Gay Cancer

[Jaime]

[quote]again, I feel as if hot stuff could've done more to explain that rather than just continually claiming that the use of one term over the other in different places in Church documents spoke for itself; it clearly did not.[/quote]

Ok some slack should be given here folks. I'm not evading the question but instantaneous gratification ain't gonna happen for several reasons.

1. Al's asked for cited sources and I haven't found any yet that directly goes to what I'm talking about. It just infers it

B. 4 hours of sleep and playing two masses cuts into research time

That being said I will share what I mean and continue to look for sources that back it up.

The way the Church has viewed intrinsic vs objective has become more defined (especially when it pertains to sexual ethics) over the past 40 or so years. John Ford, the author of humanae vitae (and others in recent years) have done much to fully define the difference. Here's what it boils down to

When the Church defines something has having intrinsic value, it is always a thing (ex the human person has intrinsic dignity) or an action (homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered). That which has intrinsic value has form and substance. It has action. Desires, thoughts and will does not fit this criteria. Hence it cannot have intrinsic value.

Also anything with intrinsic value, that value is unchangeable. An intrinsically disordered act is always intrinsically disordered.

So when someone is saying homosexual desire is intrinsically disordered, because the desire has no intrinsic value, you are saying that the person who has the homosexual desires has the intrinsic value. And since an intrinsic value is unchanging, you are saying there is no salvation for that person.

That then broadens out to all objectively disordered desires. And if objectively disordered desires are interchangeable for intrinsically disordered, there is literally no salvation for any of us who have dealt with the desire of lust, masturbation, etc. (which pretty much covers everyone)

[Jaime]

Also (and I know this ain't ever gonna happen)

Apotheoun owes me (and the Holy Father) an apology for stating that we are attempting to "normalize" homosexuality by referring to people with homosexual inclinations as "homosexual".


won't hold my breath

[Aloysius]

Don't mean to ask for you to write a dissertation or anything... just thought some of the earlier replies in the thread could've included more explanatory things rather than attempts to claim that the useages of different terms at different times in different documents spoke for themselves, that's all.

what you just said is what I've noticed in a lot of things: the attempt to arbitrarily re-define terms with no regard for their actual etymological meaning; I'd like to see a reason why "intrinsic" cannot refer to desires, rather than a just-so explanation that it cannot refer to desires.

an intrinsically disordered desire is always intrinsically disordered only in that that specific desire could not ever be considered ordered. therefore, while the homosexual's general desire for sex is not an intrinsically disordered desire, the specific desire for homosexual sex would be an intrinsically disordered desire, it is unchangeable only in the sense that the desire for homosexual sex can never be an ordered desire.

I do believe that desire can have intrinsic value, I'd really like to see evidence as to why "intrinsic" cannot be applied to a desire...

what I see in your post is the type of common arbitrary distinction between terminology which is used to colloquially make differentiations but is not, in fact, the most precise way of doing so while being faithful to the actual etymological definitions of words. you cannot absolutize these tools which are used merely to make a point of differentiation but which are not, in fact, necessary to the words; they are not, ironically, intrinsic definitions to the words but arbitrary models; like algorithms in math, which help facilitate understanding in a simpler matter but do not have value outside of that.

I would really suggest adopting the distinction that when you say the desire is not intrinsically disordered, you are only saying that the desire for sexual intimacy in general is not intrinsically disordered. Like I said, it's messy and misleading to say that "a homosexual desire is not intrinsically disordered"; you must specify that it is simply the sexual desire, in general, which is not intrinsically disordered. this distinction may also help to extend out and keep up this distinction which doesn't allow desires to have an intrinsic value; so long as you generalize desires enough and distinguish them from their objects, then yes a desire wouldn't have an intrinsic value.

the problem is that the term "homosexual desire" includes the disordered object, you have to generalize if you really want to talk about pure desires as not having intrinsic value. Actually, I'd be inclined to agree, citing Aquinas, that pure desires would not have an intrinsic value, as pure desires are always the desires for some good, but can only be distorted by focusing that desire on a false good.

[Jaime]

And yet, you can read through Church teachings and see (as I've demonstrated) that there is nothing arbitrary about how the Church uses these words. And how I have defined them is in line with how the Church uses them.

There are reasons that the Church chooses her words. If the definitions are arbitrary, it would be reflected in Church doctrine. It is not.

[Aloysius]

I edited my post while you were posting. I think it is simply the way in which you relate these definitions which becomes arbitrary, which begins to seem like a "just-so" explanation. To truly make the distinction that says that desires do not have intrinsic value, you must bring the desire down to its purest general form; if you are talking about specific desires like that, you begin to confuse the issue. to say "the homosexual desire is not intrinsically disordered" is to make it sound as if it is not disordered by the very nature of it being attracted to the to the wrong thing; it is indeed intrinsically objectively disordered. It is the sexual desire in general which is not intrinsically disordered.

Again, I do not feel as if your few examples of the use of different words at different times has reflected anything other than the Church saying different things about them; you haven't shown her making exclusionary statements towards the possibility of applying the word intrinsic to "homosexual desires", she was emphasizing that the desire is the sexual desire, the disorder is the object of that sexual desire.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1402366' date='Oct 14 2007, 03:08 PM']I edited my post while you were posting. I think it is simply the way in which you relate these definitions which becomes arbitrary, which begins to seem like a "just-so" explanation. To truly make the distinction that says that desires do not have intrinsic value, you must bring the desire down to its purest general form; if you are talking about specific desires like that, you begin to confuse the issue. to say "the homosexual desire is not intrinsically disordered" is to make it sound as if it is not disordered by the very nature of it being attracted to the to the wrong thing; it is indeed intrinsically objectively disordered. It is the sexual desire in general which is not intrinsically disordered.[/quote]

Then why is that not ever reflected in Catholic teaching?

You can continue to say "same thing" but you cannot point to one church document that supports that.

And again, I've never ever said that homosexual desire is not disordered. The Church makes it clear that it is objectively disordered (again, objectively disordered meaning the desire does not lend itself to procreation)

Desires do not have intrinsic value.

[Aloysius]

I say that it is reflected in Church teaching, it is merely a different interpretation, just as valid, of those same examples you have offered from the Catechism and other documents. It is your interpretation and extrapolation of the usages of these terms in different areas which is part of the algorithm I am talking about... but I do not see how this is not perfectly in line with the usages of the terms as shown in every single citation of Catholic teaching throughout this thread. Moreover, this usage goes into an understanding of the actual meaning of the words chosen to be used by the Church; the Church did not choose to use those words for the reasons you imply she did, she chose to use those words because they were accurate based upon their etymological meanings, "intrinsically disordered" meaning "disordered by its very nature" and "objectively disordered" referring to "having an improper object"

the fact that you say "objectively disordered" refers to nothing other than frustrating the procreative act speaks volumes to what I am talking about with these algorithms of arbitrary definitions. the reason the Church uses "objectively disordered" to refer to things which frustrate the procreative act is because it is saying that they are focused on the wrong object, something especially poignant when discussing sexual acts but also applicable in any situation where the object of a desire is not its proper object.

I'm saying that we shouldn't just look at where the Church uses what terms, but at WHY the Church uses these terms in saying one thing rather than saying another thing; understanding the reasoning; they're not drawing arbitrary distinctions between the terms like your interpretation claims they are. They are using the real meanings of the real words for real reasons, and getting at the heart of why they use the terms is a much better way to understanding Church doctrines.

[Jaime]

[quote]the fact that you say "objectively disordered" refers to nothing other than frustrating the procreative act speaks volumes to what I am talking about with these algorithms of arbitrary definitions. the reason the Church uses "objectively disordered" to refer to things which frustrate the procreative act is because it is saying that they are focused on the wrong object, something especially poignant when discussing sexual acts but also applicable in any situation where the object of a desire is not its proper object.[/quote]

Well that should be easy enough to prove

What is an example where the Church teaches about a situation that is NOT sexual where they call it objectively disordered?

[Aloysius]

didn't say that She did use the term anywhere else, just said that that line of reasoning is a type of arbitrary terminological algorithm. it's not about where she's applied one term or the other, but why she applied one term as opposed to the other in a specific instance. it's about developing an in depth understanding of these terms and why the Church is using them, not just putting them into column a and column b based upon which situations the Church has applied them to.

just because the Church only applied that term to sexual desires does NOT mean that the Church has re-defined the terms for that exclusive purpose.

you are employing just-so explanations rather than getting to the heart of the definitions of the words and thus the reasons they are used.

[Jaime]

Ok I've made my statements. The teachings of the Church have given support to how I've laid out the definitions of intrinsic and objective disorders.

You say I'm wrong. But all you're offering is opinion and nothing to support it Al

[Aloysius]

no, I say that you have a point to make, but that it's not thoroughly enough defined and clarified based on an understanding not only of what words the Church uses, but why she uses them.

[hyperdulia again]

Denzel Washington!

[Jaime]

[quote name='hyperdulia again' post='1402442' date='Oct 14 2007, 06:01 PM']Denzel Washington![/quote]

Sandra Bullock!


(Oh carp wrong thread)

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1402339' date='Oct 14 2007, 03:19 PM']Homosexual desires are intrisically disordered, i.e., disordered [i]per se[/i], because the object of the desire in question is unnatural ([i]contra naturam[/i]).[/quote]
Thank you.

[Jaime]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1402484' date='Oct 14 2007, 07:39 PM']Thank you.[/quote]

Its not a majority vote Cmom

He's still wrong.

[Jaime]

and he still owes me and the Holy Father an apology

[photosynthesis]

this thread is getting way off topic.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1402487' date='Oct 14 2007, 08:46 PM']Its not a majority vote Cmom

He's still wrong.[/quote]
Sorry, but that is what I was taught as well. Being a theologian, he explains it better.

[hyperdulia again]

Paul Newman!

[Cam42]

I have just finished reading through this thread and seriously, I am confused. I know that it has been a long while since I have posted here, but I have not stopped studying the faith nor have I stopped coming to a greater understanding of what the faith has to offer.

With that being said, I really don't get the names being listed....perhaps it is a homosexual thing, but it really isn't doing anything to help the situation.

Also, hot stuff is totally correct.

When a thing is intrinsic, it is so by it's very nature.

When a thing is objective it is so by the efforts or actions of the thing in which it is intended to accomplish.

So, when hot stuff makes the distinction, he is making a very valid one. When he talks about symantics, he is talking about a very clear one. He has supported his position by using the Roman Catholic Church's position, supported by the Catechism (which, contrary to Appy's view, is more than a reference book), various documents and valid and sound reasoning.

What does the Church teach?

[quote name='CCC 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, tradition has always declared that [b]"homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."[/b] 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.[/quote]

and

[quote name='Persona Humana 8']At the present time there are those who, basing themselves on observations in the psychological order, have begun to judge indulgently, and even to excuse completely, homosexual relations between certain people. This they do in opposition to the constant teaching of the Magisterium and to the moral sense of the Christian people.

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.

In regard to this second category of subjects, some people conclude that their tendency is so natural that it justifies in their case homosexual relations within a sincere communion of life and love analogous to marriage, in so far as such homosexuals feel incapable of enduring a solitary life.

In the pastoral field, these homosexuals must certainly be treated with understanding and sustained in the hope of overcoming their personal difficulties and their inability to fit into society. Their culpability will be judged with prudence. But no pastoral method can be employed which would give moral justification to these acts on the grounds that they would be consonant with the condition of such people. [b]For according to the objective moral order, homosexual relations are acts which lack an essential and indispensable finality.[/b] In Sacred Scripture they are condemned as a serious depravity and even presented as the sad consequence of rejecting God. [b]This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and can in no case be approved of.[/b][/quote]

What does this say? It says that the the objective moral order, homosexual relations are acts. That is the proper use of what objective means. Secondly, it says that those acts are intrinsically disordered. But it also says that we cannot objectively judge those who suffer from that anomaly.

This is supported by Scripture:

Rom 1:24-27 "That is why God left them to their filthy enjoyments and the practices with which they dishonor their own bodies since they have given up Divine truth for a lie and have worshipped and served creatures instead of the Creator, Who is blessed forever. Amen! That is why God has abandoned them to degrading passions; why their women have turned from natural intercourse to unnatural practices and why their menfolk have given up natural intercourse to be consumed with passion for each other, men doing shameless things with men and getting an appropriate reward for their perversion"

See also what St. Paul says of "masculorum concubitores" in I Cor 6:10; I Tim 1:10.

This doesn't mean that we have carte blanche to destroy charity. On the contrary, this demands that we are very careful with our use of terms.

hot stuff has done nothing but support the Magisterium and the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.

Finally, I would like to say this. And I mean this with all charity and honesty....Nothing is gained by publicly entering into modified "poisioning the well" fallacies. It is totally irrelevant as to why a former "Church Scholar" is no longer a "Church Scholar." It has no bearing on the conversation.

Al, keep on the path that you are on, you are close to seeing what hot stuff is trying to get at, and your positioning is very close.