Can We Say Disorder?

At the conclusion of our parish's "mission" last week, I had a little conversation with the presenter, on the subject of homosexuality. I suggested that the use of the term "disorder" to refer to homosexual orientation was inoffensive. He finds it objectionable.

The word is found in a document issued in 1986, which in turn refers to one from 1975.The point I want to discuss here is not whether the Vatican is right or wrong to characterize the homosexual orientation as an objective disorder. It is the argument some make that the word "disorder" itself is intrinsically offensive, and therefore the underlying position of the Vatican can be dismissed out of hand.

"3. Explicit treatment of the problem was given in this Congregation's "Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics" of December 29, 1975. That document stressed the duty of trying to understand the homosexual condition and noted that culpability for homosexual acts should only be judged with prudence. At the same time the Congregation took note of the distinction commonly drawn between the homosexual condition or tendency and individual homosexual actions. These were described as deprived of their essential and indispensable finality, as being "intrinsically disordered", and able in no case to be approved of (cf. n. 8, $4).


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. Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.


Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be directed toward those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not."


First, I'll point out that it can be very convenient not to have to prove that the Vatican is wrong about homosexuality: "They said a bad word, so we can ignore them." Even worse is when people get into a high dudgeon and pretend that by simply using this word the Church proves incontrovertibly that it "hates" homosexuals. Logically, of course, distaste for a word does not disprove the argument of the one who employs it.


Secondly, the word is not offensive anyway. People talk freely about SAD, ADD and ADHD, and nobody finds it offensive to speak of Seasonal Affective Disorder, Attention Deficit Disorder, or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.


My point, then, is that if someone wants to make an argument that a homosexual orientation is not a disorder, he can legitimately do so (although I'm not discussing it right here). All I'm saying is that the case against the Vatican position cannot be established simply by objecting to the use of the word "disorder."