Thursday, September 18, 2014

Cardinal Dolan's explanation of his decision to serve as Grand Marshal


I was listening to Al Kresta on Catholic radio on my way home today, and he was summarizing Cardinal Dolan's explanation of his decision to serve as Grand Marshal in New York's St. Patrick's Day Parade next March.

Kresta went down through the document, which is posted on the website of the Archdiocese of New York. He read from the following paragraph, which indicates the likely reason the Cardinal felt he had to offer some sort of explanation:
While a handful have been less than charitable in their reactions [probably an allusion to the blistering criticism by Michael Voris], I must admit that many of you have rather thoughtful reasons for criticizing the committee’s decision [to let self-identified "gays" and "lesbians" march under their own banners]: you observe that the former policy was fair; you worry that this is but another example of a capitulation to an “aggressive Gay agenda,” which still will not appease their demands; and you wonder if this could make people think the Church no longer has a clear teaching on the nature of human sexuality. [Deal W. Hudson's cautions about "blurring boundaries" come to mind here.]

Thank you for letting me know of such concerns. I share some of them.
But then Kresta came to what he said was considered by the Cardinal to be the critically important issue on which his decision turned:
... the most important question I had to ask myself was this: does the new policy violate Catholic faith or morals? If it does, then the Committee has compromised the integrity of the Parade, and I must object and refuse to participate or support it.

From my review, it does not. Catholic teaching is clear: “being Gay” is not a sin, nor contrary to God’s revealed morals. Homosexual actions are—as are any sexual relations outside of the lifelong, faithful, loving, lifegiving bond of a man and woman in marriage—a moral teaching grounded in the Bible, reflected in nature, and faithfully taught by the Church.

So, while actions are immoral, identity is not! In fact, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church reminds us, people with same-sex attraction are God’s children, deserving dignity and respect, never to be treated with discrimination or injustice.

To the point: the committee’s decision allows a group to publicize its identity, not promote actions contrary to the values of the Church that are such an essential part of Irish culture. I have been assured that the new group marching is not promoting an agenda contrary to Church teaching, but simply identifying themselves as “Gay people of Irish ancestry.”
While this distinction between identity and behavior is widely parroted in some Catholic circles, it is clearly the lamest of lame pretext commonly embraced for doing nothing and simply going along to get along. The pretext is sometimes couched in terms of a distinction between same-sex acts (which are condemned as immoral) and same-sex dispositions (for which a person presumably cannot be culpable). What is almost never mentioned, however, is that same-sex dispositions themselves are also described by the Catechism as "objectively disordered" (CCC 2357-2359).

Further, Catholics who have thought long and hard about this issue have insisted that there is no ontological or anthropological basis for any supposed "personal identity" as "gay" or "lesbian." Individuals with same-sex attraction are just human beings like anyone else, called to chastity like anyone else, and the notion that they would wish (or be permitted to) celebrate their putative "identity" as "gays" and "lesbians" is no less bizarre than allowing incorrigible Irish alcoholics celebrate their "identity" as "tipplers," "boozers," and "drunks."

What person in his right mind is going to believe for a nanosecond that a bevy of prancing self-identified "gays" and "lesbians" are not promoting actions contrary to the Catholic teaching? If those who are saddled with (or who have helped to saddled themselves with) same-sex attraction are called to chastity, as the Church teaches, then they should be walking in a spirit of penance in sack cloth and ashes and asking for the Church's prayers. Catholic compassion, in this instance, should not consist in condoning the celebration of disordered dispositions stemming from our fallen nature, but in letting such individuals know that they are not alone, that all of us suffer from a fallen nature and have our spiritual battles against temptations that we must fight together. On this issue, nobody strikes the proper balance more clearly that Michael Voris in "Catholic & Homosexual" (Vortex, 2010).

The Cardinal Archbishop of New York has made his "prudential judgment" and offered his explanation for his decision to serve as the Grand Marshal of the St. Patrick's Day parade. Al Kresta, Deal Hudson, Michael Voris, and many others have voiced their concerns and criticisms of his decision, asking whether it was so "prudent" after all. I share many of their concerns.

Those suffering from the disorders of same-sex attraction deserve the genuine compassion of spiritual works of mercy in the form of respectful clarity about their condition and the hope the Church offers through the mercy and grace of God -- a hope to which all of us should look for our fallen and sinful condition.

Update (9/20/2014): And now, this:


29 comments:








Paul C.

said...

"What is almost never mentioned, however, is that same-sex dispositions themselves are also described by the Catechism as 'intrinsically disordered' (CCC 2357-2359)."

The Catechism most emphatically does not describe that disposition as intrinsically disordered. Rather, it says that the disposition (a deep-seated tendency) is objectively disordered. The terminology is being used carefully. An intrinsic evil is something which can never be legitimately chosen, regardless of intention or circumstances. When a disposition is not a matter of choice, it is simply incapable of being a moral evil, and thus also not capable -- using the Catechism's terminology -- of being intrinsic. It can still be an objective disorder.





Michael Lofton

said...

Pedophiles are also God's children. Should we celebrate the identitiy of pedophiles at a pedophile parade because it is the action that is sinful and not the identity? (Not to mention as you said that even the identity is disordered). This explanation by the Cardinal is simply garbage and I don't think anyone is buying it. We all know, attending such a parade gives the impression one agrees with the actions, not merely accepting an identity.





Josh

said...

Touch 'em all, PP! The tension between celebrating an "identity" which involves a predisposition to commit a certain sin and prohibiting the expression of that identity is too strong. Eventually, something's got to give.





Steve Dalton

said...

Michael Voris's video is not striking a "proper balance" about sodomy. Randy Engels, the author of "The Rite Of Sodomy" shows why. BTW, MV has a copy of TROS, so he should know better. www.speroforum.com/a/41124/Michael-Voris-and-homosexual-victim-souls#.VBxM2rt0yP9





Ralph O'Roister-Doister

said...

Cdl Falstaff should retool his beloved parade. He should take heed, first of all, that it is pure debauchery, whatever the boilerplate about it may claim. Recognizing ourselves as the sinners we are, let's organize it in seven sections, one for each of the capital sins. Let's recognize all Catholics as the sinners we are. Then everyone can find the banner which best describes them, and march proudly as a true rainbow coalition.

Gay pride? We got a banner for ya!

Gluttonous drunkards? Stumble this way, lads!

Acedia, anyone??

What would probably happen is that fist fights would break out between the wrathful and the proud, the gluttons and the lustful, etc. And somewhere in the middle of it would be several NBC employees. And a cardinal.

Personally, I don't see a downside here.





BenYachov

said...

@Dr. B

With all due respect I am politely calling you out & correcting you.

>What is almost never mentioned, however, is that same-sex dispositions themselves are also described by the Catechism as "intrinsically disordered" (CCC 2357-2359).

You are wrong sir.

To cite the relevant documents.

QUOTE"Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.END QUOTE

The CCC calls the inclination toward same sex attraction "objectively disordered" (not intrinsically) much like my children't Autism is an "objective disorder" of the brain and cognitive fuction but that is not some type of moral judgement upon their state.

We may disagree with the Cardinal's prudent judgement on the matter but it is not helpful to use imprecise, confusing and ambiguous language.

I shall answer your other points later & give you my critiques and agreements.

Peace.





BenYachov

said...

Well maybe a few more thoughts.

@Dr. B
>Further, Catholics who have thought long and hard about this issue have insisted that there is no ontological or anthropological basis for any supposed "personal identity" as "gay" or "lesbian."
It seems to me they have the identity of persons with “same sex attraction” which is an objectively
disordered inclination (it’s a defect in perfection) but not an “intrinsically disordered” (morally wicked) one as you erroneously stated.
>Individuals with same-sex attraction are just human beings like anyone else, called to chastity like anyone else, and the notion that they would wish (or be permitted to) celebrate their putative "identity" as "gays" and "lesbians" is no less bizarre than allowing incorrigible Irish alcoholics celebrate their "identity" as "tipplers," "boozers," and "drunks."
Sorry no. A person could “identify as an Alcoholic” which could mean they are recovering ones. But that does not entail they actively drink.
Marching under a banner that says OUT@NBC merely identifies the persons has having same sex attraction. By itself it is ambiguous like when St Sir Thomas More said “I Accept the King is the Head of the Church in England as far as the Law of God will allow”.
So Cardinal Dolan is not doing evil here. It might be imprudent at worst but that is all.





Robert Allen

said...

1st off, he trivializes the matter by comparing it to an incident involving sports. Then, after several more appeals to pity, when he finally decides to get serious, he draws a distinction which is morally irrelevant in the case at hand: the folks who will be proudly waving those banners will be active homosexuals, people who think that there is nothing wrong with acting according to their 'disordered desires,' otherwise they would be showing compunction, not pride, a la the men and women of Courage. The Archbishop also needs to be reminded of the distinction Aquinas drew between fornication and depravity. Not all sexual sins are equally grave; adultery, as wicked as it is, does not 'cry out to heaven for vengeance.'





BenYachov

said...

Dr. Blosser.
In addition to my problem with your apparent misreading of the CCC I am not thrilled with these statements either. Sorry it’s not personal.
>If those who are saddled with (or who have helped to saddled themselves with) same-sex attraction are called to chastity, as the Church teaches, then they should be walking in a spirit of penance in sack cloth and ashes and asking for the Church's prayers.
This just sounds ugly(I assume that is not your intent but here we are). Persons with SSA must debase themselves for what is universally considered to be an accidental feature of their psychology they did not ask for?
> Catholic compassion, in this instance, should not consist in condoning the celebration of disordered dispositions stemming from our fallen nature,
Accept this is an objectively disordered disposition not an intrinsically disordered one like the act itself. If it was intrinsic then you would be saying the opposite of what you believe. That having a SSA disposition is part of the person’s nature not an accident feature of their nature with a disordered end.
Autism is an objective disorder but I see no reason why austistic persons couldn’t march under their own banner identifying themselves at such?
>but in letting such individuals know that they are not alone, that all of us suffer from a fallen nature and have our spiritual battles against temptations that we must fight together. On this issue, nobody strikes the proper balance more clearly that Michael Voris in "Catholic & Homosexual" (Vortex, 2010).
A noble & Catholic sentiment but it is obscured for the reasons I have stated IMHO.

There I am done. I would appreciate feedback or a defense of my criticisms.

God be with you sir.





Pertinacious Papist

said...

Paul C.,

Thank you for reminding me of the distinction between "objectively" and "instrinsically" disordered in the CCC, which I have open here before me.

(Ben Yachov reiterates your point with an amplitude of enthusiasm we haven't witnessed since the "gays" heard report of the Pope's "Who am I to judge?" but is no less confused about my meaning than they are about the Pope's.)

I accept the distinction as a meaningful one and have corrected the language of the post accordingly, with gratitude for your correction.

However, I have never believed this distinction can be properly applied to those wish SSA, as though their own decisions about how to comport themselves in life had nothing to do with it, as though they were in the same condition of passively suffering an objective disorder like a son with Autism.

For one thing, nobody is born with SSA. Fervid scientific research over the past three decades has produced not one shred of evidence of a "gay gene." Read Jeffrey Satinover's detailed analysis which has been entered into the Congressional Record as one of the most illuminating study of recent times.

A much more apt comparison is alcoholism. Like the alcoholic, a person with SSA may have been born with a certain predisposition, but none of that means he is fated to become a "homosexual" suffering from SSA.

Those who have studied addictive behavior since Aristotle's time know that addictions develop in stages. Dispositions are formed. They don't drop full blown out of the blue. And they are formed by actions. As actions create habits, so decisions about how to comport oneself in his relations with others, in his thought life, his fantasies, etc., all contribute to the formation of dispositions, whether straight or crooked, whether properly ordered or objectively disordered.

And I am far less sanguine than a couple of you here seem to be that a nice and tidy distinction can be readily drawn between "objectively disordered" (SSA) dispositions and "intrinsically disordered (SSA) actions," precisely because chosen actions play a significant role in forming dispositions. The matter is comparable to alcoholism.

The other matter is some confusion about "identity." Of course it's possible, just as one may identify oneself as a "recovering alcoholic," to identify oneself as a "recovering SS addict" or as "a non-practicing celibate homosexual."

Perhaps I wasn't sufficiently clear, but that wasn't my point. My point is that no disorder of this or any sort should be seen as constituting the "ontological" identity of a person. Hence, I'm arguing that Oscar Wilde shouldn't be defined as a "homosexual." That's not his "essence" or "nature." Wilde was a human being like you and me; and like you and me, he had his own particular spiritual and moral battles he fought. His was same-sex attraction, for which he paid dearly. But these don't define (and should be seen as defining) who and what we are. St. John Paul II made points similar to that often enough in his writings.





Pertinacious Papist

said...

Steve Dalton,

What discrepancy are you referencing between Mr. Voris' account and Randy Engel's account of SSA? I'm familiar with both accounts but unsure what you're referencing.





BenYachov

said...

@dr B.

I am gratified by your self-correction and I am happy another caught your mistake.

But I am not threw disagreeing with you so if you will indulge me a little longer.


>However, I have never believed this distinction can be properly applied to those [with] SSA, as though their own decisions about how to comport themselves in life had nothing to do with it, as though they were in the same condition of passively suffering an objective disorder like a son with Autism.


Except they for the most part are strongly attracted to the same sex and in most cases are repelled by the opposite sex in a manner comparable to a heterosexual person being repelled by the same sex but attracted to the opposite. Thus many attempts to “cure” this behavior often backfire. Granted there are straight people who allow themselves to be tempted by sensuality and indulge in this behavior for purposes of enjoying depraved novelty. But most gay people I have ever met say they didn’t ask to be gay.


This is a mysterious condition which we don’t fully understand and though a gay person is obligated by the moral law not to indulge these feelings they are clearly innocent of the mere inclination & IMHO it is wicked and cruel to shame them for merely having the inclination.


>For one thing, nobody is born with SSA. Fervid scientific research over the past three decades has produced not one shred of evidence of a "gay gene." Read Jeffrey Satinover's detailed analysis which has been entered into the Congressional Record as one of the most illuminating study of recent times.


I doubt you would find a single gene that leads to this disposition. I am no expert but I don’t think genes work that way.

>A much more apt comparison is alcoholism. Like the alcoholic, a person with SSA may have been born with a certain predisposition, but none of that means he is fated to become a "homosexual" suffering from SSA.


I would agree but we just DON’T KNOW what causes people to develop this inclination. I personally believe it to be multi-causal that is there is no one cause of homosexuality. I believe in some cases a person might be able to reorient his sexuality. I’ve heard of one dude who after attending Courage and abstaining for many years found himself having an adolescent crush on a woman. Like he was going threw puberty late in life. OTOH I read a blog by a devout Catholic woman who has SSA who has virtually no sexual attraction for her husband but loves him only on an emotional level & others who can’t seem to be “cured” of the inclination but abstain.


I believe if you can change to hetero that is good but I also believe mandating it as a sole end in itself can cause in many cases more harm then good.


It is more important to strive for chastity by Grace not changing the sexual orientation of someone.


>Those who have studied addictive behavior since Aristotle's time know that addictions develop in stages. Dispositions are formed. They don't drop full blown out of the blue. And they are formed by actions. As actions create habits, so decisions about how to comport oneself in his relations with others, in his thought life, his fantasies, etc., all contribute to the formation of dispositions, whether straight or crooked, whether properly ordered or objectively disordered.


Except I believe this applies to the promiscuous in general. If you keep pursuing sexual pleasure as an end in itself wither natural or against nature this may be the case but I don’t see how it relates to orientation. Some people I knew thought they where gay since childhood others later in life. It’s not the same for all gays. There is no one size fits all model here or solution.





BenYachov

said...

part II
>And I am far less sanguine than a couple of you here seem to be that a nice and tidy distinction can be readily drawn between "objectively disordered" (SSA) dispositions and "intrinsically disordered (SSA) actions," precisely because chosen actions play a significant role in forming dispositions. The matter is comparable to alcoholism.


But like I said we still don’t know what causes homosexual orientation. Why are these people both attracted to their own sex and repelled by the opposite one? Also clear distinctions must be made between homosexuals vs straight persons who are functionally bisexual by promiscuous experimentation.


I don’t see how you can make moral judgement coming from a position of ignorance? Should we not be charitable instead?


>The other matter is some confusion about "identity." Of course it's possible, just as one may identify oneself as a "recovering alcoholic," to identify oneself as a "recovering SS addict" or as "a non-practicing celibate homosexual.”


You model is an interesting theory and given my beliefs on the subject some homosexual persons may conform to this paradigm but like I said we don’t know & I doubt psychologically all homosexuality is the same.


Objectively speaking the orientation/inclination is not immoral & it is wrong to think otherwise. Only the unnatural acts & associated mortal sins are immoral.


>Perhaps I wasn't sufficiently clear, but that wasn't my point. My point is that no disorder of this or any sort should be seen as constituting the "ontological" identity of a person.


I suspected that is your real belief but your language pre-correction lead to contradiction. We all suffer from ambiguity even the past & present Vicar of Christ. Pope Benedict and his statements on Male Prostitutes & Condoms comes to mind.;-)


>Hence, I'm arguing that Oscar Wilde shouldn't be defined as a "homosexual." That's not his "essence" or "nature." Wilde was a human being like you and me; and like you and me, he had his own particular spiritual and moral battles he fought. His was same-sex attraction, for which he paid dearly. But these don't define (and should be seen as defining) who and what we are. St. John Paul II made points similar to that often enough in his writings.


His same sex attraction was a mere accident of his essence and nature. One which was objectively disordered in that it’ s end if followed by the will leads to the intrinsic disorder of violating the divine and natural law. But the accident is not morally evil in itself.
Oscar Wild if he had a straight disposition might have been Don Juan or that French guy whose name I am too lazy too look up. A less lecherous person with his orientation might have found a single “partner” or “Life long companion”. But the mystery of why he developed this objectively disordered orientation would remain & monogamous homosexual sex acts are still immoral.





BenYachov

said...

PS I hope I edited my last two posts better so they are legible.





Steve Dalton

said...

PP, read Randy Engel's article, and watch that Vortex several times. I think you will understand what Randy is trying to say about Voris's error soon enough.
Also, another thing that makes me uncomfortable about MV is that he continues to allow Simon Rafe to work for CMTV. Rafe, if you remember, was a cause of scandal a few years back when it was revealed he was posting fantasy fiction with a homosexual bent on the internet. When I first heard of it, I thought Voris handled that problem okay. However, I don't think that way now. A person who is guilty of that kind of thing has no business working in a Christian ministry. If I had a young son, daughter, or any young person I knew working in the vicinity of such a person, I'd be worried for their spiritual welfare. Years ago, even secular businesses didn't want people like this working for them. If a homo's cover was blown, he would be asked to leave, or risk being fired. So, if even secular concerns didn't want these people around, why does Voris want to keep Simon Rafe employed by CMTV? I wonder how the straight workers at CMTV feel about it?





Pertinacious Papist

said...

Steve,

I read the R.E. link. Thanks. She raises points with which I am in agreement. "Victim soul" interpreted literally goes a bit over the top, and I've always thought so. There are few Catholics out there with whom I find my self in 100% agreement on 100% of what they say, including even the off-the-cuff remarks of popes sometimes.

I'm grateful for what is good, and I tend to ignore what is confusing, unless I judge it to be confusing to a scandalous degree.

Your remarks about Simon Rafe are understandable, though I prefer not to comment on him, as such, as nothing definitive has come to light about his stance on these matters -- and, like Mr. Voris, Mr. and Mrs. Rafe are fellow parishioners.

You write: "If a homo's cover was blown, he would be asked to leave, or risk being fired." Yes, perhaps, although even His Holiness doesn't seem to have gotten that message -- unless it makes a difference whether the "homo" (your word) is "honestly seeking the Lord," in which case Pope Francis has said (of his own "homo" employee) "Who am I to judge?"

Kind regards, - PP





BenYachov

said...

So you are saying Simon Rafe is "gay" because he published a D&D solo adventure that involves a character having relations with a Bisexual Elven goddess?

OK that is embarrassing but that doesn't make him gay.......

His unlikelty defender:

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/mark-shea/in-defense-of-michael-voris-and-simon-rafe/





Dark Horse

said...

Simun Rafe has nothng to do with this post. Would you all shut up an keep to the subject. Stupid blog trolls.





BenYachov

said...

>Simun Rafe has nothng to do with this post. Would you all shut up an keep to the subject. Stupid blog trolls.

Hey take it easy. I didn't bring him up.

If you think the topic is being strayed from then contribute something to it.

I'm not stopping ya.





Charles

said...

Ben,

PP can speak for himself if he wants to take the time to wade through your swamp of narcissistic and misbegotten banalities, but with all due respect I am politely calling you out and correcting you.

First, it is an ancient tradition that those guilty of notorious sin would publicly stand outside the doors of a church and ask the faithful entering therein to pray for them. Sin is ugly. Celebrating sodomy is ugly. Anyone prancing under a same-sex banner and celebrating their identity as same-sex attracted individuals in our culture is also celebrating the intrinsically disordered acts of that condition as well. There is nothing "debasing" about saying that such individuals should do penance for their sins.

Your sentiments in complaining that this is "ugly" seem more informed by contemporary politically-correct fashions than by Church teaching and tradition.

Second, you write: "Accept this is an objectively disordered disposition not an intrinsically disordered one like the act itself." I am calling you out and offering a fraternal correction for your misbegotten grammar: the term is "Except," not "Accept."

Third, give me one good reason for knowing that the disposition in question is "objectively" but not "intrinsically" disordered. If, as PP suggests, the "intrinsically" disordered acts contribute to the "objectively" disordered disposition, how could you possibly know?

Fourth, you write: "But I am not threw disagreeing with you so if you will indulge me a little longer." I am calling you out and correcting your error here too: the word is "through" not "threw," although you make me wish someone "threw" you into the woodshed for the good thrashing you clearly deserve. Cultivate some modesty.





BenYachov

said...

@Charles

I am glad to see you dispense with the phony curtsy. I prefer honest contempt to phony respect. It is less tedious and less hypocritical.

Thank you.

>First, it is an ancient tradition that those guilty of notorious sin would publicly stand outside the doors of a church and ask the faithful entering therein to pray for them. Sin is ugly. Celebrating sodomy is ugly.


Communion in the hand is ancient tradition too. Does that mean it was a good idea to restore it? I think not. Thus I see no point to employing what the Anchoress calls " confronting people as walking categories of sin quickly communicates that one is only seeing people as units of fault and failure. It says that their inherent, God-begotten worth and love-ableness is a peripheral thing, only recognized and honored once all the sinning has stopped, contrition has been expressed and appropriate penances have been completed."

I have zero sympathy for this uncharitable & self-defeating way of treating gay people. I remember back in the day when the gay groups where not has bad as they are now radtrad followers of the false seer Veronica Loycan here in Queens used to stand on the sidewalk during the gay pride parade and shout “perverts on parade!”. Yeh that filled them perverts with the love of Christ let me tell ya buddy….


>Anyone prancing under a same-sex banner and celebrating their identity as same-sex attracted individuals in our culture is also celebrating the intrinsically disordered acts of that condition as well.

BS! Identifying yourself as having a SSA disposition is no different then saying “I have Cancer”. It is mere identity nothing more.


> There is nothing "debasing" about saying that such individuals should do penance for their sins.


I never said there was but I do object to saying they have to do their penance in public that is debasing. They should do it in private like the rest of us. Do you Charles put on sackcloth and ashes whenever you might have confessed something shameful to a priest.

That question is rhetorical. I don’t want you too answer & I do not want to know and it’s none of my business & that is my point.

>Your sentiments in complaining that this is "ugly" seem more informed by contemporary politically-correct fashions than by Church teaching and tradition.


I believe disciplinary tradition was made for Christians not Christians for the disciplinary tradition. If disciplinary tradition was frozen in stone then why did we have to wait 1500 years to get the St Pius V Mass. Jesus could have done it right there and then in Latin and not Hebrew or Aramaic.


>Second, you write: "Accept this is an objectively disordered disposition not an intrinsically disordered one like the act itself." I am calling you out and offering a fraternal correction for your misbegotten grammar: the term is "Except," not "Accept.”

Thanks but I can’t sepell & I am too old to learn and sometime my autocorrect Apts fail me. I am too old & set in my ways and am not going to change in thiis area. I will do best but I will mis-spell again I am sure of it.





BenYachov

said...

Part two
>Third, give me one good reason for knowing that the disposition in question is "objectively" but not "intrinsically" disordered.

That is what the CCC says and that is the moral judgement of the Church in it’s ordinary teaching authority and as per Vatican One we must give assent to the ordinary teaching of the Church.

I think that is a good reason.

> If, as PP suggests, the "intrinsically" disordered acts contribute to the "objectively" disordered disposition, how could you possibly know?

I guess Charles in spite of your attempts to correct my poor grammar English must not be you first language? I said over and over the cause of homosexuality is a mystery(ya miss that?). I also said we should distinguish between persons who claim to have always been this way vs those straight to bi persons who perform these acts for the sake of perverse erotic novelty.

>Fourth, you write: "But I am not threw disagreeing with you so if you will indulge me a little longer." I am calling you out and correcting your error here too: the word is "through" not "threw," although you make me wish someone "threw" you into the woodshed for the good thrashing you clearly deserve. Cultivate some modesty.


Charles smarter people then your self with impeccable grammar have tried to shame me into improving my spelling. It hasn’t worked and it never will.

That is life.

Cheers.





Charles

said...

>Communion in the hand is ancient tradition too. Does that mean it was a good idea to restore it? I think not.

>I have zero sympathy for this uncharitable & self-defeating way of treating gay people.

Ben, you're being far too flat-footed and literalistic here. PP's point, as I took it, was that SSA isn't something to be publicly celebrated. I know you deny that this is what they're doing, but I think you're blind if you don't see it. The point isn't about treating people with disordered dispositions dishonorably, but refusing to honor the disorder.

>BS! Identifying yourself as having a SSA disposition is no different then saying “I have Cancer”. It is mere identity nothing more.

When cancer survivors and cancer victims have parades, it's not to celebrate cancer but deliverance from it. Again, I know you'll disagree about what the homos and lesbos are doing in the NY parade, but I think you're blind, as aforementioned.

>I do object to saying they have to do their penance in public

Flat-footed over-literalism that misses the point.

>???

>I can’t sepell

To err is human. To forgive is divine.

>That is what the CCC says ...

This is overly myopic. It's one thing to read the Catechism. It's another to think about what it means and how to apply it. You've got the formula. Now think about how to apply it to a person who is becoming more and more addicted to same-sex fantasy by actively fantasizing about same-sex sex. Is not fantasizing an act? Is fantasizing about same-sex sex merely "objectively disordered" or "intrinsically disordered"?

>I'm glad you have a sense of humor.

Otherwise I might want to ask you to step outside to the wood shed.





BenYachov

said...


@Charles

I do believe you are giving me an actual debate?

I like it.

>Ben, you're being far too flat-footed and literalistic here. PP's point, as I took it, was that SSA isn't something to be publicly celebrated.
I know you deny that this is what they're doing, but I think you're blind if you don't see it. The point isn't about treating people with disordered dispositions dishonorably, but refusing to honor the disorder.

Or it is about honoring mere human beings who have this inclination that is objectively disordered? Human being who in my experience are often the product of vicious persecution. If you accuse me of being too literalistic in regard to Dr. B’s point well how am I any different to persons of a Traditionalist or conservative disposition who keep treading “Who am I to judge” in an equally flat footed and literalistic manner(especially when considering the clear context Pope Francis’ remarks).

Well if you think PP was not literal I won’t disagree. But I think my counter point still holds.


>When cancer survivors and cancer victims have parades, it's not to celebrate cancer but deliverance from it.

Except it is an objectively disordered health disposition which is my point. Not a moral failing like committing homosexual ex acts.
We are celebrating people made in the divine image. Not the privations to their nature or disordered accidents to it.

>Again, I know you'll disagree about what the homos and lesbos are doing in the NY parade, but I think you're blind, as aforementioned.

Homos & Lesbos? Hmmmmm yet I say the word “trad”….oh never mind I’ll be good. Let’s skip to the good parts.


>>That is what the CCC says ...

>This is overly myopic. It's one thing to read the Catechism. It's another to think about what it means and how to apply it.

Easy, gay sex acts are intrinsically disordered. They are intrinsically evil in and of themselves. SSA OTOH is objectively disordered.
It is not evil in itself but if followed points to an evil end.

>You've got the formula. Now think about how to apply it to a person who is becoming more and more addicted to same-sex fantasy by actively fantasizing about same-sex sex. Is not fantasizing an act?

It is none of my beeswax what another persons’ internal temptations happen to be. Nor should I judge them or marginalize them by speculating what they might be. That is between them and God & a Father Confessor.

>Is fantasizing about same-sex sex merely "objectively disordered" or "intrinsically disordered”?

Charles I do know the conditions for mortal sin & assume you do too. Mere temptation is objectively disordered but not sinful. Impure fantasy that is fully consented too with sufficient reflection is intrinsically disordered because mortal sin is.

>>I'm glad you have a sense of humor.

>Otherwise I might want to ask you to step outside to the wood shed.

Yeh I am already in a long term sacramental relationship with someone so I must politely decline to meet you alone…… NO! NO! NO!
SORRY! NO! That is too mean even for me….sorry guy I was just joking and given the subject matter I couldn’t resist.





BenYachov

said...

Cheers charles.





Pertinacious Papist

said...

I see we have been in the mood for "calling out" and "correcting" one another here.

If I may speak for myself here, I would suggest that the "Who am I to judge?" canard serves as a perfect analogy to what Charles refers to as Ben's "flat-footed literalism" about my earlier remarks about penance.

The error in both cases lies in a literal interpretation. The key difference is that those interpreting the Pope's remarks literally are the secular liberal homophile agnostics, not traditionalists, as Ben suggests. Traditionalists are upset, not because they suppose the Pope is overtly proposing some new teaching on faith and morals here, but because they KNOW his careless off-the-record remarks will be used precisely to this end by enemies of the Faith, including those inside the Church.

I'll leave the rest of Ben's meandering remarks to his friend, Charles or anyone else who cares to engage them.





BenYachov

said...

@Dr. b/PP

>The error in both cases lies in a literal interpretation. The key difference is that those interpreting the Pope's remarks literally are the secular liberal homophile agnostics, not traditionalists, as Ben suggests.

Yeh doc that is kind of a No True Scotsmen Fallacy.

In my experience a lot of people calling themselves
"traditionalists" have taken that papal praise literally & use it as a stick to beat Pope Francis. A man who when he was a Cardinal Archbishop called his native country's push for gay marriage and gay adoption "the work of the Prince of Lies".
It is not evident they don't take it literally.

OTOH if you don't consider such people who take it literally to be "real traditionalists" hey that is not a bad sentiment.

I support that.

>Traditionalists are upset, not because they suppose the Pope is overtly proposing some new teaching on faith and morals here, but because they KNOW his careless off-the-record remarks will be used precisely to this end by enemies of the Faith, including those inside the Church.

The media is going to do that anyway on the left(i.e Pope will allow gayness because he won't judge) or the right(i.e. the Pope wants War). They will do it with the words our Lord in the Bible and as I said and don't mind repeating.

They did it with Benedict (i.e. condoms and male prostitutes).

They are the media as Fr Greotchel said they are the Devil.*

If I speak to people I am addressing them directly.
I am not now worrying about how my words let us say here might be misquoted by some person with an animus towards me outside this combox.

It's not practical.





Pertinacious Papist

said...

I did a little background reading on the question of "intrinsically" vs. "objectively" disordered, and I am not at all sure that it can bear the cognitive weight being suggested by a couple of commenters in this combox.

First, when then Cardinal Ratzinger Prefect for the CDF, the Congregation issued a "Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons" (1986). In that document, reference is made to the CDF's earlier document, "Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics" (1975).

Then the 1986 documents observes:

"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."

This sheds light on what prompts the publication of the second (1986) document: the distinction between "inclinations" and "acts" was being taken to suggest that the homosexual condition itself (SSA) is benign, as long as it did not lead to homosexual acts.

Second, when one considers the message of Jesus in the 5th chapter of Matthew's Gospel, where he says one can commit adultery in his heart, just as he can commit murder in his heart, it becomes apparent that moral culpability cannot be arbitrarily limited to external acts we perform, but extend naturally to our interior dispositions.

Billy Graham once said that a man can't help it if a sparrow momentarily lands on his head, but he can certainly do something to prevent it from building a nest in his hair. Thus with temptations.

Perhaps a man is not culpable for the first same-sex image that pops into his mind; but surely he has some responsibility about how he responds to such an image. Does he make the sign of the cross and banish the thought? Or does he dwell on it, revisit it, plunge into same-sex pornography, allow an interior homosexual fantasy life to flourish within him?

All of these, while not external same-sex acts, are nevertheless interior acts that have a bearing on whether or not the same-sex "inclination" will wither or grow within him.

Hence, I cannot buy the easy distinction drawn by Cardinal Dolan in his rationalization of his decision to serve as Grand Marshal of the Parade in this post. There is no such tidy distinction in real life. Cardinal Ratzinger was clearly aware of that, just as our Lord was in St. Matthew's account.





JM

said...

28 posts later, I found Creative Minority Report to have the best lines on Dolan:

"There are many things one could say about or focus upon in Cardinal Dolan's blog post ostensibly explaining his decision to be Grand Marshal of the gay identity promoting St. Patrick's day parade.

One could focus on the first paragraph in which he compares this crucial topic, that of defending Catholic doctrine in a world increasingly virulently hostile to it, to a meaningless discussion about which baseball player was better. This is all so much discussion about how many angels can dance on the end of a pin, don'tcha know?

Or one could focus how the Cardinal completely and disingenuously avoids any real discussion on the topic at hand by suggesting that acceptance of "Gay Identity" (read finding one's identity in sin) and promoting that identity is somehow not promoting sin even though everyone knows that is exactly what it does.

Or one could focus on the fact that a Cardinal Archbishop of New York cannot even say the word "creed" without apologizing for it..

One could focus on any one of those things. But I would like to focus on something else.

Here is the crux of the Cardinal's statement.

"I found their sensitivity wise, and publicly said so. If, in doing so, I have shown an insensitivity to you, I apologize."

If my sensitivity was insensitive to you, I apologize.

There are many things that could be said about that line. There are many things probably better left unsaid. But the thing I will say is this. Men, real men, do not speak like this."