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

[Norseman82]

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.

True.  What's going to happen if we change "A" to "B" because "A" is offensive, and then we're told "B" is also offensive?  So, we try "C", only to be told that that is also offensive. 

And on and on.  Give them an inch, they'll take a foot and complain it's not a yard. At the end of the day. it will be like what Col. Nathan Jessup said. 

Who sets the agenda anyway, God or the satanic forces in the world?  Let's take back the agenda and stop playing defense and start putting the puck in their zone.

 

[dUSt]

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.

I think you're also missing the point. It's hard to get past the word disordered. People do not read that word and understand it in a way that it was intended from a Catholic moral perspective--so therefore, the word is not effective in properly communicating the Church's teaching.

[KnightofChrist]

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.

The error in the comparison is that the term "jerk" by definition is an insult. The Church does not use such words.

"Homosexuality disrupts the naturally planned function of sex" sounds like political talk, the clear understanding that the act or function is a grave sin against nature is lost and people who take issue with the word disordered will likely take issue with the word disrupt. 

But which is it? Do you believe the Church teaches that homosexuality is intrinsically disordered or that she does not teach homosexuality is a disorder? You seem to say both.

The Church teaches that homosexual acts are acts of grave depravity, and that the inclination is objectively disordered. Homosexuality is an inclination and/or acting on that inclination.

Your position now is in contradiction to your position on this same subject in April, when we agreed.

2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.

I am disordered.

 

1863 Venial sin weakens charity; it manifests a disordered affection for created goods;

I am disordered.

 

2424 ...The disordered desire for money cannot but produce perverse effects. It is one of the causes of the many conflicts which disturb the social order.

I am disordered.

 

2520 Baptism confers on its recipient the grace of purification from all sins. But the baptized must continue to struggle against concupiscence of the flesh and disordered desires.

I am disordered.

 

1394 As bodily nourishment restores lost strength, so the Eucharist strengthens our charity, which tends to be weakened in daily life; and this living charity wipes away venial sins. By giving himself to us Christ revives our love and enables us to break our disordered attachments to creatures and root ourselves in him

I am disordered.

 

2352 ..."Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action."

I am disordered.

 

1768 ... The upright will orders the movements of the senses it appropriates to the good and to beatitude; an evil will succumbs to disordered passions and exacerbates them.

I am disordered.

[...] The Catechism tells ME that I am disordered many times. I want my church to be clear on morality. I want to know how to live my life to follow Christ. I do not want the Church to change, I want ME to change. I do not want to conform God to me, but rather, conform myself to God. There are thousands of outlets that are unclear and ambiguous when it comes to morality--even in many churches. That is not what I want from my Church, because I don't think God is an ambiguous God.

 

I do agree that using the term "disordered" in a casual conversation or a discussion about a topic is more harmful than good. It is not out of place in the Catechism though. The Catechism is more like a textbook. People don't usually talk like they are reading from a textbook. It is important to have the ability to explain things to people in a manner that does not shut them off--because when that happens, you are only talking to hear yourself talk.

I agree in part that laity could use other words that mean the same thing. They should be careful in doing so however to avoid ambiguity, being unclear or water down the teaching of the Church. I also still agree with what you said then, we should change not the Church.

[dominicansoul]

 

 

 

Let's get real, though...who actually uses the word "disordered" when evangelizing?  Catechism classes are different, we read from the text of a resource book.  But out on the street? Amongst your family members and friends?   Are we yelling at people with signs that say, "You all are intrinsically disordered!"  We're not the Westboro Baptists!  :D

 

 

Wow.  Maybe dUSt "evolved."  lol!

Edited October 26, 2015 by dominicansoul

[PhuturePriest]

 

The error in the comparison is that the term "jerk" by definition is an insult. The Church does not use such words.

"Homosexuality disrupts the naturally planned function of sex" sounds like political talk, the clear understanding that the act or function is a grave sin against nature is lost and people who take issue with the word disordered will likely take issue with the word disrupt. 

But which is it? Do you believe the Church teaches that homosexuality is intrinsically disordered or that she does not teach homosexuality is a disorder? You seem to say both.

The Church teaches that homosexual acts are acts of grave depravity, and that the inclination is objectively disordered. Homosexuality is an inclination and/or acting on that inclination.

Your position now is in contradiction to your position on this same subject in April, when we agreed.

 

 

 

 

I agree in part that laity could use other words that mean the same thing. They should be careful in doing so however to avoid ambiguity, being unclear or water down the teaching of the Church. I also still agree with what you said then, we should change not the Church.

Dust is saying they aren't mentally disordered, which is what most people think when they hear the word "disorder". It's not helpful when people have no clue what we're talking about when we say it.

[CrossCuT]

 

The Church teaches that homosexual acts are acts of grave depravity, and that the inclination is objectively disordered. Homosexuality is an inclination and/or acting on that inclination.

 

But the inclination isnt a sin, just the act right? A person doesnt choose to have that inclination but they can choose to act on it.

And what does that mean to the big picture if the inclination is just as disordered as the action, do you propose curing people of that inclination?

[dUSt]

 

The error in the comparison is that the term "jerk" by definition is an insult. The Church does not use such words.

Oh, I didn't mean it as an insult. I was using it in a way that was suppose to be taken from a pure definition standpoint, without any of the negative connotations. If you took it differently you just don't understand my viewpoint and it is not my responsibility to make it clear to you. It is your responsibility to study everything I've said in the past to arrive at the correct interpretation.

But which is it? Do you believe the Church teaches that homosexuality is intrinsically disordered or that she does not teach homosexuality is a disorder? You seem to say both.

I can honestly say that I don't know what the church's answer to those two questions are, in the way you worded them.

Your position now is in contradiction to your position on this same subject in April, when we agreed.

 In April I was trying to show how the Church does not discriminate with her language when it comes to homosexuality. I still agree with what I said. That doesn't mean that I am closed to the idea of updating the language to even better explain her teaching.

[KnightofChrist]

But the inclination isnt a sin, just the act right? A person doesnt choose to have that inclination but they can choose to act on it.

And what does that mean to the big picture if the inclination is just as disordered as the action, do you propose curing people of that inclination?

The inclination alone isn't a sin, to act on that inclination or to entertain it is a sin. It's similar to a man who is tempted or who has the inclination to have sex with a woman that is not his wife. If he entertains those thoughts he has committed adultery with her in his heart.

Homosexuality, like any sexual sin or inclination to a sexual sin, can be over come by repentance and chastity. That doesn't mean the inclination is cured or purged from the person. For many the inclination will always be a cross to bare but I do think it is possible for some, some, repeat some people to get to the point where they are no longer tempted or have a the inclination.  But that depends on the person, different people are effect in different ways by temptation.

[KnightofChrist]

 

Oh, I didn't mean it as an insult. I was using it in a way that was suppose to be taken from a pure definition standpoint, without any of the negative connotations. If you took it differently you just don't understand my viewpoint and it is not my responsibility to make it clear to you. It is your responsibility to study everything I've said in the past to arrive at the correct interpretation.

I understood that you wanted me to pretend that the word "jerk" has no negative connotations. I understood that this purely imaginary definition of the word "jerk" is comparable to the Church's real life definition and use of the word "disordered." I understood people would not use this erroneous and imaginary definition but rather the real definition of the word "jerk" and thus misunderstand and be insulted. I understood that this is comparable to people using a different and/or erroneous definition of the word "disorder" than the Church because in both cases people don't understand the way the word is being used and are insulted.

 

I can honestly say that I don't know what the church's answer to those two questions are, in the way you worded them.

Is it my responsibility to make it clear to you or should it be your responsibility to study what I've said and arrive at the correct interpretation? Anyway, I'll try to be clearer, in one paragraph you seem to say the Church teaches that "homosexuality is intrinsically disordered" and suggest a change but a paragraph or so later you say "She (the Church) does not teach that homosexuality is a disorder."

 In April I was trying to show how the Church does not discriminate with her language when it comes to homosexuality. I still agree with what I said. That doesn't mean that I am closed to the idea of updating the language to even better explain her teaching.

In April we agreed with and both correctly defended the Church's current language, now we seem to disagree with the use of the Church's current language.

Edited October 26, 2015 by KnightofChrist

[Basilisa Marie]

But the inclination isnt a sin, just the act right? A person doesnt choose to have that inclination but they can choose to act on it.

And what does that mean to the big picture if the inclination is just as disordered as the action, do you propose curing people of that inclination?

In inclination isn't sinful because it's like facing a certain direction. It's easier to start walking in that direction than a different direction, because you're already set up to just start walking forward. If that direction is toward something sinful, the Church gets concerned because the point of the Church is to help save people, and one of the big ways you do that is by avoiding sin. 

The thing is, with heterosexual people the Church can at least talk about fulfilling their sexual desire in a moral way. It's like a boat chugging along that needs a few minor course corrections along the way. But with homosexuality, it can't talk about fulfilling sexual desire in a moral way. The boat is entirely turned around, and we're agreeing more and more that it's basically impossible to turn that boat in the "correct" direction. We can talk about relationships but we can't talk about sexual fulfillment in a way except celibacy... which is pretty much the opposite of sexual fulfillment. 

Even if we aren't talking about people committing sins it's big deal, which is why we need to even bother with talking about how it's disordered (no matter what word we use). I mean, we read theologians from Paul through Thomas More through today talking about how marriage can be great for people who can't hack total celibacy. It's a perfectly moral way to channel their sexual desire. Homosexual people don't have that luxury. 

We shouldn't blur the line between "disorder" and "sin" but we can't completely ignore one one of them, either. 

 

Let's get real, though...who actually uses the word "disordered" when evangelizing?  Catechism classes are different, we read from the text of a resource book.  But out on the street? Amongst your family members and friends?   Are we yelling at people with signs that say, "You all are intrinsically disordered!"  We're not the Westboro Baptists!  :D

 

 

Wow.  Maybe dUSt "evolved."  lol!

Funny enough I've actually run into more than a few people who don't get why "disorder" could be misunderstood and really like to use it when talking to people. This whole thread wouldn't even be a thing if people didn't actually use "disorder" when trying to evangelize. 

[Nihil Obstat]

In inclination isn't sinful because it's like facing a certain direction. It's easier to start walking in that direction than a different direction, because you're already set up to just start walking forward. If that direction is toward something sinful, the Church gets concerned because the point of the Church is to help save people, and one of the big ways you do that is by avoiding sin. 

The thing is, with heterosexual people the Church can at least talk about fulfilling their sexual desire in a moral way. It's like a boat chugging along that needs a few minor course corrections along the way. But with homosexuality, it can't talk about fulfilling sexual desire in a moral way. The boat is entirely turned around, and we're agreeing more and more that it's basically impossible to turn that boat in the "correct" direction. We can talk about relationships but we can't talk about sexual fulfillment in a way except celibacy... which is pretty much the opposite of sexual fulfillment. 

Even if we aren't talking about people committing sins it's big deal, which is why we need to even bother with talking about how it's disordered (no matter what word we use). I mean, we read theologians from Paul through Thomas More through today talking about how marriage can be great for people who can't hack total celibacy. It's a perfectly moral way to channel their sexual desire. Homosexual people don't have that luxury. 

We shouldn't blur the line between "disorder" and "sin" but we can't completely ignore one one of them, either. 

Very cogent. Thank you.

[Basilisa Marie]

Very cogent. Thank you.

I might have to throw a dance party. Nihil called me cogent. 

[Nihil Obstat]

I might have to throw a dance party. Nihil called me cogent. 

I am frugal, even stingy with my compliments. Look at how much more meaningful it is this way!

[CrossCuT]

Gag me pls with your religious superiority. 

[Nihil Obstat]

Gag me pls with your religious superiority. 

Well apparently someone's Nando's is not extra cheeky today.

Edited October 26, 2015 by Nihil Obstat