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

[StMichael]

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

 

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

Everything and anything to confuse the flock. Maybe Pope Francis can swap out with Pope Benedict XVI and we can get order restored. 

[IgnatiusofLoyola]

Everything and anything to confuse the flock. Maybe Pope Francis can swap out with Pope Benedict XVI and we can get order restored. 

What's wrong with Pope Francis? I think he's great. Why would we need (or want) to "swap out" with Pope Benedict?

Edited October 26, 2015 by IgnatiusofLoyola

[dUSt]

Everything and anything to confuse the flock. Maybe Pope Francis can swap out with Pope Benedict XVI and we can get order restored. 

So, I take it you do not support Pope Francis?

[dUSt]

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.

OK, so if the Church uses the real life definition of disordered, then you should have no problem at all changing "homosexual acts are disordered" to:

"homosexual acts disrupt the healthy or normal functioning of sex"

OR

"homosexual acts are morally reprehensible" (a definition Merriam-webster has marked as "obsolete")

Exactly what I suggested earlier in this thread. How is a single word more accurate than the full definition of that word--especially if that word is commonly used in a way that does not match the definition?

There are multiple definitions, so I'm not sure which one of the "real life" definitions the Church uses.

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."

I don't remember writing that. I should have said the church teaches that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. I also have yet to find where the Church teaches that homosexuality is a disorder. It would be helpful if you could show me where.

Remember, first clarify which definition of "disordered" the Church is using. Then, for the second point, please be aware that "disordered" and "disorder" are defined differently by Merriam-webster. "Disorder" is defined as "a physical or mental condition that is not normal or healthy". So on one hand, we have a definition that says "disrupts the healthy functioning of" and on the other hand we have "a mental condition that is not healthy". To me, these seem like two completely different things--but the Church uses the same word without further clarification.

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.

You see, I have this crazy super power called "impartiality"--where, I can defend the Church in Her current stance while also remaining open to how the Church may want to clarify language when needed. I know, it's crazy. I would hate to be limited to the mere mortal powers of only seeing issues in black and white.

 

 

[StMichael]

So, I take it you do not support Pope Francis?

I support the Church.

I do not support the confusion that is being created by this Pope.

[dUSt]

I support the Church.

I do not support the confusion that is being created by this Pope.

OK, you avoided the question so I'll take that as you not supporting Pope Francis.

[Nihil Obstat]

 

Remember, first clarify which definition of "disordered" the Church is using. Then, for the second point, please be aware that "disordered" and "disorder" are defined differently by Merriam-webster. "Disorder" is defined as "a physical or mental condition that is not normal or healthy". So on one hand, we have a definition that says "disrupts the healthy functioning of" and on the other hand we have "a mental condition that is not healthy". To me, these seem like two completely different things--but the Church uses the same word without further clarification.

 

 

It would not particularly strain one's credibility to use the MW definition, simply adding "spiritual condition." I.e. "a spiritual condition that is not normal or healthy." I think that would be undeniably true, based on Catholic principles.

By the way, the OED definition is "Put out of order, thrown into confusion; disarranged, confused, irregular. Not according to order or rule, irregular. Morally irregular, vitiated, corrupt; disorderly, unruly, riotous."

Those definitions do not seem particularly to conflict with the Catholic understanding of homosexuality as objectively disordered. The bulk of the definition does not really carry inflammatory implicature.

[KnightofChrist]

@dust I am unable to respond in full right now. But how do you divide or separate your understanding of Homosexuality from the desire or inclination which the Church teaches is a disorder and the act which is grave sin? Sexuality is an inclination towards sex and engaging in sex if one acts on the inclination.

[dUSt]

@dust I am unable to respond in full right now. But how do you divide or separate your understanding of Homosexuality from the desire or inclination which the Church teaches is a disorder and the act which is grave sin? Sexuality is an inclination towards sex and engaging in sex if one acts on the inclination.

Where does the Church teach that homosexual inclination is a disorder? The Catechism uses the word disorder (noun) nine times, and none of them refer to homosexuality. I have only found where the Church uses the word disordered (verb) when speaking about homosexuality. Again, I am not agreeing or disagreeing, but you keep using this word "disorder" in a way that I have not seen the Church use it.

[KnightofChrist]

I'm unable to paste using the mobile version of pm. CCC 2358 and the Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral care of Homosexual persons teaches that the inclination is disordered.

@dust

 

[dUSt]

@KnightofChrist

Are you saying that the two words "disordered" (verb) and "disorder" (noun) are interchangeable? Because I feel like you are ignoring or overlooking what I am saying.

[KnightofChrist]

@KnightofChrist

Are you saying that the two words "disordered" (verb) and "disorder" (noun) are interchangeable? Because I feel like you are ignoring or overlooking what I am saying.

Ok finally on a real computer again. I'm not ignoring you, but you confuse (noun) me so I am in the state or condition of being confused (verb). Stating that something is "an disorder" is the same as stating that something is "disordered."

Below is the particular part of the Letter by the CDF I was unable to paste earlier.

Explicit treatment of the problem was given in this Congregation's "Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics" of December 29, 1975. That document stressed the duty of trying to understand the homosexual condition and noted that culpability for homosexual acts should only be judged with prudence. At the same time the Congregation took note of the distinction commonly drawn between the homosexual condition or tendency and individual homosexual actions. These were described as deprived of their essential and indispensable finality, as being "intrinsically disordered", and able in no case to be approved of (cf. n. 8, $4).

In the discussion which followed the publication of the Declaration, however, an overly benign interpretation was given to the homosexual condition itself, some going so far as to call it neutral, or even good. Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder. - Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons

Stating that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered would be the same as stating that stating that the act is an intrinsic disorder. The same goes for the inclination, stating that it is an objective disorder is the same as stating that it is objectively disordered. The difference between the act and the inclination is intrinsic and objective but both are disorders or disordered.

Does that make things clearer?

[dUSt]

 

Does that make things clearer?

Yes, thanks. So, we all have an intrinsic disorder. Homosexual people have a disorder. Heterosexual people have a disorder. I guess the question now becomes why we don't call someone who lies as having a disorder, even though the Catechism says that lying is intrinsically disordered. Technically, I guess we could, but it seems like most people love to use that word for homosexuality, but not for lying. How come?

[Socrates]

A condition that is disordered is often referred to as a "disorder."

For instance,certain disordered conditions of the immune system can be called "auto-immune disorders."

Homosexuality is disordered sexuality.

Here are a few relevant passages from the CDF letter cited by KoC:

In the discussion which followed the publication of the Declaration, however, an overly benign interpretation was given to the homosexual condition itself, some going so far as to call it neutral, or even good. Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder. . . .  To chose someone of the same sex for one's sexual activity is to annul the rich symbolism and meaning, not to mention the goals, of the Creator's sexual design. Homosexual activity is not a complementary union, able to transmit life; and so it thwarts the call to a life of that form of self-giving which the Gospel says is the essence of Christian living. This does not mean that homosexual persons are not often generous and giving of themselves; but when they engage in homosexual activity they confirm within themselves a disordered sexual inclination which is essentially self-indulgent.

 . . . .                 .

Nevertheless, increasing numbers of people today, even within the Church, are bringing enormous pressure to bear on the Church to accept the homosexual condition as though it were not disordered and to condone homosexual activity. Those within the Church who argue in this fashion often have close ties with those with similar views outside it. These latter groups are guided by a vision opposed to the truth about the human person, which is fully disclosed in the mystery of Christ. They reflect, even if not entirely consciously, a materialistic ideology which denies the transcendent nature of the human person as well as the supernatural vocation of every individual.

It seems these people will likely remain unhappy with any language regarding homosexuality that is anything less than benign and positive.

Using watered-down language, unfortunately, tends to lead to watering down truth, and confusion, which ultimately helps no one.

If homosexual inclinations are themselves good, and not disordered, then there would be nothing intrinsically wrong with acting on them.

And, heretical as the notion might be on here, I think Card. Ratzinger understood what he was talking about a bit better than Dust and others.

Yes, thanks. So, we all have an intrinsic disorder. Homosexual people have a disorder. Heterosexual people have a disorder. I guess the question now becomes why we don't call someone who lies as having a disorder, even though the Catechism says that lying is intrinsically disordered. Technically, I guess we could, but it seems like most people love to use that word for homosexuality, but not for lying. How come?

If someone had a general strong inclination toward lying, I would describe that person's condition as disordered.

[PhuturePriest]

A condition that is disordered is often referred to as a "disorder."

For instance,certain disordered conditions of the immune system can be called "auto-immune disorders."

 

Homosexuality is disordered sexuality.

Here are a few relevant passages from the CDF letter cited by KoC:

 

It seems these people will likely remain unhappy with any language regarding homosexuality that is anything less than benign and positive.

Using watered-down language, unfortunately, tends to lead to watering down truth, and confusion, which ultimately helps no one.

If homosexual inclinations are themselves good, and not disordered, then there would be nothing intrinsically wrong with acting on them.

And, heretical as the notion might be on here, I think Card. Ratzinger understood what he was talking about a bit better than Dust and others.

But it's not "watered-down". It's more easily understandable. We're not advocating watering down the language in order to make people happy. We want people to understand what we're saying, because when people hear "disordered" they automatically think we're calling them mentally disordered, which discredits the Church whether rightly or wrongly. It gives them a bad taste in their mouth and it makes them less apt to listen.

Now, if you're of the opinion that we should just smack people upside the head with the cold hard truth so we've *technically* fulfilled Christ's directive to evangelize, that's fine. But I and others here do not think that is most conducive to actual conversion, and so we would like language that is more understandable while retaining the full truth. My desire is to convert people, not proselytize them, and I think language people don't understand and brings bad connotations with it doesn't do that. In fact, based upon my experience with dear friends who have SSA, I *know* it doesn't. At least for the people I know, anyway.

Personally, if a Hindu told me I was disordered because I eat meat, I would feel compelled to laugh at them. As sexuality is a lot more personal than taste preference, I can understand why many get angry when they think the Church tells them they're mentally disordered.

Edited October 27, 2015 by PhuturePriest