The following comes from a July 14 LA Times article by Joy Resmovits:
California’s students will soon be learning more about LGBT people and their struggles after state education officials voted to include contributions from the community in history and social science instruction.
The California State Board of Education on Thursday voted unanimously on a new History-Social Science Framework that includes “a study of the role of contributions” of minority groups, including “lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans.”
LGBT content will be included in some elementary, middle and high school grades. In fourth grade, for example, students would learn about “the emergence of the nation’s first gay rights organizations in the 1950s,” the framework states, as well as struggles in California from the 1970s to the present day to affirm the right of gay people to teach and to get married.
“[The curriculum] allows all students to think critically and expansively about how that past relates to the present and future roles that they can play in an inclusive and respectful society,” Don Romesburg, framework director for the Committee on LGBT History, said in the statement.
Miguel Covarrubias, who teaches 11th grade U.s. history at Franklin High School in Highland Park, said many students are encountering LGBT history for the first time in his class. “Some are initially uncomfortable,” Covarrubias said. “It makes a huge difference to know how they are part of the evolving American story.”
State Senator Mark “Kiddie Porn King” Leno tried to pass legislation making Brinkin and HRC Cronies Pedophile Porn a Misdemeanor (Brinkin got a ‘sweetheart’ Plea from 6 to 1 Felony), but it failed, barely.
The Homosex Ephebophile scandal targeting Adolescent Boys in some Catholic Diocese is different than Pedophiles like Larry Brinkin – Targeting Toddlers:
San Francisco’s Gay Icon Larry Brinkin Guilty of Felony Child Porn Possession https://cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/san-francisco-s-gay-icon-larry-brinkin-guilty-felony-child-porn
Larry Brinkin, who worked at the Human Rights Commission for the City of San Francisco for 22 years and was a prominent homosexual rights activist
How much of the Catholic contribution to the State is still included in the curriculum? Has the elementary-school requirement to study the California missions been gutted of substantial religious content? Probably.
And yet the LGBT pseudo-contributions to the State will be exaggerated and glorified because the kids must be indoctrinated into LGBT propaganda and brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality isn’t aberrant.
White is black, black is white. Right is wrong, wrong is right. Straight is crooked, crooked is straight. True is false, false is true.
That’s California these days.
Sawyer, the very fact that you can even type your post into the computer machine is due to a gay man who suffered gravely because of the persecution he endured just for being gay. Is that a pseudo-contribution?
What, are you referring to Alan Turing?
Turing’s contribution was not because he had aberrant sexuality; that’s irrelevant. I learned about Alan Turing before the LGBT propaganda machine was in high gear, and his sexual aberrancy was never mentioned when the professor talked about the Turing Machine.
Students should learn about people’s meaningful contributions, but irrelevant details about their lives shouldn’t be included to appease interest groups nor brainwash students.
There have been no LGBT contributions as LGBT. Pseudo-contributions refers to pretending that being LGBT is an important characteristic to whatever someone has done. It’s a disorder, not something to glorify or celebrate or honor. LGBT hurts society rather…
It’s not a disorder, Sawyer. No expert licensing body in the US considers homosexuality a disorder.
Since you didn’t like the Turing example, perhaps you would like the Michelangelo example. Do you really think he’d have had such a keen eye as was captured in the Sistine Chapel were it not for HIS homosexuality?
I can go on…there are many more…
There’s not a shred of evidence showing that Michelangelo was gay.
It is a disorder. The licensing bodies are wrong; they are PC rather than rational. When truth was valued every doctor, cleric and person on the street affirmed SSA is aberrant. In objective analysis, male and female are ordered toward their opposites, not their likenesses.
Stop with the revisionist speculation regarding Michelangelo and other people in the past about whom it is impossible to know. What, he could draw well so he was homosexual? You don’t know; you wish.
There are “many more” only in your revisionist fantasies that wish to normalize what is abnormal by obfuscating the truth. You wish to connect dots in a certain way, so you connect them that way even if the resulting picture is wrong or unfounded.
Nobody talks…
Nobody talks about Boswell’s “Same Sex Unions in Premodern Europe” anymore because it was failed scholarship. He wished to connect the dots in a certain way rather than be rational.
Similarly, LGBT advocates want just about every important historical figure to be regarded as gay in an attempt to lend credence to their flimsy and illogical assertions about the normality of homosexuality.
The insertion of LGBT propaganda into elementary school education is an effort to brainwash children into thinking that was is wrong is right.
People naturally realize that homosexuality is aberrant because it is so obviously disordered. It takes a lot of brainwashing, government and cultural coercion and media saturation to make people believe…
“…Do you really think he’d have had such a keen eye as was captured in the Sistine Chapel were it not for HIS homosexuality?”
A person’s artistic talent is not intimately linked with the sexual function, YFC. Yours is the most bigoted absurdity. One wherein you reject the notion of those with SSA being thought of as being defined “only” by their sexuality and yet you promote the pretense that sexual inclinations are the root of the person.
Good grief.
Sawyer, so what makes you more of an expert in what constitutes a disorder than all the experts in all the licensing bodies in medicine, psychiatry, pediatrics, etc etc? You are sounding more like Linda maria and Ann Malley who scold people without any evidence. I thought you were more reasonable than that. Scolding entire categories of studied experts and valuing your un-educated opinion above theirs makes you sound more in their camp than you might want to imagine.
YFC, it’s metaphysics. Genitalia have an efficient and final causality that can be easily grasped. Once grasped, it is evident that genitals are ordered toward union with their opposites, not their likenesses.
The “educated” class has no good evidence for declaring homosexuality to be normal. Any such declaration made by an “expert” board was a capitulation to political or social pressure from LGBT interest groups, not evidence based. The “experts” are wrong, and now groupthink clouds professional objectivity.
What makes my judgment superior? Simple: my judgment is grounded in the true metaphysical nature of things. The “experts” deny or are ignorant of the final causality of genitalia, without which a correct understanding…
…without which a correct understanding of human sexuality cannot be had.
It is the deficient metaphysics prevalent among many scientists and doctors that leads them to assert the normality of homosexuality.
So you don’t need a doctorate in psychology, biology, medicine nor LGBT studies to be qualified to refute the erroneous opinions of “experts” who claim homosexuality is normal. All that is needed is a grasp of Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics, particularly the truth that final causes are intrinsic to the natures of things. Then the correct conclusions flow readily.
“I thought you were more reasonable than that.” = NOT a good sign Sawyer. A paid troll is now perceiving you were in his camp. Perfect example of why you have to be very careful with agreeing with homosexualizing paid trolls, especially when they are still choosing to tap dance with the devil. St. Augustine warned about this on the spiritual level and world heavyweight boxing champion Muhammad Ali had a term for such clever traps. He called it, “Rope a dope! “
YFC, you assert that Michael Angelo could only paint the Sistine Chapel with such expertise because of a supposed sexual issue. Talk about no basis for making an assertion.
I am sorry for your struggle with your inclination, but that is no reason to feign victimhood. You are not being “scolded”. You are being countered reasonably for your highly unreasonable and repeated attempt to obfuscate logic and the Catholic Faith.
And, Sawyer, that’s why giving ambiguity a big pass is not a good idea. Monkey see, monkey do. And there you are.
Using metaphysics in this way is like saying that if man had been meant to fly, he’d have been born with wings. Metaphysics is hardly on anyone’s minds when they fall in love, get married, or raise a family. And metaphysics is not on the minds of the hundreds of species who engage in one form or another in homosexual activity. Metaphysics certainly doesn’t give you a veto power over people’s sincerely held beliefs about themselves, or a veto over what experts in the field observe and conclude.
And Catherine again makes up the idea that I am paid to be on this site. Hardly. I keep telling her otherwise, but she keeps spewing this untruth. Ann Malley loves to put words into people’s mouths, as she just did. Space is running out so…
“Your Fellow Catholic”: Time to go elsewhere. LGBTQ history, except its history as an outsized political movement, has no value. You can study Nazism and Communism and the like, and should do so due the real impacts that those movements had. However, the way that LGBTQ is being introduced as if it has intrinsic moral value is trouble. Many people are persecuted, YFC. The LGBTQ “movement” exists only to serve the perverted desires of a few to insist that their perversion has an innate value; but all that is really at stake is their demand that we praise their right to sodomy and other acts forbidden by God.
…the contribution was that of a human being, not due to homosexual tendencies, YFC. Can’t make homosexuality the supposed wellspring of value and then feign upset that those with SSA are being seen only through the prism of homosexual inclinations.
We aren’t promoting Adulerer’s Month, or Divorcees Pride, or Kleptomaniac Contributors to America.
Perhaps if the California Bishops focused on lobbying for such inclusion (As well as our contributions to the US and Western Civ) instead of beating the dead horse of culture war issues,Catholicism would get a fairer shake in the curiculem.
Maybe there is a lesson for students that Sally Ride, an undisputed role model felt the need to keep her loving relationship quiet until after her death.
Yes, the lesson is that there are some things that ought not be shoved in people’s faces. Aberrant sexuality is one of those things.
A big problem these days is families can’t watch a TV show or movie together without LGBT being forced upon them in some way or another. Now it will be forced in schools too.
You don’t have to be narcissistically loud, proud and out about everything in your personal life. Since narcissism is almost always associated with homosexuality, however, LGBTs attempt to force everyone to accept their deviancies as normal. A narcissist has to feel approved of by others; that’s what’s driving much of the LGBTs agenda in schools, media and government.
…perhaps Ms. Ride felt that need because she put the good of children and their proper formation ahead of her own desire to proclaim what she was doing in her personal life. Perhaps Ms. Ride wanted her private life to be private and not be used as a tool to promote agendas.
C&H, if you are a Catholic, you should know that these kinds of sexual relationships are mortal sin. To diminish the culture war as you do, does not make it less relevant. For Catholics, it’s about salvation, and holding up unrepentant sinners as role models is scandalously wrong.
Kristen, Lovely try. Have you noticed, some people on this site, use their posts to wave a flag FOR their disorder. They have heard many times about — saving their immortal soul, living the call to a chaste life, repenting of mortal sins & so forth & so on and do not seem to accept (yet) the TRUTH. Pray for them, but do not engage them unless you like futile efforts in general. Loving the sinner & hating the sin doesn’t have to include a one-sided discussion does it? As a wise someone else once said about this matter, ignore them & scroll by. Pray.
FromThePew, of course there are those kinds of people posting on this site. There are also folks trying to understand the debates so important to counter garbage with truth and not allow twisted spin to go unanswered. We do what we can!
Some soon to be Censored ‘Hyrstory’ & Served as school lunch Kool Aid
HARVEY MILK DAY
https://www.savecalifornia.com/harvey-milk-day.html
According to a reputable biography, Milk repeatedly engaged in adult-child sex, advocated for polygamous homosexual relationships, and told a very public lie because he thought it would get him ahead.
Read “Drinking Harvey Milk’s Kool-Aid”
https://www.city-journal.org/html/drinking-harvey-milk%E2%80%99s-kool-aid-10574.html
A SEXUAL PREDATOR OF TEENS
Shilts’ 1982 book detailed Milk’s sexual relationships with a 16-year-old
All California students need to know is that sodomy is one of the four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance.
As you know that sin is pre-Vatican II. So maddening and sad.
California govt. schools now officially perverse
New education frameworks will train children to become activists for ‘LGBT’
savecalifornia.com
If you don’t want your children to engage in homosexuality or transsexuality or learn to trample religious freedom and the moral values of others, you’ll want to plan now how you can permanently exit the government schools.
Why, you ask? Because California’s K-12 public schools are now officially perverse. On July 14, the Democrat-controlled state Board of Education approved pro-homosexuality-bisexuality-transsexuality curriculum to go into new textbooks teaching children that “LGBT” is good, natural, and maybe even for them…
Ready to rescue your children and grandchildren from…
I think it is important for people’s contributions to be included in children’s history books, simply because of their contributions– without mentioning their personal lives and problems. That is none of anyone’s business! And sexuality, with its abnormalities, illnesses, and various highly dangerous acts of sex perversion, committed by sick people — should be kept far away from children!
What history?????????????????
Just out of curiosity how are they going to determine if a person who lived hundreds of years ago was gay or not? Where are they going to get the real evidence that would prove if they were gay or not? I have a funny feeling that an awful lot of people in American history are going to be gay as a result of this new curriculum. Please teach the children real American history not whether people were gay or not!
Ok peoples here we go again. I know I will labeled “gay”, “sodomite,” “queer-promoter” or even “lesbian” for saying what I am about to say below. But you folks need to know the TRUTH on what the Church teaches about homosexuality, because by reading your posts, many of you are getting it wrong.
When the Church uses the term “intrinsically disordered” she is referring to the homosexual act, not the homosexual person. Catechism 2357 plainly proves this. Check it out. Another proof for this is in the 1986 CDF “Letter to the Bishops On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons” (paragraph 3), where it says plainly that there is a distinction between the inclination and the act, the latter being “instrinsically disordered…
And so because homosexual acts are not “ordered to”, “not oriented towards” the finality–the good–of procreation and the union of man and woman, homosexual acts are therefore “intrinsically (ie, in and of itself) disordered.” Remember people that this phrase (“instrinsically disordered’) is a moral, theological, philosophical category, NOT necessarily a clinical and psychiatric/psychological judgment. The Church’s competence is in theology, morality, philosophy, NOT in the clinical sciences, people.
Therefore it is WRONG to say that the Church teaches that “gay” people are disordered, as if the Church is giving a psychiatric or clinical diagnosis. WRONG PEOPLES! Remember the Church says that it is the homosexual ACT…
….that is “not ordered” rightly, morally.
So people quit saying that the Church teaches that “the gays are disordered.” You may say that as your OWN personal judgment (for which you will be judged), but you CANNOT say that that is what the Church teaches.
Let’s listen to Fr. Fessio, who states “It should be clear to people that the Catholic Church has taught from the beginning that homosexual acts are intrinsically immoral, against God’s plan, against the natural law and are serious sins, and that, therefore, a tendency to indulge in those acts, or desire for them, is an objective psychological disorder.”
gravey: Now, be sure you send a letter to good Fr. Fessio informing him of Catechism 2357 and the 1986 CDF Letter (paragraph 3). OK? Best that you inform him discreetly rather than trumpeting clerical errors here. Thank you.
I’m not sure the Church has ever used the words “psychological” in this regard. If it has, it’s problematical that the mental health professions don’t believe SSA is andjhold that it’s just a variation.
Simply put gravey, Fr. Fessio is not the Magisterium. Ok? Ok.
jon, your self-righteous condescension (“be sure you send a letter to good Fr. Fessio informing him…”) heightens your foolishness because, as I point out below, you are wrong concerning both the CCC and the CDF letter. The magisterium teaches that the homosexual condition is an objective disorder, not only — as you claimed — that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.
We all await your humble apology.
And best that you not post so much so as to avoid trumpeting your ignorance and errors in public.
You’re welcome.
jon, CCC 2358 states that the homosexual inclination (not just an act) is objectively disordered. The CDF letter you quoted also expresses that judgment:
“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.”
So the Church teaches both the act and the condition are disordered, jon. That’s not saying that people are disordered, for people are more than their sexuality, but the condition is definitely disordered.
Therefore, jon, we can say that not only are homosexual acts disordered but the homosexual condition itself is a disorder. A homosexual is someone with a disordered sexual inclination, which is what is meant when people say that homosexuals are disordered.
When we say that obese people are unhealthy we’re not saying that everything about them is unhealthy, but the judgment that they are unhealthy is correct. Similarly, when we say that homosexuals are disordered we’re not saying that everything about them is disordered, but the judgment that they are disordered is correct.
It is entirely wrong to say that “intrinsically disordered” is the Church’s clinical judgment on those with same-sex attraction. IT IS NOT! The CHurch has no competence in the clinical sciences. I reiterate that the phrase “intrinsically disordered” is a moral, theological, philosophical judgment of the CHurch on the homosexual act, and yes (I stand corrected) on the inclination as well. BUT by no means are you people right to say that the Church teaches that “homosexuals are disordered.” THAT IS THE GIST OF MY COMMENTS ABOVE, which stands UNREFUTED.
ANd yes, someone should send a letter to the good Fr. Fessio. I am sure he’s a great benefit to Ignatius Press. But it is not good to be airing the errors of the clergy…
It is entirely wrong to say that “intrinsically disordered” is the Church’s clinical judgment on those with same-sex attraction. IT IS NOT! The CHurch has no competence in the clinical sciences. I reiterate that the phrase “intrinsically disordered” is a moral, theological, philosophical judgment of the CHurch on the homosexual act, and yes I stand corrected on the inclination as well. BUT by no means are you people right to say that the Church teaches that “homosexuals are disordered.” THAT IS THE GIST OF MY COMMENTS ABOVE, which stands UNREFUTED.
ANd yes, someone should send a letter to the good Fr. Fessio. I am sure he’s a great benefit to Ignatius Press. But it is not good to be airing the errors of the clergy here…
Your error Sawyer is your use of the word “disorder” as if to mean that this is a psychiatric and psychological diagnosis of the Church on homosexuals. IT IS NOT! What the CHurch means is that the homosexual act and orientation (thanks for reminding me of that) are “not ordered to”, “not having as its finality” the goods of marriage, which is the procreation of children and the union of man and woman. You are denigrating the person if you are using “disorder” to mean the person and not to act nor the inclination together. You’re very wrong.
No Sawyer rather it is you who shouldn’t post as prolifically as you do as you have been caught in a gross error here, much worse than my forgetting that the Church renders the inclination too as “intrinsically disordered.” Your error is the denigration of the person by calling him/her disordered, rather than just sticking to the Church’s teaching that it is the act and the inclination that are disordered.
Sawyer is simply mistaken. This is double-speak. “We’re not saying that everything about them is disordered, but the judgment that they are disordered is correct.” This shows confusion in his own understanding. Sawyer, listen to Jon. He is correct on this one. It is the act and orientation that is disordered, meaning not ordered to marriage. Correct yourself please.
The Rose, homosexuality is ordered to a grave moral evil as the CDF letter states.
A mind that desires evil is disordered.
A homosexual might be good at being compassionate toward those who are suffering, but that doesn’t mean his mind isn’t disordered in its desire for evil.
It makes perfect sense to say that someone is disordered even though not everything about him is disordered. That was the point of my analogy about obese people: they are unhealthy even though not everything about them is unhealthy.
I think you are going somewhere that the Church does not go. jon is in keeping with the teaching of the Church. Calling people disordered is not done. All mankind is disordered then. The Church does not do that. The Church considers homosexual inclinations as part of the fallen nature of man.
Jon the (Paid?) pro-homosex troll has selectively ‘cherry picked’ Teachings from a document cited, without including the Whole Truth –
Here is what J Left Out -Deliberately – check for yourself:
https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html
– 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…
Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons
https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html
– 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
Shame – if possible – on the Troll
That is exactly what jon said.
You’re correct Jon: associating the term intrinsically disordered as if it were the Church’s judgment on the psychiatric or psychological health of homosexuals is mistaken. You are right to alert the error that gravey pointed out from Fessio. We simply cannot say that the Church is giving a psychological evaluation. Great point Jon.
A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.
Proverbs 18:2
From a clinical perspective, jon, a reproductive system is for the purpose of reproduction. Much like a digestive system is for digestion. Not pleasuring.
So it is completely normative to assert that certain systems are ordered toward that which is their proper end.
Bullimia is a disorder because it works against the proper function of digestion. Homosexual sex is intrinsically against the nature of reproduction.
Pretending that the Church is overstepping Her bounds in speaking about such matters is absurd. Like stating one is overreaching to say that the sun’s rays produce heat without being a scientist.
Well that’s just silly. It obviously is at least in part for pleasuring. Otherwise it wouldn’t be so pleasurable.
There’s nothing silly about attempting to feign that pleasure is the purpose of reproduction, YFC. That’s serious business for those who want to seek pleasure without purpose.
Not For Inclusions in the Revised Hyrstory:
San Francisco hit by suit from ex-HRC staffer
https://www.ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=67851
A straight former employee at the San Francisco Human Rights Commission has filed a reverse sexual orientation discrimination lawsuit against the city.
When Willis complained to (*HRC Drag Queen Head) T. Sparks about “rampant timecard fraud” at the agency, (she) agreed to investigate, but “consistent with (her) long-standing bias against heterosexual males, and African American heterosexual males in particular,”
For those interested in countering Hystorical Revisionism, the Catholic Textbook Project is well worth checking out:
Bismarck Goads France into War:
https://www.catholictextbookproject.com/this-week-in-history/week-history-73/
This text comes from our book, Light to the Nations II: The Making of the Modern World
Bismarck – got an idea. He took the dispatch and rewrote it so that it appeared that Benedetti had been disrespectful to Wilhelm, and that Wilhelm had rudely dismissed the ambassador.
Bismarck then had the press publish the dispatch
The Ems dispatch appeared in the French newspapers on Bastille Day 1870.
https://www.catholictextbookproject.com/this-week-in-history/week-history-73/
PC or not PC, that IS the Question? A great article, too long for this site, but well worth the time. Titled: MENTALLY ILL AMERICA: The 10 delusional demands of political correctness you are REQUIRED to accept, despite the contradictory evidence witnessed with your own eyes. By Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, July 11, 2016 For your sanity @ http://www.naturalnews.com/054625_political_correctness_mass_mental_illness_insane_America.html#ixzz4EM6KJoCY
PC = Deathocrat insanity to control America (cause we are your special friends.)
God Bless America, both the sane & the insane.
CONTINUED………..BTW, one of the first examples of PC run amok in the link & article above is — telling us to call Bruce Jenner a woman. It is trying to bend your mind and will to accept something not true, in this case, morally wrong also. Too many of us accept ‘everything’ because they are told it is the proper thing (the PC thing) to do. It is wrecking our thought process, along with the country/world. Reality matters. You can’t trick you mind without damaging it. The article explains it much better. Enjoy!
Alan Turing wore paisley ties. There is strong historical evidence that Michelangelo wore paisley ties. We have too long suppressed the monumental scientific, cultural and artistic accomplishments of those men (and women) who wore paisley ties. New textbooks for California!!!
I heard that their lavender paisley ties were fabulous!
California MassResistance stages protest outside office of State Senator – sponsor of oppressive anti-religion bill in Legislature
https://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen3/16b/CA-bill-S1644/protest_0629.html
Bill would force Christian colleges to abandon religious values
Senator is an LGBT activist and sponsor of Bill 1146
“We’re not taking this anymore” – See exciting protest VIDEO below!
Bill 1146, a product of the national LGBT movement, is considered by many to be the most aggressive anti-religious legislation in the country. Its goal is to force Christian colleges to surrender their opposition to homosexual and transgender behavior
The famed Nobel Peace Prize winner and UN Secretary-General, Dag Hammarskjold, who died in a mysterious plane crash in 1961– was a deeply religious man, and single, and CHASTE. He believed in giving his outstanding talents and gifts to the service of God and mankind. President Kennedy honored him as “the most outstanding statesman of the 20th century.” And privately– Hammarskjold– was a homosexual! He was honored for his outstanding gifts and service– NOT for his disability or disorder! That is the way it should be!
I don’t think I knew that Hammarskjold was gay. So thank’s for sharing his contribution to our shared history with us.
You’re welcome YFC!! it sounds to me like Hammarskjold, a single, chaste, deeply religious man, lifelong– had much more moral maturity, than JFK. JFK had many notorious affairs with mostly prostitutes, before and during his Presidency, and throughout his public life– I felt so sorry for his poor, lovely wife, Jacqueline, and their two adorable, small children! After her husband’s assassination, Jackie Kennedy won a lawsuit that ordered all historical books on her husband’s life, to remove all references to JFK’s adulterous flings with women!
jon, glad you realized your error of omission that the Church does indeed teach that the homosexual inclination is disordered. Now let’s analyze:
Mind is the subject of psychology. A disorder in the mind would therefore be a psychological disorder. A disordered sexual inclination is a disorder of the mind, therefore it is also a psychological disorder. Homosexuality is a disordered sexual inclination, therefore it is a pyschological disorder.
Homosexuality is a disorder in the moral and philosophical sense, but because the disorder is an inclination of mind, it is also understood to be a psychological disorder. Deduction, jon.
PC doctors don’t call it a psychological disorder because they deny teleology in anthropology and in…
You’re wrong Sawyer. Why? Because your interpretation of the Church’s phrase “intrinscially disordered” is WRONG. That phrase is a theological and philosophical judgment on the homosexual act and inclination (meaning that the act and the inclination are not directed towards, are not “oriented” to procreation and the union of man and woman). The term is not a psychiatric/psychological diagnosis. The Church can’t make that diagnosis because that is NOT her competence.
As added proof that you are VERY WRONG, if you are going to persist in your ERROR by saying that the Church calls homosexuals are psychologically “disordered,” then you also have to say that MANY in the population, perhaps including yourself, are also…
…. psychologically “disordered.” How so? Because the Church has also judged that other sins, most notably masturbation (since we’re in the topic of sex anyway) is “an intrinsically and gravely disordered action.” Check out paragraph 2352 of your Catechism.
It is just amazing how some people are now trying to extricate themselves so painfully from mistaken statements and understanding about “intrinsically disordered.” Notice a new disingenuous phrase being devised now to help them save face: “disorder of the mind.” Is that really how the Church talks about sin? about concupiscence? about the act of the will? This is NOT the language of the Church people! This is what happens when you try to practice theology and philosophy without a license, people; without authority. What they’re doing here folks is an effort to extricate themselves from a way of thinking about those with same-sex attraction that THEY SHOULDN’T HAVE VENTURED INTO in the first place. We must just sit back…
… and read how they try to “explain” themselves out of this one.
jon, I am deducing from magisterial statements to the conclusion that homosexuality is a psychological disorder. It used to be classified as a disorder in the DSM until 1973, removed for PC reasons; doctors used to consider it a psychological disorder until the PC era.
The Church doesn’t say it is a psychological disorder, but that conclusion follows from what kind of disorder it is understood to be. Homosexuality is a disorder of sexual inclinations, which are in the mind. Disorders of the mind are psychological disorders. Q.E.D.
To admit that homosexuality is a disorder of sexual inclinations but not to connect the dots to it being a psychological disorder is to be either obtuse or interested in obscuring the outcome from what…
… from what rational analysis would produce.
I understand the Church perfectly and I deduce correctly. I am right.
How can it not be a psychological disorder? How can you claim that someone who desires to copulate with the same sex is healthy in the mind? To desire an unnatural act is to be psychologically ill. Would someone who desired to commit suicide be considered disordered? Of course. Would someone who thought he could fly be disordered? Of course. Someone who thinks he can marry the same sex and “make love” to the same sex is psychologically ill.
The Church may not say they are sick in the head, but they ARE nonetheless, and that conclusion follows from that the Church does teach as well as from an objective analysis of…
I will add that there will be no homosexuals in heaven. This is a private judgment, but one that follows logically from Church doctrine.
Those who had homosexual tendencies on earth but were chaste and died in the state of grace will be cleansed of their disordered inclination prior to the beatific vision, for their humanity will be perfected. Homosexuality, as a disorder, is an imperfection, so it will not be a component of glorified human nature.
Do you think there will be homosexuals in heaven, jon? That is, will the disordered inclination persist among the blessed who suffered from that affliction on earth?
As a disorder of the mind, homosexuality could not be present in glorified, perfected human nature.
This language of Sawyer’s is SO faulty it is hilarious. So, “disorder of the mind” now replaces the Church’s language of concupiscence? And this shift in language is concocted by him merely to accommodate his ERROR of interpreting the phrase “intrinsic disorder” as a mental, psychological “disorder.” People, see the verbal contortions and gymnastics that some of you have to execute just in order to “explain” your error for not following the Tradition and Magisterium faithfully and more closely?
And by the way, all that commentary and questioning of me about whether or not there will be homosexuals in heaven? A ruse. A ruse to shuffle away his error of interpretation of “instrinsic disorder.”
Thank you Sawyer for admitting that the Church does not teach it, and that it is your interpretation.
No homosexuals in Heaven? Wow Sawyer, you’re breaking new theological ground here. Will there be hetrosexuals in Heaven? I’ve always thought that we’d all be..well…asexual, that is on a higher plane. I mean, if there were eroltic relationships up there, those who have had more than one spouse would..I suppose..have to chose. OTOH, in Heaven could we be polyamorus? That doesn’t seem to fit too well with Catholic teaching. I’m looking forward to reuniting with my late beloved Helen. Our love was beyond erotic on Earth and so I expect it will be in Heaven
C&H, Catholics believe in the resurrection of the body, which includes sexual characteristics. Jesus is a male in his resurrected body. Mary is a female in her glorified body that has been assumed into heaven. Sex is an integral component of human nature. No, we will not be asexual in heaven. We will be embodied, sex characteristics and all, for that is how God created us: male and female.
You obviously aren’t that familiar with Scripture. Read Matthew 22:23-33. Jesus says in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage.
jon, this is my most pithy attempt to frame the argument in terms you will understand and accept:
CCC 2357: “[Homosexuality’s] psychological genesis remains largely unexplained.”
So the Church states that homosexuality is a condition with a psychological genesis; it has a psychological component. It is furthermore a disorder, so a disorder with a psychological genesis.
A disorder with a psychological genesis is a psychological disorder.
What say you to that?
Just to put a finer point on my words above: Sawyer, the fact that the Church has acknowledged (in paragraph 2357) that the study of psychology has no explanations for the “origins” of the inclination DOES NOT MEAN that you as a Catholic can positively “deduce” that the Church therefore teaches that homosexuals are therefore PSYCHOLOGICALLY “disordered”. This is very wrong, logically and morally. It goes beyond what the Church teaches. Again: turn around. Quickly!
I don’t deduce that the Church teaches that homosexuality is a psychological disorder. I deduce that it is a psychological disorder simply.
That can be deduced from natural premises. It can also be deduced from the Church’s statements about homosexuality.
I don’t say the Church teaches that homosexuality is a psychological disorder, but I say that homosexuality is a psychological disorder.
It’s possible to know more than what the Church has explicitly pronounced.
“It’s possible to know more than what the Church has explicitly pronounced.” What you are proposing to “know” (ie, that homosexuality is a psychological disorder) and your unabashedly proclaiming it to others creates unneeded animosity, hurt, and burden to those who suffer from this orientation. Since you are not interpreting the phrase “intrinsic disorder” the way that the Church has, then WHY INSIST on creating this unneeded animosity against the Church by disseminating that faulty interpretation? I mean, really, it boggles the mind why anyone would insist on creating more animosity against the Church. Remarkable. I mean, this would be an act of an enemy of the Church, not its friend!
Honestly, I must say that it is just best that if anyone harbors this kind of interpretation of the phrase “intrinsic disorder” that it is psychological, as a Catholic, that person is just best to hold one’s tongue on it, lest the Church is implicated in that error. Amazing.
A good article to read on the topic of the Catholic Church’s understanding of homosexuality as a disorder may be accessed at the following link:
https://www.crisismagazine.com/2015/is-homosexuality-a-psychological-disorder
Quote from the article:
“A Catholic is quite right to view a persistent same-sex attraction as being associated with some form of psychological disorder.”
Also:
“Homosexuality is in the mind of the Church a form of “pathology,” spiritually and psychologically. Our authentically Catholic anthropology makes this self-evident. Latkovic’s original essay gets this right.”
This article Sawyer is nothing more than an “apologia” for the wrong interpretation of the phrase “intrinsically disordered” trying to rehabilitate the wrong interpretation, making it “fit” with the panoply of the Church’s historic teaching. I say Selmy, whom this Deacon Russell is disputing, is on a more solid and reliable footing as Selmy has relied solely on the positive historic statements of the Magisterium, not on whatever the study of psychology is yet to find out about the origins of homosexuality and then “deducing” something from it. I mean, it is stupefying to figure out why you and others would go out of your way to create hurt and burden to those with same-sex attraction by wrongly putting words on the Church’s…
mouth?! The Church has correctly stated that the science of psychology has not given an explanation for the origins of this, and so why insist on a psychological/psychiatric interpretation for the word “disorder”?! Your reasoning and effort at “deduction” is illogical. I mean, what if the explanation for the origin were to be found in the science of genetics or neurology or parenting methods?! The Church uses the word “disordered” in philosophical and theological terms, which are the proper disciplines of the Church.
Duck & Dodge doesn’t work – in the face of the Actual Truth, much as the resident (Paid?) anonymous Trolls want it to:
Try the Source Material – for the Truth:
Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons
https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html
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…
Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons
https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html
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.
– the risk is great and there are many who seek to create…
Peoples: the implications of thinking the right way about the Church’s phrase “intrinsically disordered” is very important. These days there are loud voices clamoring that the Church “change” the way she speaks and teaches about homosexuality and homosexuals; they clamor for change because they say that way the Church talks about homosexuals and the inclination is “offensive.” Where are they coming from? Well, apart from Germany they are coming from this wrong-headed and erroneous interpretation of the phrase “instrisically disordered” as a mental defect, a psychiatric malady, or a psychological disease.
Wrong peoples! The Truth of the Church’s teaching on instrinsically disordered is far richer, more profound, and…
…. more revealing of the mystery of the human person and of sexuality. People, for truth’s sake convert your minds to what the Church is saying about this phrase so that you DO NOT FUEL the other side’s “clamor” for change in the Church’s vocabulary on this matter. The true meaning of Church’s phrase “intrinsically disordered” is not offensive. It is frank, instructive, true, direct, loving, and leads to the right way of thinking–it leads to the beauty of the Church’s teaching on marriage and the true purposes for sexual intimacy as the joining together of two people in love from which life is created. Your insistence on your wrong interpretation of the phrase does disservice to the Truth. Repent people.
Peoples: just to rejoin this article. You all should “re-order” your efforts into outrage over the assertion of this “program” of the “right” of homosexuals to marry.
Repent – Oh Ye ‘anonymous’ (Paid?) Trolls
If you truly have the ‘Courage of Your Convictions’ Use your real name and identify who pays you to dump here, and don’t hide homosex harpy propaganda behind ‘anonymous’ screens.
Or is there something you are afraid of that those of us who sign our posts with our own names are willing to accept the consequences of?
Myself – I am forever on the ‘Lavender Liberal’ homosex stalker list for Alinsky Rule 12 Treatment – So Be It.
RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct,…
MMcD, Good efforts! But sadly, only God can alter some hearts & souls. No matter how many times some folks hear the TRUTH about disordered lifestyles, they reject it, repeatedly X 100. As for me, I am taking your advice……scrolling past the perpetually confused & especially the trolls. It is too bad they attempt to pass along their confusion to others on this site VS the SIMPLE TRUTH, but that just shows how deep the evil can grow when one’s soul is not in the light of God. For some such as these, we can offer prayer = hope. But you do justice to standing in the ‘fire’ for the truth! God bless you for that!
One of the contributions we’ve made is the concept of being “In the Closet” and how that can create problems in one’s life.
I’d like to propose an exercise here: HAVE YOU EVER BEEN IN THE CLOSET.?”
An example is a friend of mine who grew up in the ’50’s who was in the closet about his parents being divorced. He told his friends his dad was always on a business trip.
It ought to be interesting
I think that the purified Saints in Heaven– as well as Christ and His Blessed Mother, who was miraculously assumed, body and soul, into Heaven– are just totally pure, MARRIED TO GOD (but Christ was the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity!) and are really neither male nor female, as a soul, in Heaven. And the Blessed Mother is the Immaculate Conception. But I think they can appear that way, as either “male” or “female,” to a saintly soul, in an apparition, of either Christ or the Blessed Mother. On earth, we “fallen” human beings all have many different kinds of disorders, handicaps, deformities, and illnesses, that God needs to cure!