Tuesday, June 14, 2011

Concupiscence, disordered desire, sin

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

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

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

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

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

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

10 comments:

New Catholic said...

I think way too much attention is given to this man and other lay pontificators and to their personal opinions. On questions of moral theology, in particular, it should be clear that, other than living documents and authorities of the past, contemporary references are to be orthodox Priests, good men who actually hear confessions and hand out penance.

Spiritus Sanctus docebit vos quaecumque dixero vobis, we hear during this Octave, and this Tradition that the Lord pronounced and the Holy Ghost teaches is handed to us by Priests.

Anonymous said...

Ex-gay does not mean changing sexual orientation, but changing one's conception of one's identity. One's idea of one's identity is a rather fluid thing in any case, since we all have many different identity-markers. ("I didn’t leave my same-sex partner because I ceased to be attracted to women or because I was miraculously “cured” of homosexuality. I left because my identity as a Catholic was more important to me than my identity as a lesbian.")

Anonymous Bosch said...

I agree with NC, and I also like Anonymous' comment. As the Melinda Selmys piece (linked near the end of the post) makes abundantly clear, the key issue is not sexual orientation but sexual identity. Both are important, but the latter is where we live our lives and make our choices with the cards we've been dealt.

The Catechism, I believe, rejects any notion of homosexuality as a fixed "nature," or defining of a person's "being." Thus, the thing that really counts is how one understands oneself, and this is where the grace of God provides a liberating freedom from all the sludge washed up in our lives by original sin.

Dark Horse said...

Has Mark Shea lost his mind? Sounds like he's playing to a Jon Stewart audience.

Anonymous said...

The Vatican bans gays from seminaries -- but do they mean the sexual orientation or the "identity" -- I get the impression that many people interpret the ban in the latter sense.

Mick Jagger Gathers No Mosque said...

Mr. Shea ia like the girl with the curl but I stopped reading his site a long time ago.

I agree with N.C. (when don't I?) and I suspect that most of us have been corrupted by the age in which we live and so his advice is apt.

I do want to reference the great Gueranger.

Dom Gueranger, in "The Liturgical Year," warns that when we Catholics relax, and worse, abandon mortification of the flesh we see a rise in effeminacy.

So, maybe, it was a misreading of the signs of the times for the Church to corporately abandon mandatory Friday abstinence as the sexual revolution blossomed into so many pink flowers.

In closing, as an Irish-Algonquin male, I was gifted with AOL (Anger Orientation towards Liberals) and I find it difficult not to punch-out those who have internalised the lies of the left and speak about sexual orientation rather than sexual attraction when it comes to the, formerly, love that dare not speak its name.

Anonymous said...

Does the Vatican ban on gay seminarians apply to (1) sexual attraction or (2) sexual "identity". Again, I suspect that the Vatican document intended to ban the former, but that it is being read as banning only the latter (that it, the ideological construct of "gay identity").

Ralph Roister-Doister said...

New Catholic,

I could not agree more, particularly about the lay pontificator in question.

On the other hand, as an example, the pastor of the Church I attend has an attitude toward confession that can be summarized as "come when you feel the need, a few times a year ought to be sufficient, otherwise, don't worry, be happy."

Needless to say, catching this priest in the confessional requires, at the very least, string tied to a stick, and a great big box.

Hark! The call to sainthood!

New Catholic said...

"Catching this priest in the confessional requires, at the very least, string tied to a stick, and a great big box".

That provided me the biggest smile of the day. Thanks.

George said...

"That provided me the biggest smile of the day. Thanks."

Hear, hear!