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

[Ice_nine]

As someone who has er, suffered mental illness (just the boring kinds, not the manic, hallucinatory kinds) I think it's kind of funny how people recoil at the term disordered as if saying someone has a mental disorder is an insult. With all this talk about privilege and micro-aggressions and stigma you'd think the pro-gay camp would be a little more sensitive to this. Alas . . . no.

I think we're all at least a little mentally ill and it's just a matter of degrees. Part of me thinks a word change is in order because being gay is not necessarily a mental disorder and that's what people think of when they hear the word, the other part of me doesn't give a flying anything.

I choose apathy in this matter.

[Gabriela]

As someone who has er, suffered mental illness (just the boring kinds, not the manic, hallucinatory kinds) I think it's kind of funny how people recoil at the term disordered as if saying someone has a mental disorder is an insult. With all this talk about privilege and micro-aggressions and stigma you'd think the pro-gay camp would be a little more sensitive to this. Alas . . . no.

Excellent point.

[PhuturePriest]

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

I was hungry. I'm not me when I'm hungry.

[Gabriela]

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

Voris knocked sense into him.

Right, FP?

 

[PhuturePriest]

Voris knocked sense into him.

Right, FP?

 

He certainly did. Not in the way which was intended, of course, but I have most certainly been enlightened.

[Socrates]

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'. 
 

That CDF letter didn't actually term that coin, but anyway . . . "Objectively disordered" means disordered in its object - in this case, meaning that a member of the same sex is not the proper object of sexual attraction for a person.

Thus, unlike heterosexual attraction, homosexual attraction cannot have a good and licit end, and cannot be regarded as something good in itself.

 

And nobody said that homosexuality is the only disordered tendency that exists.  That particular CDF letter was specifically addressing the homosexuality issue, and countering those in the Church who were wrongly claiming nothing is wrong with the homosexual condition and/or acts.

You really don't have a lot of people loudly insisting that nothing is wrong or disordered with tendencies towards lying or theft.  (And, while plenty of people may see nothing wrong with masturbation, that issue hasn't become as politicized as homosexuality.)

But, as you seem hung up on this issue, and determined not to change your mind, I really don't see a point in belaboring it further.  I suspect those upset by the word "disordered" will only be satisfied if the Church declares nothing to be wrong with homosexuality at all.

[Aragon]

That CDF letter didn't actually term that coin, but anyway . . . "Objectively disordered" means disordered in its object - in this case, meaning that a member of the same sex is not the proper object of sexual attraction for a person.

Thus, unlike heterosexual attraction, homosexual attraction cannot have a good and licit end, and cannot be regarded as something good in itself.

 

And nobody said that homosexuality is the only disordered tendency that exists.  That particular CDF letter was specifically addressing the homosexuality issue, and countering those in the Church who were wrongly claiming nothing is wrong with the homosexual condition and/or acts.

You really don't have a lot of people loudly insisting that nothing is wrong or disordered with tendencies towards lying or theft.  (And, while plenty of people may see nothing wrong with masturbation, that issue hasn't become as politicized as homosexuality.)

But, as you seem hung up on this issue, and determined not to change your mind, I really don't see a point in belaboring it further.  I suspect those upset by the word "disordered" will only be satisfied if the Church declares nothing to be wrong with homosexuality at all.

1. The CDF letter did coin the term. It was never used prior to that letter. Show me a Church document written prior to the 1986 letter with the term 'objectively disordered'.

2. The letter clearly states that the homosexual inclination is disordered because it leads to a disordered activity. The "object" isn't male/female (if this were the case, what about bisexual people?) but the "object" is homosexual acts.

No, as we both agree the tendency to homosexual acts isn't the only "disordered tendency" that exists, however rarely do I see Catholics using similar terminology  to discuss other temptations.

"But, as you seem hung up on this issue, and determined not to change your mind, I really don't see a point in belaboring it further.  I suspect those upset by the word "disordered" will only be satisfied if the Church declares nothing to be wrong with homosexuality at all."

 

Plenty of people who are orthodox Catholics have expressed their opinion that 'disordered' language causes more confusion than clarity. Stop trying to paint anyone who disagrees with you as a heretic.

[Credo in Deum]

I predict 10 pages.