2 1/2 questions

[GinKitsune]

Hello. I only just recently joined this forum. I was sent here by a friend whom is catholic and said this would be a good place to help study your faith. Am I catholic? No. But I try and study other religions and their beliefs just to give everything as fair of a judgement as I can. So far the tenants that catholics hold, and the faith they bestow in them has driven massive amounts of respect from me.

Now I’ve learnt quite alot in a short time. A couple things that shocked me when I found out, was the catholic feeling towards homosexuality and contraception. (I’m new to this bare with me). So I had some questions.

Firstly I now understand your views on homosexuality and contraception. Although still a little shocked at it I can now understand your reasons. I myself am not a homosexual (its just not my way).

My first question is: Since the main problem you have with homosexuals is that they attempt to have an intercourse that cannot produce life. What if a homosexual couple retains chastity? I haven’t found anything in your doctorine on the emotional aspect of the intimite emotional aspects towards another even if a chaste body and mind are maintained.

My second question is: Invetro Fertilization. Does this break one of the sins in anyway?

Question 2, part B: This is only applicable if it is not a sin for invetro fertilization (test tube babies) or at least undecided. Its said that any union that causes new life is good. But scientists in Europe (I think it was Europe), have successfully made offspring with two female mice (no males involved), and are confident that this could be duplicated with human subjects. What are the views on this?

I’m sorry if my questions seem wierd to some. I’m very fascinated in your views (they are very different then mine), and I truely like studying your path of wisdom. Its just the concept of ‘sin’ or that something can be ‘wrong’ is not something i’m used to, and i’m still trying to grasp how these things work. Thank you for your time.

 

[Scott_Waddell]

Question 1: Technically, what you describe would not be a sin as it is the act that is sinful. However, living together if that is what you mean would likely be what is known as a near occasion of sin.

Question 2: In vitro is sinful because it divorces procreation from the marital act.

 

[Catholic2003]

I recommend that you read Persona Humana to gain a much deeper understanding of the Church’s teaching on sexual ethics.

 

[Catholic2003]

This document discusses in vitro and other medical matters.

 

[RyanL]

WELCOME!!

I’m glad that you took your friend up on the invite! Feel free to poke around the main site (www.catholic.com) as they have many well written and easy-read essays. I am sorry to say that I don’t know much about Druid theology or ethics, so I am unable to say what I would like in familiar terms; I will try to use common language.

Please read Catholic 2003’s links - there’s really no better source than the Holy Father to understand Catholic teachings.

That said, I think you aren’t quite looking at things correctly. Sexual intimacy is a gift from God that allows a wonderful union in body and soul of a husband and wife, freely giving of themselves in an immage of the love shared between the Trinity; The Father loves the Son, and the Son loves the Father, and that love is so real that it brings forth a new person, the Holy Spirit. It is a total self-giving, that brings forth new life.

Now, when we do things like masturbate we are trying to get the “feel good” part without a shared love that brings forth new life. We are distorting the immage of the Trinity to a self-loving, self-serving, selfish God. We are intentionally misusing the wonderful gift of sexuality that God has given to us for the sole purpose of pleasing ourselves, and in doing so we are profaining something sacred. As far as contraception and homosexuality go, it is less about actually creating life in the particular act as it is about remaining open to the possibility of new life in an act of self-giving love that mirrors the Trinity. It’s a theological position (that is also commanded by the Bible, which we believe to be the holy word of God and inerrant - if properly understood).

As far as if a homosexual couple could live together chastely without sin, I would say that€ it is a theoretical possibility but a practical impossibility. Why? Couple of reasons. 1. We are not permitted to conduct ourselves in a way that scandalizes our neighbor or “causes our neighbor to stumble”. Even if we are actually committing no sin, we are causing others to think that we are committing sins, and thereby bearing a poor witness to Christ in our lives. 2. It is sinful to lust after another. While it is theoretically possible that the two could live together chastely without lusting after another, I think it is a practical impossibility. In no small part I think it’s an impossibility not because people have to lust when they are attracted (far from it), but rather because when you are talking about a “gay person” you are speaking about someone who self-identifies by their sexuality. They have made their sexuality their biggest identifying characteristic, and are constantly repeating this fact to others in a self-fulfilling prophesy (psych 101). Also, the two would need to maintain separate beds, not kiss, not be physically intimate at all, and I just don’t think our theoretical couple could pull this off in reality. I think human nature is such that they would try to justify some reason to touch, to hold, to caress the other. It’s just the way that people work; it’s called concupiscience (theology 101). Then again, I could be wrong.

Please hang around and ask all of the questions you would like. We’re glad to have you!

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Subrosa]

Hi GinKitsune -

Welcome to the forums and may it help you along your spiritual path.

The Catholic Church has a document named The Catechism of the Catholic Church that addresses your questions. I will post the particular answers to your questions and encourage you to peruse the document for other teachings you may be interested in.

usccb.org/catechism/text/entiretoc1.htm

GinKitsune:

My first question is: Since the main problem you have with homosexuals is that they attempt to have an intercourse that cannot produce life. What if a homosexual couple retains chastity? I haven’t found anything in your doctorine on the emotional aspect of the intimite emotional aspects towards another even if a chaste body and mind are maintained.

Chastity and homosexuality

*2357 *Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
*2358 *The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

**2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
*

 

[Subrosa]

**
My second question is: Invetro Fertilization. Does this break one of the sins in anyway?

Question 2, part B: This is only applicable if it is not a sin for invetro fertilization (test tube babies) or at least undecided. Its said that any union that causes new life is good. But scientists in Europe (I think it was Europe), have successfully made offspring with two female mice (no males involved), and are confident that this could be duplicated with human subjects. What are the views on this?
The Church maintains a moral imperative on child birth. From the Catechism: *

The gift of a child

2373 Sacred Scripture and the Church’s traditional practice see in large families a sign of God’s blessing and the parents’ generosity.163

[2374](http://javascript:OpenPopupWindow() Couples who discover that they are sterile suffer greatly. “What will you give me,” asks Abraham of God, "for I continue childless?"164 And Rachel cries to her husband Jacob, "Give me children, or I shall die!"165

[2375](http://javascript:OpenPopupWindow() Research aimed at reducing human sterility is to be encouraged, on condition that it is placed "at the service of the human person, of his inalienable rights, and his true and integral good according to the design and will of God."166

2376 Techniques that entail the dissociation of husband and wife, by the intrusion of a person other than the couple (donation of sperm or ovum, surrogate uterus), are gravely immoral. These techniques (heterologous artificial insemination and fertilization) infringe the child’s right to be born of a father and mother known to him and bound to each other by marriage. They betray the spouses’ "right to become a father and a mother only through each other."167

2377 Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous artificial insemination and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible, yet remain morally unacceptable. They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that "entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children."168 "Under the moral aspect procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not willed as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say, of the specific act of the spouses’ union. . . . Only respect for the link between the meanings of the conjugal act and respect for the unity of the human being make possible procreation in conformity with the dignity of the person."169

2378 A child is not something owed to one, but is a gift. The “supreme gift of marriage” is a human person. A child may not be considered a piece of property, an idea to which an alleged “right to a child” would lead. In this area, only the child possesses genuine rights: the right “to be the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of his parents,” and "the right to be respected as a person from the moment of his conception."170

2379 The Gospel shows that physical sterility is not an absolute evil. Spouses who still suffer from infertility after exhausting legitimate medical procedures should unite themselves with the Lord’s Cross, the source of all spiritual fecundity. They can give expression to their generosity by adopting abandoned children or performing demanding services for others.

**Also, There are two recent papal documents that deal with artificial insemination. These are: ‘Donum Vitae’ and ‘Evangelium Vitae’. You can easily find both these documents on the Internet.

Peace be with you,
Subrosa

 

[steve_c]

Regarding the ½ question, it is not a weird question at all, but rather a very good one. First, I am curious of the source for “any union that causes new life is good”. I have never heard of this, but it is an interesting thought – I would agree with this provided a proper understanding of the word “union”. One must understand union as that which takes two natures and makes them one. Likewise, the word ‘communion’ is that which takes two persons and makes them one. Union and communion should be viewed as a characteristic of the Trinity. Union and communion on earth should reflect the union and communion in the Trinity. When God created ‘man’, He didn’t declare man good until after woman was created. ‘Man’ (that is, man and woman) was created in God’s image. The ‘life-giving love’ found in the Trinity, between Father and Son in the person of the Holy Spirit, is reflected in man and woman in their life-giving actions found in their marriage (even those that cannot have children). The reflection is in the form of children and more often in the form of love that is found in their union and communion as they empty themselves to each other. Two female mice having offspring lacks the union and communion that bears both physical and spiritual life. Having said this, a more difficult subject that I have not yet come to grips with yet, is the concept of a human clone, and whether or not it has a soul – not having been born out of the union of man and woman – in God’s image. Interesting question that you have raised.