Gay Cancer

[Aloysius]

see my last edit, I agree with you, but am negotiating with the common use of the term.

[Apotheoun]

Both actions and desires can be described as "intrinsically" or "inherently" disordered when they frustrate the natural end ([i]telos[/i]) of the human person.

Also, when the Church describes the homosexual inclination as an objective disorder it is not describing the person himself as objectively disordered; instead, it is speaking only about the condition that afflicts the person.

[Aloysius]

I agree, that was what my last post was explaining: the homosexual desire is disordered by its very nature, and therefore [b]it[/b] is "intrinsically disordered", but the [b]person[/b] is not intrinsically disordered, for he is not intrinsically homosexual. But when people use the term "homosexual" they are referring to "homosexual persons"; to say "homosexuals are intrinsically disordered" would be doing exactly what you are arguing against by refusing to use the term "homosexual"; it would be saying that homosexuality (the intrinsically disordered desire) is intrinsic to the person. It is not, the person is not disordered, thus IF one is using the common terminology to refer to those persons as "homosexuals" or "homosexual persons", they may not say that "homosexuals are intrinsically disordered"

[Apotheoun]

It is better to simply avoid using the politically correct language of our culture.

[dairygirl4u2c]

apo has too large of an ego, me thinks.

[Apotheoun]

Nah, I'm just a lowly Phatmasser.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1401790' date='Oct 13 2007, 04:55 PM']hot stuff,

Your equivocations on moral issues were one of the reasons why I resigned as a Phatmass Church Scholar back in May of 2006, because I could not in good conscience be associated with your posts on moral doctrine.

God bless,
Todd[/quote]

Really then seriously, start a thread listing any and all things that I've said that go against Church teaching. Then dUSt can take away my status and return it to you. I didn't ask to be a scholar. But I have not posted anything that contradicts the teachings of the Church.


[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1401825' date='Oct 13 2007, 05:24 PM'][b]The homosexual inclination is objectively disordered, but one can also describe the disordered desires arising from this condition as "intrinsically" or "inherently" disordered,[/b] because not only are homosexual acts unnatural, but so are the desires that arise from this pathological condition. In other words, both an act and a desire can frustrate the natural end ([i]telos[/i]) of a man, and that is why I cannot in good conscience agree with hot stuff.[/quote]

And that is your opinion but you state it like Church law. The Church makes a distinction

[quote]2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."141 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.[/quote]

Its an important distinction. Also you're misquoting Persona Humana by saying [quote]because not only are homosexual acts unnatural, but so are the desires that arise from this pathological condition[/quote]

Persona Humana states [quote]A distinction is drawn, and it seems with some reason, between homosexuals whose tendency comes from a false education, from a lack of normal sexual development, from habit, from bad example, or from other similar causes, and is transitory or at least not incurable; and homosexuals who are definitively such because of some kind of innate instinct or a pathological constitution judged to be incurable.[/quote]

Your statement is all inclusive. Persona Humana gives other reasons besides pathological as well


[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1401878' date='Oct 13 2007, 06:03 PM']Both actions and desires can be described as "intrinsically" or "inherently" disordered when they frustrate the natural end ([i]telos[/i]) of the human person.[/quote]

Just show where the Church states that and I'll acquiesce.

Look folks I'm not just being stubborn. The Church is intent about making the distinction for a reason. As it states in the Bishops Pastoral Letter on Homosexuality

[quote]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 [b]thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder[/b].[/quote]

The point I was originally making is the same point the bishops collectively made through Bishop Serratelli[quote]We want to give a clarification of church teaching, a challenge to embrace a life of holiness, and an invitation to people to be more involved," said Bishop Arthur Serratelli of Paterson, N.J., head of the committee on doctrine.

One document deals with guidelines for ministering to "persons with a homosexual inclination."

"Homosexual acts are never morally acceptable. Such acts never lead to happiness," he said, because they are "intrinsically disordered," meaning they are not directed to the bonds of marriage and the goal of procreation that are "part of God's design. But having an inclination that is disordered does not in any way diminish human worth."

"[b]All of us are damaged by original sin, and all of us have desires disordered in various ways," he said[/b].[/quote]

If you go back and read, I was saying the exact same thing.


Oh and if the disease was God's wrath on homosexuals, then lesbians would get it as well. They wouldn't get a free ride.

[dairygirl4u2c]

only word of caution is to be weary about "desire"... it can mean lusting over someone or just stating what someone has a tendency towards. big difference. just saying is all, not that anyone is misunderstanding.

[Jaime]

[quote]only word of caution is to be weary about "desire[/quote]

This whole thread has me weary

and notice that while I took it off track, dairy, I am trying to get it back on the rails.

If God actually throws down a gay disease, lesbians will get it as well.

[dairygirl4u2c]

it wasn't that derailed cause it wasn't really going anywhere and really never had much of a beginning. just people correcting others over gliches in their thoughts and speech, and quibbles. so really, this is right on track...

[Aloysius]

I explained the reason in my post; it's not the Church saying "don't use the word intrinsic"... what you're doing is coming up with a popular way of making distinctions based on Church documents by seeing when they use one word versus the other. Like I said, that can get messy, because there are many reasons they would choose one word and not the other depending upon the precise thing being said.

"intrinsic" simply means "by its very nature"... are you saying that the inclination towards sin is not, by its very nature, a disordered inclination? if not, then you can say the inclination towards homosexual acts is an intrinsically disordered inclination; using the word "homosexuality" tends towards an objective discussion anyway (among people who are not politically charged up)...

see, instead of going with "when does the Church use this word, when does it use that word", you ought to understand what the definitions of the words are and why they are using one and not the other at specific times. they use "objective" rather than "intrinsic" in order to emphasize that it is not intrinsic to the person; but as an objective disorder, it is intrinsically disordered. Is it an intrinsic disorder? No, because it is not a disorder intrinsic to the person; but it is indeed intrinsically disordered, which is what cmom said.

intrinsically disordered, used to refer to the nature of homosexuality, is perfectly accurate.
intrinsically disordered, used to refer to people who are colloquially referred to as "homosexuals", is inaccurate.

you might say "i'd rather use this simple intrinsic vs. objective distinction"... I would answer that that makes a confusion in your moral theology which will become messy in other places. "intrinsic" and "objective" are not two mutually exclusive words, they overlap.. in fact, anything which is objectively sinful is going to be intrinsically evil as well (evil by its very nature); it is only subjectively evil acts which may not be intrinsically evil.

It is better, rather than contend the accurate use of the word "intrinsic", to say that objectively, it is intrinsically disordered, but subjectively to the individuals, they are not intrinsically disordered.

Oh, and this clearly is not an act of God's wrath. God's wrath is more effective than a few rare cases that aren't even exclusive necessarily to homosexuality. The New Orleans disaster is a better candidate for a possible example of God's wrath than this is, though I do not accept that as a direct act of God's wrath.

Of course, all types of suffering can be seen as some type of God's wrath, either in His passive will (more common) by allowing it to happen, or by His active will where He actively punishes people (wouldn't really be prudent to attempt to label any natural disaster or disease as part of His actively willed wrath, it really doesn't do any good to attempt to figure out what God actively caused... though I would say this: an act of His actively willed wrath would probably be much like the exact opposite of a miracle, and be completely inexplicable by science. if it were a fiery hurricane with fire falling instead of water, yes, then it's almost certainly God's actively willed wrath. A hurricane simply following meteorological patterns, probably just allowed by His passive will)

[Socrates]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1401285' date='Oct 12 2007, 11:52 AM']Sorry Cmom, I love you but I have to correct you

Homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. Homosexuals are not. THAT is Church teaching

And no the APA did not get swayed by the homosexual lobby. The criteria for the disorder was not working.[/quote]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1401648' date='Oct 13 2007, 09:06 AM']Again that is not what the Church teaches. Inclinations or desires are not intrinsically disordered only actions. The clarification is important

From the Bishops Pastoral letter on Homosexuality[/quote]
I'm honestly having trouble seeing the point of all this quibbling over the terms "intrinsically disordered" and "objectively disordered."
They mean essentially the same thing anyways. "Intrinsically disordered" simply means "disordered in itself," which is certainly true of the homosexual inclination. Homosexual desires are in no way properly ordered, as they are ordered towards an intrinsically disordered act.
If you don't like using that term to refer to any desire or inclination, fine, but what's the point?
Homosexual desires are disordered, period. There is no way to say they are properly ordered.
It's silly to act as though saying they are "objectively" rather than "intrinsically" disordered makes them any less disordered.

If I had an inclination or desire to throttle any blue-eyed person who came near me, such an inclination would be objectively (and I would argue intrinsically) disordered. If I did not act on or indulge this inclination, I would not be sinning, yet my inclination itself would still be disordered.
A person may not be intrinsically disordered, but a desire or inclination can be.
Just as a person suffering from cancer may not be intrinsically disordered as a person, his cancer is indeed a disorder (though of a physical rather than moral variety), and it would be false to claim his condition was not physically disordered (diseased).
In the same way are homosexual inclinations a disorder of the psyche.

[quote][b]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.[/b][/quote]
This very passage you quoted proves my point. The inclination itself is disordered, whether one acts on it or not. However, one only sins if he acts on the disordered inclination.

It seems, judging by your repeated posting patterns, that you are trying to make homosexual inclinations to be somehow "neutral" or "benign," contrary to constant Church teaching on this topic.

Since the distinction between "intrinsically disordered" and "objectively disordered" is so important to you, perhaps you can explain it to us, and why it is so important.

And is there any way, according to you, that homosexual inclinations, are NOT disordered? I.e., are they in any way [i]properly ordered[/i]?
If not, I fail to see the point of your quibbling and attacks on those who say homosexuality is disordered.

I must say I agree with Todd 100% here. It often seems you are trying to do more to create misleading confusion than clarification regarding Catholic teachings regarding homosexuality.

Edited October 14, 2007 by Socrates

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1401957' date='Oct 13 2007, 07:00 PM']Really then seriously, start a thread listing any and all things that I've said that go against Church teaching. Then dUSt can take away my status and return it to you. I didn't ask to be a scholar. But I have not posted anything that contradicts the teachings of the Church.[/quote]
Dust can do whatever he wants, because he owns Phatmass.

Sadly, you have proven yet again that you do not read posts closely enough, because I said that your equivocal remarks -- which often try to approve of the homosexual condition as "normal" or as "benign" -- was only one of the reasons that I resigned as a Church Scholar and Church Militant.

Edited October 14, 2007 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1402058' date='Oct 13 2007, 09:02 PM']They mean essentially the same thing anyways. "Intrinsically disordered" simply means "disordered in itself," which is certainly true of the homosexual inclination. Homosexual desires are in no way properly ordered, as they are ordered towards an intrinsically disordered act.
If you don't like using that term to refer to any desire or inclination, fine, but what's the point?
Homosexual desires are disordered, period. There is no way to say they are properly ordered.
It's silly to act as though saying they are "objectively" rather than "intrinsically" disordered makes them any less disordered.[/quote]
Well said. The finality of both homosexual acts and homosexual desires (i.e., the homosexual condition) are [i]per se[/i] disordered.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1401783' date='Oct 13 2007, 03:48 PM']Regardless of our disagreements, you cannot justifiably suggest that homosexuality and homosexual actions to be considered the same and both intrinsically disordered. It is not me you are disagreeing with but the Church.[/quote]

to be fair, when jaimie said this, he just ignored what apo said. apo said that he doesn't like saying that people with gay tendencies should be called homosexuals. then hot stuff said the above, which means that apo agrees that the people shouldn't be said to be bad.

hot stuff should just say... he doesn't see anything wrong with calling them homosexuals, but given what apo said, from his point of view, he's not mistaken and cmom was okay in her speech.


[quote]Homosexuality is intrinsically disordered[/quote]

this is what cmom said that started it all.
apo should admit that the common usage often says that homosexuality means the persons. he just insists that we shouldn't allow that just cause it's common usage. really though, it's just quibbling, and apo should admit that as per the common defiition cmom should have been either been corrected, or at least clarified. maybe hot stuff shouldn't say he was correcting her (except in what he thought she was saying)


i'm not sure jaimie's saying their condition is okay but that they are persons are okay. i haven't seen anything that says jaimie is saying otherwise.

Edited October 14, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c