it for homosexuality. It just so happens to be most popular with people talking about homosexuality. 

And also: Duh. Which is why I'm very pro-changing our word choice.  

Though it shouldn't be ignored that homosexual acts are a serious sin, and it's very much understood by most people to not be seriously sinful. It's not like my desire to each too much chocolate than is good for me. Or my desire to constantly break the speed limit. It's even different from the desire to have lots of hetereosexual sex, because in that case while premarital and extramarital sex is sinful, the desire to have sex with someone of the opposite sex isn't inherently directed away from good things. In some important ways it's directed to the natural purpose of sex. That's one reason why using "disorder" is so popular, because for all it's flaws it highlights the important difference between heterosexual sex and homosexual sex (and masturbation, for that matter). 

The objective nature of homosexuality makes it different from many other kinds of sexual sins. But there's a difference between the objective nature and the pastoral implications, a line that often gets obscured when we talk about it. Like you said, we often give the impression that homosexuals are especially dangerous, notorious sinners when heterosexuals are just as likely to be dangerous, notorious sinners. 

 

[dominicansoul]

I wonder if the term "homophobic bigot" will change to describe a Christian who opposes same sex "marriage."  

 

 

 

Im not holding my breath...lol!

[Socrates]

According to Catholic teaching, the only proper ordering of human sexuality is between a man and a woman; anything else is disordered.

I homosexual acts were not disordered (wrongly ordered), there would be nothing inherently wrong with them, and if homosexual desires were not disordered, it would not be wrong to act on them.

Such sexuality is itself disordered; whether the "root cause"  is psychological, physical, or something else, is largely beside the point.

I agree with Knight and others that I'm not sure how exactly the language can be changed without watering down or distorting moral teaching.  Anything other than saying that homosexuality is perfectly good and fine will upset the LGBT-whatever crowd.

It's sad that for many in the Church, being pc and not hurting people's feelings seems to have taken top priority over teaching truth and saving souls.

[Gabriela]

According to Catholic teaching, the only proper ordering of human sexuality is between a man and a woman; anything else is disordered.

I homosexual acts were not disordered (wrongly ordered), there would be nothing inherently wrong with them, and if homosexual desires were not disordered, it would not be wrong to act on them.

Such sexuality is itself disordered; whether the "root cause"  is psychological, physical, or something else, is largely beside the point.

I agree with Knight and others that I'm not sure how exactly the language can be changed without watering down or distorting moral teaching.  Anything other than saying that homosexuality is perfectly good and fine will upset the LGBT-whatever crowd.

It's sad that for many in the Church, being pc and not hurting people's feelings seems to have taken top priority over teaching truth and saving souls.

Try hurting people's feelings and then saving their souls.

Let me know if that works out for you.

[Socrates]

Try hurting people's feelings and then saving their souls.

Let me know if that works out for you.

You're missing the point.  

I didn't say the starting point for evangelization should be yelling at homosexuals that their behavior is disordered, but at some point, we're going to have to tell people that such behavior is sinful, and they'll want an explanation why.

Some people's feelings are hurt when we say that certain behavior is sinful or that homosexual "marriage" is not marriage.  That doesn't mean such teaching should be changed, or buried from sight.

Much of Christian moral teaching is not popular, and not what people want to hear.  True compassion is good; watering down or staying silent on "controversial" teachings is not.

[Gabriela]

You're missing the point.  

I didn't say the starting point for evangelization should be yelling at homosexuals that their behavior is disordered, but at some point, we're going to have to tell people that such behavior is sinful, and they'll want an explanation why.

Some people's feelings are hurt when we say that certain behavior is sinful or that homosexual "marriage" is not marriage.  That doesn't mean such teaching should be changed, or buried from sight.

Much of Christian moral teaching is not popular, and not what people want to hear.  True compassion is good; watering down or staying silent on "controversial" teachings is not.

Ah, I see. Yes, I agree with you. Eventually it will come out. But the timing is important: People should know that we care about and love them before we "drop the 'disordered' bomb" on them. Because if they know that, they'll hear us out.

Or they won't. You can never tell, and everyone is different. But the chances are a lot better with love and compassion.