The Intrinsic Disorder of Me
March 12, 2013
Elizabeth Scalia
Any Catholic who has attended a parish fundraiser is familiar with the concept of a so-called “Chinese Auction”: One buys a round of tickets, surveys a table laden with baskets of cheer, baby items, sports memorabilia, and other tchotchkes, and then drops a ticket or two into paper bags near selected items. Most of the time we drop our tickets thoughtlessly, because there is nothing on the table we really want, but every once in a while a particular bag garners a slew of tickets; there is something of value to be brought home from there.
The vast wasteland that is the Internet, and the comment boxes and social media threads into which we drop our mostly dubious pearls, is a bit like that. We surf around, throw a comment here, hit a retweet there, and most of it has meaning only in the moment; we don’t really want anything of the thread—not even feedback or a response; as with the fundraiser, we’re just milling about, mostly entertaining ourselves while making an appearance.
As with the auction, though, there is always that one thread that collects more commentary than most, and we throw our words into it with a little more interest, if not expectation. Sometimes, to our great surprise, even if the thread is not resolved, something is nonetheless brought home.
Such a thing recently happened to me, on Facebook. Someone had posted an article about a Catholic pastor at a San Francisco parish who removed a portrait of His Holiness Benedict XVI because of complaints by parishioners that “Pope Benedict had made hurtful and hateful statements regarding the LGBT community.”
There followed a mostly thoughtful online debate, including helpful links to quotes by Benedict which seemed to belie the charge, and some discussion as to whether the pastor’s suggestion to his flock that “forgiving people’s shortcomings, including the pope’s, makes it easier for me to forgive my own shortcomings” was the deepest lesson to take from the incident.
After recognizing that it is a common thing to hate what one does not understand, but also—especially in our secularizing world—an increasingly common practice to willfully resist understanding what one has decided to hate, a consensus was formed: A church that so regularly preaches on the dignity of the human person “needs to listen to the gay community.” There seemed to be a mirroring agreement—albeit a vague one—that yes, the gay community needs to listen to what the Church is saying, too.
All well and good, but the thread became for me less of a tchotchke bag and more of a personal prize when a cleric said, “I think that any of us would struggle with being told that some aspect of our humanity—as creatures of God—was intrinsically disordered,” and a layman shot back, “My desire to overeat, my desire to drink to excess, my desire [for] fornication, my desire to swindle people out of money for my own gain are also intrinsically disordered.”
And there it was—the intrinsic disorder that is part and parcel of desire when it so profoundly permeates our lives as to separate us from God; desire that stands between us and God until it becomes the idol in God’s place. Suddenly, in the course of a minor Internet thread, I was face to face with my own intrinsic disorder.
As someone who struggles with food—too often losing the battle and gaining the weight—I found that something rang true in that layman’s response. Whether I act on my food urges or not, they are always with me, and the gluttony in which they find release is certainly as detrimental to my soul as any “sin against chastity.”
I am “intrinsically disordered” when it comes to food, and it doesn’t really matter how I became so. Whether it is due to a genetic pre-disposition, or a habit of psychological buffering—or some combination of nature and nurture—the fact remains that I am disordered, and I must deal with it. Every day. Sometimes hour by hour, sometimes minute by tempted minute.
Up to now I have done a very poor job of dealing with it, largely because until that moment of clarity, I had not recognized the disorder. Like most same-sex attracted persons, I had thought of my battles and defeats in terms of weakness, shame; discipline, programming, and willpower; there was no connection to the transcendent, so how could I ever transcend myself?
We are told that the phrase “intrinsically disordered” is hurtful or hateful, and yet I find the words ironically healing; they give me precisely the hook into that transcendent understanding (and into notions of original sin and even idolatry) that I have been missing. Far from taking any offense at the idea that I am “intrinsically disordered,” I am actually consoled.
In identifying my disorder as “intrinsic”—that it resides within me as naturally as the marrow in my bones—I understand that there is no point in attempting to further fool myself or run away from myself; I am released from self-hate, shame, or defensiveness. At the same time, I am now and forever obliged to acknowledge—with every temptation—that I am disordered, and within that acknowledgement to then choose whether I will serve the disorder, at the cost of Heaven, or serve God.
In choosing God, I will have to both rely on God and actively work toward obedience to what is natural in his law, rather than what is natural to me. This is no small thing. It is a daily tension between my love of God and my love of an idol intrinsic to me—original to me.
My intrinsic disorder is my own mysterious original sin; it works ceaselessly—like an ever-ready serpent—to pull me away from God. It demands that I throw myself daily into the outstretched arms of grace, or be lost.
Eden, itself. Not a bad take-home from a tchotchke thread.
Elizabeth Scalia is the Managing Editor of the Catholic Portal at Patheos and blogs as The Anchoress. Her previous “On the Square” articles can be found here.
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
3.12.2013 | 1:32am
Daniel Mattson says:
Incidentally, what you wrote below is exactly how I've come to view the phrase "intrinsically disordered" about my same sex attraction. I don't find the phrase hateful at all, but loving and pastoral because it reveals truth to me.
"We are told that the phrase 'intrinsically disordered' is hurtful or hateful, and yet I find the words ironically healing; they give me precisely the hook into that transcendent understanding (and into notions of original sin and even idolatry) that I have been missing. Far from taking any offense at the idea that I am 'intrinsically disordered,' I am actually consoled."
One important caveat, however: none of us are intrinsically disordered, so I don't think it's wise to say, "I am 'intrinsically disordered'". Too often the critics of Catholic teaching on homosexuality conflate the description of the desire as being intrinsically disordered with the person being disordered, which is usually where the offense takes place and why it is seen as hateful so often.
"We are told that the phrase 'intrinsically disordered' is hurtful or hateful, and yet I find the words ironically healing; they give me precisely the hook into that transcendent understanding (and into notions of original sin and even idolatry) that I have been missing. Far from taking any offense at the idea that I am 'intrinsically disordered,' I am actually consoled."
One important caveat, however: none of us are intrinsically disordered, so I don't think it's wise to say, "I am 'intrinsically disordered'". Too often the critics of Catholic teaching on homosexuality conflate the description of the desire as being intrinsically disordered with the person being disordered, which is usually where the offense takes place and why it is seen as hateful so often.
3.12.2013 | 2:34am
Rick says:
Elizabeth:
First, you are quite perceptive in pointing out that the vast majority of our public posturing and prattling on the Internet is a transitory indulgence that could just as well be dispensed with. The important thing is to be aware, as you are, of its true nature, and to never lose the hungering in our depths for the things of eternity.
Secondly, though, I'm not sure I can accept your eating "disorder" as in the same basic category as same-sex attraction. We all have to struggle with our lower nature, to be sure, but you probably don't think of yourself as distinct from other human beings because of your attraction to eating food. This attraction is absolutely universal and unavoidable, unless we resolve to die by fasting. Likewise, we all (virtually) have a powerful sexual nature that seeks release and satisfaction. However, only those who have a same-sex attraction are considered "disordered." It would be as though you were considered disorded if you were attracted to chocolate, but not if you were attracted to vanilla. But that is certainly not the case.
By the way, I've been on both sides of the eating "disorder." I was a fat kid who was known as "Porky" when I was living on the Navy base in Cuba, but leaned out when the hormones hit. My son went through the same metamorphosis. He was teased for being a moon-faced fat kid until those incredible hormones hit. Now he is a lean and mean mass of sinew and muscle who excells at PT in his ROTC battalion. Would you take it badly if I suggested testosterone treatments? Unfortunately, the down side of that might be the experience of an entirely different "disorder"!
First, you are quite perceptive in pointing out that the vast majority of our public posturing and prattling on the Internet is a transitory indulgence that could just as well be dispensed with. The important thing is to be aware, as you are, of its true nature, and to never lose the hungering in our depths for the things of eternity.
Secondly, though, I'm not sure I can accept your eating "disorder" as in the same basic category as same-sex attraction. We all have to struggle with our lower nature, to be sure, but you probably don't think of yourself as distinct from other human beings because of your attraction to eating food. This attraction is absolutely universal and unavoidable, unless we resolve to die by fasting. Likewise, we all (virtually) have a powerful sexual nature that seeks release and satisfaction. However, only those who have a same-sex attraction are considered "disordered." It would be as though you were considered disorded if you were attracted to chocolate, but not if you were attracted to vanilla. But that is certainly not the case.
By the way, I've been on both sides of the eating "disorder." I was a fat kid who was known as "Porky" when I was living on the Navy base in Cuba, but leaned out when the hormones hit. My son went through the same metamorphosis. He was teased for being a moon-faced fat kid until those incredible hormones hit. Now he is a lean and mean mass of sinew and muscle who excells at PT in his ROTC battalion. Would you take it badly if I suggested testosterone treatments? Unfortunately, the down side of that might be the experience of an entirely different "disorder"!
3.12.2013 | 3:25am
The Sheepcat says:
Elizabeth, I appreciate the intent of what you say on this sensitive subject; however, one important clarification needs to be made: the Catechism of the Catholic Church nowhere teaches that *persons* with same-sex attraction are intrinsically disordered. Persistent confusion on this point has caused untold hurt.
Fr Paul Check, executive director of Courage International, explains a key tripartitite distinction between the person, the inclination, and the action: "The person is always good: a child of God, redeemed in Christ and invited to grace and glory. As for the inclination, the Church teaches that it’s disordered when put alongside our understanding of what it means to live and act in a way consistent with our human nature, in this case, in the realm of human intimacy and love." Finally, "the action — the deliberate choice to engage in homosexual activity — that action is gravely immoral."
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/courage-continues-mission-of-its-founder-father-harvey/
While all persons except Jesus and Mary have had disordered desires of one kind or another, persons cannot be intrinsically disordered because we may, by the grace of God, eventually reach heaven. If any disorder of ours were intrinsic — as opposed to simply being deeply rooted — we'd have to take it with us, but we can't take it to heaven, where there is no disorder! Ergo, any disorder is not intrinsic to our persons.
Your deepest essence is not that of a glutton but of a child made in the image of God.
That said, in discovering that to resist my various disordered tendencies (including homosexual desires), all of which can ultimately be traced back to the Fall, I was utterly dependent on God's grace, I too found relief from needlessly exaggerated shame. Such relief freed up a lot of emotional and spiritual energy I was eventually able to apply to pursuing chastity.
Fr Paul Check, executive director of Courage International, explains a key tripartitite distinction between the person, the inclination, and the action: "The person is always good: a child of God, redeemed in Christ and invited to grace and glory. As for the inclination, the Church teaches that it’s disordered when put alongside our understanding of what it means to live and act in a way consistent with our human nature, in this case, in the realm of human intimacy and love." Finally, "the action — the deliberate choice to engage in homosexual activity — that action is gravely immoral."
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/courage-continues-mission-of-its-founder-father-harvey/
While all persons except Jesus and Mary have had disordered desires of one kind or another, persons cannot be intrinsically disordered because we may, by the grace of God, eventually reach heaven. If any disorder of ours were intrinsic — as opposed to simply being deeply rooted — we'd have to take it with us, but we can't take it to heaven, where there is no disorder! Ergo, any disorder is not intrinsic to our persons.
Your deepest essence is not that of a glutton but of a child made in the image of God.
That said, in discovering that to resist my various disordered tendencies (including homosexual desires), all of which can ultimately be traced back to the Fall, I was utterly dependent on God's grace, I too found relief from needlessly exaggerated shame. Such relief freed up a lot of emotional and spiritual energy I was eventually able to apply to pursuing chastity.
3.12.2013 | 6:03am
Goodman says:
I'm not really a "religious" ascetic these days. But actually, the very best solution to being overweight, the best solution to the sin of gluttony, is a traditional religious answer: asceticism.
Know that controlling your carnal "body" and its desires and passions, is the mark of a strong spirit. Think of not eating, as a triumph of the spirit over the flesh; the mind over the stomach. Every time you order the tiny, tiny lunch, congratulate yourself for the mortification of the flesh. And order the tiny meal, every single time.
One small fish sandwich for lunch; water to drink. No sides whatsoever.
Asceticism, over-done, can be dangerous; monks used to starve themselves literally to death. But a good dose of asceticism is a very, very effective weight loss program.
It also develops the mind and spirit. Considerably.
Know that controlling your carnal "body" and its desires and passions, is the mark of a strong spirit. Think of not eating, as a triumph of the spirit over the flesh; the mind over the stomach. Every time you order the tiny, tiny lunch, congratulate yourself for the mortification of the flesh. And order the tiny meal, every single time.
One small fish sandwich for lunch; water to drink. No sides whatsoever.
Asceticism, over-done, can be dangerous; monks used to starve themselves literally to death. But a good dose of asceticism is a very, very effective weight loss program.
It also develops the mind and spirit. Considerably.
3.12.2013 | 9:08am
Calah says:
This is one of the best things you've written. It really hit me hard. Thanks, Lizzie.
3.12.2013 | 9:15am
DVO says:
This is so very, very true and encapsulates the human condition perfectly. Do we recognize our brokenness or deny it? To me, it's that recognition that is the absolute prerequisite to being capable intellectually and spiritually to understanding and accepting the need for God's grace and Christ's sacrifice. Without that, and the resultant sense of humility that accompanies (or should anyway) that understanding, humanity's only other choice is some form of denial or madness. These days, it seems madness and denial are getting the upper hand.
3.12.2013 | 9:43am
JERD says:
Elizabeth, you have written a wonderful commentary on the irony of faith.
Our desire to satisfy the particular "intrinsic disorders" that consume us; our desire to yield to the promptings of original sin, brings us in our sorrow and by our contrition, on our knees to the infinite mercy of God.
It is because of our intrinsic disorders that we are forced, through the exercise or our free will to choose: to embrace the love of Christ, or to surrender to the temptation of sin.
Our desire to satisfy the particular "intrinsic disorders" that consume us; our desire to yield to the promptings of original sin, brings us in our sorrow and by our contrition, on our knees to the infinite mercy of God.
It is because of our intrinsic disorders that we are forced, through the exercise or our free will to choose: to embrace the love of Christ, or to surrender to the temptation of sin.
3.12.2013 | 9:48am
David Nickol says:
I doubt that there are many same-sex attracted Catholics out there who are comforted by Elizabeth Scalia's declaration: "I am a lot like you. You see, I have a weight problem!" From an "orthodox" Catholic point of view, comparing a tendency to overeat with a homosexual orientation is like comparing the common cold to cancer. In a country where a third of the adult population is obese and another third overweight, Elizabeth Scalia confesses, "Like most same-sex attracted persons, I had thought of my battles and defeats in terms of weakness, shame; discipline, programming, and willpower; there was no connection to the transcendent, so how could I ever transcend myself?" A tendency to overeat must certainly be easier to bear when at least two thirds of the adult population experiences the same "weakness" and "shame." (By the way, do most same-sex attracted persons battle their orientation and feel weakness and shame? I don't think so.)
3.12.2013 | 9:54am
M says:
If the Pope wished to clarify that his fatphobia ran just as deep as his homophobia, he had every opportunity to do so. The guilt culture of the Catholic Church continues.
3.12.2013 | 10:23am
Jennifer says:
Really beautifully expressed, Elizabeth. That phrase, "intrinsically disordered" is essential to Church teaching and a proper understanding of human freedom and nature, yet as we all know, it's taken as hateful, shameful, condescending, etc. You've done well to explain it in such a loving and open way... all of us can receive it, whatever our intrinsic disorder happens to be.
3.12.2013 | 10:56am
C says:
I think it is correct to make parallels of our disordered desires; there are no taboos in our culture, no moral compass leading the masses. It is refreshing to witness a public discourse with reason involved. Thank you. I was always the defender of "gays". It wasn't until I converted or reverted and l accepted a moral guideline for heterosexual behavior that I became less "accepting" of the homosexual lifestyle. People deserve respect, not lifestyles and conduct.
3.12.2013 | 11:11am
Richard says:
David Nichols:
Though an excessive appetite for food and an inclination to same sex attraction are not of the same gravity, the principle is the same.Gluttony and Lust (of which I take same sex attraction to be a subset) are both serious disorders. I do not accept the identification of all of our impulses with our best selves. We are all intrinsically good (because God made us) and intrinsically, grievously flawed (because we have fallen short of the Glory of God). Our weaknesses vary, but we all have them.
Whether or not most people with same sex attraction struggle against it or feel shame over it is not really relevant. Most people don't fight their impulses to gossip or have sexual fantasies over persons who are not licit for them to desire either. I have certainly known people with this same sex inclination who did fight it and felt sorrow over being unable to overcome it, as I have fought many of my disordered impulses and, to my sorrow, failed to defeat them. All this from a Catholic perspective, as you specified.
I think Elizabeth is spot on. We are all sinners and struggle with imperfect results against our moral imperfections. Saint Francis de Sales (I remember that it was at least a St. Francis) is said to have declared joyously on his deathbed, "At last! No more sin."
Best,
Richard
Though an excessive appetite for food and an inclination to same sex attraction are not of the same gravity, the principle is the same.Gluttony and Lust (of which I take same sex attraction to be a subset) are both serious disorders. I do not accept the identification of all of our impulses with our best selves. We are all intrinsically good (because God made us) and intrinsically, grievously flawed (because we have fallen short of the Glory of God). Our weaknesses vary, but we all have them.
Whether or not most people with same sex attraction struggle against it or feel shame over it is not really relevant. Most people don't fight their impulses to gossip or have sexual fantasies over persons who are not licit for them to desire either. I have certainly known people with this same sex inclination who did fight it and felt sorrow over being unable to overcome it, as I have fought many of my disordered impulses and, to my sorrow, failed to defeat them. All this from a Catholic perspective, as you specified.
I think Elizabeth is spot on. We are all sinners and struggle with imperfect results against our moral imperfections. Saint Francis de Sales (I remember that it was at least a St. Francis) is said to have declared joyously on his deathbed, "At last! No more sin."
Best,
Richard
3.12.2013 | 11:21am
Manny says:
"In identifying my disorder as “intrinsic”—that it resides within me as naturally as the marrow in my bones—I understand that there is no point in attempting to further fool myself or run away from myself; I am released from self-hate, shame, or defensiveness."
That may be your reaction but I'm not sure that is the typical reaction. As I look at my compulsions (I'm not gay nor am I overweight, though I do enjoy eating) if they are sins (which they are) then I do feel a sense of shame about them. I don't know whether they are "intrinsic," nor am I all that sure yours would be considered "intrinsic," but they are sins however catagorized. I don't feel released at all.
That may be your reaction but I'm not sure that is the typical reaction. As I look at my compulsions (I'm not gay nor am I overweight, though I do enjoy eating) if they are sins (which they are) then I do feel a sense of shame about them. I don't know whether they are "intrinsic," nor am I all that sure yours would be considered "intrinsic," but they are sins however catagorized. I don't feel released at all.
3.12.2013 | 11:33am
Dale says:
This post reminded me that it is time for another reading of Dante's Purgatorio!
3.12.2013 | 11:34am
Sue Korlan says:
I firmly believe that each one of us has an intrinsically disordered inclination that, if not overcome, will send us to hell. I know that mine is only overcome by the strength of God acting in my life. And it seems to me that instead of focusing on other people's sins we will each get further if we focus on our own and how to overcome it with the grace of God.
3.12.2013 | 11:40am
naturgesetz says:
Elizabeth, your insight that some people don't want to understand what the Church is teaching is very well put. It applies not only to gays, but also to advocates of contraception, to free-market absolutists, consumerists, and perhaps others as well.
There was a po;; recently which found that a majority of American Catholics believe that the bishops are out of touch with them. What they don't realize is that the real problem is that they are out of touch with the bishops (perhaps willfully so in some cases).
There was a po;; recently which found that a majority of American Catholics believe that the bishops are out of touch with them. What they don't realize is that the real problem is that they are out of touch with the bishops (perhaps willfully so in some cases).
3.12.2013 | 11:54am
Sergio Méndez says:
The problem with the comparison between the examples cited (food disorder and swindle people out of money for personal gain) is that those are indeed vices that must be dealt with (the first one affecting ones health, the second being a transgration on other people rights), while there is no serious argument made to show how homosexuality cand be an intrinsic disorder (and the same goes with fornication).
3.12.2013 | 12:03pm
Michael says:
I think this article is beautifully written and makes some excellent points. I wish this were a Church teaching that was out there for all to ponder. Unfortunately, it isn't. The Church doesn't use the term "intrinsically disordered" with those of us who struggle with our heterosexual issues, or overeating, etc. How the Church can continue to be so insensitive and condescending to the gay community amazes me; I'm uncomfortable finding myself on the side of a Church whose comments in these instances are often cheered on by people who are bigots and homophobes. Why do we continue to put so much of our energy into an issue that affects, at most, 10% of the population, a part of the population that has been abused for thousands of years?
3.12.2013 | 12:05pm
Lisa says:
Thank you for sharing this Elizabeth! Very well written and concise. People don't like to think of themselves as intrinsically disordered, but we are. Concupiscence stinks! The danger lies in arguing this point, because then we are relying on our own strength (if we are Christians) or swallowed up by our delusions (if we are nonbelievers). When we say, 'yes we are weak!' we have humbled ourselves to seek God's help...and yes this can be a minute to minute occurrence. I say this simple prayer many many times a day, 'Jesus, come to my assistance!' I will pray for you my sister in Christ. :-)
3.12.2013 | 1:08pm
Pat says:
I'm nowhere near ready or able to comment except on some literal aspects of what you wrote. I encourage you to read Wheat Belly, to read about (if you are unfamiliar with this) metabolic syndrome, add in checking out Dr. Peter Attia's excellently written website and his explanations of why calories in do NOT equal calories out, and lastly - Gary Taubes books.
I am in the midst of dealing with my food issues, all of the above has helped me understand what's going on in my body, how food impacts "hunger", impacts my emotional health as well as physical.
I am in the midst of dealing with my food issues, all of the above has helped me understand what's going on in my body, how food impacts "hunger", impacts my emotional health as well as physical.
3.12.2013 | 1:12pm
Daniel Mattson says:
Reflecting more on this today, I think the Catechism brings further clarification about all of this. The inclination is what is objectively disordered, while the sexual acts between members of the same sex are what is labeled intrinsically disordered--an important distinction. The "intrinsic" adjective is needed for sexual acts between members of the same sex, because "intrinsic" to them, there is no way they can ever be ordered in a way appropriate for mankind because, (quoting the Catechism), "they close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity." In my earlier comment, I realize I misspoke. What I thank God for is living with the particular "objective disorder" of same sex attraction, rather than the "intrinsic disorder." If I was living with the intrinsic disorder in my life, I'd be living in a way preventing union with God, and by the grace of God, and with the help of the Church, this is the state all of us must strive to avoid.
3.12.2013 | 2:12pm
Robert says:
Some commentors object to the analogy Elizabeth draws. It is true that the analogy is imperfect, but it does touch on a fundamental truth: all sin is disordered action.
Nor is the imperfection of the analogy all that great. From the Catholic perspective, there are two kinds of problems in any behavior.
The first problem is a disorder of degree, a good thing in the wrong context or the wrong amount: sex is good, but not outside of the proper order of marriage. Likewise, a problem of overeating is also a disorder of degree, too much food, or food outside the context of a meal.
The second problem is a disorder of kind or of object, a good thing used contrary to its purpose: sex is ordered to a union of the sexes which leads to procreation; so pursuing sexual intercourse with a member of the same sex is contrary to the nature of sex itself. Likewise, eating is ordered to both the pleasure of taste and providing nutrition to the body; so attempting to eat things which are not food is contrary to the nature of eating.
It sounds like Elizabeth's disorder is only of the first sort, while same-sex attractions partake of both. So her analogy is not perfect. But that does not mean that her disorder is any less real, or intrinsic, or dangerous to her soul. It only means that other sins (greed or wrath, perhaps?) might be better analogies.
Nor is the imperfection of the analogy all that great. From the Catholic perspective, there are two kinds of problems in any behavior.
The first problem is a disorder of degree, a good thing in the wrong context or the wrong amount: sex is good, but not outside of the proper order of marriage. Likewise, a problem of overeating is also a disorder of degree, too much food, or food outside the context of a meal.
The second problem is a disorder of kind or of object, a good thing used contrary to its purpose: sex is ordered to a union of the sexes which leads to procreation; so pursuing sexual intercourse with a member of the same sex is contrary to the nature of sex itself. Likewise, eating is ordered to both the pleasure of taste and providing nutrition to the body; so attempting to eat things which are not food is contrary to the nature of eating.
It sounds like Elizabeth's disorder is only of the first sort, while same-sex attractions partake of both. So her analogy is not perfect. But that does not mean that her disorder is any less real, or intrinsic, or dangerous to her soul. It only means that other sins (greed or wrath, perhaps?) might be better analogies.
3.12.2013 | 2:21pm
Patrick says:
@Michael...
The term "intrinsically disordered" was used in the 1975 document Persona Humana to describe a variety of disapproved heterosexual acts such as masturbation and premarital sex, as well as homosexual acts. The more well-known 1986 letter "On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons", to which most people refer when discussing this topic, makes reference to the 1975 document.
These documents, along with Humanae Vitae, JPII's Theology of the Body, and other doctrinal statements, should leave no doubt in anyone's mind that intrensically disordered behavior is somehow limited only to homosexual acts.
In fact, any human moral behaviour, sexual or otherwise, that directs us away from God is sinful and, thus, disordered.
The term "intrinsically disordered" was used in the 1975 document Persona Humana to describe a variety of disapproved heterosexual acts such as masturbation and premarital sex, as well as homosexual acts. The more well-known 1986 letter "On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons", to which most people refer when discussing this topic, makes reference to the 1975 document.
These documents, along with Humanae Vitae, JPII's Theology of the Body, and other doctrinal statements, should leave no doubt in anyone's mind that intrensically disordered behavior is somehow limited only to homosexual acts.
In fact, any human moral behaviour, sexual or otherwise, that directs us away from God is sinful and, thus, disordered.
3.12.2013 | 2:23pm
Norman says:
Rick, my good man, I think we're splitting hairs when it comes to the type of sin or whether or not we'd classify Elizabeth as 'disordered or not' (all sin is a "disorder"). You may have missed the point of the article in that we're ALL intrinsicially disordered to some degree or another in some area of our lives, we just hear it more when homosexuals are described that way, but they're certainly not the only ones considered disordered.
3.12.2013 | 2:27pm
David Nickol says:
Richard,
You say: "Though an excessive appetite for food and an inclination to same sex attraction are not of the same gravity, the principle is the same."
Obviously I agree that they are not of the same gravity, but I disagree that the principle is the same. The Church has made it clear (see Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders) that it considers "homosexual persons" to be ontologically different from heterosexual persons. (I don't believe I have ever used "ontologically" in a sentence before, so I hope I have that right!) To dumb it down a bit, the Church sees men as "father types" and women as "mother types." But it says homosexual men lack "affective maturity" and consequently cannot "relate correctly to both men and women" or develop "a true sense of spiritual fatherhood towards the Church community that will be entrusted to him." A person with a predisposition to overeat who by whatever strategies and efforts does *not* overeat is not a glutton. But according to the Church, a man with a homosexual orientation who forever chaste in both thought and deed is "damaged goods." He may not become a priest, because he can never be a "father type." He also, according to the Church, may be barred from being a coach, a teacher, or from joining the military based on orientation *alone*.
You say: "Though an excessive appetite for food and an inclination to same sex attraction are not of the same gravity, the principle is the same."
Obviously I agree that they are not of the same gravity, but I disagree that the principle is the same. The Church has made it clear (see Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders) that it considers "homosexual persons" to be ontologically different from heterosexual persons. (I don't believe I have ever used "ontologically" in a sentence before, so I hope I have that right!) To dumb it down a bit, the Church sees men as "father types" and women as "mother types." But it says homosexual men lack "affective maturity" and consequently cannot "relate correctly to both men and women" or develop "a true sense of spiritual fatherhood towards the Church community that will be entrusted to him." A person with a predisposition to overeat who by whatever strategies and efforts does *not* overeat is not a glutton. But according to the Church, a man with a homosexual orientation who forever chaste in both thought and deed is "damaged goods." He may not become a priest, because he can never be a "father type." He also, according to the Church, may be barred from being a coach, a teacher, or from joining the military based on orientation *alone*.
3.12.2013 | 2:46pm
Raphael says:
Someone correct me if I'm wrong here, but we don't say that people are intrinsically disordered; we say that desires or acts are intrinsically disordered. The "intrinsic" doesn't apply to the person, as Elizabeth seems to take it, but to the desire. A desire is intrinsically disordered because it's always disordered by its very nature, and not merely because of circumstances, etc. Her desire to overeat isn't intrinsically disordered. It's perfectly natural to want to eat; she just wants to eat too much or too often. If she wanted to eat rocks instead of food, then I think that would be intrinsically disordered.
3.12.2013 | 2:46pm
Michelle Jones says:
I agree this is one of your best. Hopefully knowing what a blessing and encouragement this was to so many of us, who are similarly or differently disordered in our desires, will be of some encouragement as you endure the penance of however many people spend time sending you suggestions for how you really ought to most effectively battle your desires, rather than getting busy on their own.
3.12.2013 | 3:58pm
thomas tucker says:
@M: perhaps if people were pushing for the legitimization of obesity as healthy and normal, the Pope would be issuing statements related to fatphobia. But they aren't.
3.12.2013 | 4:27pm
Michael says:
Intrinsically. Hmm. God made us good. That is true. We are fallen, and have this fallen nature inherited from Lord Adam and Lady Eve. That is true to. Would that make the sin nature intrinsic or not? I really don't know. I think it's important so that we may know how to attack such problems.
Brilliant piece Elizabeth. Much to think about. The comments are good too. It makes my feeble head spin.
Brilliant piece Elizabeth. Much to think about. The comments are good too. It makes my feeble head spin.
3.12.2013 | 5:16pm
Gil says:
Talking with someone the other day, he insisted that to ask anyone, including gays and men entering the priesthood, to abstain from sex is asking way too much and can only cause terrible conflict in their lives. Then I explained to him that after my wife divorced me and eventually I became a single parent after she chose not to be involved with our daughter, I chose to become celibate and focus not on any new relationships, but to just be the best parent I could. I prayed on this daily, and eventually the loneliness and lusting were lifted from me, and great joy entered my life in so many ways.
Many Christians try to escape what Jesus requires of us, his insistence that we are with him or against him, that the gate that is his life is narrow and only a few will pass through. Too many Christians want to provide us with a wider, more all-inclusive gate, what they are convinced is a better way, that Jesus simply demands too much. But his promise of life more abundantly was kept when I took him at his word, something we just can’t comprehend intellectually separate from such a commitment in faith, and, of course, I was given persecutions to go with it, precisely where Christians discover honor, which brings more joy.
Too many Christians want a Christian life without persecution and without a cross, or even an annoying thorn in one’s side. They can’t kick the possibility that there is a broader gate with so much more to offer, absent suffering.
Many Christians try to escape what Jesus requires of us, his insistence that we are with him or against him, that the gate that is his life is narrow and only a few will pass through. Too many Christians want to provide us with a wider, more all-inclusive gate, what they are convinced is a better way, that Jesus simply demands too much. But his promise of life more abundantly was kept when I took him at his word, something we just can’t comprehend intellectually separate from such a commitment in faith, and, of course, I was given persecutions to go with it, precisely where Christians discover honor, which brings more joy.
Too many Christians want a Christian life without persecution and without a cross, or even an annoying thorn in one’s side. They can’t kick the possibility that there is a broader gate with so much more to offer, absent suffering.
3.12.2013 | 5:26pm
Jennifer says:
Elizabeth, after thinking on this some more, I have a question regarding the "intrinsic" part. You suggest that it is intrinsic to YOU, as the marrow in your bones. Just an irremovable, unchangeable part of YOU. But it seems to me the "intrinsic" part refers to the disorder itself, not the person who battles with it. Homosexual sex is intrinsically disordered in and of itself. It does not seek natural sexual relations as God intended -- that's why it's disordered. It can never be properly ordered and remain homosexual. We're not saying the PERSON is disordered, but the desire for homosexual sex.
That's an important distinction to make especially as we try to communicate the truth of Church teaching to the homosexual community. It is the desire for something unnatural and unholy that is intrinsically disordered. So also, the desire for too much food, or greed, or any other obsession or sinful indulgence that we struggle with. We are all fallen human beings with the stain of sin, but to say that WE are intrinsically disordered just doesn't sit right. Unless I'm just not grasping it correctly.
That's an important distinction to make especially as we try to communicate the truth of Church teaching to the homosexual community. It is the desire for something unnatural and unholy that is intrinsically disordered. So also, the desire for too much food, or greed, or any other obsession or sinful indulgence that we struggle with. We are all fallen human beings with the stain of sin, but to say that WE are intrinsically disordered just doesn't sit right. Unless I'm just not grasping it correctly.
3.12.2013 | 5:38pm
Don Roberto says:
Worshipping one's belly is clearly as wrong as worshipping pleasure—both violate the First Commandment. "Little children, keep yourselves away from idols." We can see how some idolators go so far as to identify with their particular sin, often making it their life's mission to convince the world that they are actually just misunderstood, that it is traditional morality that must evolve.
What a great tragedy! We are all sinners, but few (outside of Hollywood) have done so complete a job of convincing the world that evil is good.
We would do well to define ourselves not by our sins but by our Faith and willingness to submit to God. Let us not forget the following chain of causality: wicked thoughts sinful acts degenrate habits depraved character evil destiny. We have the power to help God to sculpt our souls. But neuroplasticity declines with age. Don't wait too long, or you will lose the greatest opportunity ever given: to love God (which is the same as to obey Him), rejecting self and incorporatinig that love into your true essence.
What a great tragedy! We are all sinners, but few (outside of Hollywood) have done so complete a job of convincing the world that evil is good.
We would do well to define ourselves not by our sins but by our Faith and willingness to submit to God. Let us not forget the following chain of causality: wicked thoughts sinful acts degenrate habits depraved character evil destiny. We have the power to help God to sculpt our souls. But neuroplasticity declines with age. Don't wait too long, or you will lose the greatest opportunity ever given: to love God (which is the same as to obey Him), rejecting self and incorporatinig that love into your true essence.
3.12.2013 | 5:44pm
Marc says:
Let me push back. In my opinion this analogy between the homosexual desire and an eating disorder may not be valid at all. Its validity depends on whether it is true or not that homosexual desire is actually objectively disordered. By this I mean the following:
IF homosexual desire (as opposed to heterosexual desire) is objectively disordered then maybe it is like having an eating disorder. BUT if homosexual desire is NOT an objectively disordered desire then it may be better compared to being left-handed or right handed. It is not so long ago when left-handed people were considered disordered and forced to write using its right - but don't worry, it was not that they were intrinsically disordered people, only they desire was!
I would like to advance that the thesis that homosexual desire (as opposed to heterosexual desire) is objectively disordered is false, and that instead homosexual desire is a non-pathological variation in human diversity. If this is the case, then the analogy with an eating disordered would not make sense.
IF homosexual desire (as opposed to heterosexual desire) is objectively disordered then maybe it is like having an eating disorder. BUT if homosexual desire is NOT an objectively disordered desire then it may be better compared to being left-handed or right handed. It is not so long ago when left-handed people were considered disordered and forced to write using its right - but don't worry, it was not that they were intrinsically disordered people, only they desire was!
I would like to advance that the thesis that homosexual desire (as opposed to heterosexual desire) is objectively disordered is false, and that instead homosexual desire is a non-pathological variation in human diversity. If this is the case, then the analogy with an eating disordered would not make sense.
3.12.2013 | 6:12pm
Don Roberto says:
Marc, perhaps non-Christians would concur, since they consideer the Bible to be merely an interesting artifact of man's historical search for meaning in a cold, cruel world. But homosexual behavior has many consequences that even the scientific materialist must recognize. Just because something is "natural" ("bonobos in zoos do it") doesn't mean it is good for the individual or society. And we should certainly not encourage children to go down this path.
3.12.2013 | 7:27pm
Laurel says:
Really, really good article, Elizabeth. I've always had a problem with feeling like I am inadequate because of my weaknesses and sins. Realizing that I am intrinsically disordered rather than intrinsically "not good enough/bad" feels better and it makes sense. It is also easier to accept others when you think of them that way. Very thought provoking...
3.12.2013 | 8:21pm
Alan says:
An interesting article and an interesting thread of comments, but ultimately the analogy on which the article rests breaks down. There is nothing inappropriate about a desire for food, but an inordinate desire for food is gluttony. There is nothing inappropriate for sexual union with one's beloved, but a desire for sexual pleasure unconnected to human connection is lust. The sin is in the inordinate desire, not in the desire itself. Sexual desire for another person of the same gender is equivalent to gluttony only if one is willing to posit that all desire for sexual union among gays and lesbians is unrelated to a desire for closeness to a beloved. Yet the common experience of most people belies that: most of us know same-sex couples who have a deep and abiding love. The analogy simply doesn't work.
3.12.2013 | 8:23pm
Gil says:
The Age of Disorders is the praxis of the Age of Anxiety, which is a by-product of the Age of Psychology, which is the altar of self-worship. One book deconstructs all of this: Han Urs von Balthasar's "The Christian and Anxiety". From pp. 85-88:
“If the Christian’s fearlessness before God, before the world and before every power other than that of Christ is strictly commanded in the New Covenant, it follows that all the ‘facts’ set forth by modern philosophy and psychology concerning the dominance of anxiety are struck down by this command. At first this sounds grotesque, and modern man will say that this prohibition by no means eliminates the fact of anxiety from the world. The Christian can only counter by insisting that ‘facts’ do not eliminate the command forbidding its presence [Da-sein]. If it is true that anxiety—about being in the world, about being forlorn, about the world itself, about all its supposedly or really unfathomable dimensions, anxiety about death and anxiety about perhaps inescapable guilt—lies at the root of modern consciousness; if it is true that this anxiety is the basis of contemporary neuroses and that this anxiety is supposed to be overcome through a modern existentialist philosophy by entering in to it and affirming it and enduring it with determination to the very end, then to all of this Christianity can only say a radical No. By no means does a Christian have permission for or access to this kind of anxiety. If he nevertheless is a neurotic and an existentialist, then he suffers from a lack of Christian truth, and his faith is sick or frail.”
“If the Christian’s fearlessness before God, before the world and before every power other than that of Christ is strictly commanded in the New Covenant, it follows that all the ‘facts’ set forth by modern philosophy and psychology concerning the dominance of anxiety are struck down by this command. At first this sounds grotesque, and modern man will say that this prohibition by no means eliminates the fact of anxiety from the world. The Christian can only counter by insisting that ‘facts’ do not eliminate the command forbidding its presence [Da-sein]. If it is true that anxiety—about being in the world, about being forlorn, about the world itself, about all its supposedly or really unfathomable dimensions, anxiety about death and anxiety about perhaps inescapable guilt—lies at the root of modern consciousness; if it is true that this anxiety is the basis of contemporary neuroses and that this anxiety is supposed to be overcome through a modern existentialist philosophy by entering in to it and affirming it and enduring it with determination to the very end, then to all of this Christianity can only say a radical No. By no means does a Christian have permission for or access to this kind of anxiety. If he nevertheless is a neurotic and an existentialist, then he suffers from a lack of Christian truth, and his faith is sick or frail.”
3.12.2013 | 9:18pm
Renee says:
I know this post isn't about Church fundraisers, but I always pick the item with the fewest tickets/least popular. This way I get better odds of winning at least something. If I don't want it, I regift it to someone who needs it.
Everything has value, it just needs the right home.
Everything has value, it just needs the right home.
3.12.2013 | 10:38pm
RK says:
The act and the attraction are "in and of themselves" (i.e. intrinsically) disordered. The act of eating is often intrinsically good and holy. The marital act is often good and holy.
While you make some good points, your main thesis is objectively erroneous as a matter of Catholic theology and philosophy.
While you make some good points, your main thesis is objectively erroneous as a matter of Catholic theology and philosophy.
3.13.2013 | 3:41am
dalea says:
As a Gay man who is not a Catholic, this discussion strikes me as frivolous and beside the point. The issue raised is not about how the RC treats GL Catholics in terms of internal Catholic practice. It is about how the Church when it enters the public square and speaks on political issues, treats and views Gay and Lesbian citizens. When there is a discussion of anti-discrimination ordinances, a response about weight issues and its relationship to Gay and Lesbian people and their concerns simply does not show a serious consideration of the justice claims being made. To try and move the discussion away from the real problems faced by Gays and Lesbians in employment, housing etc to contemplate weight gain as a spiritual problem strikes me as at best frivolous.
Perhaps, if we expanded the discussion to 'should people with weight issues face discrimination in employment and housing' we would be nearing a serious equivilency. Which the above article does not address.
Perhaps, if we expanded the discussion to 'should people with weight issues face discrimination in employment and housing' we would be nearing a serious equivilency. Which the above article does not address.
3.13.2013 | 9:13am
Richard says:
David Nickol:
Thank you for your interesting and thoughtful response. However, I must disagree with your statement that the Church sees heterosexual and homosexual males as ontologically different. The fundamental ontological difference in the physical and spiritual unity that is the human being is that between male and female. As John Paul II puts it in his "Letter to Women" (a short and absolutely wonderful read--I recommend it to all):
*******
When the Book of Genesis speaks of "help", it is not referring merely to acting, but also to being. Womanhood and manhood are complementary not only from the physical and psychological points of view, but also from the ontological. It is only through the duality of the "masculine" and the "feminine" that the "human" finds full realization.
*******
Homosexuals are ontologically men. They are chromosomally male, anatomically male, and they produce semen (not ova) which enables them, theoretically at least, and often actually, to sire children. Nowhere in the "Instruction" does it say that homosexuals are not ontologically male, only that they have not reached "affective maturity," that is though male they do not relate to women psychologically and sexually as male. They have not completed the complementarity with women that is built into their being as males. That this per se does not make them sinful or guilty goes without saying. Homosexuals can be sages or saints. But not priests, at least not in an ordination that solemnly respects human complementarity and that is, wisely, the present policy of the church.
Best,
Richard
Thank you for your interesting and thoughtful response. However, I must disagree with your statement that the Church sees heterosexual and homosexual males as ontologically different. The fundamental ontological difference in the physical and spiritual unity that is the human being is that between male and female. As John Paul II puts it in his "Letter to Women" (a short and absolutely wonderful read--I recommend it to all):
*******
When the Book of Genesis speaks of "help", it is not referring merely to acting, but also to being. Womanhood and manhood are complementary not only from the physical and psychological points of view, but also from the ontological. It is only through the duality of the "masculine" and the "feminine" that the "human" finds full realization.
*******
Homosexuals are ontologically men. They are chromosomally male, anatomically male, and they produce semen (not ova) which enables them, theoretically at least, and often actually, to sire children. Nowhere in the "Instruction" does it say that homosexuals are not ontologically male, only that they have not reached "affective maturity," that is though male they do not relate to women psychologically and sexually as male. They have not completed the complementarity with women that is built into their being as males. That this per se does not make them sinful or guilty goes without saying. Homosexuals can be sages or saints. But not priests, at least not in an ordination that solemnly respects human complementarity and that is, wisely, the present policy of the church.
Best,
Richard
3.13.2013 | 9:47am
SoberinCA says:
The moment I was most moved while reading this terrific piece is when you stated how consoled you were upon realizing that you too possessed an intrinsic disorder. As someone who stopped drinking alcohol 20+ years ago, I continue to weave a path through a literal parade of associated intrinsic disorders. Some I've conquered, some continue to conquer me. Any peace I do experience in this life is connected to my relationship with Jesus through Mary. I also disagree with someone who earlier in this transitory deposit of wisdom, assumed the role of judge by determining who is the hardest hit among the instrinsically disordered. I would wish my path to sobriety and beyond on nobody... so many never make it this far. Why am I here sober and disordered? By the grace of God. God Bless you Elizabeth as you press on and love and peace to all my same sex attracted brothers and sisters.
3.13.2013 | 2:10pm
In the strictest theological sense: you are not objectively disordered in the slightest, neither are your acts. You still eat in order to feed your body, which is what food is for (the end it is ordered to), although you may eat too much or too daintily, which in traditional theology is but a vice, aka gluttony, a departure from a virtuous middle way, just as starving yourself for no reason would be. Homosexual acts are allegedly 'objectively' disordered, that is to say their object is not the right one: a person of the opposite sex, just as their end is supposed to be wrong, as it is not reproduction. Furthermore by likening a diet with unchosen lifelong sexual abstinence is a bit cheap and insulting.
3.14.2013 | 4:33am
benning says:
I'm reminded of Paul's "thorn in the flesh", which he refers to in 2 Corinthians 12:7. I, too have that disorder in regards to food. And I do NOT fight it very successfully. But I can recognize that it is something that does keep me more humble than I like (one may find it difficult to get too self-satisfied when one is chubbier than they'd like to be.).
We all have a thorn of some sort.
As for the idea that "the phrase “intrinsically disordered” is hurtful or hateful" one has to wonder when people will grow up. How soft do our words need to be? At some point folks need to suck it up and grasp the meaning rather than the word choice.
We all have a thorn of some sort.
As for the idea that "the phrase “intrinsically disordered” is hurtful or hateful" one has to wonder when people will grow up. How soft do our words need to be? At some point folks need to suck it up and grasp the meaning rather than the word choice.
3.14.2013 | 10:14am
greenlight says:
When I finally stopped drinking over 20 years ago, it was the result of several things coming together but perhaps the biggest factor was this very realization. I didn't ask to be an alcoholic. I wouldn't have chosen to be an alcoholic. But I was. To say that "God made me that way" didn't make it okay to drink to excess. It took me a while to understand that knowing that I wasn't responsible for my condition allowed to take responsibility for my condition.
And I would echo what Lorenzo said in making a distinction between 'objectively' and 'intrinsically'. It seems to me that overeating and same sex attraction can both be 'intrinsically disordered' but that same sex attraction is also 'objectively disordered' since by it's very nature it cannot be ordered to procreation.
And I would echo what Lorenzo said in making a distinction between 'objectively' and 'intrinsically'. It seems to me that overeating and same sex attraction can both be 'intrinsically disordered' but that same sex attraction is also 'objectively disordered' since by it's very nature it cannot be ordered to procreation.
3.14.2013 | 10:17am
PapaChurros says:
While I see the take-away is supposed to be, "we're all poor, miserable sinners, each in his own way, in need of Divine Grace," I see a message that minimizes what it means to be a homosexual person in the church by comparing it to a mere vice...a peccadillo.
Let me explain. A person who likes to eat too much still has all kinds of choices in life. S/he has all kinds of choices with regards to vocations, provided they're NOT homosexual. Then it's the unconsecrated single life, no choice.
Imagine that...Unconsecrated. Single. For life. No choice.
Think of what that would mean, for you, if you had to live that out, especially in today's climate (the Church has little use for you because of the homosexuality and the world thinks your crazy following a Church that has little use for you).
That doesn't compare to the vice of gluttony which is an inordinate (how much, not what) desire for food while homosexuality is disordered (what, not how much) because of the object of the desire (a person of the same sex).
Let me explain. A person who likes to eat too much still has all kinds of choices in life. S/he has all kinds of choices with regards to vocations, provided they're NOT homosexual. Then it's the unconsecrated single life, no choice.
Imagine that...Unconsecrated. Single. For life. No choice.
Think of what that would mean, for you, if you had to live that out, especially in today's climate (the Church has little use for you because of the homosexuality and the world thinks your crazy following a Church that has little use for you).
That doesn't compare to the vice of gluttony which is an inordinate (how much, not what) desire for food while homosexuality is disordered (what, not how much) because of the object of the desire (a person of the same sex).
3.14.2013 | 1:09pm
Shan says:
Such a good and helpful post. About 3 years ago I had the same epiphany of sorts. How I have aspects of me that are intrinsically disordered. Your phraseology being better than my own. I have gotten to the point where I don't hate myself or berate myself for it, realize that, like sin, (or as a sin in some cases) it comes between me and Christ and greet each day with varying degrees of verve (I am human after all) to close the gap between me and Christ (with his help of course). Each day - no matter what happens, I am thankful for that new orientation. It is easier to find peace without self hate. It is easier to walk with Christ. He does not hate you, you shouldn't either.
It is OK to be a flawed human? Whew. Good thing.
Welcome to heightened serenity. Christ be with you sister.
It is OK to be a flawed human? Whew. Good thing.
Welcome to heightened serenity. Christ be with you sister.
3.14.2013 | 2:27pm
Gil says:
Thank you, benning, for your fine post: it does sum it all up, what Ms. Scalia wrote so eloquently on.
The prior at my church wrote a Lenten reflection on fasting, and it was clear that he was recommending that fasting be a part of our everyday life, not just during Lent and other occasions liturgically designated for fasting. Here's how he summed up his reflection:
"The discipline of the fast...helps me to control the impulse I have to think first of myself and the satisfaction of my needs and wants. If I can exercise the capacity to control at table my desire to eat this or that kind of food in this or that portion, I can translate this into a capacity to control all sorts of desire. When I master my own wants and needs, I can begin to put the wants and needs of others before my own. Perhaps the Lord asks of me faithfulness in this small matter of food so that I can learn to bear the great responsibility of service to others (see Matthew 25:21, 23 and Luke 16:10)."
And I would add that Jesus insisted that he did not come to be served (to get his needs and wants met) but to serve others. Christian love is always a sacrificial love, the point of the great Russian filmmaker Andrei Tarkovsky in his last film, “The Sacrifice”.
The prior at my church wrote a Lenten reflection on fasting, and it was clear that he was recommending that fasting be a part of our everyday life, not just during Lent and other occasions liturgically designated for fasting. Here's how he summed up his reflection:
"The discipline of the fast...helps me to control the impulse I have to think first of myself and the satisfaction of my needs and wants. If I can exercise the capacity to control at table my desire to eat this or that kind of food in this or that portion, I can translate this into a capacity to control all sorts of desire. When I master my own wants and needs, I can begin to put the wants and needs of others before my own. Perhaps the Lord asks of me faithfulness in this small matter of food so that I can learn to bear the great responsibility of service to others (see Matthew 25:21, 23 and Luke 16:10)."
And I would add that Jesus insisted that he did not come to be served (to get his needs and wants met) but to serve others. Christian love is always a sacrificial love, the point of the great Russian filmmaker Andrei Tarkovsky in his last film, “The Sacrifice”.
3.14.2013 | 2:35pm
Bruce says:
Marc at 3.12.2013 | 5:44pm wrote:
I would like to advance that the thesis that homosexual desire (as opposed to heterosexual desire) is objectively disordered is false, and that instead homosexual desire is a non-pathological variation in human diversity.
Response - Marc, nothing in the article referred to overeating or gluttony as a 'pathological variation in human diversity'. Also, in an evolutionary sense, overeating (and gluttony) is much more likely to be a natural variation in human diversity since it would enhance survival in a world experiencing 'feast and famine' while homosexual desire would be expected to die out since actually confers an evolutionary disadvantage. Finally, even if homosexual desire conforms to your thesis that it is a non-pathological variation in human diversity, that says nothing about whether it is objectively disordered.
I would like to advance that the thesis that homosexual desire (as opposed to heterosexual desire) is objectively disordered is false, and that instead homosexual desire is a non-pathological variation in human diversity.
Response - Marc, nothing in the article referred to overeating or gluttony as a 'pathological variation in human diversity'. Also, in an evolutionary sense, overeating (and gluttony) is much more likely to be a natural variation in human diversity since it would enhance survival in a world experiencing 'feast and famine' while homosexual desire would be expected to die out since actually confers an evolutionary disadvantage. Finally, even if homosexual desire conforms to your thesis that it is a non-pathological variation in human diversity, that says nothing about whether it is objectively disordered.
3.14.2013 | 2:38pm
Gil says:
I got a call from a friend this morning at 6:00. He is 56 years old and has been an alcoholic since age 13. He called me because I was the only person who refused in every way not to excuse his behavior. He kept telling me how grateful he is for that. He is in his second day of withdrawal in a hotel room with only Jesus at his side. I told him that is dangerous, that he should go to a hospital, but he kept insisting that it is important that he do this with only Jesus at his side, whom he is only now beginning to know, and he only called to thank me for leading him to the real Jesus, the Jesus of Revelation. "I want to be one of the few" was the last thing he told me.
3.14.2013 | 3:04pm
Mike says:
I truly appreciate Elizabeth's article, as I struggle with the same intrinsic disorder that she does (and several others to boot).
I was struck by the discussion that ensued as to what "intrinsically disordered" means. There are two obvious interpretations alluded to in the comments (other non-obvious ones are probably out there as well):
Interpretation 1: The desire is intrinsic to the person but is also disordered. This is the interpretation Ms. Scalia seems to use, and it certainly can help. Those of us having such desires realize that, being part of us, the desires per se need not be denied, but being disordered means we have to strive to keep them from separating us from God.
Interpretation 2: It is intrinsic to the desire itself to be disordered. In this interpretation, the root of such desires in each of us is less prominent; the key is that the desire qua desire is disordered, and we must strive to keep this, whatever its source, from separating us from God.
Both interpretations shed light on our sinfulness and the effect of keeping us from totally embracing the love God offers: Think Augustine and "not yet." I note in conclustion that Augustine's desire for his lover, like Casanova's desire for sexual conquests, represent intrinsically disordered sexual desire no less that homosexual desire. We know that Augustine eventually used his understanding of God's love to deal with his desire; from his public behavior, the odds seemed stacked against Casanova in this regard. But then again, who knows what finally happened between he and God?
I was struck by the discussion that ensued as to what "intrinsically disordered" means. There are two obvious interpretations alluded to in the comments (other non-obvious ones are probably out there as well):
Interpretation 1: The desire is intrinsic to the person but is also disordered. This is the interpretation Ms. Scalia seems to use, and it certainly can help. Those of us having such desires realize that, being part of us, the desires per se need not be denied, but being disordered means we have to strive to keep them from separating us from God.
Interpretation 2: It is intrinsic to the desire itself to be disordered. In this interpretation, the root of such desires in each of us is less prominent; the key is that the desire qua desire is disordered, and we must strive to keep this, whatever its source, from separating us from God.
Both interpretations shed light on our sinfulness and the effect of keeping us from totally embracing the love God offers: Think Augustine and "not yet." I note in conclustion that Augustine's desire for his lover, like Casanova's desire for sexual conquests, represent intrinsically disordered sexual desire no less that homosexual desire. We know that Augustine eventually used his understanding of God's love to deal with his desire; from his public behavior, the odds seemed stacked against Casanova in this regard. But then again, who knows what finally happened between he and God?
3.15.2013 | 1:20pm
Freelancer says:
62I read just about anything with the topic of weight. This article combining the aspect of intrinsic and disordered relative to the effort to just reach and maintain our desired level of body weight intriques me.
Years ago I joined a group from church who went to NY to attend an all night vigil at a small Catholic church for the purpose of petitioning God to bring an end to the Viet Nam war. It took considerable planning for me to leave my houseful of family and duties and this is relavent because of what I did shortly after kneeling down to pray for an end to all of the horrors of war.
What I first actually prayed for, quite sincerely, was help in staying on my current diet and reaching my weight goal. Then I picked up a pamphlet in the pew and the first line that caught my eye was "there are weighter matters". I have no idea what the rest of the content was but I got the message. First things first. Not a rebuke but a reminder to me to use common sense and put this weight thing at least below spiritual considerations. This incident has often reminded me of the necessity I have to put my spiritual life ahead of all else. I have to be reminded, it is not something that flows easily thru my practical, earthy mind.
Elizabeth, you obviously are not disordered in your ability to write and impart to others your amazing knowledge of the spiritual matters of faith and a lot else related to God, family, and country. I wonder if your cross to bear is an intrinsic part of your success as an author and evangelist. Just a thought.
Years ago I joined a group from church who went to NY to attend an all night vigil at a small Catholic church for the purpose of petitioning God to bring an end to the Viet Nam war. It took considerable planning for me to leave my houseful of family and duties and this is relavent because of what I did shortly after kneeling down to pray for an end to all of the horrors of war.
What I first actually prayed for, quite sincerely, was help in staying on my current diet and reaching my weight goal. Then I picked up a pamphlet in the pew and the first line that caught my eye was "there are weighter matters". I have no idea what the rest of the content was but I got the message. First things first. Not a rebuke but a reminder to me to use common sense and put this weight thing at least below spiritual considerations. This incident has often reminded me of the necessity I have to put my spiritual life ahead of all else. I have to be reminded, it is not something that flows easily thru my practical, earthy mind.
Elizabeth, you obviously are not disordered in your ability to write and impart to others your amazing knowledge of the spiritual matters of faith and a lot else related to God, family, and country. I wonder if your cross to bear is an intrinsic part of your success as an author and evangelist. Just a thought.
3.18.2013 | 9:41am
Woodbridge says:
Great post: make it a book! Need a little help? Find a good theologian as co-author, and do it.
As regards the Church's use of "intrinsic"? This is a fairly new notion, first used prominently in the Vatican II era. As really an only recently-popularized notion, it might have some inherent bugs in it, itself.
But perhaps we can use it here, if we must: the desire to eat, is good and natural, in that it keeps us alive. But then we might agree that the desire to overeat however, in effect to the point of death, might be said to be "intrinsically disordered." In that a natural and good impulse, has been perverted or twisted; into something entirely different from its original (inherent?) purpose or essence.
The application of this to Gluttony, one of the forbidden "lusts" or "desires" of the disordered spirit, might seem minor to some. But actually, gluttony (including overconsumption of consumer goods too) is perhaps the major sin of modern America. And a major cause of premature death, too. But in addition to that? It is an interesting test case, for the whole still-experimental notion of "intrinsic" disorders.
A great example; a great subject. One that could easily spark decades of very serious discussion - and reform - in Church dogma.
As regards the Church's use of "intrinsic"? This is a fairly new notion, first used prominently in the Vatican II era. As really an only recently-popularized notion, it might have some inherent bugs in it, itself.
But perhaps we can use it here, if we must: the desire to eat, is good and natural, in that it keeps us alive. But then we might agree that the desire to overeat however, in effect to the point of death, might be said to be "intrinsically disordered." In that a natural and good impulse, has been perverted or twisted; into something entirely different from its original (inherent?) purpose or essence.
The application of this to Gluttony, one of the forbidden "lusts" or "desires" of the disordered spirit, might seem minor to some. But actually, gluttony (including overconsumption of consumer goods too) is perhaps the major sin of modern America. And a major cause of premature death, too. But in addition to that? It is an interesting test case, for the whole still-experimental notion of "intrinsic" disorders.
A great example; a great subject. One that could easily spark decades of very serious discussion - and reform - in Church dogma.
The following from Blessed Columba Marmion's is an example of how this sort of thinking has helped make sense of my same sex attraction, (as well as my inordinate love for dessert!):
“Let us no longer be disheartened by our miseries, by the imperfections we deplore. They do not impede the flowering of grace, for God knows of what mud we are formed, He ‘knows what we are made of’, and our miseries and imperfections are the price to be paid for our human nature and are a fruitful root of humility. Let us have patience with ourselves in this search for perfection, unending though it may be. The Christian life has about it nothing of the fretful or anxious; its development within us is perfectly reconcilable with our miseries, our servitudes, our weaknesses. For it is in the midst of those weaknesses that we feel dwelling within us the triumphant strength of Christ: ‘that the power of Christ may dwell in me.’”