Homosexuality

[Jaime]

Again I am not arguing to normalize homosexuality. Nor am I (as Apotheon offensively infers) suggesting that one should oppose Church doctrine on homosexual actions. I am showing through competent Church and secular sources that one cannot automatically make the leap from intrinsically disordered to mentally disordered. By making that automatic and sweeping generalization, it is defining a person by his/her sexuality.

"You are homosexual? You have a mental problem."

That is isn't a correct assessment and it goes against what we should do as Catholics. By automatically assuming that the homosexual is mentally ill (no exceptions) you are defining the person by his/her sexuality and I don't think that's right. The human person, made in the image and likeness of God, can hardly be adequately described by a reductionist reference to his or her sexual orientation. Every one living on the face of the earth has personal problems and difficulties, but challenges to growth, strengths, talents and gifts as well. Today, the Church provides a badly needed context for the care of the human person when she refuses to consider the person as a "heterosexual" or a "homosexual".

I have stated Church teachings

It is objectively disordered
Homosexual actions are sinful
Homosexuals cannot automatically be presumed to be mentally unhealthy.

[Cam42]

Before you folks even get started......

What hot stuff posted at the end is NOT a syllogism. Don't try and prove him wrong with it....

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='986936' date='May 22 2006, 05:51 AM']
[. . .] Homosexuals cannot automatically be presumed to be mentally unhealthy.
[/quote]
A man who desires to have sex with another man exhibits a pathological condition that is objectively disordered; and so, as far as his sexual development is concerned, he is mentally unhealthy, because he desires something that is unnatural, abnormal, and mentally defective, a true disorder of the mind ([i]psyche[/i]). There is no sense in which homosexual desires that perdure over time can be seen as mentally normal.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='987055' date='May 22 2006, 10:12 AM']
A man who desires to have sex with another man exhibits a pathological condition that is objectively disordered; and so, as far as his sexual development is concerned, he is mentally unhealthy, because he desires something that is unnatural, abnormal, and mentally defective, a true disorder of the mind ([i]psyche[/i]). There is no sense in which homosexual desires that perdure over time can be seen as mentally normal.
[/quote]


You have yet to clarify the distinction the Church makes between one objective disorder and another. Since Lust is objectively disordered, can you make the same sweeping statement?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='986936' date='May 22 2006, 05:51 AM']
[. . .] Today, the Church provides a badly needed context for the care of the human person when she refuses to consider the person as a "heterosexual" or a "homosexual".
[. . .][/quote]
Of course no one [b]is[/b] a homosexual, because you cannot reduce a person to disordered inclinations and desires. That being said, heterosexual desires are perfectly natural, while homosexual desires are not, and this necessary distinction is a truth which the Church holds to be absolute and unchangeable.

Finally, if you read the posts that I have written over the last two years on this difficult moral and theological issue, you will see immediately that I have always refused to reduce a man to the disordered inclinations that afflict his mind.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='987071' date='May 22 2006, 08:17 AM']
You have yet to clarify the distinction the Church makes between one objective disorder and another. Since Lust is objectively disordered, can you make the same sweeping statement?
[/quote]
Perhaps this example will be helpful: Fornication is objectively disordered because it is a use of the conjugal act by a man and woman who are not in the stable covenantal relationship of marriage. Thus, it is gravely sinful for a man to have sex with a woman who is not his wife. Nevertheless, the act -- although gravely sinful -- remains a natural act, that is, it is an act in which the genital organs are used according to nature, and the desires underlying the act are normal (i.e., the act involves the natural desires of a man for a woman).

On the other hand, fornication between two men is both gravely sinful and unnatural. It is an act that misuses the genital organ of one man, and the anus of the other man, which makes the act sinful, and the desires connected to it abnormal. A man who experiences homosexual desires that perdure over time exhibits a lack of proper sexual development, and as such he is mentally unhealthy.

Now it is quite clear that in the former example the action itself is gravely sinful, but the sexual desires underlying the act remain natural (i.e., the natural desire of a man for a woman), while in the latter example the action is gravely sinful, and in addition to this, the sexual desires underlying the action are objectively disordered and unnatural.

In other words, the latter case (i.e., between the two men) exhibits a disorder of the mind ([i]psyche[/i]) because it involves a misuse of the body in an act that is an unnatural vice, and in addition, the desires underlying the act are, and always will be, objectively disordered. Thus, the homosexual condition involves a disorder of the mind in which the natural desire of a man for a woman has been replaced by the unnatural desire of a man for a man. That being said, there can be no comparison between heterosexual desires, which are perfectly natural, and homosexual desires, which are intrinsically disordered, and which the CDF itself has described as, ". . . a more or less strong tendency ordered toward and intrinsic moral evil." [CDF Instruction [u]Homosexualitatis Problema[/u], no. 3] In other words, not only are homosexual acts objectively disordered, but the homosexual inclination itself -- although not a sin -- is objectively disordered, while heterosexual desires (properly developed) are, and always will be, perfectly natural, even when they lead to a sinful action.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='987130' date='May 22 2006, 11:04 AM']
Perhaps this example will be helpful: Fornication is objectively disordered because it is a use of the conjugal act by a man and woman who are not in the stable covenantal relationship of marriage. Thus, it is gravely sinful for a man to have sex with a woman who is not his wife. Nevertheless, the act -- although gravely sinful -- remains a natural act, that is, it is an act in which the genital organs are used according to nature, and the desires underlying the act are normal (i.e., the act involves the natural desires of a man for a woman).

On the other hand, fornication between two men is both gravely sinful and unnatural. It is an act that misuses the genital organ of one man, and the anus of the other man, which makes the act sinful, and the desires connected to it abnormal. A man who experiences homosexual desires that perdure over time exhibits a lack of proper sexual development, and as such he is mentally unhealthy.

Now it is quite clear that in the former example the action itself is gravely sinful, but the sexual desires underlying the act remain natural (i.e., the natural desire of a man for a woman), while in the latter example the action is gravely sinful, and in addition to this, the sexual desires underlying the action are objectively disordered and unnatural.

In other words, the latter case (i.e., between the two men) exhibits a disorder of the mind ([i]psyche[/i]) because it involves a misuse of the body in an act that is an unnatural vice, and in addition, the desires underlying the act are, and always will be, objectively disordered. Thus, the homosexual condition involves a disorder of the mind in which the natural desire of a man for a woman has been replaced by the unnatural desire of a man for a man. That being said, there can be no comparison between heterosexual desires, which are perfectly natural, and homosexual desires, which are intrinsically disordered, and which the CDF itself has described as, ". . . a more or less strong tendency ordered toward and intrinsic moral evil." [CDF Instruction [u]Homosexualitatis Problema[/u], no. 3] In other words, not only are homosexual acts objectively disordered, but the homosexual inclination itself -- although not a sin -- is objectively disordered, while heterosexual desires (properly developed) are, and always will be, perfectly natural, even when they lead to a sinful action.
[/quote]


And again Todd you sidestep the question. (Deftly mind you but still a sidestep nonetheless.) You refer to natural desires. Which is not what I'm asking. I am asking about lust. Which is intrinsically disordered. I'm not asking about the acts. We're all clear on that. I cannot state it any clearer. Unless you disagree with the Church's teachings on lust, and deny that lust is objectively disordered.

Please tell me if you will make the same argument that lust is a mental disorder as well.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='987173' date='May 22 2006, 10:09 AM']
And again Todd you sidestep the question. (Deftly mind you but still a sidestep nonetheless.) You refer to natural desires. Which is not what I'm asking. I am asking about lust. Which is intrinsically disordered. I'm not asking about the acts. We're all clear on that. I cannot state it any clearer. Unless you disagree with the Church's teachings on lust, and deny that lust is objectively disordered.

Please tell me if you will make the same argument that lust is a mental disorder as well.
[/quote]
No, hot stuff, I have not side stepped the question at all.

As far as lustful desires are concerned, they are disordered [i]per accidens[/i], while homosexual desires are disordered [i]per se[/i]. Now the fact that you do not recognize this important distinction is disturbing to say the least.

[Jaime]

Incidentally I'd like an apology for the insult issued. It was uncalled for

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='987202' date='May 22 2006, 10:37 AM']
Incidentally I'd like an apology for the insult issued. It was uncalled for
[/quote]
No apology will be forthcoming, because I have not insulted you at all. I have simply pointed out your error on this topic.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='986551' date='May 21 2006, 03:48 PM']
No, it is not simply my opinion, because the Church teaches that the homosexual inclination is an objective disorder. [b]Your position mirrors that of Sister Jeannine Gramick in many ways.
[/b]
The homosexual condition is an objective disorder of the mind that frustrates the proper complimentarity of man and woman.
[/quote]


This is where I am expecting an apology. I have never once endorsed anything contrary to Church teachings. Yet you compare me to a woman who has and has been silenced for it.

It was wrong and uncalled for

[Cam42]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='987221' date='May 22 2006, 02:03 PM']
[quote name='Apotheoun @ May 21 2006' date=' 03:48 PM']No, it is not simply my opinion, because the Church teaches that the homosexual inclination is an objective disorder. [b]Your position mirrors that of Sister Jeannine Gramick in many ways.[/b]

The homosexual condition is an objective disorder of the mind that frustrates the proper complimentarity of man and woman.[/quote]



This is where I am expecting an apology. I have never once endorsed anything contrary to Church teachings. Yet you compare me to a woman who has and has been silenced for it.

It was wrong and uncalled for
[/quote]

Nice to see that I am not the only one he refuses to apologize to, NOT. It is sad that someone with the mind of Todd cannot recognize when he is wrong.....And all of this creates angst when it doesn't need too.

Looks like you have lost a little more respect, Todd.....and all you have to do is make two apologies and you get it all back.

[Apotheoun]

The bruised egos of "Church Scholars" at Phatmass are irrelevant to the present discussion.

What is important is that the Church's teaching on the objectively disordered nature of the homosexual condition be presented fully and faithfully. That being said, the idea that any Catholic theologian would have a problem saying that homosexual desires -- that persist over time -- are a mental defect is troubling, since these desires are disordered [i]per se[/i], and not merely [i]per accidens[/i].

[Jaime]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='987376' date='May 22 2006, 04:16 PM']
The bruised egos of "Church Scholars" at Phatmass are irrelevant to the present discussion.

What is important is that the Church's teaching on the objectively disordered nature of the homosexual condition be presented fully and faithfully. That being said, the idea that any Catholic theologian would have a problem saying that homosexual desires -- that persist over time -- are a mental defect is troubling, since these desires are disordered [i]per se[/i], and not merely [i]per accidens[/i].
[/quote]

Yes it is important. And I have done so accurately. For you to state that it is a mental disorder when the Church clearly does not obfuscates the issue and misleads. You are trying to justify your own beliefs by twisting Church teachings instead of justifying Church teachings and amending your beliefs to them.

And if you would like to illumine where the Church defines the distinctions between objectively disordered per se and per accidens and how that translates into mental illness, I would be grateful.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='987376' date='May 22 2006, 05:16 PM']
The bruised egos of "Church Scholars" at Phatmass are irrelevant to the present discussion.

What is important is that the Church's teaching on the objectively disordered nature of the homosexual condition be presented fully and faithfully. That being said, the idea that any Catholic theologian would have a problem saying that homosexual desires -- that persist over time -- are a mental defect is troubling, since these desires are disordered [i]per se[/i], and not merely [i]per accidens[/i].
[/quote]

And when the overinflated ego of another "Church Scholar" causes the problem, then it is relevent.

Grow up, Todd. You are incorrect. You have no leg to stand upon, because hot stuff is ultimately right, so as usual, you are resorting to symantics to try and justify your position.

Where does the Church say that the homosexual person is intrinsically mentally disordered?

No one is arguing that the [u]homosexual act[/u] is not disordered [i]per se.[/i] What is being argued is that it is improper to say that the homosexual person is disordered [i]per se.[/i]

[quote name='hot stuff'] The human person, made in the image and likeness of God, can hardly be adequately described by a reductionist reference to his or her sexual orientation. Every one living on the face of the earth has personal problems and difficulties, but challenges to growth, strengths, talents and gifts as well. Today, the Church provides a badly needed context for the care of the human person when she refuses to consider the person as a "heterosexual" or a "homosexual".[/quote]

That just about sums it up.