Concupiscence, disordered desire, sin

One of our many "Anonymous" commentators recently posted a link to Mark Shea's piece, "Concupiscence is not a sin" (Crisis Magazine, June 14, 2011). Shea's piece is about the young man who killed himself at 38 after undergoing “reparative therapy” in his youth for his feminine behavior.

I have no time at the moment to allow myself to be drawn into a debate about "ex-gay" movements, such as the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). I do know that NARTH is one of the favorite whipping boys [sic] for the LGBTQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered, Questioning) crowd. I do also know that the percentage of those who have responded positively to such therapies is not negligible. Leave it at that.

Shea compares same-sex-attraction (SSA) to gluttony and asks why the latter is shrugged off as a peccadillo by the "cultural Right," while even a whiff of homosexual orientation is treated with contempt. Perhaps so. But he uses the terms "concupiscence" and "disordered desire" in reference to both, confusing two different senses of the terms.

Both gluttony and SSA are doubtless disordered desires, and both require self-mastery no less than the inclination of those who suffer opposite-sex-attraction (OSA). But OSA is not a disordered desire unless it becomes addictive as it often does in extramarital recreational sex. Which means that SSA is disordered in a different sense than the natural desire to procreate or the natural desire to eat. Neither of the latter inclinations are in themselves disordered. They become disordered only when out of control. SSA is disordered even when it is fully under control -- something which our bishops are altogether reluctant to talk about these days (understandably, given the environment).

Where Shea is absolutely right is his statement that concupiscence itself is not a sin. A disordered desire like SSA is no more a sin in itself than OSA. Aboriginally, SSA is an effect of the Fall, as Shea suggests, just as, say, a predisposition to alcoholism or violent temper is. People born with predispositions bear no responsibility for them, but nobody is born a serial killer; and nobody is born a drunk -- unless Chesterton was right in supposing that Americans do not need to drink in order to get drunk because they are simply born that way. Which means, as St. Thomas says, that it's not a mortal sin to be drunk unless you knowingly put yourself in that state. Which also means that Shea may bear more responsibility for his Chestertonian girth than a person suffering from SSA does. In fact, the latter bears no culpability whatsoever, unless he or she knowingly acts upon the disposition -- unlike the eater or drinker who wakes up to discover that he's gotten drunk and fat accidentally.

An article no less compelling on the subject at hand was recently called to my attention by our San Francisco correspondent, an article by Melinda Selmys entitled, "Authentic Dialogue Is Possible" (Pertinacious Pages, June 14, 2011 -- reproduced by permission of the NOR editor). Have a look, if you're so inclined.