I must say I haven't been this encouraged by a Church document in a while. Frankly, it brought tears to me eyes in a couple of places (and I am not really referring to the approving mention of Courage and Encourage in Footnote 44. Yeah, it might have been better to have been in the text, but I can't quarrel with such a relatively-empty formalism).
If the footnoting doesn't bother a guy who's actually in Courage, then it shouldn't bother me. Good for the bishops for saying what needed saying, especially this (emphasis mine):
It is crucially important to understand that saying a person has a particular inclination that is disordered is not to say that the person as a whole is disordered. Nor does it mean that one has been rejected by God or the Church. Sometimes the Church is misinterpreted or misrepresented as teaching that persons with homosexual inclinations are objectively disordered, as if everything about them were disordered or rendered morally defective by this inclination. Rather, the disorder is in that particular inclination, which is not ordered toward the fulfillment of the natural ends of human sexuality. Because of this, acting in accord with such an inclination simply cannot contribute to the true good of the human person. Nevertheless, while the particular inclination to homosexual acts is disordered, the person retains his or her intrinsic human dignity and value.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
I have never understood the concept of the natural order of things. Could something in nature happen that was not subject to the order of nature. Would that not make it supernatural?>
The Catholic Church's position on homosexuality has never seemed that objectional to me. Think of it this way---from a traditional Christian viewpoint, heterosexual sex outside of marriage is also wrong; but of course that doesn't mean anyone attracted to someone they're not married to is a sinner. If you follow Christian doctrine, aren't all people "objectively disordered" anyway?
God bless, and congratulations to those like CourageMan who found the strength to live with their faith.>
"I'll answer your question when you learn to accurate characterize Church teaching. Not before."
I'll continue to point out the hypocrisy of the RCCInc's teachings vs. what people DO wiith those teachings until people stop the practice of treating God's gay and lesbian children as intrinsically disordered or inherently morally evil. Not before.
Remember Who did the 'ordering'.>
This is what needs emphasis?
"Nevertheless, while the particular inclination to homosexual acts is disordered, the person retains his or her intrinsic human dignity and value."
You must travel in different circles than I do, since most everyone I know cannot understand why anyone would even call homosexuality a sin. Meanwhile, most RC statements do in fact bend over backwards emphasizing the homosexual's dignity and how we must welcome him, trying to counter the imagined lingering effects of years of reactionary Church teaching when those effects evaporated long ago.
The Church in the meantime xpends so much wind pleading against non-existent homophobia, when it could try teaching folks WHY it's wrong and why pre-marital sex is wrong.
Instead, they'll let Evangelicals do that, and watch with jealousy as the latter's churches grow. Thank Heaven for the teaching authority of those Bishops!>
"non-existent homophobia" ?????
On what planet do YOU live, Joe?>
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.