A silly simple question on sexual orientation (re gay marriage)

[josie_L]

Well I am not Catholic…but I am a Christian…and I do not believe scripture supports the conservative views of sexuality. The scriptures are grounded and rooted in historical context and cultural norms which none of us…no matter how much we claim to the contrary adhere to.

The scriptures do not address homosexuality as it is known and understood today. The scriptures address cultural and historical beliefs set within a certian point in time.

Scripture is grounded in truth, i.e., God, therefore, it is relevant to the past, present, and future, so I ask again in what part of the Bible do we see for the allowance of homosexuality?

p.s. Do you really think that Jesus Christ, i.e., the second person of the Holy Trinity, i.e., God who became man, i.e. the Word of God would not have made it clear to his disciples that homosexuality was immoral?

 

[Deconi]

No, I do not agree. You assume much here.

I believe this is a euphemism to deflect argument. Who can argue with loving romanticism?! No…that’s not all we’re talking about.

This is a false dichotomy with which I do not agree. If you read my post from very early in the thread, you’ll see that I mentioned several examples of disorders which are naturally occurring: psychological, physical, and emotional disorders. Cancer is natural AND disordered. Cocaine addiction is natural AND disordered. The Catholic Church, in fact, does not make statements about whether or not homosexuality is something we’re born with. Homosexual activity is still sinful no matter what its etiology. You misunderstand the Catholic position.

Experience and observation are not the authority here. The authority is our Creator. Also, human flourishing does not necessarily equal virtue. It depends how you define both terms.

This is a serious error. We have a fallen nature which is certainly not 100% in line with God’s law and has not been since Eden.

The true nature of Adam, was SUPERnatural. It is to that end we strive!

This is not news. Serious practice of the Catholic faith is largely against societal norms.

I’m glad you understand that I would agree with the Church’s position on this no matter what my personal feelings because I’m no longer a cafeteria Catholic, thanks be to God.

I believe I have thoroughly treated the issues at hand in many posts on this thread. Your post, however, does not convince me that God’s law can be correctly interpreted in the way you suggest.

It is a good thing that you have a relationship with Christ, and that you are trying to understand righteousness (or believe that you already do). But I am curious how your bible presents 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.

God bless,

I like some of this.

I am always bemused by much detailed argumentation FOR which eventually ends with something like , 'since it’s natural it must not be against God’s will for He created ‘natural.’!!

 

[cecilia97]

I like some of this.

I am always bemused by much detailed argumentation FOR which eventually ends with something like , 'since it’s natural it must not be against God’s will for He created ‘natural.’!!

:sad_yes:

God created Satan, too. And he created free will. Satan turned, irrevocably, from God and our free will is capable of taking us further from God as well.

Of course, our goal is the grace-filled nature that God intended for us, but we’re not there yet. Even Adam, with the grace of God in his soul and the presence of God in the garden was capable of falling to a “natural” sin…pride. So, as we are now (not as we hope to be when perfected) we cannot always trust our natural inclinations. We must strive to be “supernatural” with the help of God, as you put it.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

No, I do not agree. You assume much here.

Perhaps I do, Cecilia. What I was calling unsatisfactory was how I understood your response. Maybe you could help me better understand it?

What I understood you to have said was: I recognize that homosexual relationships can be very affectionate (read: loving), and I further recognize that the affection I’ve witnessed is a good thing, but God says it’s evil, therefore I don’t know what I’m talking about. What I found unsatisfactory was what I perceived to be the recognition of a good, followed by your dismissal either of the recognition or of the value of the good. Either what you have seen is good, or it isn’t. If you believe that God’s Law tells you that a demonstrable good is in fact an evil (which is a very questionable thing for God’s Law to do, I must say), then there’s no need for such unsatisfactory equivocation.

I believe this is a euphemism to deflect argument. Who can argue with loving romanticism?! No…that’s not all we’re talking about.

You believe incorrectly. This is something I’ve come across a lot in these forums. If I say, “love” you read that as, “lust.” If I say, “romantic,” you read that as, “lust.” I don’t have a hidden agenda here. I’m not arguing for libertinism, polyamory, sexual license, orgies, sacrificing young virgins to Baal, or anything like that. I’ve repeatedly said in this specific thread that I’m not even talking about sexual consummation.

If we’re not talking about the ability of two homosexual people to love each other and be in a romantic relationship, even when it excludes sexual consummation, what are we talking about? Your suspicion and cynicism (and that of many of your fellows on these boards) have convinced me that you have internalized the logical end to which the catechism’s reasoning will lead us: that homosexuals are incapable of loving properly in every sense of the word “love.” What other conclusion can I come to given the suspicion that, when I say love, and because I’m a gay man, I clearly don’t know what love means?

I find it frustrating, I will admit. Not because I feel slighted or insulted or what have you, lest some of you think I’m being too…er…sensitive. Banging on someone’s hard heart just tends to be exhausting.

This is a false dichotomy with which I do not agree. If you read my post from very early in the thread, you’ll see that I mentioned several examples of disorders which are naturally occurring: psychological, physical, and emotional disorders. Cancer is natural AND disordered. Cocaine addiction is natural AND disordered. The Catholic Church, in fact, does not make statements about whether or not homosexuality is something we’re born with. Homosexual activity is still sinful no matter what its etiology. You misunderstand the Catholic position.

Is my understanding of the catechism really so far off? This is my understanding, in a nutshell. Correct me if I’m wrong:

-Human sexuality affects all aspects of a person’s human wholeness, but particularly relates to the human affective (that is, relational) capacity.
-Homosexuality is a disorder of human sexuality.
-Because homosexuality is a disorder of human sexuality, expressions of homosexual desire must not be tolerated as they are committed under the assumption that something disordered is worthy of pursuit, thereby obstructing human wholeness.

My criticism of this view hinges on the idea of homosexuality being objectively disordered, which arises from the catechism’s understanding that human sexuality is singular and looks most closely like heterosexuality (though as I’ve stated before, the catechism is loath to use the word “heterosexuality” as it might imply an equivalence with homosexuality). It is my contention that this is a view of sexuality equivalent to a belief in geocentrism–i.e., it is one of which the Roman Church will eventually repent.

Now, this does not mean that Rome cannot still insist that homosexual activity or even certain homosexual activities are inappropriate (see next post below), but it must struggle to do so on the basis of different reasoning, and it must no longer insist that homosexuals have a fundamentally broken relational capacity. And it must allow for the possibility that loving and romantic homosexual relationships can bear the good fruit of virtue.

Do you see what I’m saying? (And Deconi, you may want to pay attention as there is serious bemusement potential here.) I am not saying that Rome needs to approve of homosexual activity because homosexuality can be shown to be natural. I am saying that what can be shown is that homosexuality is not a defective heterosexuality, that it is it’s own thing, and that on that basis, it must discard it’s understanding of homosexuality as objectively disordered and deal with it accordingly.

(CONTINUED…)

 

[Deo_Volente]

(…CONTINUED AND COMPLETED)

Because, Cecilia, the way that Rome understands sexuality, homosexuality is a very different animal than a psychological disorder, a physical disorder, or what have you. Because it is a moral disorder. As I’ve explained before, because homosexuality is seen as a disorder in the capacity to form good and appropriate relationships, a capacity which is intimately involved with what it means to be a human being, a homosexual is incapable of relating correctly to the good. The catechism moreover does not suggest that this is a forensic brokenness, but an intrinsic one, otherwise conversion therapy would be the only viable option and would be enforced. Which is to say, homosexuals, according to the catechism, suffer from a moral disorder which impairs their affectivity, making all of their relationships questionable, and preventing them from desiring appropriate objects. This is a moral impairment *different *from that of Original Sin, because (as I’ve explained before) while Original Sin is seen as wounding our capacity to will correctly, the catechism appears to insist that homosexuality destroys a homosexual’s capacity to will correctly. A human being, crippled by original sin, may still receive the influence of grace which allows for the choice of the good. Homosexuality is incapable of such influence. It is, according to the catechism’s logic, beyond grace. This is why your various comparisons don’t quite work.

Experience and observation are not the authority here.

You are effectively arguing that you cannot tell a tree by its fruit. Is this what you mean to say?

Also, human flourishing does not necessarily equal virtue.

It doesn’t? Can a human being flourish without virtue? Can the fruits of the Spirit be entirely lacking in an individual or a relationship and can that indivdual or relationship still lay claim to flourishing? I find such an idea suspicious.

We have a fallen nature which is certainly not 100% in line with God’s law and has not been since Eden.

You are absolutely correct. But again, nature is wounded, but not destroyed. We are still susceptible to grace, even in our compromised position. However, the catechism seems to suggest that the homosexual’s will and nature (because of a disorder which affects his/her human wholeness, which damages his/her relational capacity, and which can admit of no moral expression) is entirely corrupt.

Serious practice of the Catholic faith is largely against societal norms.

Serious practice of the truth will naturally be against societal norms (see Rene Girard in this regard and his work studying patterns of desire). I am reminded of a Bukowski quotation that he wrote in one of my partner’s books, and I paraphrase, “In order to get closer to the truth, take the beliefs of the average person and reverse them.”

But I am curious how your bible presents 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.

The interpretation hinges on what the words malakos and arsenokoitai mean. The former generally meant soft, weak, not necessarily effeminate (which is how it’s often translated) but dissipated. The suggestion is one of moral, particularly sexual libertinism. Louche is probably the best translation of this word.

Arsenokoitai is more difficult as it doesn’t appear in any Greek literature that has come down to us until after Paul’s writings. If he meant “homosexual” by it or “homosexual activity” the most common word he could have used was related to our word pederasty. But he didn’t use that word. The context and language in which Paul’s nelogism is used, though, suggests to some scholars some sort of commercial activity. Paul is condemning all forms of sexual expression which have an element of commerce to them–specifically, and in context, one who is a sex-slave/prostitute, one who pays for or uses such a slave, and one who procures such slaves. There is no aspect of a commercial sexual transaction which is not tainted, therefore. He is decrying human sexual trafficking, to which we may include today commercial pornography.

There is also a chance that he is referring to anal sex between two men with the use of the term arsenokoitai. It’s not impossible. Paul was a hellenized Jew, and Greek sexual practices, while relatively permissive with regard to homosexual expression, did not smile upon anal intercourse between men–they found it degrading because it feminized a man, and women were seen as little better than animals. If this theory is true, arsenokoitai may be an attempt to translate the Levitical prohibition against “men lying the lyings of a woman.” Which would also accord with a translation of malakos as effeminate–which may suggest a reading of malakos as a penetrated man, and arsenokoitai as one who penetrates. It certainly makes sense.

Now let’s be clear–I’m sure you’re not suggesting that being in a loving homosexual relationship necessarily means anal sex or feminine roleplay. Or are you?

I’m enjoying the discussion, Cecilia.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[larkin31]

Do you practice mortification?

EdWest?

 

[larkin31]

I think those things are also nourishment for our soul – or, if you like, education in beauty.

Modernists taught that beauty is useless. But that is quite wrong. Nothing useless is beautiful. Beauty introduces us to God, and this is a powerful use indeed!

I still can’t think of an example where the pure and simple pursuit of pleasure is good. But I’m not convinced it’s always wrong, either. So I am noncommittal, I guess.

Well, if beauty is a conduit to God, then let’s keep sharing the beauties of the flesh…no? How would the pleasure of the beauty of a painting be any different, necessarily, from the pleasure of observing beautiful human form? Or touching beautiful human form, for that matter?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Well, if beauty is a conduit to God, then let’s keep sharing the beauties of the flesh…no? How would the pleasure of the beauty of a painting be any different, necessarily, from the pleasure of observing beautiful human form? Or touching beautiful human form, for that matter?

You’re right that those things are purely beautiful. A *perfectly *holy married man could find pleasure in looking at and touching naked bodies, without becoming inflamed by lust. He would likely do no such thing, because he would not look at them as “objects” to be looked upon and touched, but as people to be cared for. But “to the pure, all things are pure”.

This reminds me of a quote by (of all men!) Oscar Wilde: “Those who find ugly meanings in beautiful things are corrupt without being charming.”

Beauty enkindles *eros *-- the kind of love that seeks to possess and be possessed. Unharnessed, *eros *will destroy a person: for the sinful man cannot look without coveting, and cannot covet without committing idolatry. Thus, the impulse toward beauty must be steered by the will, lest it make a person wholly captive to lust.

The oldest, and probably still the best, reading on this subject matter is Plato’s Symposium. Oh, and the book of Romans.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

You found that under article 6: The Sixth Commandment (You shall not commit adultery) followed by **"Male and Female He Created Them **. . . ". As with the paragraph in question, if “sexuality affects all aspects of the human person in the unity of his body and soul” then you can understand why the Catechism teaches that practicing homosexuality is a big no no (it affects the state of your soul negatively). Moreover, homosexuality cannot affect all aspects of the human person because homosexuals cannot pro-create. You also say that sexuality is a fact, and that it cannot be controlled, but this would be false because nothing in the catechism suggests that we cannot control our sexuality, i.e, you can be chaste. Check the following paragraphs (2337) under the heading of “The Vocation of Chastity”. I think you are manipulating the words of the Catechism as well as disregarding what it actually says about homosexuality.

Hi Josie. I’m sorry I missed your post. Here’s my response.

You say that homosexuality is a big no no because it affects the state of one’s soul. Fair enough. But I think you’re putting a myopic spin on the catechism. Here’s why:

Homosexual activity is seen as wrong because it affirms the homosexual disorder. That homosexual disorder is already there and in place. Which is to say, the disorder which affects the soul is already there–the soul, in other words, is already affected. It’s not just a matter of having gay sex which affects the soul adversely or being a chaste homosexual which keeps the soul in good shape–the fact of the disorder has already affected and damaged the soul. That’s what the catechism says if we take it seriously.

You say homosexuality cannot affect all aspects of the person because procreation does not occur with a homosexual act. That’s not the catechism’s reasoning. The catechism states that sexuality itself affects all aspects of the person. A broken sexuality must also affect all aspects of the person. How could it be otherwise? Either homosexuality exists and is a disorder, it exists and is not a disorder, or it exists only in potential as a possibility of human sinfulness which is realized through sinful action, in which case it is inappropriate to refer to it as a disorder and more appropriate to consider it merely as a class of acts, not as an affliction of the will (and the catechism understands it as an affliction of the will when it speaks of it as a deep-seated tendency). The catechism maintains the first option, I maintain the second, the third is an interesting option, but has further ramifications for our understanding of sin–i.e., am I a homosexual only when I engage in homosexual acts? The catechism itself refutes this by recognizing that there are homosexual persons. It is clear that homosexuality must affect all aspects of the person.

You equate being chaste with controlling one’s sexuality. I counter that we control how we respond or act–being chaste is an active decision regarding how we relate to the sexual desire which is an important part of how sexuality is expressed, but has nothing to do with controlling sexuality qua sexuality, which, as a simple fact of human existence, is not something to be controlled per se. You might as well ask someone to control their humanity. Someone is either human, or they’re not. A person either has a sexuality, or they do not. There really is no grey area here. I have yet to come across someone who had an out of control sexuality. I don’t know what that would look like. I have seen, however, people who cannot control how they act on their sexual desire.

You go on to talk about chastity in the catechism. The catechism states: “Chastity means the successful integration of sexuality within the person and thus the inner unity of man in his bodily and spiritual being.” What sexuality is the homosexual integrating into his or her person through chastity? Clearly their homosexuality is not or cannot be so integrated in order to produce human wholeness. So what, in fact, is being integrated? Is homosexuality just a forensic thing? The catechism characterizes it as “deep-seated”. Is it merely a potential thing as we discussed earlier? Again, the catechism doesn’t see it that way (see above). So how do you integrate into wholeness an inclination which the catechism says is “objectively disordered”? Keep in mind that the catechism does not recommend conversion therapy as part of a potential ministry to homosexuals, suggesting that the human wholeness of an integrated sexuality is simply not possible for homosexuals. The only option available to them is to construe their sexuality as unrelated to desire–that is, to see their sexual desire as a thing utterly incapable of producing any sort of virtue or of bearing good fruit, entirely impervious to grace, and completely corrupt. They must pursue having a sexuality from which all sexual desire has been removed. Not even chaste heterosexuals are asked to perform this kind of psycho-surgical acrobatics. Why? Because having sexual desire is intrinsic to having a sexuality! Chastity should be about controlling those desires and how we act upon them, but a homosexual, if he or she is no longer to be disordered, must destroy them entirely–because the disordered desire is the sign of the disordered sexuality!

Point out where my logic is going wrong, here, Josie, and we can talk about it and I can potentially amend my thesis. It seems pretty clear to me.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[RMRICE57]

There really are only two sexual orientations. Male and Female. Man was made for woman and woman made for man. Your Gender is a physical icon of your inherant identity; who you are.

We know that a persons sexuality (Male or Female) is ordained by God; Sexual Intercourse is created by God and is the ultimate good and ultimate union of the marriage covenant. We know also that Sexual intercourse can be described as the union of the sexual organs of a male and female and it is holy and pure in the state of marriage and never outside the sacred bonds of marriage.

Two men cannot unite their sexual organs, nor can two women unite their sexual organs, but can only stimulate them in an un-natural way. Neither can such an abuse of this physcial stimulation acieve that which is participating in the creative act, granted human sexuality in the sexual union of man and woman being open to life giving procreation and therefore it is intrinsically evil.

Science is not religion and religion is not science. Seek what is above and that which has been revelaed by Christ and His Church!

 

[larkin31]

You’re right that those things are purely beautiful. A *perfectly *holy married man could find pleasure in looking at and touching naked bodies, without becoming inflamed by lust. He would likely do no such thing, because he would not look at them as “objects” to be looked upon and touched, but as people to be cared for. But “to the pure, all things are pure”.

This reminds me of a quote by (of all men!) Oscar Wilde: “Those who find ugly meanings in beautiful things are corrupt without being charming.”

Beauty enkindles *eros *-- the kind of love that seeks to possess and be possessed. Unharnessed, *eros *will destroy a person: for the sinful man cannot look without coveting, and cannot covet without committing idolatry. Thus, the impulse toward beauty must be steered by the will, lest it make a person wholly captive to lust.

The oldest, and probably still the best, reading on this subject matter is Plato’s Symposium. Oh, and the book of Romans.

Who is talking about “unharnessed” lust? Why this extreme? I said beauty, and the human form is beautiful. “Unharnessed” lust is the behavior of a psychopath, not your typical individual. Of course will stays involved. Even in pleasurable non-procreative sex (of its many varieties) the will still stays in control and bad things don’t happen. It’s just intimate sex between a married couple beyond always having to ejaculate in a vagina. It’s not the opening of the gates of Hell and the unleasing of erotic anarchy.

 

[cecilia97]

(…CONTINUED AND COMPLETED)

Because, Cecilia, the way that Rome understands sexuality, homosexuality is a very different animal than a psychological disorder, a physical disorder, or what have you. Because it is a moral disorder. As I’ve explained before, because homosexuality is seen as a disorder in the capacity to form good and appropriate relationships, a capacity which is intimately involved with what it means to be a human being, a homosexual is incapable of relating correctly to the good. The catechism moreover does not suggest that this is a forensic brokenness, but an intrinsic one, otherwise conversion therapy would be the only viable option and would be enforced. Which is to say, homosexuals, according to the catechism, suffer from a moral disorder which impairs their affectivity, making all of their relationships questionable, and preventing them from desiring appropriate objects. This is a moral impairment *different *from that of Original Sin, because (as I’ve explained before) while Original Sin is seen as wounding our capacity to will correctly, the catechism appears to insist that homosexuality destroys a homosexual’s capacity to will correctly. A human being, crippled by original sin, may still receive the influence of grace which allows for the choice of the good. Homosexuality is incapable of such influence. It is, according to the catechism’s logic, beyond grace. This is why your various comparisons don’t quite work.

You are effectively arguing that you cannot tell a tree by its fruit. Is this what you mean to say?

It doesn’t? Can a human being flourish without virtue? Can the fruits of the Spirit be entirely lacking in an individual or a relationship and can that indivdual or relationship still lay claim to flourishing? I find such an idea suspicious.

You are absolutely correct. But again, nature is wounded, but not destroyed. We are still susceptible to grace, even in our compromised position. However, the catechism seems to suggest that the homosexual’s will and nature (because of a disorder which affects his/her human wholeness, which damages his/her relational capacity, and which can admit of no moral expression) is entirely corrupt.

Serious practice of the truth will naturally be against societal norms (see Rene Girard in this regard and his work studying patterns of desire). I am reminded of a Bukowski quotation that he wrote in one of my partner’s books, and I paraphrase, “In order to get closer to the truth, take the beliefs of the average person and reverse them.”

The interpretation hinges on what the words malakos and arsenokoitai mean. The former generally meant soft, weak, not necessarily effeminate (which is how it’s often translated) but dissipated. The suggestion is one of moral, particularly sexual libertinism. Louche is probably the best translation of this word.

Arsenokoitai is more difficult as it doesn’t appear in any Greek literature that has come down to us until after Paul’s writings. If he meant “homosexual” by it or “homosexual activity” the most common word he could have used was related to our word pederasty. But he didn’t use that word. The context and language in which Paul’s nelogism is used, though, suggests to some scholars some sort of commercial activity. Paul is condemning all forms of sexual expression which have an element of commerce to them–specifically, and in context, one who is a sex-slave/prostitute, one who pays for or uses such a slave, and one who procures such slaves. There is no aspect of a commercial sexual transaction which is not tainted, therefore. He is decrying human sexual trafficking, to which we may include today commercial pornography.

There is also a chance that he is referring to anal sex between two men with the use of the term arsenokoitai. It’s not impossible. Paul was a hellenized Jew, and Greek sexual practices, while relatively permissive with regard to homosexual expression, did not smile upon anal intercourse between men–they found it degrading because it feminized a man, and women were seen as little better than animals. If this theory is true, arsenokoitai may be an attempt to translate the Levitical prohibition against “men lying the lyings of a woman.” Which would also accord with a translation of malakos as effeminate–which may suggest a reading of malakos as a penetrated man, and arsenokoitai as one who penetrates. It certainly makes sense.

Now let’s be clear–I’m sure you’re not suggesting that being in a loving homosexual relationship necessarily means anal sex or feminine roleplay. Or are you?

I’m enjoying the discussion, Cecilia.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Deo Volente,

I have just been able to read your post but I have a final exam to write late into the night so I have to get back in more detail when that’s done. In brief, I can just say that I still see many wrong assumptions and misunderstandings in your post. But, quickly…

The NAB translates the term you reference as “male prostitute” and I certainly am not calling anyone a prostitute. In fact, the most problematic term I see in these verses when we look at it from the POV of homosexuality is “fornicator”. Because two men or two women are the incorrect matter for the sacrament of marriage, they can have a church ceremony that looks like a wedding but they can never be married. To put it crudely, this is as possible as confecting the Eucharist from a Vanilla Wafer.

As I’ve said over and over, God holds heterosexuals and homosexuals and any others to the same standard: sex is for marriage. Marriage is a sacrament instituted by God and even His Church cannot start messing around with how it’s done.

 

[cecilia97]

Do you practice mortification?

That’s a rather personal question you’re asking of Ed. How is it relevant to the discussion, please?

And yes, ALL Catholics practice some type of mortification when we fast, kneel during the Stations of the Cross, etc. If you’re getting at something in particular you may have to be more specific. I wouldn’t be surprised if Ed didn’t care to answer, however.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

I have just been able to read your post but I have a final exam to write late into the night so I have to get back in more detail when that’s done. In brief, I can just say that I still see many wrong assumptions and misunderstandings in your post. But, quickly…

The NAB translates the term you reference as “male prostitute” and I certainly am not calling anyone a prostitute. In fact, the most problematic term I see in these verses when we look at it from the POV of homosexuality is “fornicator”. Because two men or two women are the incorrect matter for the sacrament of marriage, they can have a church ceremony that looks like a wedding but they can never be married. To put it crudely, this is as possible as confecting the Eucharist from a Vanilla Wafer.

As I’ve said over and over, God holds heterosexuals and homosexuals and any others to the same standard: sex is for marriage. Marriage is a sacrament instituted by God and even His Church cannot start messing around with how it’s done.

Hi Cecilia. That’s a valid issue. You probably won’t like my response to it, but it can wait.

Again, though, I’m not just talking about sex. A heterosexual man and woman can go out on a romantic date together without feeling any sort of necessity or compulsion to consummate their relationship then and there. And such an event, a night out, whatever, is perfectly acceptable and reasonable from a Roman Catholic moral perspective. But from the same perspective, can two homosexuals go out on a romantic date, refuse to fornicate, and escape moral censure? Unlikely. There are few Roman Catholics on those boards with whom I’ve discussed these issues that would be willing to say it’s perfectly alright, and just as few can convincingly rationalize their censure of the homosexual couple with their indulgence of the heterosexual couple even if chastity in both cases is the name of the game. Why? Because there’s a chance that the choice to go out on a date could, for a homosexual, be seen as constitutive of a homosexual act, even if no sex were involved. A heterosexual who is chaste is not denied romantic companionship (i.e., a simple date). A homosexual who is chaste must never act on the desire for such companionship. And yet many Roman Catholics are quick to offer their belief that a single heterosexual and a single homosexual are in the exact same boat with regard to chastity, as if such a belief makes the basic inequality of their situations more explicable or acceptable. And yes, Rome requires chastity of both. But it’s not that simple. In actuality, the single heterosexual and the single homosexual are not in the same boat at all from the perspective of the catechism. They’re oceans apart.

There’s more on our plate here than considering what fornication means. If that were all, this conversation would be much easier!

I’m not sure when you say that you’re writing a final this evening if you’re a teacher/professor contructing the final, or a student taking it. Either way, I wish you every success!

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[larkin31]

That’s a rather personal question you’re asking of Ed. How is it relevant to the discussion, please?

And yes, ALL Catholics practice some type of mortification when we fast, kneel during the Stations of the Cross, etc. If you’re getting at something in particular you may have to be more specific. I wouldn’t be surprised if Ed didn’t care to answer, however.

curiosity on my part

he wrote a post verbally excoriating the flesh, so it made me wonder…

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Who is talking about “unharnessed” lust? Why this extreme? I said beauty, and the human form is beautiful. “Unharnessed” lust is the behavior of a psychopath, not your typical individual. Of course will stays involved. Even in pleasurable non-procreative sex (of its many varieties) the will still stays in control and bad things don’t happen. It’s just intimate sex between a married couple beyond always having to ejaculate in a vagina. It’s not the opening of the gates of Hell and the unleasing of erotic anarchy.

Moving from beauty, and assuming that beauty is the best way we come to know God…

Is it good to possess and be possessed by some particular beauty? Well, if you are possessed by some particular beauty, you make that beauty central to your life (even if only for a “one-night stand”). But is this an encounter with God? No, because God is the *source *of beauty, not this one particular beautiful woman (or man).

So it isn’t an encounter with God, but is it OK anyway? Knowing what I know of sexual longings and behaviors, I do not suspect that any particular beauty will satisfy a person for very long. If you want to fulfill your desire for *eros *-- and only a fool doesn’t want to fulfill that desire! – you will look elsewhere, in time. And then, yet elsewhere. And so on.

Whether or not such “searching for love” is wrong, it is certainly not wise.

The way out is to join your life, to submit your life, willingly, to someone who you know very well won’t always satisfy you. Then the two of you, together, can find beauty – “sublunary” beauty in each other, profound beauty in God. Perhaps a relationship between a man and another man (or a woman and another woman) can accomplish this ideal, but I doubt that this happens very often.

Maybe if the gay community started focusing less on “sexual expression”, I would become convinced that they fit into this nuptial paradigm. But I’m afraid the facts and the statistics don’t bear that out, at this point.

 

[larkin31]

Moving from beauty, and assuming that beauty is the best way we come to know God…

Is it good to possess and be possessed by some particular beauty? Well, if you are possessed by some particular beauty, you make that beauty central to your life (even if only for a “one-night stand”). …

No, “possession” is an extreme and is likely not good. Who is talking “possession” here? I sure wasn’t.

 

[AntiTheist]

The way out is to join your life, to submit your life, willingly, to someone who you know very well won’t always satisfy you. Then the two of you, together, can find beauty – “sublunary” beauty in each other, profound beauty in God. Perhaps a relationship between a man and another man (or a woman and another woman) can accomplish this ideal, but I doubt that this happens very often.

Why on earth do you think that a serious relationship needs to be grounded in a belief in a god of some kind? And why would you think that such a commitment is unlikely in gay couple?

I know of plenty of strong gay couples and plenty of weak heterosexual couples, and vice versa. I know plenty of strong atheist couples and plenty of weak theist couples, and vice versa.

Your religion and your orientation have little to do with your ability to form commitments. Your maturity and your desires in life have much more to do with it.

 

[wwolverine]

In another thread somebody articulated this sentence:

This I think sums up the Christian pro gay marriage argument quite well:
(1) Since science teaches that sexual orientation is an immutable human characteriestic, one therefore must conclude that one’s sexual orientation comes from God
(2) Since the diverse sexual orientations come from God, as a Christian we should embrace this God given diversity.
(3) There is nothing wrong with acting on the sexual orientation that God has given. Society must not discriminate at all on the basis of sexual orientation.

Yet elsewhere in this thread I learned that science teaches there are actually seven sexual orientations:

(later on in that thread I also learned there was a sexual orientation towards animals)

My simple question is do you apply these statements to all sexual orientations that science says exist.

If not, then why should I believe these arguments at all since they are not applied to all sexual orientations science says exist.

Why can’t I believe that maybe sexual orientation just might be a result of living in a fallen world and there are some sexual orientations (2-7) that God says acting out on are contrary to what He has designed.

What you say is absolutely true in your last paragraph. Catholic Church excepts only the first one and that too which leads to Marriage. and sex only in marriage, and not be a person who looks for sexual pleasure with all opposite sex within the age. Rest are all wrong.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

No, “possession” is an extreme and is likely not good. Who is talking “possession” here? I sure wasn’t.

On the contrary, possessing and being possessed is the central longing of every person. Listen to love songs, even coarse love songs, and you’ll hear it everywhere. Sexual passion is the longing to wholly possess, and wholly be possessed.

If people are having sex and NOT giving themselves wholly and unconditionally to the person they’re with, then they are missing out. Once again, I don’t care to throw stones or claim whether I know if they are sinning. But they are missing out.