Archbishop Chaput: The Church Needs to Say Any Kind of Extra-Marital Sex is “Disordered”

Aleteia ^ | November 21, 2014 | Matt Rourke/AP/SIPA

[Mrs. Don-o]

"...And look at what the vengeful Francis has done to Burke..."

"Vengeful"! Talk about "insinuations"! That is something you cannot know about Pope Francis' motivations.

It is something which Burke, fair-minded and precise as he is, has never said or implied, and, I think, never will.

You do him ill service by saying such things.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Amen.

[Mrs. Don-o]

It is indeed coarse, NM, but I don't know how better to say it, since euphemism only furthers the confusion and aids the Enemy of SOuls.

However, sodomy is just ugly and there's no getting around it. You are repelled by the description because you are presumably a normal and decent person. I recognize that. But saying, for instance, "anal intercourse" is itself misleading, because it makes it seem like an actual kind of intercourse, some sort of parallel with true marital inercourse, which it is not: not even when it involved male and female. It's not even analogous, it's more like a parody. Clinical words don't convey the perverse wretchedness of it all.

It doesn disturb me, though, if I have offended you. Please forgive me.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Thinking about different degrees of disorder. A friend of mine, a pro-life pacifist Quaker, having no marriage prospects but wanting to be a mother, had herself inseminated at one of those perverted clinics.

She's pretty active in the prolife movmeent and knows lots of conservative Christians, both Catholic and Evangelical. She would never ask "permission" or "affirmation" for what she decided to do, but, since she was curious, she did inquire in her circle of friends to find out what people thought. She said pretty much everybody thought she was wrong to get inseminated: but the Evangelicals tended to say, "Well, at least you didn't have sex with some guy!" and the Catholics tended to say, "Well, at least you should have had sex with the guy!"

[ebb tide]

You are fond of accusing others of "rash judgement".

Now what so-called "son of the church" would speak about his fellow Catholics, without knowing what's in their hearts, as below?

“They disguise themselves, they disguise themselves as good people: they make themselves up like little holy cards, looking up at heaven as they pray, making sure they are seen—they believe they are more righteous than others, they despise others!"

[Mrs. Don-o]

Sounds very much like Jesus on the Pharisees.

But did Pope Francis name who he was talking about? Or is he just counting on "He who has ears to hear, let him hear!" -- the "shoe fits" application?

[ebb tide]

Big difference, though. Jesus knew what was in the hearts of the Pharisees.

I don’t think you, or Francis, knows what’s in the heart of others, despite acting like you do.

[Mrs. Don-o]

If you don't say --- name --- who you "may" be talking about, it's not defamation. Who is being defamed?

It seems that many of Pope Francis' critics don't mind naming and blaming him, including attributing the worst possible motivations. Doesn't that bother you?

[ebb tide]

You’ve jumped horses now. Who has defamed, let alone exercised “rash judgement”?

See BlatherNaut’s Post 43 to you on this same thread.

[Tax-chick]

I understand the arguments against the way Abp. Chaput has phrased his comments. They have some merit. On the other hand, it seems to me that there’s a belief that fornication and adultery are only “technically” wrong ... “It’s just a piece of paper” ... while homosexual behavior is “really” wrong.

[Salvation]

**Archbishop Chaput: The Church Needs to Say Any Kind of Extra-Marital Sex is “Disordered”**

Amen!

[Salvation]

Believe me, all the Catholics know that Archbishop Chaput is Catholic!

Did you google his name?

[Salvation]

Do you have the Ten Commandments in your Bible?

How about “Thou shall not covet thy neighbor’s wife.”

[Resettozero]

Believe me, all the Catholics know that Archbishop Chaput is Catholic! Did you google his name?

As you seem to be in a habit of doing, once again you missed the point of my post. Your accusatorily rude question is off-target.

[ReformationFan]

Exactly. Also, heterosexual adultery(as sinful as that is) can possibly and many times has resulted in the conception of a child. Homosexual activity by definition can NEVER do so.

[RobbyS]

It is disorderly. The many cases where spouses simply walk out is not even treated as a breach of contract any more. A bond that ought to be as strong as that bond between a parent and child is broken. Abandonment. The result is turmoil in the lives of persons and in society.

[piusv]

No, I think he's trying to say that all sexual sins are offensive.

By using the same word to describe them all, he is trying to say that all sexual sins are equally offensive. Based on Catholic Tradition and Scripture we know that this is not true about sodomy. I'm really not sure how anyone can read his words and not see that this is about not offending the homosexuals.

[Trapped Behind Enemy Lines]

Where did I say it is OK to covet your neighbor’s wife?

It is not OK to covet anyone else’s wife.

Was this comment meant for me?

[Mrs. Don-o]

"I'm really not sure how anyone can read his [Chaput's]words and not see that this is about not offending the homosexuals."

That interpretation srikes me as so bizarre I hardly know how to comment. Are we to forget that there are SEVEN deadly sins (Pride, Anger, Lust (not just Homosexual), Envy, Gluttony, Avarice, and Sloth?

Are we to forget that, according to the Bible and to traditional Catholic teaching ---there are FOUR specially-highlighted "Sins That Cry Out to Heaven for Vengeance," murder (Gn 4:10), sodomy (Gn 17:20-21), oppression of the poor (Ex 2:23), and defrauding workers of their just wages (Jas 5:4)?

Are we to forget that prophets like Amos grouped economic, sexual, and idolatrous sins all in one batch? Practically all in one breath:

“For the three crimes, the four crimes of Israel, I have made my decree and will not relent: because they have sold the upright for silver and the poor for a pair of sandals, because they have crushed the heads of the weak into the dust and thrust the rights of the oppressed to one side, father and son sleeping with the same girl and thus profaning my holy name, lying down beside every altar on clothes acquired as pledges” (2:6-8).

St. Paul almost invariably includes sexual sins like sodomy in long lists of other defiling sins. I can think of four such lists:

• 1 Cor 6:9-10;
• Gal 5:19-21
• 1 Tim 1:9-10
• Eph 5:3-6

And heres two others, one from John and one from Jesus' own lips:

• Rev. 22:12-16
• Matt 25:41-46

Here's a good example from Paul:

(1 Cor 6:9-10)
Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither
the sexually immoral nor
idolaters nor
adulterers nor
homosexual offenders, nor
thieves nor
the greedy nor
drunkards nor
slanderers nor
swindlers
will inherit the kingdom of God.

And that is what some of you were.

It's clear God finds homosexual practices revolting. I can't imagine he has a more indulgent judgment for people who masturbate in front of a computer screen, or people who give free rein to anger and pride, who practice habitual calumny, who drive the lost lambs further into the thickets, who ruin their bodies by overeating and sitting in front of a computer screen for hours on end, or who contracept.

Moralists do make distinctions, even among mortal sins, between really bad and really, really bad. But any one of these sins--- unless, turning to God for mercy, you reject them from the heart --- will kill you dead.

That though should keep us from getting too pharasiacal:

"I thank you, God, that I am not like the rest of men. Esecially not like that homosexual."

[piusv]

I get it, Mrs. Don-o. You are here to point out how terrible every other Catholic here is.

I get it.