Catholic School Board Handles Concerns of Homophobia by Calling it ‘Objectively Disordered’

Catholic doctrine:  Created, approved and promulgated by aging pedophiles in dresses who rape children, enable the rape of children and protect those who rape children.
In any sane society, anyone who remains of member of that hateful cult bears the shame and guilt for the continuing discrimination and violence perpetrated by its members and by its undeserved authority.

While the words “objectively disordered” or “intrinsically disordered” might be bothering some the most, what I find most objectionable is that the catechism says that the “psychological genesis remains largely unexplained” – as if homosexuality has a proven psychological genesis at all.  The Church necessarily has imput Freudian psychological thinking into their spiritual teaching.

Here’s a thought, inspired by a documentary about ancient Spartan culture.

The boys began military school at age seven. They were assigned an older mentor around age twelve. The men were so accustomed to the male-only environment and the state-sanctioned homosexuality that some had to be forced to marry. Even then, the new bride would shave her head and dress like a man for their wedding night.  The groom continued living with his fellow soldiers.

The male-male relationship with one’s fellow soldiers made one fight harder in battle to protect the brotherhood of Sparta.

     ~The Spartans, a PBS documentary
     
http://www.shoppbs.org/product/index.jsp?productId=1418324

This strikes me as similar to a prison situation, wherein there’s a lot of reordering society’s hierarchies and a wolf pack mentality takes over, including who is “below” someone else (literally et al).

What does all this mean? When an organization dictates one’s preferences (this is how we do it around here), it is a subjective disordering. There’s no “objective” because those enforcing the system are WITHIN the system, not outside of it.

Spartan men thought you could be bisexual for the betterment of the state.

Prison inmates “turn” homosexual for…I can’t speak anecdotally as non-inmate, but probably to maintain their safety and place in the hierarchy–or by force.

Priests celibacy is against natural law, too. 

It seems their concern about what’s natural/what’s not is a case of projection, Dr. Freud.

You focus on the “disordered” part, but miss the glaring out clause: “Unjust” discrimination. Ethical people understand that the word “discrimination”, in this context, implies the word “unjust”. But the people who wrote the catechism don’t see it that way. They would consider many forms of discrimination against LGBT people to be completely just. So the phrase “unjust discrimination” gives them an easy out; they just have to claim that any discrimination they practice is “just”, which they can easily do, since in their eyes, the Church itself determines what is just and what isn’t.

 I understand and agree with what you say, but it’s a bit more complicated than that in Ontario. Catholic schools are 100% publicly funded here. Strange but true. That’s why so many of us are outraged. Outside of Ontario, there are very few examples in North America where public tax dollars are used to push an anti-gay (and anti-choice) agenda.

If you want to belong to a cult or send your kids to a cult’s school, you must abide by their rules. No matter how archaic or ass backwards they are. You’d think LGBT people/parents would understand that by now. The school is just doing what their 2,000 year old “hand book” is telling them to do.

Yep, the Bible considers homosexuality as a “grave depravity,” just like wearing mixed fibers, eating shellfish, or getting tattoos. Why do they never rant about those other abominations?

The Catholic schools in Ontario are PUBLIC — they are supported by the public’s tax dollars and are subject to the same laws that secular public schools are.  My husband and I are secular humanists who send our children to the public Catholic school in our district because it outperforms all other local public schools in all academics.  

What the priests who rape children wear is irrelevant. Wearing dresses is not perverted nor shameful. I can’t stand this “men who wear dresses” thing as one of the standard insults thrown out against the Catholic clergy. It is inherently sexist and heteronormative.

ETA: Implying that cross-dressing is somehow related to raping kids is not okay.

Not sure about Ontario, but probably.  It is the case in Alberta where it is being challenged.

Thank you for this.  I was having similar thoughts.

The term “objectively disordered” is not new, the Catholic Church has been using it for years when referring to homosexuality. I never heard it while I was a practicing Catholic but I became aware of it after reading a New York Times article regarding a Vatican rule to ban ‘gays’ from priesthood back in 2006.

I recall this article so well because it hit a personal nerve. As a 9/11 survivor, the name Mychal Judge has a special place in my heart. Judge was gay priest who died at ground zero, giving solace, absolution, and assistance to all the firefighters and the injured. He never left, even after he was ordered to vacate, because there were still hundreds of firefighters present. Those who knew him have dubbed him the saint of 9/11. As an atheist I disagree with his faith but I admire his unquestionable courage.

So in 2006, when I read how the Vatican had decided to deny the “objectively disordered” from the priesthood I interpreted is as a slap to the face, a means of dishonoring Mychal Judge’s memory. It hard to claim homosexuals as evil and immoral when a priest who just so happens to be gay is able to show proof to the contrary. Better to get them all out before another “objectively disordered” person gets an opportunity to put a human face to homosexuality.

Sorry for the tangent,  I wanted to explain how the term is not new but I could not do it without venting just a bit.

I’ve sometimes mused that there must be a genetic component to my deep hatred of things (cars, signs) blocking the sidewalk.

Correct, and objectively so.

I WANT the Catholic school to continue it’s obviously anti-LGBTTQI streak. 

It seems like most of Ontario is uncaring about challenging that the Catholic school board is government sanction discrimination. Elementary and middle school kids MUST be Catholic and have a baptismal certificate in all boards (or most).

Teaching positions usually require that their priest writes a letter that the teacher is involved in the Catholic church.

I don’t want the Catholic school board to change and be more “tolerant” and fly under the radar – I want them out! Maybe if they continue their anti-gay streak, it will build up more protest and rally support by humanists. Quebecois managed to get rid of their Catholic board… why can’t we?

The problem here really isn’t Catholic dogma. The problem is allowing the church to run schools. Let these nutcases say whatever they like in their churches, but for FSM sake don’t give them children to educate.

They squirm, deny it and try to abandon the debate when you point it out, but if someone thinks homosexuality is a sin than they consider us inferior to heterosexuals. Slip-ups like this just show what they’re really thinking when they say they ‘hate the sin, love the sinner’. Anyone who believes homosexuality is a sin or immoral is contributing to a culture of bigotry that ruins lives by either driving LBGT people to depression and suicide or pressuring them to live a life of miserable self-loathing, celibacy and denial.

^Sorry for the rant, but this subject pisses me off.

Catholic School Board Handles Concerns of Homophobia by Calling it ‘Objectively Disordered’

Whether you godless atheist like it or not words have meanings and no amount of political agenda based redefining is gonna change that! The definition for “disordered” is pretty clear. Here is one definition from the Stanford encyclopedia on philosophy: [Mental disorder, ] “disturbances of thought, experience, and emotion serious enough to cause functional impairment in people, making it more difficult for them to sustain interpersonal relationships and carry on their jobs, and sometimes leading to self-destructive behavior and even suicide ”

Well lets just look at the despicable morally repugnant behaviour in question and see whether it fits. Homo….phobia is clearly a severely disabling anxiety disorder that leaves sufferers wrecking relationships and unable to fulfill their jobs to the point where one wonder if there even will be jobs for those afflicted in the future.

…. what? did my post set you off on the wrong foot there? Well Imagine how I felt reading that headline.