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

[Oremus Pro Invicem]

I'm waiting for other word recommendations from those who believe it should be changed.  What are some of the proposed replacement words which will convey the teaching of the Church? 

Also why do you think your new word choice won't offend someone? 

If your word choice does offend others should we opt to change it again?

[Basilisa Marie]

I'm waiting for other word recommendations from those who believe it should be changed.  What are some of the proposed replacement words which will convey the teaching of the Church? 

Also why do you think your new word choice won't offend someone? 

If your word choice does offend others should we opt to change it again?

I think it's less about being offensive and more about being misunderstood. People hear "disorder" and they think "mental illness that needs to be treated and/or cured." They don't think "not directed toward the good." Lots of people find the Church teaching offensive in itself. We can't do much about that, other than pray for their conversion. 

It seems to me that because "disorder" has a lot of connotations to mental illness or disability in our society, a lot of the cultural emotional baggage comes along with it. So you get the social stigma, like it's a dirty secret that shouldn't be talked about because it's shameful. You have the implication that it's something that should be cured, or treated, so that you can live a "normal" (in this case, heterosexual) life. You also have the idea that people with mental disorders are on some level, subhuman, not worthy of the same dignity as "regular" people. 

But the Church doesn't say that we need to treat or cure homosexuality and turn homosexuals into heterosexuals. It doesn't say that having homosexual tendencies should be hidden because they're shameful. It doesn't say that homosexuals have less dignity than heterosexuals. 

Maybe instead of saying "disordered" we can just say what we mean, even if it takes more words to do so. 

[truthfinder]

Part of the problem is the seemingly more frequent devolution to gut-reactions with certain terms without investigating further how the text is using the words.  

[Gabriela]

I'm waiting for other word recommendations from those who believe it should be changed.  What are some of the proposed replacement words which will convey the teaching of the Church? 

Also why do you think your new word choice won't offend someone? 

If your word choice does offend others should we opt to change it again?

I don't necessarily change any words. I change the whole conversation. When people ask why the Church objects to homosexuality, I tell them:

1. The Church has no problem with homosexual people as people.

2. The Church understands that attraction to the same sex is something many people can't control.

3. The Church teaches that, for a sexual act to be moral, it must be carried out within the confines of marriage, and must be both potentially procreative and unitive (I explain what these mean).

4. Since (3), masturbation is a sin, and premarital sex between a male and female is a sin, and also sex between two men or two women is a sin.

5. The Church's recommendation for those who experience attraction to the same sex, or for anyone who finds premarital sex or masturbation difficult to resist, is to turn to God to ask for the grace of chastity. Many Catholics struggle to remain chaste, but those who live celibate lives are an inspiration to us and living proof that you won't die from not having sex. You can even be happy that way.

They don't usually agree with me at the end of this, but they at least can see that the Church has a whole logic behind Her belief, and so isn't just "hating on gays".

[Peace]

I think it's less about being offensive and more about being misunderstood. People hear "disorder" and they think "mental illness that needs to be treated and/or cured." They don't think "not directed toward the good." Lots of people find the Church teaching offensive in itself. We can't do much about that, other than pray for their conversion. 

It seems to me that because "disorder" has a lot of connotations to mental illness or disability in our society, a lot of the cultural emotional baggage comes along with it. So you get the social stigma, like it's a dirty secret that shouldn't be talked about because it's shameful. You have the implication that it's something that should be cured, or treated, so that you can live a "normal" (in this case, heterosexual) life. You also have the idea that people with mental disorders are on some level, subhuman, not worthy of the same dignity as "regular" people. 

But the Church doesn't say that we need to treat or cure homosexuality and turn homosexuals into heterosexuals. It doesn't say that having homosexual tendencies should be hidden because they're shameful. It doesn't say that homosexuals have less dignity than heterosexuals. 

Maybe instead of saying "disordered" we can just say what we mean, even if it takes more words to do so. 

Well I dunno. I think you can consider it a disorder, just like a mental illness or a disability. It seems to be a form of infertility, in a sense. You are inclined to have a sexual attraction to people who with you cannot procreate. The human race would die out if everyone had the same inclination . . .

That may not necessarily be the greatest thing to hear but I don't think the truth of it changes . . .

Now, just cause someone has a disorder does not mean that he or she has less intrinsic dignity than anyone else. We are all disordered in some form or another.

[Basilisa Marie]

Well I dunno. I think you can consider it a disorder, just like a mental illness or a disability. It seems to be a form of infertility, in a sense. You are inclined to have a sexual attraction to people who with you cannot procreate. The human race would die out if everyone had the same inclination . . .

That may not necessarily be the greatest thing to hear but I don't think the truth of it changes . . .

Now, just cause someone has a disorder does not mean that he or she has less intrinsic dignity than anyone else. We are all disordered in some form or another.

The problem isn't whether or not it might "count" as a mental disorder, the problem is our cultural baggage surrounding mental disorders. Most of that cultural baggage isn't good. 

Edited October 23, 2015 by Basilisa Marie

[Peace]

The problem isn't whether or not it might "count" as a mental disorder, the problem is our cultural baggage surrounding mental disorders. Most of that cultural baggage isn't good. 

Well then I say let's address the cultural baggage. People with mental disorders should be afforded the same level of respect as anyone else, of course . . .

[Gabriela]

Well then I say let's address the cultural baggage. People with mental disorders should be afforded the same level of respect as anyone else, of course . . .

Can we not address homosexuality and discrimination on the basis of mental disorders at the same time?

[Aragon]

The Church doesn't call anyone "disordered."  The Church calls homosexuality disordered.  BIG BIG HUGE difference...

 

I know, but for the purpose of communicating the Faith this distinction between a disordered inclination and the person who has the inclination is almost always lost. Also, when we use this language in our discourse around this sin but not others it can often appear like we're saying ssa people are particularly bad sinners.

[Peace]

Can we not address homosexuality and discrimination on the basis of mental disorders at the same time?

If the situation warrants discussing them separately, that is perfectly fine by me.

[Aragon]

This is how drama gets started. People judge others personally, so I will not respond in kind, nor will I prop anyone that makes seemly personal judgements of others.

So long as the Church keeps the meaning of her language against the act and desire of homosexuality the same it isn't going to make a beaverdamn's difference to the world what words are used. It is the teaching and meaning that the world hates and finds hateful. And if we change the Church's language to make it 'nicer' or 'softer' we risk loosing the meaning and teaching of the Church.

We've had this discussion many times on Phatmass, but those who advocate changing the Church's language never offer any 'better' words that have the same meaning without watering down the Church's teaching.

I've heard many same sex attracted Catholics, including those who are orthodox and chaste, say that they find this language hurtful. Even if no one converts because we use a "nicer" tone, shouldn't our care for Catholics who struggle with this issue cause us to use more pastorally sensitive language? 

Others are right, if you begin talking to someone in a gay relationship about their 'objectively disordered condition' or whatever they're going to get angry and shut you out.

 

Also, I think it's easy to come up with many better terms

Instrinsically disordered - always sinful

Objectively disordered inclination - Temptation, not ordered towards the proper object of sexuality

[Norseman82]

 

At this point it's personal opinion what words mean to other people. 

 

Because someone had to post it: 

 

 

Edited October 24, 2015 by Norseman82

[dUSt]

And if we change the Church's language to make it 'nicer' or 'softer' we risk loosing the meaning and teaching of the Church.

We've had this discussion many times on Phatmass, but those who advocate changing the Church's language never offer any 'better' words that have the same meaning without watering down the Church's teaching.

Allow me to try this line of thinking out on you... You're saying I should say that you act like a "jerk". If I ever tried to be "nicer" or "softer" and say you act "inconsiderate", you're saying that you would not understand how I felt, because it would water down my feelings?

Instead of "homosexuality is intrinsically disordered" why doesn't the Church say "homosexuality disrupts the naturally planned function of sex".

That's breaking it down by the definition of those words, and says the same thing.

Somebody please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the church teaches that homosexual acts are disordered. She does not teach that homosexuality is a disorder. If 90% of people who read it interpret it as the Church teaching that homosexuality is a disorder, then I think it's just common sense that the language should be changed to better define what the Church teaches on the matter.

[Credo in Deum]

 

Somebody please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the church teaches that homosexual acts are disordered. She does not teach that homosexuality is a disorder. If 90% of people who read it interpret it as the Church teaching that homosexuality is a disorder, then I think it's just common sense that the language should be changed to better define what the Church teaches on the matter.

Both the acts and inclination are considered disordered.

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,¹⁴¹ tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."¹⁴² 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

I say we replace 'disordered' with 'discombobulated'.

Problem solved.

Edited October 24, 2015 by Credo in Deum
I edit what I want!

[dUSt]

Both the acts and inclination are considered disordered.

I guess I should have been more specific. Yes, the act is "intrinsically disordered" and the inclination is "objectively disordered". But, is homosexuality a disorder--as in the common understanding of how that word is used (mental disorder, learning disorder, etc). Also, is the act not "objectively" disordered as well? And is not the inclination "intrinsically disordered" too? Why is there a differentiation? WHAT DOES THE CHURCH MEAN!? If I don't understand it, how could the average MSNBC viewer possibly understand it?

[Aragon]

I guess I should have been more specific. Yes, the act is "intrinsically disordered" and the inclination is "objectively disordered". But, is homosexuality a disorder--as in the common understanding of how that word is used (mental disorder, learning disorder, etc). Also, is the act not "objectively" disordered as well? And is not the inclination "intrinsically disordered" too? Why is there a differentiation? WHAT DOES THE CHURCH MEAN!? If I don't understand it, how could the average MSNBC viewer possibly understand it?

 

It doesn't mean 'mental disorder'. The Church doesn't have the competency or authority to hand out psychiatric diagnoses. And 'objectively' here isn't being used as the opposite of 'subjectively'.

Instrinsically means it's sinful (disordered in itself). Objectively disordered means it's not sinful in itself but is directed towards an act (an object) that is sinful. Because the inclination is ordered towards an object that is sinful (homosexual activity) it is "objectively disordered". Of course, as you point out, the fact that the owner of a Catholic forum doesn't easily understand those terms demonstrates how ineffective (and even counterproductive) they are for both evangelisation and pastoral care. +Chaput is right. We need to use language that expresses the teaching of the Church on this issue in both a clearer and more charitable way.

Act: always sinful
Inclination: Not sinful, but a temptation to a sinful act.

Same meaning. Much clearer. Doesn't make same sex attracted people sound like they're lepers.

Edited October 24, 2015 by Aragon

[Basilisa Marie]

I guess I should have been more specific. Yes, the act is "intrinsically disordered" and the inclination is "objectively disordered". But, is homosexuality a disorder--as in the common understanding of how that word is used (mental disorder, learning disorder, etc). Also, is the act not "objectively" disordered as well? And is not the inclination "intrinsically disordered" too? Why is there a differentiation? WHAT DOES THE CHURCH MEAN!? If I don't understand it, how could the average MSNBC viewer possibly understand it?

The Church doesn't have an official position on whether or not homosexuality is a disorder like how bipolar and depression are disorders. It believes sexual attraction to members of the same sex is a disorder in the sense that it's objectively not ordered toward the natural purpose of sex. So the actions and the inclination is intrinsically disordered. But experiencing the inclination is not sinful. Only the actions are. Any inclination we experience toward sin is disordered; homosexuality isn't the only disordered inclination. That is, experiencing temptation isn't sinful. 

[Credo in Deum]

 If I don't understand it, how could the average MSNBC viewer possibly understand it?

This is assuming the average MSNBC viewer wants to understand it.  

[Aragon]

The Church doesn't have an official position on whether or not homosexuality is a disorder like how bipolar and depression are disorders. It believes sexual attraction to members of the same sex is a disorder in the sense that it's objectively not ordered toward the natural purpose of sex. So the actions and the inclination is intrinsically disordered. But experiencing the inclination is not sinful. Only the actions are. Any inclination we experience toward sin is disordered; homosexuality isn't the only disordered inclination. That is, experiencing temptation isn't sinful. 

My question is though, if this is the case, then why do we seem to reserve this language for homosexuality? Why not just talk about the 'temptation' to homosexual acts rather than the disordered inclination to homosexuality. It makes it sound like same sex attracted people are especially bad sinners who have an 'objective disorder', while the rest of us just deal with our garden variety 'temptations'.

[Basilisa Marie]

My question is though, if this is the case, then why do we seem to reserve this language for homosexuality? Why not just talk about the 'temptation' to homosexual acts rather than the disordered inclination to homosexuality. It makes it sound like same sex attracted people are especially bad sinners who have an 'objective disorder', while the rest of us just deal with our garden variety 'temptations'.

We don't actually reserve it for homosexuality. It just so happens to be most popular with people talking about homosexuality. 

And also: Duh. Which is why I'm very pro-changing our word choice.  

Though it shouldn't be ignored that homosexual acts are a serious sin, and it's very much understood by most people to not be seriously sinful. It's not like my desire to each too much chocolate than is good for me. Or my desire to constantly break the speed limit. It's even different from the desire to have lots of hetereosexual sex, because in that case while premarital and extramarital sex is sinful, the desire to have sex with someone of the opposite sex isn't inherently directed away from good things. In some important ways it's directed to the natural purpose of sex. That's one reason why using "disorder" is so popular, because for all it's flaws it highlights the important difference between heterosexual sex and homosexual sex (and masturbation, for that matter). 

The objective nature of homosexuality makes it different from many other kinds of sexual sins. But there's a difference between the objective nature and the pastoral implications, a line that often gets obscured when we talk about it. Like you said, we often give the impression that homosexuals are especially dangerous, notorious sinners when heterosexuals are just as likely to be dangerous, notorious sinners.