Homosexuality

[Socrates]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='986918' date='May 22 2006, 05:25 AM']
Feel free to demonstrate where the Church distinguishes between different "levels" of intrinsically disorder.

But that isn't the really the point. You Ap and others argue that because its intrinsically disordered, it has to be a mental disorder. Yet you give a pass for lust.

And you've said
Lust is objectively disordered. Acting out on lust is objectively disordered. So you have to argue that anyone who lusts has a mental disorder.
That logic doesn't work
[/quote]
Have you even bothered to read the passage from St. Thomas Aquinas I linked to at the end of my last post, Church Scholar?

In the [url="http://www.ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/SS/SS154.html#SSQ154OUTP1"]Summa Theologica, Secunda Secundae Pars, Question 154[/url], St. Thomas Aquinas discusses the different species of lust.
[url="http://www.ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/SS/SS154.html#SSQ154A1THEP1"]Article 1: Whether six species are fittingly assigned to lust?[/url]

The Angelic Doctor distinguishes between six species of lust: simple fornication, adultery, incest, seduction, rape, and the unnatural vice.

He distinguishes homosexuality and bestiality as unnatural vice, or [url="http://www.ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/SS/SS154.html#SSQ154A11THEP1"]sins against nature[/url]

[quote]I answer that, As stated above (Articles [6],9) wherever there occurs a special kind of deformity whereby the venereal act is rendered unbecoming, there is a determinate species of lust. This may occur in two ways: First, through being contrary to right reason, and this is common to all lustful vices; [b]secondly, because, in addition, it is contrary to the natural order of the venereal act as becoming to the human race: and this is called "the unnatural vice."[/b] This may happen in several ways. First, by procuring pollution, without any copulation, for the sake of venereal pleasure: this pertains to the sin of "uncleanness" which some call "effeminacy." Secondly, by copulation with a thing of undue species, and this is called "bestiality." Thirdly, by copulation with an undue sex, male with male, or female with female, as the Apostle states (Rm. 1:27): and this is called the "vice of sodomy." Fourthly, by not observing the natural manner of copulation, either as to undue means, or as to other monstrous and bestial manners of copulation.[/quote]

St. Thomas then goes on to argue in [url="http://www.ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/SS/SS154.html#SSQ154A12THEP1"]Article 12[/url] that unnatural vice is the greatest sin among the species of lust:
[quote]I answer that, In every genus, worst of all is the corruption of the principle on which the rest depend. Now the principles of reason are those things that are according to nature, because reason presupposes things as determined by nature, before disposing of other things according as it is fitting. This may be observed both in speculative and in practical matters. Wherefore just as in speculative matters the most grievous and shameful error is that which is about things the knowledge of which is naturally bestowed on man, so in matters of action it is most grave and shameful to act against things as determined by nature. Therefore, since by the unnatural vices man transgresses that which has been determined by nature with regard to the use of venereal actions, it follows that in this matter this sin is gravest of all. After it comes incest, which, as stated above (Article [9]), is contrary to the natural respect which we owe persons related to us.[/quote]

So therefore, it is clearly shown that the Church does indeed distinguish unnatural lust from other forms of lust. The Angelic Doctor of the Church considers homosexual acts contrary to nature and right reason, which would indeed make the desire to perform these acts over normal heterosexual intercourse mentally disordered.
Todd has explained this quite well and clearly.

And nobody is "giving a pass for lust." We agree, with St. Thomas, that all lust is sinful: however, we agree with St. Thomas also that unnatural lust is also contrary to nature, which disinguishes it from "normal" lust (lust after a person of the opposite sex).

Even the secular APA originally made this distinction in the DSM: "This category is for individuals whose sexual interests are directed primarily towards objects other than people of the opposite sex, toward sexual acts...performed under bizarre circumstances...Even though many find their practices distasteful, they remain unable to substitute normal sexual behavior for them."

If one is inclined to perform homosexual or other bizarre sex acts, rather than normal sexual intercourse with a person of the opposite sex, such a condition is mentally disordered.

[quote name='hot stuff' post='986936' date='May 22 2006, 06:51 AM']
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.
[/quote]
This argument is nonsensical. Calling a homosexual inclination mentally disordered is simply calling it as it is. It has nothing to do with "defining a person by his sexuality."
In fact, it is quite the opposite - it is those who wish to define themselves by their perverted "sexuality" that refuse to call homosexual attraction mentally disordered, but instead fluant their deviant sexuality as something good.

Few people wich to define themselves by their mental disorders. For instance, if I have a severe phobia of heights, for instance, this could be considered a mental disorder, yet it should not "define who I am" as a person.
Recognizing homosexual inclinations as disordered is the first step towards overcoming the problem. Insisting that it is a good, mentally healthy condition, is mere denial, and does not lead to healing and virtue.
The disease must be acknowledged as a disease before it can be properly cured.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Cam42' post='987401' date='May 22 2006, 03:33 PM']
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]
This is more nonsense. The inclination towards homosexuality is what is intrinsically disordered (as the catechism states). No one is arguing that people are intrinsically disordered.

Who's resorting to semantics here?

[ironmonk]

Ok... anyone who experiances same sex attraction, please do not take offense to this, please read Homosexuality and Hope (which I posted a link to it earlier on this thread).

We all have our crosses and by no means do I wish to offend.

-----

Having same sex attraction is a disorder.

Disorder is when something is not in order, i.e. against natural order.

Same sex attraction is against the natural order and therefore is disordered.

Same sex attraction has been considered disordered for thousands of years. The APA's do not have the authority or wisdom to say it is not disordered.

If someone is exeperiancing same sex attraction, then they are disordered.

Lusting after the opposite sex is not disordered because it is within the natural order... it is wrong, but it is not disordered. There can be a point where it comes to be a disorder but there is a gray area there. Whereas with same sex attraction disorder there is no gray area... it is always a disorder.

Anyone who does not think that people who have same sex attraction have a disorder then they obviously do not understand what 'disordered' means.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Socrates' post='987829' date='May 22 2006, 10:17 PM']
This is more nonsense. The inclination towards homosexuality is what is intrinsically disordered (as the catechism states). No one is arguing that people are intrinsically disordered.

Who's resorting to semantics here?
[/quote]

You, sport. I am referring to the current catechetical view.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='ironmonk' post='987975' date='May 22 2006, 11:21 PM']
Lusting after the opposite sex is not disordered because it is within the natural order... it is wrong, but it is not disordered. There can be a point where it comes to be a disorder but there is a gray area there. Whereas with same sex attraction disorder there is no gray area... it is always a disorder.
[/quote]
Could you please provide some sort of documentation on this? My understanding has been that lust IS disordered, in whatever form it manifests itself. I didn't realize there was a gray area in which lust is actually within the natural order.

[Semperviva]

This has most likely already been discussed, but for what it's worth, homosexuality has deep psychological roots that often seem to then manifest themselves physically in terms of attraction (I think it is also important to note that same sex attraction is not inherently lustful and hence not inherently evil). As with depression or other states, this psychological state can lead to chemical or hormonal tendencies/imbalances. However, the question in deeming it a mental disorder is whether or not there are [i]other[/i] factors like genetic, hormonal, etc. besides "(solely) mental disorder" as an accurate decription of this state. Homosexuality is more complex then that.

[quote name='Sojourner' post='988563' date='May 23 2006, 12:23 PM']
My understanding has been that lust IS disordered, in whatever form it manifests itself. I didn't realize there was a gray area in which lust is actually within the natural order.
[/quote]

Your mistake is in automatically connoting homosexuality with lust. This is not the case. Same-sex attraction does not always involve lust. It can and does happen in scenarios where a person apprehends the good of another and feels elated at their presence so as to evoke feeling of being "in-love" in an innocent manner.

Edited May 24, 2006 by Semperviva

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Sojourner' post='988563' date='May 23 2006, 02:23 PM']
Could you please provide some sort of documentation on this? My understanding has been that lust IS disordered, in whatever form it manifests itself. I didn't realize there was a gray area in which lust is actually within the natural order.
[/quote]

Sorry, that's right, it is disordered... What I was meaning is "strong attraction", not actually desiring to have sex. I think many people mistake strong attraction and lust...

[b]2351 [/b]
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.



God Bless,
ironmonk

[Socrates]

[quote name='Cam42' post='987980' date='May 22 2006, 09:27 PM']
You, sport. I am referring to the current catechetical view.
[/quote]
Please carefully read mine and other's posts, as well as St. Thomas Aquinas' writings on the subject of the sin of lust, before throwing out such nonsensical accusations. I have said absolutely nothing here which contradicts the Catechism, or Catholic teaching.
Come off it!

[Jaime]

[quote name='Socrates' post='988967' date='May 23 2006, 07:40 PM']
Please carefully read mine and other's posts, as well as St. Thomas Aquinas' writings on the subject of the sin of lust, before throwing out such nonsensical accusations. I have said absolutely nothing here which contradicts the Catechism, or Catholic teaching.
Come off it!
[/quote]


I think what he is referring to is that you said that homosexual desires were intrinsically disordered. The current catechetical view is that they are objectively disordered. Homosexual actions are intrinsically disordoered

And thanks for the Aquinas, I'm reading up

[Sojourner]

[quote name='ironmonk' post='988941' date='May 23 2006, 08:16 PM']
Sorry, that's right, it is disordered... What I was meaning is "strong attraction", not actually desiring to have sex. I think many people mistake strong attraction and lust...

[b]2351 [/b]
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.
God Bless,
ironmonk
[/quote]
Thanks for the clarification.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='986547' date='May 21 2006, 03:35 PM'][quote]A man suffering from this disorder is not healthy as far as his sexual development is concerned.[/quote]

That should be prefaced with "In my opinion" because that is all it is.[/quote]

Except he is not healthy as far as his sexual development is concerned.

You, in later posts, added the mental part that Todd never mentioned.

By the way, arguing that it is only physical problem is dangerously close to Modernism as I can see it...Andy could probably back this up as he's studied the philosophers.

[Cam42]

hot stuff is doing just fine on his own. And he is nowhere near Modernism.

[Jaime]

[quote name='qfnol31' post='989987' date='May 24 2006, 08:43 PM']
That should be prefaced with "In my opinion" because that is all it is.

Except he is not healthy as far as his sexual development is concerned.

You, in later posts, added the mental part that Todd never mentioned. [edit: smiley smashed into little pieces]

By the way, arguing that it is only physical problem is dangerously close to Modernism as I can see it...Andy could probably back this up as he's studied the philosophers. [edit: smiley set on fire]
[/quote]

If I "added" mental its because its the topic of the thread. speaking of calling folks out on adding stuff, when did I ever say it was a physical problem? I never did because I never would.

What I've stated is not modernism it is in line with Catholic teaching. While homosexual desires are objectively disordered, a person can have them and be considered mentally healthy.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='990255' date='May 25 2006, 09:25 AM']
If I "added" mental its because its the topic of the thread. speaking of calling folks out on adding stuff, when did I ever say it was a physical problem? I never did because I never would.

What I've stated is not modernism it is in line with Catholic teaching. While homosexual desires are objectively disordered, a person can have them and be considered mentally healthy.
[/quote]
How can you be disordered and healthy at the same time? Seems like an oxymoron to me.

[Semalsia]

[quote name='KnightofChrist']So Homosexuality is a metal disorder. There are many ppl with a metal illness that can not or will not see their dis-order... their failer to see it doesnt prove anything.[/quote]

Someone's curse is another's blessing. If you can think rationally and prefer the "illness" to the "health", then it can't be called an illness. Or would you claim that homosexuals have trouble making rational decisions?