I Affirm
3. Explicit treatment of the problem was given in this Congregation’s “Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics” of December 29, 1975. That document stressed the duty of trying to understand the homosexual condition and noted that culpability for homosexual acts should only be judged with prudence. At the same time the Congregation took note of the distinction commonly drawn between the homosexual condition or tendency and individual homosexual actions. These were described as deprived of their essential and indispensable finality, as being “intrinsically disordered”, and able in no case to be approved of (cf. n. 8, $4).
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.
Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be directed toward those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not.
…
To chose someone of the same sex for one’s sexual activity is to annul the rich symbolism and meaning, not to mention the goals, of the Creator’s sexual design. Homosexual activity is not a complementary union, able to transmit life; and so it thwarts the call to a life of that form of self-giving which the Gospel says is the essence of Christian living. This does not mean that homosexual persons are not often generous and giving of themselves; but when they engage in homosexual activity they confirm within themselves a disordered sexual inclination which is essentially self-indulgent.
As in every moral disorder, homosexual activity prevents one’s own fulfillment and happiness by acting contrary to the creative wisdom of God. The Church, in rejecting erroneous opinions regarding homosexuality, does not limit but rather defends personal freedom and dignity realistically and authentically understood.
8. Thus, the Church’s teaching today is in organic continuity with the Scriptural perspective and with her own constant Tradition. Though today’s world is in many ways quite new, the Christian community senses the profound and lasting bonds which join us to those generations who have gone before us, “marked with the sign of faith”.
Nevertheless, increasing numbers of people today, even within the Church, are bringing enormous pressure to bear on the Church to accept the homosexual condition as though it were not disordered and to condone homosexual activity. Those within the Church who argue in this fashion often have close ties with those with similar views outside it. These latter groups are guided by a vision opposed to the truth about the human person, which is fully disclosed in the mystery of Christ. They reflect, even if not entirely consciously, a materialistic ideology which denies the transcendent nature of the human person as well as the supernatural vocation of every individual.
The Church’s ministers must ensure that homosexual persons in their care will not be misled by this point of view, so profoundly opposed to the teaching of the Church. But the risk is great and there are many who seek to create confusion regarding the Church’s position, and then to use that confusion to their own advantage.
9. The movement within the Church, which takes the form of pressure groups of various names and sizes, attempts to give the impression that it represents all homosexual persons who are Catholics. As a matter of fact, its membership is by and large restricted to those who either ignore the teaching of the Church or seek somehow to undermine it. It brings together under the aegis of Catholicism homosexual persons who have no intention of abandoning their homosexual behaviour. One tactic used is to protest that any and all criticism of or reservations about homosexual people, their activity and lifestyle, are simply diverse forms of unjust discrimination.
There is an effort in some countries to manipulate the Church by gaining the often well-intentioned support of her pastors with a view to changing civil-statutes and laws. This is done in order to conform to these pressure groups’ concept that homosexuality is at least a completely harmless, if not an entirely good, thing. Even when the practice of homosexuality may seriously threaten the lives and well-being of a large number of people, its advocates remain undeterred and refuse to consider the magnitude of the risks involved.
The Church can never be so callous. It is true that her clear position cannot be revised by pressure from civil legislation or the trend of the moment. But she is really concerned about the many who are not represented by the pro-homosexual movement and about those who may have been tempted to believe its deceitful propaganda. She is also aware that the view that homosexual activity is equivalent to, or as acceptable as, the sexual expression of conjugal love has a direct impact on society’s understanding of the nature and rights of the family and puts them in jeopardy.
10. It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church’s pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law.
But the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered. When such a claim is made and when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one has any conceivable right, neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase.
Letter to the Bishops of the Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
Comments are closed.
Yes, I was reading this earlier today in light of our discussion in my other post as a refresher… thanks for the link.
Thanks for this MZ.
I don’t affirm. Yes, the “cafeteria is wide open.”
I find some of the jargon employed rather regrettable – and hostile -, some of it sounds like “Focus on the Family”.
I found this quite odd
It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church’s pastors wherever it occurs.
Think that, just mayyybe, calling it immoral and disordered might help with such ‘malice’ ?
The only good gay Catholic is one that a) views herself as disordered and b) is ready to live alone for her entire life. Good times.
I’ve actually had comments that said it’s better for gays to be mostly celibate with the occasional failing, say a romp in a restroom, than to be in a stable relationship – because of the, uh, lower frequency of sin.
Living a chaste and celibate life is hardly the same as living alone. And given that it is the life lived by a majority of the saints, as well as they life required for virtually all priests and religious, someone who views such a life as inherently pitiful may have difficulties with Catholicism that go beyond the gay issue.
Priests choose the celibate life (that it often doesn’t quite work is another question). Gays don’t choose to be gay. With saints coming mostly from priests and religious, it’s kind of automatic that they’d be celibate. And yes, not having a relationship means being alone. That’s fine if one chooses that of course. But it’d indeed be pitiful to be forced to live that way.
I’ve HAD it with this crap. I WILL NOT tolerate it anymore–either by sitting patiently and listening to it, or by contributing my hard-earned pennies into the collection baskets:
http://edouardalxandre.livejournal.com/520317.html
Have you ever HEARD the effete-sounding, epicene voice of our “fluffy” Pontiff mouthing this ferocious hate-speech? I have, and it was all I could do not to laugh out loud at the nuanced but verbally plain intonation of self-loathing alive in such speech!
I don’t affirm. Yes, the “cafeteria is wide open.”
You should write about why you don’t affirm on your own blog.
You’ve outdone yourself on this one dig.
I have, Katerina, at great length.
The VOCATION of celibacy is, in many ways, EXACTLY like the “orientation” toward same-sex love: it’s GOD-GIVEN.
The mistake made by his “fluffiness” and certain of the “conservatives” writing here is to presume that “homosexuality” is almost exclusively a matter of sexual ACTS; it isn’t. To ask that homosexuals stifle their natural, God-given inclination toward celebration of their own sexuality is like asking a man who’s taken Holy Orders to stop being “sexual,” or to stop being “heterosexual.”
And, if you doubt that my reading of this kind of bigotry is on-target, ask yourself THIS: how many of you “conservatives” would be fine with PUBLIC professions of chastity, from the pews, by homosexuals who’d decided to do exactly as you propose–i.e. lead celibate lives–but who insisted that you SUPPORT their decision through constant, on-going discussions, in church and in discussion groups, of the “cross” that you and your fellow “conservative” Catholics were asking them to bear?
Exactly! You don’t just want the same-sex lovers to practise celibacy; you ALSO want them to go back into their closets and DIE of loneliness there!
“how many of you ‘conservatives’ would be fine with PUBLIC professions of chastity, from the pews, by homosexuals who’d decided to do exactly as you propose–i.e. lead celibate lives–but who insisted that you SUPPORT their decision through constant, on-going discussions, in church and in discussion groups, of the ‘cross’ that you and your fellow ‘conservative’ Catholics were asking them to bear?”
I would be (and have been) fine with what you describe.
Perhaps if you didn’t draw so many hasty conclusions about other people, the discussion would be more productive.
I have no problems with Church teaching, though some of the technical langauge may seem, well, insensitive. Remember homosexual activity is “disordered” because it separates the unitive from the procreative. Since Aquinas defined the good as that which all things strive after, then yes, inclinations in the opposite direction are also “disordered”. That holds for every time I look lustfully at somebody who is not my wife, just as it does for same-sex attraction. This is a consequence of the sin at the origin of humanity, and we all share in it, we all struggle with it.
What I am getting at is this: by all means, say that homosexual activity is always wrong. But also condemn all heterosexual activity outside a licit marriage that is not open to the bearing and rearing of children. What bothers me is the mis-use of sound theology tro demonize homosexuals.
I have, Katerina, at great length.
I’ll have to revisit the posts, then.
Digbydolben,
The document quoted above says very clearly that “the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin”.
who’d decided to do exactly as you propose–i.
As we propose or the Church proposes?
Gerald,
Whatever may be our disagreements on other issues, I agree with some of your points on pastoral approaches to homosexuality. It seems to me that much of the discussion avoids discussing the life, feelings and dignity of homosexual persons in favor of centering on an abstract view of homosexuality as intrinsically disordered. The notion of lifelong chastity as coming not necessarily from free choice but from moral imperatives is one at which I shudder. I affirm the doctrine, but I am hugely unsatisfied with how it translates into real life situations and persons.
Holy cow!
I agree with Blackadder.
Although I’m not exactly sure what a public profession of chastity from the pews would look like?
If such a thing can be done, should we publicly profess commitment to other virtues as well?
Digby,
Does the Church speak for Jesus, or not?
MM,
I think the Church also condemns all heterosexual acts outside of licit marriage that are not open to children.
I would say that much of this conversation is the idleness of youth. The only problem is that a lot of folks here are older than me. I very much agree with MM that heterosexual sin is a topic that needs to be broached much more. It is a topic as a whole that I have more interest in offering commentary than homosexuality.
We live in a very sexualized culture. All too often today, one’s sexuality is expression of oneself. For many it gives identity, whether we are speaking of such things as Lipstick Jungle, Swingtown, or other cultural things. In a largely loveless society, I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised when people seek all the effects of love.
By the way, I’d say there’s something… ironic is not quite the word… about accusing others of anti-gay bigotry while simultaneously mocking people for having effeminate mannerisms.
I agree with some of your points on pastoral approaches to homosexuality.
Absolutely! It always takes the Church a little bit longer to realize the change that needs to take place in pastoral matters and I think with regard to homosexuality, there is definitely some room for improvement. However, this is not to say that the teaching itself about homosexual relations and marriage will change anytime soon or ever. There is no precedence in tradition (that I know of). That being said, as someone who wants to work in Church ministry, this is a topic that I want to learn more about to hopefully improve the ministry within the Church to homosexuals. The challenges are many, especially, because the Church will not compromise on the nature of homosexual relations and marriage.
It all stems from the fact that there used to be no concept of sexual orientation – someone who engaged in homosexual activities was viewed like a thief (well, or worse – death penalty wasn’t uncommon), ie someone who does something wrong, someone who could easily ‘do the right thing’. The concept of orientation and the increasing scientific evidence for biological reasons, rather than moral failings, is simply not really compatible with the Catholic approach, which could be surmised as ‘stupid is as stupid does’.
Other things that aren’t ‘regular’ (ie what is usually the case), such as blindness, aren’t burdened with a moral stigma (they used to – think of the blind man in the NT). A blind man trying to walk isn’t viewed as doing something ‘intrinsically disordered’. A gay man trying to have a relationship is. Add to that that sex gets people more flustered than anything, and you have a situation where gay marriage seems more important than a war.
I don’t think euphemism serves a useful purpose. What you are claiming is that homosexuals can’t licitly engage in sex, not that they can’t have relationships.
“When such a claim is made and when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one has any conceivable right, neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase.”
Ouch!!!
“The concept of orientation and the increasing scientific evidence for biological reasons, rather than moral failings, is simply not really compatible with the Catholic approach, which could be surmised as ’stupid is as stupid does’.”
It’s certainly not compatible with the caricature of Catholic doctrine you seem to take for the real thing.
The idea that having an orientation in favor of committing certain acts means those acts can’t be immoral is, if you think about it, quite problematic.
Gerald,
It all stems from the fact that there used to be no concept of sexual orientation – someone who engaged in homosexual activities was viewed like a thief (well, or worse – death penalty wasn’t uncommon), ie someone who does something wrong, someone who could easily ‘do the right thing’. The concept of orientation and the increasing scientific evidence for biological reasons, rather than moral failings, is simply not really compatible with the Catholic approach, which could be surmised as ’stupid is as stupid does’.
I’m not sure what word you’re looking for, but “surmised” ain’t it…
On the substance, though, the Church is most certainly not alone in this regard. And ancient non-Christian civilizations had little to no concept of a sexual orientation, despite the fact that homosexual behavior was widespread and often praised in certain contexts.
Since that time, in both Christian, Muslim and Eastern societies, there has been plenty of recourse to homosexual acts (British boarding schools and navy anyone?) but this was never seen as necessarily being an impediment to the same person also engaging in a normal marriage and rearing a family.
Part of this is simply the human urge for self-gratification. In highly gender segregated societies, a great number of men (it’s harder to know about women, given that in such societies most writing that has survived was by and about men) followed a course of “when I’m not near the one I love, I’ll love the one that’s near”.
So given that so many societies (Christian and otherwise) in which homosexual acts were rampant to one degree or another failed to recognize an immutable “orientation”, I’m not necessarily clear why we should either. Yes, there have been attempts to identify biological flag, but they’ve been largely unsuccessful thus far. It seems entirely likely that for reasons of either nature or nurture some people have a greater affinity to their own sex than is the usual, some perhaps nearly overwhelmingly so. (Though from a strictly biological/evolutionary point of view, that’s got to be seen as essentially a defect.) However, it is primarily a product of our current society that we find it necessary to introduce all sorts of introspection into “what is my orientation” and claim that people are definately one or the other.
Frankly, the Church and most of the rest of human history has a much clearer and more human view of all this than the nonsense which passes for modern culture. We would do well to think with the Church, or at least to think with the general experience of humanity, on this topic as on others.
Ancient societies had slavery, human sacrifice, death penalty for any little thing under the sun, and so forth. If you wanna do the timewarp, feel free. Of course, you needn’t go back in time, just go to some Islamic countries where gays get executed. Their moral compass is intact! Hoo boy! Sure, today’s ‘conservatives’ usually don’t want to kill gays anymore but it’d be just wonderful if they could please stay in the closet thankyouverymuch. After all, it’d be such an inconvenience to cover one’s children’s eyes should some of those gays come by. (Happened to a friend of mine).
I must say I find it amazing that there are people in this day and age who cite some illiterate tribesmen’s opinions in support of something. As far as the ‘rest of human history’ is concerned, I’m inclined to suggest it perform ‘intrinsically disordered’ acts upon itself.
But to claim that whatever the ancient such-and-such believed is indicative of what’s correct is pretty sad. Then again, I am a ‘modernist’ who believes that this day and age is far preferable to any other age. I do think that the freedoms we enjoy are greatly preferable to ‘women knowing their place’ or love not ‘dare to speak its name’. Even as a child, injustice of any kind greatly upset me, which is why I find civil rights movements so necessary, whether it was for blacks, women or now for gays. And yes, I do want a cookie.
Nice… “Illiterate tribesman” like Plato and Aristotle — who generally held that homosexual relationships were higher than heterosexual ones (because they involved only men and men were better) and yet did not see there as being such a thing as an innate orientation or a need for “gay marriage”?
Please. I’m suspecting that the ancient Greeks knew a lot more about the reality of homosexual intercourse and relationships than you do — party because they knew from experience.
DarwinC,
Thanks for the history refresher, which is so key in this issue… history is always important!
and yet did not see there as being such a thing as an innate orientation or a need for “gay marriage”?
I’m thinking the same thing.
Look, let me try to make this even CLEARER, so that I won’t get accused of mocking “effeminate mannerisms” (of which I myself have PLENTY): Can you folks wrap your minds around the concept that homosexuality (or heterosexuality) about much more than GENITAL CONTACT?!
I will believe in your “compassion,” the “integrity” of your championing of the so-called “theology of the Body,” when you will tell me that you will openly celebrate EVERY SINGLE aspect of a same-sex-oriented person’s being (including his or her ROMANTIC FEELINGS), except whatever genital contact he or she may engage in with someone of the same sex–AND that you will publicly affirm that his or her attempt to violate his or her own GOD-GIVEN NATURE by engaging in a heterosexual relationship or marriage would be, for him or her, perverse.
But I won’t hold my breath…
“Ancient societies had slavery, human sacrifice, death penalty for any little thing under the sun, and so forth. If you wanna do the timewarp, feel free.”
Gerald, you seem to have missed Darwin’s point by about a mile. The point is not “lots of people didn’t believe in sexual orientation therefore it doesn’t exist” but rather that many of the common sexual practices throughout history are hard to square with the idea of a fixed, biologically determined sexual orientation.
Honestly, I would have thought that anyone who has known more than a handful of gay people would be able to see that a person’s sexual orientation is often a lot more fluid than it is often made out to be. But perhaps my experience in this regard is atypical. In any event, I tend to think of the issue as largely a red herring. Even if sexual orientation were 100% immutable, it still wouldn’t change the moral issues involved.
Digby – since Catholicism teaches that the actions are the problem it’s to be expected.
Gerald,
Let me just clarify — I’m not saying that because some societies had a negative opinion of homosexual activity, we should copy them. (For instance, the Romans had no problem with homosexual activity if one “took the man’s part” but scorned anyone who “took the woman’s part”. Typical Roman bravado. )
And incidentally, contrary to modern stereotypes, during much of Islamic history, many Muslim cultures have been fairly tolerant of such things. To their credit or discredit, as you prefer. But it’s certainly not that case that homosexuality has been universally persecuted in Christian and/or Muslim cultures in the past. Labeled as sinful, perhaps, but not necessarily persecuted. The idea that everything which is morally wrong should be successfully banned, and everything legal must be right, is a very, very modern one.
My point is that even in societies that were very tolerant or even positive about homosexual activity, and where far higher percentages of men engaged in it than is the case in the modern US, no one saw the need for “gay marriage” and few saw there as being any sort of fixed “orientation”. Marriage was for establishing a family and having children. Homosexual relationships were for love, intellectual comparionship or pleasure — but were not remotely considered akin to marriage.
There’s a wisdom in that, and one that we would be wise, as a society, not to try to buck.
it also was, fairly universally, viewed that women shouldn’t have equal rights with men. Frequently it was held that they were ‘intrinsically’ lesser. Is there wisdom in that, too ? Society thought voting rights weren’t necessary, being able to attend college wasn’t, and so forth. In any case, it is inevitable, some places sooner, some places later. Austria, my country of birth, is about to introduce de-facto gay marriage – and the Catholic bishops are basically predicting doom if it is allowed. But the church has no clout left in Austria, so that won’t stop it.
The main lesson is: Whenever you have a slow blog day, write about sex! :o)
“What I am getting at is this: by all means, say that homosexual activity is always wrong. But also condemn all heterosexual activity outside a licit marriage that is not open to the bearing and rearing of children. What bothers me is the mis-use of sound theology tro demonize homosexuals.”
MM, I could not agree more. Well said, brother.
Oh, and for those who haven’t run into him before, you might find interesting John Heard’s blog at Dreadnought:
http://johnheard.blogspot.com/
One of his taglines is “Catholic, Gay, Faithful” and he’s a very interesting read. (Though be warned that he has a tendency to throw in a bit of “boy toy” eye candy at times which may look odd if you’re reading at work.)
digby,
I think that the separation between erotic love and sexual union is definitely the problem in today’s society. The essence of erotic love is a desire to be one flesh. So although we cannot reduce a person, homo or hetero, into his sexuality, it is essential that we unite erotic love and sexual union. Separating them is what got us into the problem in the first place. Hence, we should not avoid the talk of “genital contact.”
Knowing that the reason for erotic love is sexual union, this does not mean that every time we have an erotic desire we must want sexual union. A married person, for example, when aroused or attracted by a woman, should not act on this desire. It is true that this desire is given. Every emotion is given. But the question is not such much: “what should I do?” but rather, “Who gave them to me? Who gave this person to me?” Only when we look at the person in relation to the Infinite, to her destiny, can we truly love that person. So a married man should not act on his erotic desires because it would be separating her and her destiny; the fact that he is married shows that she is not meant to be with him.
For the homosexual, then, there is, I think, a form of freedom that he has that married people do not and that is possession in detachment. But I think the important thing right now is using our intelligence, that is, being alert and awake to our desires. We need to judge our desires and emotions. True affection comes from a judgment and most of us do not do that.
I know Dreadnought, he put a photo of me up once and called me hot ;o)
“Exactly! You don’t just want the same-sex lovers to practise celibacy; you ALSO want them to go back into their closets and DIE of loneliness there!”
This is so absolutely insulting to my chaste hetero friends. My friend’s mother had to live a celibate and chaste life as her husband slowly died from Alzeimer’s at the young age of 50. It took him 10 years to die.
My friends who are not married but have to live chastely who, oh yeah, happen to be hetero.
Digby: You seem to imply that gay people are unable to control themselves when it comes to sex. Only heteros can live chastely, but not gay people. What a crock. From the numbers of hetero couples that break up due to adultery, we can see that chastity regardless of gender is difficult to live. Right? We are ALL called to chastity. Now if chastity in your opinion means loneliness you need to get out and live a little bit. Humans have brains. And brains mean we can think of other things to do other than just have sex. So, yeah, I am sympathetic to those with SSA, but they don’t get some moral pass merely because they want to have sex and communion with people of the same sex. Nope, God invites ALL of us to holiness EVEN gay people.
The other thing here, is that if you are concerned that chaste gay people will be forced to live lonely lives, I would have to ask, why can’t they live in community? With fellow family members or friends? My chaste hetero friends have found a good community of family and friends to help them why can’t gay people do so?
….except that in your definition gays CANNOT have romantic relationships, whereas you were free to get married.
Another good explanation of orthodox Christian views on this subject by Ron Belgau.
Just something to consider… the same folks (or document) who gave us orthodox teaching on sexual morality gave us the Trinity.
Isn’t the Trinity so much more incredible and hard to believe?
RCM:
Do you know what I actually believe about monastic life, or “life in community”? I actually believe that, once upon a time, when civilisation was better ordered, and when social customs were more reflective of a healthier spirituality than the debased, essentially heretical–because Protestantized–spirituality that passes for Christianity in both Protestantism and Catholicism, that full participation in communal monasticism fully satisfied ALL the “romantic” longings of almost everybody the least bit idealist who might otherwise have been tempted by same-sex attraction. In other words, the pining of the flesh for whatever genital contact homosexuality involves was more or less allayed by the “romantic friendships” that monasticism both feared and thrived on.
However, in those cultures, it was not “embarrassing” or “sinful” for someone openly to profess love for his or her “friend,” and it was understood that such friendship was a noble thing.
We live in a culture that has thoroughly perverted religion, the connubial state, friendship and almost everything else that is spiritually renewing. The only thing most people have left is sex, and you want to take away from the same-sex attracted the little they have left of human warmth, while publicly affirming, as Gerald states above, that that little bit of comfort is reserved only to those “free to get married.”
We needn’t talk about “Christian charity”: the lack in you (and others) of the “milk of human kindness” is positively unnerving.
Of course, when one reads medieval reports, violations of celibacy, hetero & homo were rampant among the clergy/religious, so much so that the words became synonymous. I suggest Dominican Fr. Doyle’s book “Sex, Priests and Secret Codes”
It’s certainly safer to be abstract. But that CDF statement was more of a lost opportunity than a moment of clarity, and I think the proof of that is in the fact that it’s not proving much of a resource to parents, families and friends. I mean, the key terminology here is careful philisophical formulae. It’s not really informing how pastors and laypeople deal with concrete situations; rather, it seems to function more like foods used in commercial cooking photography (glossy and deep colored, but you might well pass on eating it).
Oh, and gay/lesbian people once again are being talked about as if they were in a different room, a different family, or a different place. And I fear that has endangered more souls than misgivings about this statement.
Liam, I agree, it’s a bit like talking about ‘dear old dad’ in front of him. “I’m right here !”
I have always been puzzled by this document. It is the document that created the phrase “intrinsically disordered.”
I just want to question what *should* intrinsically disordered people feel like? I suppose that another way of phrasing this would be “what does the phrase ‘intrinsically disordered’ do to the words and feelings of those who are so labeled?”
I mean, this is supposedly going to the very depths of my being–at root, I am totally depraved in my ability to love. All my attempts at love are really a sickness. That’s what this phrase is saying to me.
And what does that do to me in the eyes of those who accept it? It makes my every word suspect. How can I be a judge of my own experiences, when I am sick?
And that is the problem that I have with it. It seems to create a space for some of to fit into Calvin’s idea of humanity–some are totally depraved.
Also, if this is what I am supposed to feel (that is, feelings that flow from a space that is completely awry) there is also no other standpoint from which I can get out of my feelings, from which I can get a distance and begin to reason about them. They will still be there, infecting my thoughts, for what feelings are deeper than sexuality–what is deeper than that strongest pull that makes us feel more alive than anything. And by sexuality I don’t mean lust; I mean that sense of union, that cri de coeur, that wakes us up to our individuality and our connectedness to the world as it is for us. They are just there. They are, as the Germans have taught us to say, unhintergebar: you just can’t get around them, for it is the matrix–or better, Eckhart’s Grund–of the self. Our own sexuality is as much generative of our very selves before it can be life-giving or sustaining in union with another (at least, so I claim).
But, being “intrinsically disordered” will mean that all I can do is say: they are disordered, and thus my connection to the world is disordered–and not in some accidental way. No. Intrinsically. There is nothing empirical that can put this up to judgment. Any protest against it can simply be met by the response: “But of course you would say that. You are intrinsically–intrinsically–disordered in your very feelings, at your heart.” My ratio–my reason–is Luther’s ratio diabolica–the reason of the devil.
And there, God, who is love, I must not know (1 Jn 4:8––I love how infrequently Scripture is invoked on Catholic blogs), even though it is in God that I am supposed to live, and move, and have my being (Acts 17:28). But, then again, even the devil can cite Scripture.
So, where do we go from here? All I can do is simply submit that my experience is not captured by this description. Does a different kind of dialogue then begin?
That’s all I can hope for.
Dear ES:
In order to free yourself from such thinking, it is time not just to ignore it, but time to begin to construct a meaning of the Scriptures that uses OUR MODERN humanity, and OUR experiences of ourselves as well as of the past.
Of course, that interpretation of mine of how one ACTUALLY grows closer to Christ will be dismissed by those who priotorize texts and doctrines over actual living people–the people who are–in our time-space continuum–our only POSSIBLE “Image of Christ.”
Let me tell you something to cheer you up: I recently taught in a Catholic high school whose student body are normal adolescents, but whose faculty are, in large part, one of the creepiest group of authority-freaks
and rejectors of intellectual curiosity you can imagine. The theology department of this school live under a constant threat of termination by an Archbishop who is afraid of his own shadow (for good reason).
They did a survey of student attitudes, and, even after constant attempts to brainwash students into a sterile, unimaginative and thoroughly disengaged attitude toward Sacred Scripture, the theology teachers were horrified to learn that over three quarters of the students in this Catholic high school supported “gay marriage.” Even if I were not of your side in this issue, I’d be obliged as a truthful educator to tell you that increasingly, NONE of the youth will be on the side of the “conservatives” on this matter.
[To the rest:]
A long time ago, I said to myself, “If the Roman Catholic Church does not find the heart to interpret her Scriptures in an open, charitible way that prioritizes context over legalism, this issue of the acceptance and cherishment of homosexual persons is going to be the final and fatal blow to the Christian Church in the developed world.” Modern youth are NOT going to reject the evidence of their senses, of their consciences and of their divinely implanted JUDGMENT, in favour of a merciless interpretation of “laws” that, in the actual context of the New Testament, are intrinsically un-Christian.
Isn’t it about time that this disagreement among principled Christians might be deemed “minor,” and the more pressing questions of much greater sinfulness–like the selfishness that is collapsing the financial sectors–could be addressed? Unless this happens, unless the youth see people of “principle” treating each other with respect and esteem, over this issue and others, then Catholicism, in particular, is not long for this Western World. As my former students used to say, all the time, “Your ‘unity’ is a joke!”
Digby,
I would agree with you that the loss of what they used to call “romantic friendships,” of that profound closeness that can exist between men (and, I would assume, between women as well) absent a sexual relationship, is one of the great tragic features of our age. I see nothing inherently wrong with such relationships, though as with many things much depends on the circumstances of the case.
Digby,
From your response, I’m guessing that my post was confusing. I was trying to think through what the phrase “intrinsically disorder” must mean for any hope of a dialogue between gay and lesbian people and those who want to hold to such a description of gay and lesbian people.
So, just to clarify. I do not subscribe to the views that flow from my reading of the description “intrinsically disordered,” because I, as a gay man, do not experience myself as such. It is the conundrums of that description that leads me to find it useless for having a dialogue, which is what I want.
I am not here to be triumphant about the younger generation, whom I also teach, but I am also not here to take aware your joy at what you see on the rise. I am here. That’s it. I’ve just put myself here–or rather traces of me in words. I am here not to assert anything other than myself and how I experience the statements being made about men like me. I, at times, do slip into speaking for others like me, and I do that when I start to sound really egotistical to myself, but I have simply tried to put myself into this space as a different voice and to come from my experience of the world.
My previous post was but an exercise in trying to let the phrase “intrinsically disordered” sink in. I know that it refers to the act, and yet that’s not where the act comes from–which seems to be a trick of the text, and only makes me wonder why that separation of the act from the person was made (a separation upheld under the pontificate of a man famous for his treatise, The Acting Person, when he was Cardinal Karol Wojtila). Others have spoken to this dichotomy in different ways: the strange separation between saying that the inclination is not sinful but the actions are, and I don’t want to belabor that point.
For me, I just thought, “What is this hairsplitting? Let’s deal with this fact of a different orientation in the world. Let’s go to the root of the acts. What of that? What of me, at my core, whence these acts flow?”
And that’s where I started on my previous post. So, maybe, if you go back and reread it now, it will make more sense. If it doesn’t, let me know, and I’ll try again.
ES,
While I can understand why the use of the phrase “intrinsically disordered” might sound harsh or grating, I would hope you can see that you are reading into the phrase a lot of things that strictly speaking aren’t there. Catholic documents often use technical terminology that can take on a very different connotation when divorced from its intended context. Think, for example. of what someone not familiar with the Church’s vocabulary might read into the phrase “invincible ignorance” (or, to use a more current example, consider the reaction last year to the CDF’s statement that the Protestant churches “weren’t really Churches”). I know people have faulted the CDF’s document for being too abstract and philosophical, and not dealing with the pastoral dimensions of the issue. And there is some merit to this criticism. But I would also say that for every thing there is a season and a time for every purpose under heaven (see, we Catholics can occasionally quote Scripture), and that both philosophical and pastoral language have their place.
ES,
There is a bit of nuance that you have missed in Cardinal Ratzinger’s statement. Saying the behavior is intrinsically disordered means it can’t be ordered toward good. One could name any number of behaviors where this is the case, including other sexual behaviors. Applying that to the person in a specific circumstance, Cardinal Ratzinger states, “Here, the Church’s wise moral tradition is necessary since it warns against generalizations in judging individual cases. In fact, circumstances may exist, or may have existed in the past, which would reduce or remove the culpability of the individual in a given instance; or other circumstances may increase it.” I had intended to include this in the excerpt, so I can understand how that would be missed. He even goes so far as to say that having this desire may necessitate frequent access to sacraments. I don’t see a man who has surrendered hope for salvation for homosexuals. While many may consider homosexual desire intrinsic to their being, that is not why it is called intrinsically disordered. It is called such because circumstance and other moral qualia cannot make a particular homosexual act good.
It seems to me if Digby wants a religion that suits his desires. His own personal Jesus, if you will.
If so, have it. But don’t call it Catholicism.
I am just kind of waiting for gluttony to take the same place as lust in the canon of evil.
Gluttony and, as an aside, conspicuous consumption are phenomenally evil inclinations. Intrinsically disordering. Like homosexuality.
Yet the Vatican will only decry the homosexual (and the person himself takes the particular brunt of the critique) as disordered (compared to other sinful inclinations).
In what other context is the person described as “intrinsically disordered.”
There are several deadly sinful vices one can embrace, and it seems only one gets the “intrinsic evil” tattoo on a group of individual humans.
“In what other context is the person described as ‘intrinsically disordered.’”
It is the inclination that is said to be intrinsically disordered, not the person.
In fairness Mr. Conway, no one has attempted to claim gluttony was a moral good. I can find you plenty of condemnations for materialism (conspicuous consumption.) No person is described as intrinsically disordered because intrisic isn’t a reference to the soul.
MZ and Blackadder,
Perhaps my response to digby answers somewhat to your stipulations, but I’d like both refer back to what I said to him and to say more.
Bodies, under your––meaning the currently orthodox––description of bodies, in act appear to me as machines designed and aimed at supposed ends and only those ends.
I don’t understand my life in this way, for this is not how my body interacts with the world. I don’t understand my actions to be so mechanical. I do not set out an economics of my acts, as if to be justified, they must repay in same way by the end.
Rather, I love my spouse and he me, and we share ourselves–our whole selves as much as possible–to support and nourish the life we have together. It helps us so that we can go out and do good for others, and come home and support each other. If our sharing of our bodies together in this is disordered, it would seem to me that we would need something tangible to point to, that could show harm and damage to us and to others. Until that can be done, the attempts to make an argument that our sex lives are disordered simply because we aren’t like straight people–simply because we are different–seems to be a category mistake: sort of like saying a lemon can’t be a good lime. But a lemon isn’t trying to be a lime.
In other words, I’m not trying to have a child with my spouse, which seems to be the end that must justify this act in Ratzinger’s argument. We are simply enjoying the gift of ourselves to one another in our love for each other. Our bodies, as we have grown into them through adolescence, have brought the world to us in this way, and we have had to work–against a lot–to try and make sense of our difference. Yet, we did not choose these feelings; we did not choose to be drawn out of ourselves and brought into our individuality and mutuality in this way. It would be easy for us to conclude that because we emerge differently, that there is something wrong with us.
All the statements about non-complementarity are but a version of this simple conclusion, and again simply an imposition of your model of sexuality on ours–a stealing our of voices, a claim to know what should be complementary for us a priori.
It seems to me if Digby wants a religion that suits his desires.
Catholicism is supposed to fulfill our desires. Ask St Ignatius of Loyola.
in all seriousness, feddie, you seem have a pretty monolithic and un-dynamic view of Catholicism. But in reality, Christianity is a story of salvation, a story with dynamism. It’s a relationship between God and humanity, not between two objects.
Blackadder,
I did a search of the document as it appears on this page, and I only found “intrinsically” used once with regard to homosexual acts, not with regard to inclination. The inclination is described as disordered, but not intrinsically. I found this absence telling, a false dichotomy of sorts.
And yet, the entire document has not been posted. Is there a specific passage where the adverb “intrinsically” with “disordered” is applied to the inclination. It seemed there was a studious avoidance of this, and yet if I am wrong about that, I’d like to know so that I can think about it some more.
You are correct to say that we are speaking at a metaphysical level.
The difficulty I have with the casuistry is I don’t see the necessity of such things as monogamy or indisolvability. I understand you aren’t trying to offer extensive proof here. One might describe them as ‘goods’, but I think one would be more likely just pointing out the defects of the alternatives. For example, more than one sexual partner exposes oneself to STDs. Not getting an STD isn’t something I would consider a good. Disolvability I have greater difficulty seeing as evil outside the raising of children.
MZ,
How can intrinsic be anything but a hidden reference to the soul, and a claim to know how it ought to be in relation? What is the use of condemning the act if it has no reference to the effect it has on the soul–to our interpersonality, on the reflexive nature of making choices?
MZ,
In regard to your points about the *necessity* of monogamy and indisolvability, I’m assuming you’re referring to how they would be seen as “goods” in same-sex marriage. I’m not sure why this is coming up, and perhaps I’m not seeing the earlier post that you’re referring to, and if so please forgive me.
But, I’m puzzled by your line of reasoning. These are “goods” that you try to conclude to, and the condition of their possibility (or of their rationality) is children. Why must they be concluded to? Is not love strong as death (Song of Songs 8:6). So a man’s love for a woman and and hers for him are not enough? So, once the children are grown, what then?
There remains a difference between failing to claim gluttony as a moral good and its recognition as one of the deadly vices. Lust is the most pressing vice it seems. There are few Vatican documents suggesting that individual practicing gluttons cannot be priests.
Is homosexuality as pressing a claim as it is currently considered? I continue to maintain that the Iraq War will destroy more marriages than homosexuality. Without rallying to a theological support of homosexuality and homosexual unions, I maintain current drama around opposition to homosexual unions as a distraction from the enemies of marriage: war and poverty.
Why can’t homosexuality be considered with the same theological gravity as gluttony?
Daniel – because it’s about sex. The main thing people in general, and religious people even more so, get excited about is sex. A man living with a man is also more ‘tangible’ than someone being greedy. Creatures in general have a nasty habit of ostracizing – if not killing – those among them who are different. While it may make brutal sense in the animal kingdom, one’d hope we’ve moved on.
I maintain current drama around opposition to homosexual unions as a distraction from the enemies of marriage: war and poverty.
YES.
It seems to me if Digby wants a religion that suits his desires.
Catholicism is supposed to fulfill our desires. Ask St Ignatius of Loyola.
“Suits” and “fulfills” are two different things, so you guys are talking past each other. I find myself in agreement with the two of you: religion is not supposed to merely “suit” our desires. I can always go to Lakewood Church for that. Religion should not be a matter of personal taste that one is better over the other based on personal preference.
On the other hand, of course, Catholicism is supposed to fulfill our desires, our needs, our wants, our longing to be united with God when the time comes and if our behavior allows.
Ah, Katherine, your last sentence touches on something more important: “our longing to be with God”
There is a doughnut hole in the middle of that CDF statement. Among other things, it does not address how love actually works the concrete individuals.
True love is neither entirely affective nor entirely intellectual. It partakes of both and even transcends them. One mark of that transcendance is the capacity for self-sacrifice.
Now, most people learn to love God from how they love each other. That includes romantic love. Except for very unusual persons possessing a charism that the Church has clearly not said gay/lesbian inherently possess, romantic love is an important part of how they learn to love God as an adult.
(Now, I should take a time out to address those who assume that all same-sex oriented romantic love is necessarily entirley lust without a jot or tittle of love: you are, empirically, wrong and even the Church doesn’t teach that though one might try to logically extrapolate it out of binding teaching, it’s still an extrapolation that is questionable. On the ground, though, it’s empirically just wrong.)
What the Church and its well-meaning teachers has as yet failed to grasp (and, sadly, it’s not because they haven’t been told by anyone) is that is hasn’t really addressed how love of God is to be cultivated when it attacks the very faculty of love in a person as intrisically disordered at an abstract level without going the distance to deal with the concrete ways this affects other things the Church says are necessary goods for each soul.
The disconnect is like a chasm. It’s typically patched by blather that is more like a Potemkin village than anything else.
And I think this work of the Church is primarily being done in the domestic church, as it were.
Now, for those for whom *hardness* is a sign of that one is on the right path to God (I will call this “the preferential option for difficulty” school of spiritual discernment), understand that it can be much harder to trust one’s empirical experience of the faculty of love inside oneself than it is to trust the well-meaning Potemkin villages of “the hard spiritual road of self-discipline” set up by others.
Apolonio “I think that the separation between erotic love and sexual union is definitely the problem in today’s society.”
Erotic love can be chaste. Surely you mean something else.
” The essence of erotic love is a desire to be one flesh.”
Plato says No. The essence of eros is to be one soul.
” So although we cannot reduce a person, homo or hetero, into his sexuality, it is essential that we unite erotic love and sexual union. Separating them is what got us into the problem in the first place.”
Are you saying that all gays who experience erotic love must go for sexual union in order for their love to be authentic”
“For the homosexual, then, there is, I think, a form of freedom that he has that married people do not and that is possession in detachment.”
There have been Josephite marriages and Paul recognizes occasional spells of mutually agreed detachment (1 Cor 7:5).
I support gay partnerships, but I also think that a chaste friendship between two people who are attracted, be they of the same or opposite sex, can have a special depth and beauty.
Great observation, Liam:
“What the Church and its well-meaning teachers has as yet failed to grasp (and, sadly, it’s not because they haven’t been told by anyone) is that is hasn’t really addressed how love of God is to be cultivated when it attacks the very faculty of love in a person as intrisically disordered at an abstract level without going the distance to deal with the concrete ways this affects other things the Church says are necessary goods for each soul.
“The disconnect is like a chasm. It’s typically patched by blather that is more like a Potemkin village than anything else.”
Oh, it is delightful to see a few friends of Plato here!
In an ideal cyberworld, we would have this be a springboard to posts/rdiscussions of the Phaedras and/or the Symposium, and how they relate the Christian agape.
Katerina – if our behavior allows.
I would venture to say that none of our “behavior” “allows us” into heaven – God’s grace is always necessary; for me as it is for you as it is for Therese of Lisieux as it is for Thomas Aquinas…