Jump to content
An Old School Catholic Message Board

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


Aragon

Recommended Posts

KnightofChrist

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?

As your list from April shows the Church does call many other sins and inclinations to sin disorders or disordered. I would defend her language in those cases as well if her use of those words were misunderstood, questioned or hated. As to why there are some who do not call other sins disorders as well I cannot answer because I am not those persons. Perhaps it is because homosexuality has so much focus in society today and so many want to make it seem normal and natural which the Church teaches it is not.

Anyway, I'm very tired I'll get back to your other points I missed this evening tomorrow at some time. Pax

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Not in the same sense. Basil explained it above. The heterosexual temptation to lust is not per se disordered because it can, under certain criteria, be properly ordered. Homosexual attraction cannot be properly ordered. Hence, objective disorder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Stop pretending to be an adult.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

A Catholic is not required to approve of or support everything a given pope does.

I agree that his actions regarding the Synod will create confusion and disorder in the Church.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Homosexual attraction cannot be properly ordered. Hence, objective disorder.

Extramarital sexual attraction cannot be properly ordered, so all married men have a disorder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not in the same sense. Basil explained it above. The heterosexual temptation to lust is not per se disordered because it can, under certain criteria, be properly ordered. Homosexual attraction cannot be properly ordered. Hence, objective disorder.

Not to be picky - but in what sense are you using the word "lust" here? I never thought of lust as something that can be properly ordered. If you lust after your wife, for example, then you are just reducing her to an object to satisfy your sexual desires. How is it that you properly order lust?

I do have a bit of trouble distinguishing between an inclination to have sex with someone of the same gender, and an inclination to gamble, drink, etc. Just seems to me that we are all disordered in our own way. We all have our own cross to bear, if you will.

Gay people seem to have an especially tough cross to bear, so like the Catechism says, they should be treated with a lot of compassion. Just a random thought. I think the motivation for people who want to change the word "disorder" is motivated by that compassion. If your motivation to keep the language the same is also based out of compassion, then that is cool too I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Catholic is not required to approve of or support everything a given pope does.

I agree that his actions regarding the Synod will create confusion and disorder in the Church.

OK, well that is fine for your spirituality I guess. Please do not speak badly of the pope on this website. I do not want this website to be used like that--as I don't think it glorifies Christ's Church or leads people closer to that Church--which is my goal for this site.

Edited by dUSt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, well that is fine for your spirituality I guess. Please do not speak badly of the pope on this website. I do not want this website to be used like that--as I don't think it glorifies Christ's Church or leads people closer to that Church--which is my goal for this site.

I bet there are plenty of boards where you can go negative on the Pope if you want. One of the things I like about this site is that that is not allowed. I don't mind if folks disagree with this or that action of the Pope - but make your disagreements respectfully and in a spirit of charity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LionHeartedCrusader

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?

When Adam and Eve were created, they were "Properly Ordered" in the sense that they had not committed sin, if they had continued that original path then they would continue to be "Ordered". However, since Adam and Eve committed the original sin, our fallen human nature deems us "Disordered" because our original order was to not sin AT ALL and be in heaven with Our Lord with no conflicts in the way. Now we have the element of sin which derails this objective and therefore makes us disordered. If things were properly ordered like Our Lord would want them to be, we would not be sinners. While I agree that most people only use this word for homosexuality, whether they do or not, it is still the correct usage. Homosexuality is a disorder, lying is a disorder, stealing is a disorder, etc.

Sin itself, is disordered, and in turn, the sinner who commits it is as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basilisa Marie

Extramarital sexual attraction cannot be properly ordered, so all married men have a disorder.

I guess, but it's still different. 

Maybe a better (though still imperfect) analogy would be all sorts of people having the desire to masturbate. There's nothing about masturbation that's open to life or about encouraging the good of the spouses, it's totally misdirecting the twofold purpose of sex toward your own selfish desires. There's no way masturbation can be moral, because it's inherently disordered. 

Though heterosexual people STILL have the possibility of fulfilling their sexual desires through marriage, which makes homosexuality an especially difficult cross to bear and an especially difficult cross for heterosexuals to really understand what it's like to carry. A principle I think we need to keep in mind when we do get around to pastoral implications. 

Maybe I'm weird but sometimes it feels like spending so much time insisting on getting to use the term disorder to define homosexuality in a philosophical sense is a bit like talking about the laws of thermodynamics while the kitchen is on fire. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not in the same sense. Basil explained it above. The heterosexual temptation to lust is not per se disordered because it can, under certain criteria, be properly ordered. Homosexual attraction cannot be properly ordered. Hence, objective disorder.

The Church also applies the adjective 'disordered' to heterosexual lust, not just homosexual lust. The catechism states very clearly:

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.

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.

 

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

Here's my issue though. You've quoted the 1986 letter that coined the term 'objectively disordered'. Let's have a look at how it defines the term: 

"
n 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."
 

So, same sex attraction is called disordered because it's a "tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil (Church lingo for grave sins)". Well, don't we all have tendencies towards grave sins?

Lying is an instrinsically disordered act according to the Catechism. So is calumny. So is masturbation. But how come we don't call the inclinations to those sins 'objectively disordered inclinations'? It seems like the Church is picking out those who struggle with this sin as being particularly reprehensible, even though the definition of 'objective disorder' given in the 1986 letter is pretty much just a theologically convoluted way of saying 'temptation'. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, same sex attraction is called disordered because it's a "tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil (Church lingo for grave sins)". Well, don't we all have tendencies towards grave sins?

Of course we do.  However, let me explain a possible difference...

I am attracted to my wife.  My desire to biblically "know" her is a rightly ordered (procreative and unitive) desire (all things being equal).  However, that desire, through concupiscence,  can lead me to more selfish motives with my wife explicitly leading to mortal sin..ie.. I just want to be "serviced".  The tendency was toward my wife was rightly ordered; but it didn't turn out that way... The act of homosexuality is, in itself, not open to life (as biologically it cannot be); and is therefore ordered (pointed to) in and of itself (intrinsically) to a moral evil.

It seems like the Church is picking out those who struggle with this sin as being particularly reprehensible, even though the definition of 'objective disorder' given in the 1986 letter is pretty much just a theologically convoluted way of saying 'temptation'. 

I kindly urge you to give your Church the benefit of the doubt.....However, you bring up a great point!  There are lots of other sins, and why does this one get the attention it does.  It is at this time you will be told that the "sin of Sodom" is a sin that "cries out to heaven" for vengeance (Gn 17:20-21).  And alas, they are correct.  However, to your point... it is not the only sin that cries out to heaven..there is also

1) willful murder (Gn 4:10)

2) oppression of the poor (Ex 2:23)

and

3) Defrauding workers of their just wages (Jas 5:4)

Which might cause one to wonder where the outrage is on the other three... especially the last 2?  Or are the poor no longer oppressed and no one is defrauding anyone of a just wage..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

KnightofChrist

Anyway, I'm very tired I'll get back to your other points I missed this evening tomorrow at some time. Pax

Meh, on second thought I'll just let it go, it's not worth worrying about.

Pax

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

What happened to you FP? Suddenly youre 10x more amesome than you were before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Credo in Deum

I say keep the word disordered.  It causes a lot of hubbub and keeps Catholics on their toes on how to explain their faith.  Magisterium 1, Everyone else 0.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...