The following comes from an August 25 LifeSite News article by Matthew Cullinan Hoffman:
The recent initiative of Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto to impose homosexual “marriage” on the country has led to the greatest confrontation between the government and the Catholic Church since the 1920s and 1930s, warned a spokesman for the Archdiocese of Mexico in a recent interview.
Fr. Hugo Valdemar told Mexico’s Proceso magazine that the president’s attempt to pass a homosexual “marriage” amendment has caused “a cooling of his relationship with the bishops, who are very troubled by his initiative.”
“There hasn’t been a confrontation so strong between the government and the Church since the anticlerical laws of Plutarco Elías Calles were promulgated and since General Lázaro Cárdenas introduced socialist education” in the country, Fr. Valdemar added.
“In launching his initiative to legalize marriages between people of the same sex, President Peña Nieto betrayed the Church, because he had promised that the agenda of Pope Francis would be his own,” Valdemar said. “So his initiative has been received by us like a terrible stab in the back.”
The Catholic bishops have jointly called for Mexicans to join massive protests against the proposed amendment that will take place throughout the country on September 10 and in Mexico City on September 24.
A previous round of protests held June 1 led to a retreat by the president’s Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) on the issue. The PRI went on to lose a majority of state governments for the first time since the party’s founding in 1929, a massive electoral defeat that party leadership blamed on the president’s homosexual “marriage” initiative.
At least the bishops in Mexico are resisting the government’s attempt to impose same-sex pseudo marriage. Here in America the bishops have largely capitulated, giving lip service to Catholic dogma at best, and Catholic schools and dioceses are even offering benefits to same-sex “spouses” of Church employees.
Homosexuality is a mental disorder, and anyone who subscribes to the LGBT’s distorted view of human nature (even if not LGBT himself) will contribute to the demise of Western civilization.
LGBT-ism must be staunchly opposed and eradicated, for it promulgates and attempts to tyrannically impose a false understanding of human nature, the world and God. LGBT-ism will result in loss of individual liberty, loss of religious…
Once again, Sawyer peddles his falshood that homosexuality is a mental disorder. There are no licensing bodies in North America that would agree with him. He makes up what he thinks is a mental disorder. What is to stop him from saying that chewing gum is a mental disorder? Nothing.
How do you propose to “iradicate” LGBT-ism? What IS LGBT-ism? Are you saying the people should be murdered if they are LGBT?
Homosexuality contradicts the inherent teleology of sex. That’s why it’s obviously a mental disorder. The licensing bodies and professionals of which you so are so enamored deny teleology, hence they deny that homosexuality is a disorder since they erroneously believe there is no such thing as a properly ordered sexual desire in the first place; any sexual fetish is thought to be completely neutral in the absence of a teleology of sex.
Chewing gum is a perfectly ordered act, unlike homosexual acts.
LGBT-ism is the ideology of all the homosexuals, transgenders, queers, questioners. I use it as shorthand because of the 750 character limit. We can start by affirming that all those things are disorders. That would be a very good place…
The term teleology is principally a philosophical and theological term. It has a precise meaning within that study and therefore primarily belongs to the science and discipline of theology. To misapply this term into the behavioral/clincial sciences such as psychiatry or psychology is intellectually dishonest and irresponsible. Sawyer stands corrected. He again veers very close to injecting a false meaning to the Church’s phrase “intrinsically disordered.” This dishonesty and irresponsibility in the use of this term has been noted MANY TIMES from that commenter, which leads one to conclude that his misapplication of words is most likely pathological.
jon, you are attempting to sever one part of reality from another. Reality is a totality, a whole. The teleology in human nature affects everything about human nature. You cannot logically affirm that there is teleology in sex yet deny that desires that contradict that teleology are disordered desires. You want to affirm something and deny it at the same time while pretending that what you are affirming and what you are denying aren’t related by any necessary connection. Your reasoning and analytical skills are mediocre at best. You are wrong.
Jon once again clearly proclaims his poor doctrinal knowledge.
God is Truth. God is the Source of all truth. Any behavioral or clinic science that divorces itself from revealed Truth is a house built on sand, because it has in part built itself upon falsehood. Sawyer rightfully points out the contradictions and the politicization of the psychological sciences over the past decades, which are now beginning to follow the path set out by the Soviet Union: to be used as a club against the populace, rather than as a movement to assist with mental health.
I beg to differ. To misapply a philosophical term that has its own precise meaning and etymology in order to advance a bias (no matter how right that bias may be) onto another discipline is always intellectually careless. It betrays the lack of rigorous respect for the integrity of any field of study. USUALLY this kind of interdisciplinary use of terms does not bother me if it were not for the fact that the commenter in question has been known to grossly give false meanings to the words of the Church (such as intrinsic disorder) and even to ascribe false meanings to very simple verbs (such as “may”). Because of that fact alone, I am raising a red flag.
As for the notion of “politicizing” the behavioral sciences: I say…
that the irresponsible importation of a philosophical term used by the Church into a different field IS ALSO POLITICIZATION.
The simple challenge here is–Sawyer, if you are going to talk about psychiatry and psychology, why don’t you respect those two disciplines by correctly applying terms inherent and native to those two disciplines. Because of your known intellectual dishonesty, there is no confidence in your usage of technical terms in an interdisciplinary way. It sounds that you don’t know what you are talking about.
Jon and YFC,
You are engaged in what our Jewish brethren call “Pilpul”. If you in your vast knowledge do not know what that word means, Google it. 1974 marks the beginning of the rise of homo fortunes when the screaming queens bullied the APA into dropping homosexuality as pathology. Changing a manual means nothing, especially under extreme pressure. Sawyer is right, you are wrong.
Pilpul occurs any time the speaker is committed to “prove” his point regardless of the evidence in front of him. The casuistic Pilpul , ie: hair-splitting. One aspect of this hair-splitting leads to a labyrinthine form of argument where the speaker,( that’s’ you Jon, )blows enough rhetorical smoke to make his interlocutor submit. Reason is not an issue when pilpul takes over: what counts is the establishment of a fixed, immutable point that can never truly be disputed.
Sawyer says let’s start with agreeing with Sawyer. That would be a good place to start. I am right, therefore, I am right. This is called circular reasoning. Housemonkey, makes similar mistake, accusing me of a commitment to “prove his point regardless of the evidence in front of him”. Housemonkey, you have made an assertion, not provided evidence. Simply stating something doesn’t make it true. And like Sawyer, you lack any qualifications to say what is or is not a mental disorder.
“All those things to which man has a natural inclination are naturally apprehended by reason as being good, and consequently as objects of pursuit, and their contraries as evil, and objects of avoidance.” (St. Thomas, ST I-II, 94,2)
Man has a natural inclination to the opposite sex. Desires for the opposite sex are consonant with human nature; they are ordered. Desires for the same sex are contrary to human nature; they are disordered.
Desires are in the mind. Disordered desires are disorders in the mind, mental disorders. Homosexuality is a mental disorder.
I cannot make it any more clear than that. I would think that if one does not accept the above, one has an axe to grind instead of pursuing the truth as Hosemonkey aptly…
Thank you, Fr. Michael and Hosemonkey. jon is being pedantic.
jon insists that “mental disorder” cannot be applied to homosexuality because the mental health profession defines mental disorder narrowly as a condition that causes an inability to function in life or intense psychological suffering.
Thus if a serial murderer or rapist can hold a 9-5 job and is generally happy with his life, he has good mental health. But any normal person would agree that a serial murderer or rapist has a mental disorder. Same goes for homosexuals. They might be able to function well enough in society, but their desires are disordered, which is one definition of a mental disorder.
jon insists he’s right when he’s proven wrong. That might be a…
Sawyer: get serious. Identify exactly where I had written that “mental disorder cannot be applied to homosexuality because the mental health profession defines mental disorder narrowly as a condition that causes an inability to function in life or intense psychological suffering.” NOWHERE! You have just committed the sin of lying. That’s very LOW.
Folks I don’t have to repeat my point because it’s very plain if you just scroll up and read what is recorded. Sawyer, it is apparent that you have an inclination not only of mischaracterizing the teachings of the Church (vis-a-vis “intrinsic disorder” and even simple verbs like “may”), but also the POV of people you are arguing with. I say this is intellectually…
dishonest.
Lastly, to insist upon the integrity of a field of study is not pedantic but intellectually honest and respectful, which is apparently lacking in these parts. Shameful.
Ladies and gentlemen: In order to prove further that Sawyer erroneously mis-defines the Church’s term “intrinsically disordered” by ascribing to it the sense of also being “mentally disordered,” let us ask Sawyer to make sense of Catechism 2352 where it says that MASTURBATION “is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action.” So, Sawyer, if homosexuals are mentally disordered because the Church says that the inclination is “intrinsically disordered”, are you going to say that all people who masturbate are therefore mentally disordered? EXPLAIN YOURSELF!
jon, you have never stated what the mental health professions define as a clinical mental disorder, yet you use the unstated definition as your main argument. I supplied a standard definition. Why don’t you say what you consider the definition to be? It’s because you don’t want to be tied town to any truth; you merely want to be pedantic so you can go round and round with people. As with your response: instead of providing your own definition that differed from mine, as you easily could have, you simply said that my definition was wrong. Well, why don’t you provide a definition so everyone knows what you’re talking about? Because you’re a pedantic troll.
Masturbation is a disordered act, as are homosexual acts.
If a person’s desire were solely for self-pleasuring without any accompanying desire to be with another (imagined) person, it would be a disordered desire and a mental disorder because such a desire is contrary to the teleology of sex, which is directed toward the opposite sex.
If a person’s act of SP were accompanied by a desire to be with an opposite-sex person, the act would be disordered but the desire would not be; hence no mental disorder. A desire for the same sex would be disordered, as I have maintained.
Unlike a pedantic troll, I do not fear responding directly.
So, jon, let’s hear what you consider the mental health profession’s definition of a clinical mental disorder to be. Provide it, since it is the linchpin of your assertion that we who say homosexuality is a mental disorder are wrong to say so.
It will not suffice to state that the APA does not consider homosexuality to be a mental disorder nor, as YFC says, that no licensing body considers it a disorder. State the definition of a clinical mental disorder, and then explain why homosexuality does not come under that definition.
What are the standards and the intellectual integrity of the mental health profession that must be preserved? What is the definition? Provide it, and then we can proceed from there.
To be clear: jon and YFC both argue against other posters here that homosexuality is not a mental disorder because the mental health profession and licensing boards do not consider it a disorder.
The mental health profession used to consider it a disorder, but that changed in 1973. So either the definition of a mental disorder changed or the characterization of homosexuality changed.
Let’s hear from them what they believe instead of merely hearing them repeat that people who disagree with them are wrong. They don’t explain why others are wrong beyond vague references to the mental health profession’s and licensing board’s standards. So, what are those standards upon which they rely? Be specific!
jon writes. “I beg to differ” when even a 14 year old boy could grasp the importance to always and only follow Christ. The father of lies “begged to differ” and the fallen angels went right along too.
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/258253359860729366/
This is the incorrupt body of Blessed Jose Luis Sanchez del Rio, martyered during the Cristero War in Mexico in 1928 at the age 14. 84 years later his body is free from any sign of decomposition. He was among 90,000 Catholics that were killed for their faith during this war. His last words were “Que Viva Cristo Rey!”
jon, homosexuals are not mentally disordered because the Church says that the inclination is intrinsically disordered, but because by the very nature of the reproductive system it is disordered to be sexually attracted to that which will reproduce ZERO. Not because of infirmity as in an interfile couple. But because part A is meant to engage part B to produce C. So a pairing of part A with another part A will never – regardless of the theological perspective – produce a C, let alone anything.
That’s disordered. And medical science, despite the massive societal push to “find” something, hasn’t found the “gay” gene.
So go on with the capital letters, but your disordered argument is nothing but more of the same.
Just to alert you folks: I responded to Sawyer’s hilarious post below.
Sawyer, you are asking me to make the same mistake you make all the time. You are asking me, an amateur, to offer an opinion about what makes for a mental disorder, and to substitute my opinion for the professional judgement of those who are educated, experienced, and certified. It would be like asking me to offer my opinion on the correct way to make a soufflé when Julia Child has already told you. You want me to agree with you that the correct way to make a soufflé is to put potatoes and olive oil into a pan and then pour some milk on top. Would you like to tell us how to make a correct soufflé, and what the teleology of soufflé making is?
Thank you YFC. Right you are. Sawyer is the one bandying about technical terms such as “mental disorder” so the burden is upon him to supply the correct definition, not some definition from WIkipedia. Moreover, the one making a claim is obligated to prove it. Thus far, any layman can detect that he has fallen short in this regard.
If you want to encounter the inherent teleology of homosexualiy, perhaps you should encounter a gay couple, especially one who has been inherently teleological for a few years already.
Homosexuality has no inherent teleology; it is a condition that departs from the teleology of sex.
A simple biological analysis of male and female leads to an understanding of their complementarity. Male and female are ordered toward their opposites, not their likeness.
You cannot argue your way around that simple truth that sex has a fixed, inherent teleology. Desires for the same sex are disordered because they contradict the teleology of sex.
Your homosexual couples might have affection for each other, but it is disordered affection.
I see I’m getting under your skin.
The way the Church uses the term “intrinsically disordered” (which is philosphical), is very different from the way psychiatry and psychology defines “mental disorder.” As an example of my previous point, Sawyer’s comment from August 26, 2016 at 8:08 pm that “Homosexuality contradicts the inherent teleology of sex. That’s why it’s obviously a mental disorder” veers irresponsibly towards the “politicization” (to use somebody else’s word there) of a field of study. THIS IS WRONG!
Now, this comment from August 27, 2016 at 8:27am avoids those pitfalls that have been pointed out to you. If you keep this up, you will see less of my comments.
No you are not getting under my skin. I just think you have no idea what you are talking about. You have no competency in the field of sexuality or mental health, yet you spout off as though you do.
YFC, you seldom respond when your points are rebutted. How about this: direct questions to you:
Do you believe that homosexuality is a healthy variation of human sexual orientation? Yes or no?
Do you believe that heterosexuality is normative? Yes or no?
Do you believe that heterosexuality is superior and preferable to homosexuality? Yes or no?
Let’s hear what you actually believe yourself instead of just reading your attempts to be snarky without advancing discussion in the interests of getting to the truth. With your responses, we can proceed from there.
I do believe that homosexuality can be a healthy variation of human sexual orientation.
I don’t know what you mean by normative.
I don’t have an opinion about whether hetereosexuality is superior or preferable to homosexuality. It just is what it is. Is being right handed superior to being left handed?
But it is preferable for a homosexual to not try to fight or hide it or be ashamed of it — for it is that shame that can cause a mental disorder.
Thank you for your responses, YFC. If I may continue:
Normative means standard, the perfect expression of something. So when I ask whether you believe heterosexuality is normative I ask whether you believe it is the standard, perfect expression of human sexuality.
Regarding hand dexterity, it is significantly different from sex in that there is no teleology in hands such that right or left would be superior or normative; either is just as good as the other.
Regarding homosexuality, I maintain that the teleology of sex makes heterosexuality clearly superior and normative, and homosexuality an unhealthy variant because it is contrary to the nature and purpose of sex.
Left handedness and homosexuality are not analogous…
“…I don’t have an opinion about whether hetereosexuality is superior or preferable to homosexuality.”
I suppose then that eating sawdust to quell the gnaw in one’s belly is equal then to a nutritious, well balanced diet. Somehow, I don’t think that that would fly, YFC.
But you can hold on to seeming ignorance and having no opinion. That and progressing to the sympathetic plug of shaming the poor sawdust lover as the true evil.
OK by your definition, homosexuality is normative for a homosexual person. Left handedness is normative for a left handed person. Being short is normative for a short person. It may not be “average” to be gay or left handed, or short – but for that person trying to be anything other than what they are is hardly normative or fulfills some third party’s idea of the teleology of their being.
YFC, you are missing the point completely.
Homosexuality cannot be normative for any human being because human nature has an objective teleology, according to which homosexuality is deviant.
“Averages” have nothing to do with it. Even if 90% of human beings identified as homosexual, they would still be deviant even though numbering in the large majority because their desires would be contrary to the teleology of sex that is an objective component of human nature and makes heterosexuality normative, the standard, the perfect expression of the purpose of sex.
Ann…whether Kinsey’s work is valid or not is beside the point. The fact if that my erotic / romantic, interests are completely towards other women. My love for Helen was, I suspect, as real and genuine as yours for your husband. Of course my homosexual inclinations aren’t normative. In each generation, God has decided that only a very small nuber of his children will be gay. Straight people will conmtinue to make babies. Some of them will be gay. We aren’t a threat to Man/Woman marriages and we’re not mentally or morally disordered based on being gay. Ann….. have you ever thought about how it would be if one of your kids was gay. We had a family in our parish where the myths that Sawyer and others post here and then one of their…
So I guess your point, Sawyer, is that Jesus stood on the mount and said, “Blessed are the teleological, for the ends shall be theirs.”
C&H, you brought up Kinsey. Hence my comment about a worthless scale.
I’m glad you understand that homosexual inclinations are not normative. The purpose of the sexual faculty, despite what oddities you’ve accepted, is primarily to make babies.
There’s no fear behind my saying so. And no myth in what Sawyer is saying.
The myth is recasting that which is intrinsically disordered to be normative. And love, true love, is an act of will, not feelings. So your comparing your feelings for Helen to my relationship with my lawful spouse is nothing of the same. That is not to discount the intensity of your feelings either.
I find it fascinating to watch a group of presumably hetrosexual people explain to each other that I’m mentally ill. Well, I do have to cop out to mild situational anxiety (I have a little panic attack when something starts to go wrong at a gig) as well as a touch of Dyslexia. I’m also left handed, which used to be seen as a mental disorder by medicine and a moral disorder by some in the Church.
However, I think even if I were all the way over on the straight side of the Kinsey scale I’d still have these issues which God a has taught me to adapt to.
….and a scale that is called a scale but spouts perfume instead of telling one how much they weigh isn’t a true scale. It is a falsehood that distracts one with perfume so as to forget the reality of the issue.
Homosexual sexual inclinations are not normative. Why? Because they circumvent the purpose of the sexual function.
But a perfume scale that renders weight immaterial would likely be very popular with those who loathe dieting when health demands it.
Homosexuality is a disordered lifestyle, those who chose to live this way usually succum to a variety of diseases from which many die. It is not the natural order to cohabitate with the same sex, God made us to marry and procreate, not naturally possible for homosexuals so you would simply self-extinct in time
Anonymous, I don’t really think it is in the natural order for people to marry opposite sex gay people. I think that is asking for a very disordered and unhappy life, and probably a divorce.
Sawyer is right
Homosexuality is not a mental disorder.
It is a choice.
No one should be having any sexual relationships for any reason outside of marriage – which is between one man and one woman.
People choose to sin.
When did you choose, MIKE?
You are so right, the bishops here with the exemption of a few just sat quietly and said nothing, then when it passed they were “astonished ” that it happened.
I’m against Homosexuality, and everything attached with it! It is against my Faith; Catholicism! It’s in my Bible; King James version also and I believe the Jewish faith is against this!
Can’t you see with “their rights”, Christanity is going down the tubes; going to Hell in a handbasket! Love the sinner, ahte the sin!
Pray more, sacrifice, fast.
Can’t you see what’s going on in this world? Eradicate Christian religion, make it a “World Religion; no Christian or Jewish principles……………….
I aggree
It was considered a mental disorder by the psychiatric profession until the 1970’s. All the whitewashing that they have been doing in recent years won’t change the fact that it is a mental disorder. Always has been. Your fellow Catholic the truth will set you free. Let us pray that the people of Mexico protest against the President in massive numbers. Where are the Cristeros when the world really needs them. Viva Cristo Rey! Long live Christ the King!
Papa Francisco gave them Communion in Amoris Lætitia but not Church marriages just yet. But our Pope offered almost no opposition to Gay marriage in Argentina, France and Italy in recent years. The Mexican bishops stand with dignity.
Only one comment on Mexico. None on what Pena Nieto is trying to do there. Interesting, very interesting.
Thanks be to God & Good for the Mexican Bishops! POM Nieto = POTUS Obama = CPM Trudeau = SS H. Clinton = liberal elites. Aren’t they all on the same global agenda? Are we seeing the gates of hell (Sodom & Gomorrah) opening up in Mexico & Canada as they play catch-up with the USA? Let’s pray the Bishops of Mexico have the spiritual will to fight for their religious rights to the end. We can only hope, they are not on the dole (receiving big Government checks & recently revealed, G. Soros checks) like the USCCB? What is next on the moral agenda for POM Nieto? Don’t know much of him but this first battle on traditional marriage cannot be a good sign for Mexico’s Catholics. Praying.
Dear Reader’s, concerning Sawyer’s post above:
1) Sawyer’s explication on masturbation is ridiculous and hilarious. He comes up with the ridiculousness that if you masturbate while imagining/desiring to be with someone of the opposite sex, then you have no mental disorder; BUT if you masturbate without a desire to be with anyone in particular OR with a desire to be with the same-sex, then watch out because you have a mental disorder. This is roll-of-the-floor-laughing kind of RIDICULOUS! It is wrong, and the reason he is making this mental error is because he has MISAPPLIED a psychiatric meaning to the Church’s phrase intrinsic disorder. Totally irresponsible. This is what happens when people attempt to practice…
philosphy/theology and the behavioral sciences WITHOUT A LICENSE! Sawyer, since you are making this claim, prove to us that masturbation without desiring any gender in particular is a mental disorder. Quote to us a psychiatrist/psychologist who supports this view.
2) Sawyer does not supply a definition of mental disorder. He merely gave us the first line from Wikidepdia’s entry, which deals with what mental disorder causes not what it actually is. Pathetic. Sawyer, I’d rather rely on a licensed psychiatrist or psychologist for a definition: not you and not Wikidepdia!
As I had said before, Sawyer has lost his credibility. His entry above further proves it.
jon, true to troll form, does not advance the discussion in the interest of getting at the truth.
He does not provide a definition of mental disorder, as requested. He merely criticizes a generally accepted, standard definition that can be found in many places, including the Mayo Clinic website.
He does not critique my analysis of order and disorder related to acts of self-pleasuring. He merely restates it, mocks it, and claims it results from misapplying psychiatric definitions that he again fails to provide or explain.
jon is unwilling to explain himself. He is unwilling to argue. He is unwilling to investigate the truth. He is unwilling to respond to questions about what he believes or means.
jon’s sole purpose on this site…
jon, this will be the last time I directly respond to your request in this thread until you respond to my request that you state what your accepted definition of a mental disorder is.
Regarding self-pleasuring, my analysis above was crystal clear. The act is always disordered. Whether there is a mental disorder underlying the act depends on a person’s desires, which are states of mind. Ordered desires are healthy; disordered desires, which in the case of sex would be a desire directed toward the same sex or an animal or an inanimate object or toward yourself, would be mental disorders.
The teleology of sex is the key to understanding it all. Anthropology is foundational to true medical judgments.
Sawyer, my point is really very simple, and my correction of you consistent: You misdefine the Church’s term “intrinsic disorder” to mean a psychiatric/psychological diagnosis. THIS IS WRONG! The Church has no competence in the behavioral sciences. The Church means this phrase as a philosophical/moral judgment, not a mental diagnosis! Your misdefinition is evident in your posts, most recently in your use of the technical philosophical term teleology.
Basically Sawyer, the Church does NOT say anything about the mental health of those with same-sex attraction. It says that the inclination and the action do not lead to the goods of marriage: it is “disordered” in that way. For you to “use” the Church’s doctrine to…
to twist the Church’s philosophical use of the term into psychiatry is WRONG, IRRESPONSIBLE, DISHONEST! You will continue to hear from me whenever I read you persisting in this gross error!
Sawyer claims that his explication of masturbation is “crystal clear.” Indeed, it is clearly WRONG as crystal. Why? He has ascribed a mental health diagnosis into the Church’s teaching that masturbation is an intrinsic disorder. TOTALLY WRONG!
Read below my comment on fornication, et al, which are also disordered inclinations in the eyes of the Church!
So goes Mexico goes all of Latin America. Bishops of Mexico stand firm to the teachings of the Gospel of Jesus Christ True God True Man Lord of Lords King of Kings. We must all pray that the Bishops of Mexico are supported by the people of Mexico in this initiative to protect the traditional family of man and woman husband and wife created by almighty God. I implore Mexico not to go the way of America or Canada who are well on their way to facing the wrath and judgement of God. Good people of the world pray for Mexico. Pray for the Bishops of Mexico.
Viva Cristo Rey! If Nieto had made same-sex marriage a campaign point, Mexico would have a PAN president instead of making him, the PRI candidate, president. We definitely need to keep the Mexican Church in prayer.
To make sense of the preceding discussion about mental disorders, one needs to understand that the mental health profession does not affirm an objective understanding of human nature. That is evident with all the cockamamie stuff regarding transgenders: if a male believes he is a female, then he is a female. Nonsense! If a homosexual believes his desires are healthy and good, they are. Nonsense!
There is an objective human nature with intrinsic finality that is the basis for all judgments about what is healthy and good for human beings. Desires that accord with human nature are ordered and good. Desires that are at odds with human nature are disordered and evil.
Medical “experts” who do not accept an objective human nature with…
Medical “experts” are also easily obtained on opposite sides in court cases. One employs an “expert” to say yes, the other employs a expert to say no.
…but considering even medical experts must pay their bills and fund their fantasies much like any other human being, the above clash of the experts will forever be played out.
Sawyer and other heterosexuals trying to convince the homosexuals of their mental disorder is like wasting hot air. You are not going to turn them around, they are not only blind to the truth, they are defiant of it. Best just to move on and take a better approach, that is to say, let the dead bury their dead and protect the innocent which these homosexual wolves would like to devour. If one of God’s 10 Commandments had read “Though shalt not commit homosexual acts” The homosexuals wouldn’t obey God, they would find excuses or blame God as they do now for their sinful behavior. St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans.
Well said, Doug. I might take your advice. I tried; I sincerely and ardently tried.
I had thought that a common foundation in the objective essence and teleology of human nature would be a springboard to demonstrating the truth. However, if an objective human nature with an intrinsic finality is denied there can be no progress toward truth. That is one problem, exhibited by YFC.
The other problem, exhibited by jon, is a sophistry that doesn’t seek the truth: merely contradicting and hair-splitting for the sake of arguing; never contributing anything toward resolution.
I beg to differ. Insisting that you do not put words on the Church’s mouth, that you do not twist the teachings of the Church, that you do not mis-define “intrinsic disorder” by making it to connote a mental health diagnosis IS NOT SOPHISTRY. I will insist upon this because WORDS MATTER. Why especially in this case? There are elements in the Church, mostly on the extreme left, who would like the Church to change its language about homosexuality because they deem it to be “hurtful.” The truth is there is NOTHING wrong with the Church’s words (namely intrinsic disorder), if used accurately and faithfully. THE PROBLEM is people like Sawyer who misdefine the Church’s words, making it to mean other than what the Church intends…
This is careless. It is the misuse of the words of the Church by people like him who fuel (inadvertently or not) the unjust call that the Church changer her language. SO, mine is NOT sophistry at all. There something at stake in my point! And Sawyer has chosen to be deaf to it.
My last word in this message thread:
I have not argued that the Church teaches that homosexuality is a mental disorder. jon dishonestly claims that.
I have argued that homosexuality is indeed a mental disorder, but that is in addition to what the Church teaches.
Every time someone states that homosexuality is a mental disorder, jon retorts that the Church doesn’t teach that. jon offers a red herring, not honest discussion.
To sum up: the Church does not teach that homosexuality is a mental disorder, but many things can be known in addition to what the Church teaches, and homosexuality being a mental disorder is one of the easier ones to figure out.
I have better things to do than go round with a sociopath.
No, the fuel behind the Left’s attacks on “intrinsically disordered” are because they feel the Church is wrong philosophically, theologically, and by every other sort of human measure. They will not cease until the Church changes Her teaching. Evil cannot abide the presence of the Good for long, which is why the LGBT movement continues to harass schools, bakers, et al even though “same-sex marriage” has been legalized by the five dictators on the Supreme Court.
Sawyer, this particular discussion would not have arisen (ie I would have ignored your post) if you hadn’t bandied about technical philosophical words like teleology and then assert that therefore such-and-such are mentally disordered.
Additionally, as I have identified below, the Church even teaches that fornication—and indeed any sinful desire—is disordered, which pulls the rug from whatever theory you have.
Read St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans Chapter 1, verses 27 through 32 using a truly credible Roman Catholic Bible, the Douay-Rhiems, any other protestant version is only an imposter and suspect of heresy. Don’t take my word for it, but rather our lineage of Holy Fathers! May God bless us all to see His truth, way, and life!
Sawyer,
Homosexuals like YFC, Anonymous, Jon, C&H and etc. have been posting on this website for years undermining the Roman Catholic Faith, deceiving their readers. The best thing to do is to not fan their hells fires. Let them live in their own little sinful world, contract their communicable diseases, and fade away in oblivion. Where I get upset is their shoving their sinful ideas into innocents and childrens faces, trying to paint the homosexuals sins as acceptable to God. But sin is an offense to God, and He won’t approve that which He is offended by! The devil has tempted mankind since Adam and Eve ate the fruit from the forbidden tree. Satan has the homosexuals goat-roped. We have to protect our children. Homosexuals…
Among many weapon of Satan’s new world order without Logos, Homosexuality is merely the weapon of choice, Our poor suffering humanity are victims of this evil because we collectively failed to reject these evil doers. There is hell to pay and it will soon will become worse than anyone imagines.
Folks Sawyer is wrong in his use of the word “intrinsic disorder.” The Church teaches that every sinful inclination is disordered, not just homosexuality. In fact, Catechism 1755 teaches that FORNICATION (a sin between opposite genders) is a disorder! Catechism 2351 teaches that LUST (no distinction whether for the same-, or opposite-sex) is disordered. Catechism 1753 teaches that LYING and CALUMNY are intrinsically disordered! Catechism 2352 judges that masturbation (regardless of what gender is the mental focus of the sinner) is disordered! Sawyer, you have been proven wrong yet again. You must desist in the use of the word “mental disorder” as if to intimate that the Church assigns this to homosexuals. WRONG!
Father Michael the Virgen Mary at Fatima call all of these false ideas and aberrations “‘Diabolical Disorientation.” But is up to the people what path they are choosing. God institute marriage between a man and a woman to procreate. Homosexuals can have a Social Contract sanction by the Law distinguishing their union, but our Catholic Religion call the union of a man and a woman, Marriage, because they can procreate and that was our God given order. OF course if you do not believe in God nothing matter.
Fine, the social contract sanctioned by the law that homosexuals now have in the United States is called marriage. You don’t have to call it marriage, but you have to treat it as a marriage in every way that civil law requires you to.
“You don’t have to call it marriage, but you have to treat it as a marriage in every way that civil law requires you to.” Says who? Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s. Marriage comes from God, not Caesar.
Says Federal and state Law, Fr. Micheal, And the Church teaches obedience to the state in matters of state. Civil marriage is a civil issue, and you are teaching people to disobey federal and state law. Catholics are obliged to follow the civil authorities. Perhaps you forget that. Maybe you will remember that not following civil law got the priests and bishops wrapped up into the priest sex abuse scandal into a whole heap of trouble. Are you, too, above the law, as were those awful priests and the bishops who protected them?
…we are not required to obey unjust laws, YFC. Perhaps you forget that.
It would seem that you are wrapped up in the societal push to overthrow God and His creation by foisting error on His people YFC. Even your “fellow” Catholics.
Are you, too, negating the purpose of law, as were those who rejected Jesus, choosing instead to crucify Him because you will have no king but Caesar and the pagan practice which he provides?
“Are you, too, above the law, as were those awful priests and the bishops who protected them?” = Begone Satan! The power of Christ compels you!
Exorcism Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel
https://catholicharboroffaithandmorals.com/Exorcism.html
What unjust law do you have a problem with, Ann Malley? Laws that prohibit unjust discrimination? Laws that compel people to treat everyone equally in business matters, in offering of health care benefits, housing rights, and in provision of public accommodations. You think it is unjust to treat everyone equally?
Perhaps you should re-read the catechism: It requires you to treat LGBT people without discrimination.
Fr. Michael….One of the things I disagreed w/ most of my fellow gays with was whether Civil Unions were an acceptable compromise. Much (most?) of the issues about recognizing our relationships are about very secular issues. W/o some kind of recognition, people like Mrs. Windsor could have bad things happen to them and most importantly children could be, and were, terribly disadvantaged. As for the psychological issues of respect, equality etc. both my late girlfriend and I had families who loved us which would have been the most important thing. Anyway, neither the American Bishops nor the LGBT community were able to compromise and here we are.